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

[Mark Collins]

http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/

Basically, James Cameron thinks the next be leap in cinema should be higher frame raters, at least 48 frames a second, if not 60. He says it's closer to reality than 24.

Me? I say stick with 24. 24 has a look to it that works fine. Sure it may not look real, but we're not here to deliver reality. As filmmakers we're here to deliver an escape from reality. 48 frames and 60 frames look way too smooth to me to ever be comfortable watching. Even 30 frames per second looks bad to me.

 

[Steve Das]

http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/

...hmm...hope Jannard doesn't see this...from the article:

You might guess that Cameron was back in LasVegas to convince the industry to upgrade to 4K projectors. We’ve seen beautiful footage and films projected at 4K over the last few years at these types of industry events, but the movie theater chains have been slow in adopting the higher resolution projectors — most have settled on cheaper 2K digital projectors.

Are 4K projectors the next leap in the future of cinema? Nope.

Cameron believes the time has not yet come for the 4K resolution upgrade as most films are currently authored at 2K (especially in the post production stage where most visual effects are rendered at 1 or 2k).

According to Cameron, the next revolution in cinema will be… to begin shooting and projecting films with faster frame rates.

 

[Solomon Nero]

ugh...i HATE how 60fps looks...correction, I even hate how 30fps looks even...there is something about 24fps... 1/48 shutter that just looks...amazing...but that's probably just cause Ive seen it a lot growing up...I'm sure if out kids were raised on 60fps...they would think 24ps looked weird...But I like convincing myself otherwise...long live 24p 1/48th!!

 

[Justin Hartough]

Read Andre Bazin's "The Myth of Total Cinema". Filmmaking technology will continue advancing until it's a completely accurate representation of reality. 48 or 60FPS is a part of this as is 3D.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Me? I say stick with 24. 24 has a look to it that works fine. Sure it may not look real, but we're not here to deliver reality. As filmmakers we're here to deliver an escape from reality. 48 frames and 60 frames look way too smooth to me to ever be comfortable watching. Even 30 frames per second looks bad to me.

I agree for 2d, but for 3d 24fps starts feeling really choppy.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I agree for 2d, but for 3d 24fps starts feeling really choppy.

QFA. I want my 'virtual reality' to be as perfect as possible and I want my stylized art to be rough and ragged.

I think the next move is going to be increasing screen fov and shooting with wider lenses. Eventually if we have contact lens sized displays or retinal projectors I think we'll employ head tracking as well. 3D plus the ability to look around and high frame-rates will be incredibly immersive.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Cameron is a filmmaking genius, so I always listen to what he has to say. However, I do think he is very wrong about 4K. I mean, he just made a huge 1080p movie, so it might actually be tough for him to admit publicly that 4K is the future.

Can the new 4K projectors even do 48fps+ 3D? He might be downplaying 4K just because it's not possible for what he has in mind. I found the live-action shots in "Avatar" to look very soft against the CGI. Epic would fix that problem.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Cameron is a filmmaking genius, so I always listen to what he has to say. However, I do think he is very wrong about 4K. I mean, he just made a huge 1080p movie, so it might actually be tough for him to admit publicly that 4K is the future.

Can the new 4K projectors even do 48fps+ 3D? He might be downplaying 4K just because it's not possible for what he has in mind. I found the live-action shots in "Avatar" to look very soft against the CGI. Epic would fix that problem.

I was writing something right along these lines. So +1 to Tom.

Can I just say I want BOTH 4K and 60fps delivery.

And to the 24fps 2D purists ... there is nothing stopping you from continuing to shoot 24fps 2D! Just like there isn't anything stopping you from shooting black&white, or silent film - or doing anything else you like, like emulating film scratches, adding film grain/noise, using a soft lens, or a lens stripped of its coatings, emulating laboratory mistakes (bleach bypass etc.) or emulating older color techniques (like say 2 strip technicolor).

The reverse is not true and depends on advancing technology. I don't want to be constrained to 24fps! So, I'm happy that cameras like the Epic are coming out that enable me to deliver 4K 60fps footage if I like.

Another example .... HDR! HDRx is a technological revolution and I think we all agree its awesome, but a lot of people like the aesthetic that has evolved because of the limitations of motion imaging technology- like the use of silhouettes and artificial lighting that is often surreal. HDRx "fixes" that, which improves the technology but does not necessarily improve the art.

(I think HDRx does improve the art because I can do new things and I'm free to leave it turned off. However, because I sometimes need to turn it off to get the "best" image, I imagine we'll get a lot of lower quality imagery for a while as a result of better technology- because some people simply won't turn it off.)

As always, its ultimately the artist that creates art, not the technology they employ.

 

[Brennan Klensch]

why is cameron a filmmaking genius?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

With the ever repeating fps discussion it might help not using terms "film" or "cinematic".
They will activate the recollection of those terms as they were subconsciously defined in the start and all this will run in circles again.

It might help thinking about "visual artwork" or "visual storytelling" or "visual experience".
If it feels better "Movies" can be all 24 fps and 48, 60 or 100 Hz experience can be called "XYZXS"

This might provide the fertile ground for creating something new.

 

[Joseph Podlesnik]

That's SOME goal. What frame rate, shutter speed (and focal length), objectively speaking, IS "reality"? Here's some food for thought from Rudolf Arnheim (another early film theorist - of course, Arnheim wasn't big on the advent of sound in cinema, though :-O - hmm). Anyway - http://josephpodlesnik.com/form-as-invention.html

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I am still fixed on my position. Let projectors and TVs manage up to (say...) 60fps, and let the delivery systems allow the artists to decide what framerate they want to use for each individual project... even each individual scene, or moment.

Convince me otherwise.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The reason Cameron's thoughts seem strange to some may be that he's seeing it from a different standpoint.

Step up to 4K may be closer to an enhancement of existing cinematic experience, giving it more clarity, while enhancing temporal resolution brings a whole new style and aesthetic of storytelling.

Based on that he may see it as a completely new experience, which is why seeing 2K/4K switch is easily accepted and 24/48/60 switch feels awkward. Because it is something new.

Storytelling wise, 4K may be seen as evolution, while 48/60 as revolution, and in that context Cameron's opinion makes sense and doesn't undermine the impact of 4K switch whatsoever.

Sure it may not look real, but we're not here to deliver reality. As filmmakers we're here to deliver an escape from reality.

Gaming world doesn't have issues with escaping reality well over 60 fps.

 

[Ralph B.]

I definitely don't want to go off on a tangent here, but I'm interested in hearing from the filmmakers about all the various technical choices you make for your projects "look." That 24P thing is definitely a building block of the "film look" but I find it interesting that choices are made to preserve that look as opposed to leaning further and further towards reality. There are myriad plugins that introduce film grain to these low noise images that filmmakers now have access to. I remember seeing a Steven Soderberg interview where early in REDs days he was trying to figure out how to use all the resolution. I believe he said it was almost "too real." And he wasn't the first to talk about the low noise "creamy" look if you will, that they saw. I almost want to see how far we can go in that direction of reality as a look, just so that there are more style choices on the palette. To make a sound analogy using rap music less Beastie Boys "Pauls Boutique" and more Dr. Dre's "The Chronic."

not that it matters to anyone but for my 2¢ worth even the best 3D is still not worth it.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

not that it matters to anyone but for my 2¢ worth even the best 3D is still not worth it.

Yeah, and some people were opposed to sound in films.

Others were opposed to color.

Every innovation in motion picture imaging and presentation has its conservative detractors.

As I've said elsewhere, the main problem with 3D is that it is in its infancy, in both technological or artistic terms. It will get better.

Furthermore, the real question is increasingly why not shoot 3D? Seriously. If you shoot a serious work today, even though you intend only 2D, then you must realize that capturing the extra camera data at the same time will enable a future 3D version of the film that is true to what you created on set.

Its the "Star Trek: Remastered" argument. Star Trek was shot in 35mm for SD broadcast in the 1960's to TV's that were for the most part under 20" diagonal.

Today, Star Trek: Remastered seasons 1, 2 & 3 are number 1, 5 & 4 (respectively) in Amazon's BluRay Science Fiction Television category - 4 years after their release!

This is what Jim means when talking about the importance of resolution. He is talking about spatial resolution of course. Without the resolution of 35mm Star Trek would be lost to the dustbin of history. (Imagine if Star Trek had been shot in U-Matic, or whatever the tape format of the day was!)

I argue that temporal resolution is as important as spatial resolution.

Epic enables the film maker to work in increased temporal resolution if they so choose. You can shoot in 48fps with a 360 shutter if you like and see how it compares to 24fps 180 shutter.

Its already here for acquisition and you can post it too. So, I advise you to TEST it for yourself and to become familiar with the effects of higher frame rates - and slower ones as well. (Note Boyle's work on Slumdog Millionaire)

I also believe that capturing "Z" data, i.e. 3D, is important. I think 3D is unwieldy and its definitely horrendously expensive. So, I don't recommend it to the run of the mill film maker like I recommend 5K acquisition. The day will come though that I will recommend it. You should capture the 3D data- because having it may be worth a huge pile of money one day.

 

[Ralph B.]

Yeah, and some people were opposed to sound in films.

Others were opposed to color.

Every innovation in motion picture imaging and presentation has its conservative detractors.

As I've said elsewhere, the main problem with 3D is that it is in its infancy, in both technological or artistic terms. It will get better.

Furthermore, the real question is increasingly why not shoot 3D? Seriously. If you shoot a serious work today, even though you intend only 2D, then you must realize that capturing the extra camera data at the same time will enable a future 3D version of the film that is true to what you created on set.

Didn't mean to give the impression that I was opposed to 3D or the use of sound or color in movies. They are all just another paint on the palette of an artist. Every movie that I have seen in 3D I've watched in 2D and the opinion I was trying to express was that I never felt like stereo added to my enjoyment of the movie. I couldn't say the same thing about a film projection vs. a digital projection. I'd agree that 3D will get better but stereo has been around for quite a while, I think longer than color TV's.

Your points about being able to use footage in as many ways as possible is a good one. Cameron mentioned before that 48fps was a multiple of 24 and thus if you shot at 48 you could produce a 24fps version without too much trouble. Cameron would definitely agree with you as well about shooting in stereo. I wouldn't argue with either of you. I think the artist should hold the brush. After all it is their vision, their work. With more options available today that ever before I'm anxious to see how far these new languages of visual expression go.

 

[mike ogden]

This is such BS.

You can have all the 'clarity' and 'reality' you like by dialing up the fps or whatever, but if your story sucks...

Couldn't help but notice it's Cameron and Lucas asking for this. Neither have made a good film in years. 'Showmanship' is a different thing. I'm not in the business of designing funfair rides, thanks.

 

[Mark Collins]

This is such BS.

You can have all the 'clarity' and 'reality' you like by dialing up the fps or whatever, but if your story sucks...

Couldn't help but notice it's Cameron and Lucas asking for this. Neither have made a good film in years. 'Showmanship' is a different thing. I'm not in the business of designing funfair rides, thanks.

Though that may be true, both are some of the richest and most successful people in Hollywood. Remember, we make films primarily to entertain. Though we may inform an issue, or change someone's point of view, we make films to entertain, and we watch them to be entertained. Cameron and Lucas have that idea locked down.

 

[Mike Dunn]

This is such BS.

You can have all the 'clarity' and 'reality' you like by dialing up the fps or whatever, but if your story sucks...

Couldn't help but notice it's Cameron and Lucas asking for this. Neither have made a good film in years. 'Showmanship' is a different thing. I'm not in the business of designing funfair rides, thanks.

Agreed. Though maybe not with the same zeal that you said it with. I will always love George Lucas for what he gave us in the original Trilogy. I love T1 and T2. I love The Abyss. Yes. I love The Abyss. Etc. Etc. There's no doubt both Lucas and Cameron can make great movies. I do NOT understand why the films that come out of these great minds have no story lately, though (see Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. AHHHH!! Avatar--yeah, great story. Riighht). But maybe that's a bit off topic.

As far as the tech goes, Story first, technology second. That being said, if you want to make a carnival ride movie, then make a carnival ride movie. People can choose whether they want to pay to see it or not. Film tech will advance like it or not.

 

[michael zaletel]

There is something to be said for the reality that has become the expected. It's like when software developers try to "improve" user interfaces. Better is not always better.

-michael zaletel