Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

James Cameron wants higher frame rates to be the future of movies....

I was reading on slashfilm that Cameron presented a high framerate test at cinecon that was shot with red epics, alexas and phantom cameras. Can anyone confirm that Cameron is testing the epic? I could not care less about his high frame rate push since I hate the idea of movies looking like soap operas but Cameron turning to red is pretty exciting if it is true. Anyone else heard about Cameron shooting with red epics?
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I was reading on slashfilm that Cameron presented a high framerate test at cinecon that was shot with red epics, alexas and phantom cameras. Can anyone confirm that Cameron is testing the epic? I could not care less about his high frame rate push since I hate the idea of movies looking like soap operas but Cameron turning to red is pretty exciting if it is true. Anyone else heard about Cameron shooting with red epics?
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard one way or the other but I did hear that he made mention of the fact that he didn't think resolution was the next big thing and that we should be focusing attention on 3d and frame rates, which would then beg the question, why shoot with an epic if all you care about is 3d and frame rates instead of dynamic range, resolution, features, size, RAW, 3d and framerates? :)
 
Brennan Klensch said:
I hadn't heard one way or the other but I did hear that he made mention of the fact that he didn't think resolution was the next big thing and that we should be focusing attention on 3d and frame rates, which would then beg the question, why shoot with an epic if all you care about is 3d and frame rates instead of dynamic range, resolution, features, size, RAW, 3d and framerates? :)
Click to expand...

Because it's small, light, and uniquely suited for use on 3D rigs, and at the same time is capable of higher frame rates. There is really nothing else out there quite like it in terms of form factor and overcrank capabilities. I would think those factors are pretty compelling regardless of what one thinks of resolution and RAW recording.
 
M Most said:
Because it's small, light, and uniquely suited for use on 3D rigs, and at the same time is capable of higher frame rates. There is really nothing else out there quite like it in terms of form factor and overcrank capabilities. I would think those factors are pretty compelling regardless of what one thinks of resolution and RAW recording.
Click to expand...
I think the real question here is why didn't he perform the test with his Sony stand-bys? Maybe he did, but I think it's interesting that he's exploring options that shoot higher than 1080p. Maybe he doesn't think resolution is the future for presentation, but perhaps he's been swayed on acquisition. Alexa, after all, is capable of capturing 3k images and Phantom is capable of 2k+ imagery as well. RED seems a natural fit with those two options. Super high frame rate, high framerate and small size, and what the hell... throw ARRI in there as well. And who says he didn't run some tests on a Frankie type device of Sony's new 4k imager? Just saying...

As I've stated before, I think 48fps could be interesting for acquisition purposes. If Cameron really just wants to get rid of motion blur and jitter, dialing in motion blur from cleaner 48fps footage could be one way to achieve that. Most of us haven't seen 48fps projected before. I think we can all take a step back on the subject until someone comes up with a way for us to see 48fps acquired and 48fps projected- with the 24 and 60fps counterparts. Not interlaced mind you, true progressive viewing. Perhaps someone here would be interested in performing their own test?
 
Andrew Rieger said:
...Can anyone confirm that Cameron is testing the epic?
Click to expand...

It would be silly to think Cameron is not playing with Epics. Epic is a dream camera for what he does and what he wants to do and there is nothing that comes even close at any price point. He is not retarded. :smile5:
 
Brennan Klensch said:
why shoot with an epic if all you care about is 3d and frame rates
Click to expand...

Because no other camera is better suited for 3d and framerates? How many non-Phantom cameras can do 120fps? How many can do it in a tiny body that makes 3d rigs the size and weight of a film camera rig?
 
ChrisLyon said:
... I think we can all take a step back on the subject until someone comes up with a way for us to see 48fps acquired and 48fps projected- with the 24 and 60fps counterparts. Not interlaced mind you, true progressive viewing. Perhaps someone here would be interested in performing their own test?
Click to expand...

A few years ago, I did a lot of tests with 48fps stereo at 2K & 4K, projected at 2K & 4K. My personal opinion is that it looks amazing, and that the higher the framerate, the better. I like the look of 24fps, but high framerates projected at high framerates is a very different viewing experience. High resolution & high framerate & good stereoscopy starts to really blur some lines of "what is reality?"

I'm not sure it would work for a slow-paced, character study, but I would love to see someone try.

Hey... you never know... maybe some big names are already trying this sort of thing? ; )

Lucas
 
I assume that capturing at 48 or 60 fps does not limit the footage to how it is projected. Would it be feasible to capture at say, 48 fps and throw out every other frame in post if the look was considered too real for current movie-goers' tastes? Or could you mix 48 fps timebase action scenes with 24 fps timebase slow-moving dialogue scenes or slow-pan panoramas?

Hope this isn't considered de-railing the thread. Just trying to gather information here for my own decision making process.
 
M Most said:
Because it's small, light, and uniquely suited for use on 3D rigs, and at the same time is capable of higher frame rates. There is really nothing else out there quite like it in terms of form factor and overcrank capabilities. I would think those factors are pretty compelling regardless of what one thinks of resolution and RAW recording.
Click to expand...

Very true. Very true. I was more responding to the idea that 3d and frame rates were a bigger deal than the other things, which clearly they are not. You are right though, that coukd very well be the case
 
M Most said:
Because it's small, light, and uniquely suited for use on 3D rigs, and at the same time is capable of higher frame rates. There is really nothing else out there quite like it in terms of form factor and overcrank capabilities. I would think those factors are pretty compelling regardless of what one thinks of resolution and RAW recording.
Click to expand...

Very true, but why get a mustang for the seats? :) im just kidding, i agree that 3d configurability and frame rate options on a camera are factors just as valuable to filmmakers as things like 5k, hdrx, and RAW, however, with what he's saying (at least sounds like) 3d and frame rates are the trump cards, not just factors of a greater equation. The reasons you list are of course valid, but become even moreso with these other factors, which he seemed disconcerned with
 
Last edited:
I'm all for experimenting with the medium, especially when a new technique (well new old technique) like 3D that comes along and just asks for it. It is very true that we should really always consider any new advancements none of us want to be the curmudgeons who were against sound or colour. though I can see how this could be abused and cause headaches for indi's and lower segments of the industry when clients want all 48fps/60fps material, taxing hard drive space(?), and most likely using it in the entirely wrong way. I don't discourage these new advances or changes in shooting, but what I would like is awareness for producers and clients about where it is best used and where it should not be used. Then again despite how hard some may try there is no getting around techniques turning into fads and being overused to death... ah well.

There is and will always be (in my opinion) a place for 24fps, but I welcome higher frame rates and the experiments that will follow looking into their effects on the feel and the viewer and best uses, weather that is just 3d or a much larger segment of the industry.
 
Just my two 97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plated units of currency.

Surely there is the option of having 4k projectors or displays that are capable of displaying different frame rates? (remember multi-sync monitors?)

Does one feel a project would benefit from shooting at 48fps? Fine shoot it. Prefer 24fps? Fine go ahead

As long as the final output/deliverable is capable of the frame rate required and the cinema or home display can show it then there is no problem. It would be another addition to cinemas aesthetic toolbox.

JohnF
 
I noticed in the Hobbit article linked in Lucas Wilson's post here that Andrew Lesnie is filming The Hobbit at 48 fps.
 
I'm with Brennan on this, as much as I love and respect you Tom, Cameron has great vision and has done a lot for moving the visual aspect of cinema along 'technically' in the same way that George Lucas has. Neither are filmmaking geniuses. They just have the ability and money to hire geniuses.

Relevant to the post at hand, the action shots in 3D Avatar looked horrible. I can understand his wish to change the game to compensate for what fell short. I can imagine it working well. 3D is a different animal completely to 2D.

It would be interesting to go back to the time when projectionists were given scripts to project parts of the film at different speeds, and developing multiple frame rate narrative films but it could get messy if pushed too far and would be a bit crazy to edit.
 
Why some people consistently equal higher framerate with "looking like soap opera" or "videoish" is beyond me.
Why should 48fps look more "videoish" or "soape opera" than 24fps? Why should there bee any negatives at all? I only see positives!

First of all; All 24fps movies are projected at double flash 48Hz.

You can shoot 48fps at 1/48sek and get same motionblur as with 180 degree shutter at 24fps.
You get better optical sharpness out of the very expensive Cine optics you use.
You get better color reproduction.
Less jitter, strobing and motion judder.
Out of this you get more adjustment values of color and grayscale for color correction and grading in post.
Which means you have more possibilities to make your movie look exactly like you want.
There is no reason whatsoever that a movie shot in 48fps should look any different than a 24fps, except that you will minimise the negative technical limitation of 24fps.
You have full control over your image, and even more so with higher framerate.

When Cameron talks about "heightened reality", does the "naysayers" really don't get what he is talking about?
Would it have been less "traumatic" for the "naysayers" if he had said; "You CAN have heightened reality IF YOU WANT TO", but you don't have to, it is a choice.
Does some film makers that does this "protest tingy" against higher framerate really have to be "spoon-fed" the technical advantage with higher framerate. :skep:
It is such easy logics for anybody working with film to understand.
48fps doesn't automatic make a movie look like "soap opera" or "videoish".
It is the choice of the film maker.:coolgleamA:

From the report in the first post it looks like Cameron is somewhat "against" 4K capture. According to other reports I have heard from CinemaCon, that is a misunderstanding.
He was quoted in other reports saying that 4k projectors have just become available. Referring to the DLP 4K "big roll-out" that happened first time officially at CinemaCon, so it will take time before 4K projectors will have an installation base in Cinemas. (A statement which by the way must have been an "ouch" for Sony that has had 4K projectors for 5 years.)

When Cameron has finished his new Avatars', the availability for full resolution 4K 3D projection in any framerate he wants will be massive.
Cameron did his keynote speech at CinemaCon, he is also scheduled to do the keynote speech at NAB. For anybody interested, try to catch it!

As to the "flirting" with 60fps; I think that is short sighted. 60fps is not really a framerate standard that is historically compatible.
If higher framerate than 48fps should be considered, one should go up to 72fps or 96fps as that is dividable to 48 and 24.
But as the reports state. The difference between 24fps and 48fps was very noticeable, the difference between 48fps and 60fps not so much. In addition you will need some good "motion blur tools" to make it work. So higher than 48fps might be unnecessary because of the diminishing returns.

48fps must not be mistaken for something like the "motion interpolation" that is being done in TV's, nor must it be equalled to shooting high shutterspeed in 24fps.

48fps doesn't solve all problems associated with framerates. To get "clean" images one has to approach 300fps or higher. But 48fps helps a lot.

BBC whitepaper on higher framerate; http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
 
Lucas Wilson said:
Yeah - that is what I was alluding to last week but could not publicly mention until this article came out...
Click to expand...
So that's confirmed then? I thought he didn't have time to convince studio heads before shooting began due to his illness.

I think we need to all see a test. Individually we can come to our own conclusions. We should be open to change. Most of the time we end up being put in our place tomorrow by new tech or standards we don't understand today. Best to just see what happens and let things evolve naturally. We are a part of a continuing generation of change in cinema no other generation in almost a century can claim! So take advantage of that.
 
--Disjointed Thoughts Follow--

48 and 60 will be great for CGi only material. Hybridized footage (live action and cgi equal)? I'd rather see it at 24 frames.

My take on it is pretty simple, I think: Soap Operas look more like real people experiencing real things (our universe) versus shows like Breaking Bad and United States of Tara being alternate universes of our own reality.

On the other end of the spectrum, people say they can't connect to CGi characters or cartoons, I've seen video game cut scenes presented at thirty frames or so and it feels absolutely right for the material. Like it should be presented as "reality" to help suspend the audience belief in that reality. It works wonders when Video Games like GOD OF WAR III Run at a constant 30FPS on my PS3. It's almost like I'm there whippin' ass.

I do not want to watch a Soap Opera on the big screen, it will feel too real, and I know Captain Barbosa and Jack Sparrow are not real beings.

I do want to see CGi only features at higher frame rates to increase the experience, and possibly 3D features.

Seeing as how this technology can be turned on and off at will, I am down for James Cameron's push to make theater's ready for the frame rates before we hit the 4K+ Bench, so that it trickles down into consumer technology for even better gaming experiences and CGi consumption.

I also need to go outside and exercise...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top