James Cameron Shooting Avatar 2 in 60fps...

[Pawel Achtel]

If people like the look of 24 fps... and the vast majority of people who see 48+ fps will not like the look..

Andrew, How did you arrive at this statement? Any statistical data?

My experience, while talking to lay persons, was that the vast majority hate 24fps and love the smooth motion of 60i. These people are not film makers, just the average 90% of people that occasionally go to the movies.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Andrew, How did you arrive at this statement? Any statistical data?

My experience, while talking to lay persons, was that the vast majority hate 24fps and love the smooth motion of 60i. These people are not film makers, just the average 90% of people that occasionally go to the movies.

There have been test screenings of 48 fps footage held by Arri (If anyone can pull up the reduser thread that talked about it, that would be great) but from what I can remember, the reactions were mostly negative. I can't tell you how many times I have been at Best Buy and heard people comment about how strange and bad the HDTV's looked when playing a movie at 60 fps. I know that the motion flow tech displayed in the HDTV's is not the same as shooting native at a high frame rate but trust me, the audience notices. They will not read the high frame rate footage as looking better but will probably see it as odd, somehow different than what they are used to. It will be distracting. Many comment that all the characters seem to be moving faster than normal. Let's face it, when you have gown accustomed to 24 fps, anything higher looks strange, it looks like a live football game and a soap opera, not like a movie.

What is technically better is not always aesthetically pleasing.

Here is an idea, instead of changing the frame rate and making everything in 3D in order to get people in the door, how about Hollywood invest that money into making better films? That will be 100% more effective than all these changes they are talking about. Cameron could shoot Avatar 2 at 1000 fps with glasses free 3D hologram technology and it would not matter if he copped out on the story like he did last time. Good movies make money, not technology.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

There have been test screenings of 48 fps footage held by Arri....

It would be interesting to see the feedback. Do you know if who the audience was? Producer's and film makers or average people. :emote_popcorn:

I totally agree that the story is the most important element....other than the marketing...LOL

 

[Eric Lange]

Here is an idea, instead of changing the frame rate and making everything in 3D in order to get people in the door, how about Hollywood invest that money into making better films? That will be 100% more effective than all these changes they are talking about.

Ha, ha;

I hear they are installing a new ice rink in hell, along with SONY 4k projectors!

I’m not sure I even know who “Hollywood” is anymore…

Anyway it's nice to hear someone with passionate ideas about how things should be…

 

[Samual Murman]

I wasn't that interested in 3D until I teamed up 4.5k rc with my Loreo 3D lens.. now I often shoot family snaps in stereoscopic. Without two cameras its the most stereoscopic fun you can have..

Your prices are so good I'm trying to think of a reason to come shoot something in Northern England!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I've shown both and people ask why it looks "like the BBC".

 

[Joseph Ward]

Wonder what 72fps S3D would look like in comparison to 48fps? Anyone has seen this or would be willing to do a test?

 

[Eki Halkka]

As an interesting side note, and an example of the strength of desire for status quo, British TV -series "Emmerdale" tried switching from 50i to 25p some years back. The reaction from the audience was that it looked "wrong". The show's audience was so strongly conditioned to the 50i look that they had to switch back. They wanted 50i even when the show is a TV drama. 25p made it look "less real" for them.

This makes one think, possibly in addition to 3D blockbusters, maybe the first movies to benefit from high frame rates also from the audience's POV could be ones that try to sell themselves as "real", as non-fiction. Maybe something akin to Blair Witch Project, or maybe fakementaries in the style of Spinal Tap or similar... or maybe a war movie done in realistic style.

"The Movie Look" isn't always necessarily a benefit.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

As an interesting side note, and an example of the strength of desire for status quo, British TV -series "Emmerdale" tried switching from 50i to 25p some years back. The reaction from the audience was that it looked "wrong". The show's audience was so strongly conditioned to the 50i look that they had to switch back. They wanted 50i even when the show is a TV drama. 25p made it look "less real" for them.

You made my point exactly. If audience's have become accustomed to the film look, why upset them by giving them something that will seem odd and foreign? People like what they like and when they become comfortable with something, they don't want someone coming along and messing it up.

Keep in mind that after the first 15 min or so, a certain visual aspect of a film will no longer seem as apparent. At the beginning of Avatar I was blown away by the special effects and 3D but about 20 min into the film, I almost forgot that it was in 3D because I began to focus on the story and not the visuals. It was then that I realized that it was a pretty generic and derivative film. All the special effects and extra dimensions in the world could not have changed that fact.

Back in high school, I watched a film in a religion class called Days of Wine and Roses with Jack Jemmon. For the the first five minutes or so, many people in the class was complaining because the movie was in black and white. The complaints died off and in the end everyone really seemed to like the movie. They became engaged in the story and the lack of color became almost a nonissue.

Now, you might be saying that I am contradicting myself. I essentially said that people don't like change and then offered an example of how people can get over their aesthetic prejudices if they become engaged in the story. The point is, none of the people in my religion class would have voluntarily watched the film if they had not been forced to. Sure, they liked it in the end but the age and color of the film would have been enough to keep them from picking it up at Blockbuster or adding it to their Netflix account. They never would have given it a chance.

You don't want to alienate your audience, especially when you want them to voluntarily go see your film. Sure, after 15 min they won't notice that the movie looks "strange" but if they are not really going to notice in the long run, why bother? Many will see the higher frame rate as odd, others won't even notice and if the theaters are lucky, some will actually think that it looks better than what they are used to.

I guess I know how increasing the frame rate will be exploited by the theaters. You think there won't be a price increase with a higher frame rate? It will cost more to make movies at 48 fps. CG artists will have twice as many frames to render and a 48 fps projection standard will kill film stock for good as well. These increased production costs will naturally be passed on to the consumer. Audiences will wonder why the tickets are $4 more expensive than the last time they came to the theaters and then get pissed because the footage will look distractingly strange. Sounds like a great way to lose money.

In the end, all of this tech innovation is pointless if the story is not first and foremost. I know I sound like an movie idealist but to be honest, I have not gone to see a film since December because frankly, nothing looked good. It is not just me, most of my friends who are by no means film buffs, have commented that the selection looks pretty pathetic. I know that we are in the nosebleed months for movies but seriously 2011 does not look like a good year for the film industry and 3D/ increasing the frame rate will not make a bad lineup of films look more attractive to the public. Originality has been replaced by reboots, remakes and imitations. Ticket prices are going up yet the narrative quality of films seems to be decreasing. Hollywood needs to wake up a realize that the story is still the king of the world, not James Cameron and all his techno elves.

 

[chrislancaster]

It would be interesting to see the feedback. Do you know if who the audience was? Producer's and film makers or average people. :emote_popcorn:

I totally agree that the story is the most important element....other than the marketing...LOL

Truest thing ever said

 

[Luis de la Cerda]

Another thing to consider is I've always found 60 fps to be very unforgiving when it comes to precise camera movement. Even a slight bump in the dolly track that wouldn't be noticed at 24fps becomes very aparent and distracting. This will be particularly problematic for CGI and live action mixed together. A slight tracking error, a couple of bad keyframes and boom!!! there goes the suspension of disbelief.

Anyway... As long as we're on the subject of technical superiority, I guess small sensors will be making a comeback as well, since deep focus is also a more accurate representation of real life.

 

[Andrea Scaglione]

You know what? At the high frame rates, you might actually like the 3D more.

But I'm sure he'll still do a 24fps 2D film print for you and others who only want to see 1/6th of the movie he made

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hey Boss,

serch on Wiki Fausto Radici, use your google translator, and think about what big cheat 3D is.
Sorry for the bumping : )

Andrea

P.S: And "we" want to see what we want to see. Problems?