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

[Erich Ocean]

My $0.02 (taken from a comment I made on ProLost just now):

The higher frame rates are for 3D, not 2D. Even 360 degree shutter is probably appropriate for 3D. So, here's what I think will happen:

3D movies will be shot in 60fps, 360 degree shutter, because that's compatible with 80% of the existing installed digital cinema projectors and gives the highest quality 3D experience.

2D prints for films that were shot as 3D will have 24fps extracted via 3:2 pulldown from the 60fps source material. That gives a shutter angle equivalent of 144 degrees for each of those 3:2 frames, slightly choppy, but not enough to matter.

That will give the best 3D possible and a more-than-acceptable 2D print (including shutter artifacts) from a 60fps 3D source.

2D films shot in 2D will continue to be shot at 24 fps/180 deg shutter.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Well, I guess this answers the question as to whether or not James Cameron will be shooting Avatar 2 with the Epic:


http://www.studiodaily.com/main/new...-PACE-Group-on-Alexa-M-Development_13098.html

Given that we already know that he thinks 2K is acceptable (really 3.5K bayer with the ARRI Alexa, but let's not split hairs) and that the Alexa will be doing 120fps, I think it's safe to say he's either shooting with the Alexa or sticking with the usual (Sony F65).

 

[Jason Murphy]

Well, I guess this answers the question as to whether or not James Cameron will be shooting Avatar 2 with the Epic:


http://www.studiodaily.com/main/new...-PACE-Group-on-Alexa-M-Development_13098.html

Given that we already know that he thinks 2K is acceptable (really 3.5K bayer with the ARRI Alexa, but let's not split hairs) and that the Alexa will be doing 120fps, I think it's safe to say he's either shooting with the Alexa or sticking with the usual (Sony F65).

I might be missing something here, but I fail to see how having a mobile camera head tethered to a larger body elsewhere is preferable (at least as far as 3D work goes) to using 2 EPICs in a rig. Are the Alexa-M's really that much smaller (especially once you get lenses involved)? Even so, I'm not sure you'd want to be dragging around two full-size Alexas in your wake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that ARRI is continuing to improve the Alexa, and this is a step in the right direction. 120 FPS is great, and while I can see the advantages of the Alexa-M, I'm just not convinced that you're really going to want to shoot 3D with this config. Then again, I'm not James Cameron, and he's pretty much earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants at this point, particularly as far as 3D is concerned.

EDIT: The LED lights sound very cool though.

EDIT 2: No pun intended.

 

[Erich Ocean]

I might be missing something here, but I fail to see how having a mobile camera head tethered to a larger body elsewhere is preferable (at least as far as 3D work goes) to using 2 EPICs in a rig.

Well, I don't think it's preferable to two *Epics* in a rig, but it certainly is nicer than two full-size ALEXAs in a rig.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Well, I don't think it's preferable to two *Epics* in a rig, but it certainly is nicer than two full-size ALEXAs in a rig.

No arguments there.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, I guess this answers the question as to whether or not James Cameron will be shooting Avatar 2 with the Epic:


http://www.studiodaily.com/main/new...-PACE-Group-on-Alexa-M-Development_13098.html

Given that we already know that he thinks 2K is acceptable (really 3.5K bayer with the ARRI Alexa, but let's not split hairs) and that the Alexa will be doing 120fps, I think it's safe to say he's either shooting with the Alexa or sticking with the usual (Sony F65).

No it means nothing as far as what he'll choose to shoot with.

I know he is working with the Sony F65 people on a smaller version of that camera as well, very much along the lines of the Alexa M.

WHen you consider that he is essentially asking for Sony and Arri to make their cameras more "Epic like" I think we have to acknowledge that if he has two brain cells to rub together (which he manifestly does) he's still looking at Epic.

He also likes longer depth of field ... so SI2K and Scarlet are not out of the picture yet. (I think Scarlet is only an option if we do see an interchangeable lens version.)

What I think is clear is that he's developing his own rig for whatever camera he chooses to use.

 

[Brandon H]

I'm sure someone earlier in this thread has made these points, but...

I love 24fps, always have and always will. It has a magical quality that tells your brain "cinematic". I have some theories on this 48fps stuff. When I saw Avatar for the first time in 3D, I felt the only thing that was really holding the illusion of the Avatar experience was the frame rate. I think that because 2D images are more disconnected from reality than stereo, things like slow frame rates in 2d are forgiving to the eyes.

One of the inaccurate, but revealing descriptions most consumers describe the difference between 24fps and Live 60fps tv is it looks "faster". Although they are the same speed I think there is something to the brain seeing fewer frames that allows things to soak in easier, and the images to seem larger than life. However when the brain is interpreting moving images and ALSO depth perception, one of the artifacts that is visible and out of place in the illusion is frame jitter and strobing. I noticed this most in Avatar in the scenes where there were high speed particles moving across the screen. Tiny points of detail like debris and embers that were jittering across the frame but watching it in 2D on a blu ray player, those same scenes in 24P look perfectly natural.

In short, I think higher frame rates have a place in 3D blockbuster movies, but I think 24fps is best for 2D.

 

[Mark Collins]

I might be missing something here, but I fail to see how having a mobile camera head tethered to a larger body elsewhere is preferable (at least as far as 3D work goes) to using 2 EPICs in a rig. Are the Alexa-M's really that much smaller (especially once you get lenses involved)? Even so, I'm not sure you'd want to be dragging around two full-size Alexas in your wake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that ARRI is continuing to improve the Alexa, and this is a step in the right direction. 120 FPS is great, and while I can see the advantages of the Alexa-M, I'm just not convinced that you're really going to want to shoot 3D with this config. Then again, I'm not James Cameron, and he's pretty much earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants at this point, particularly as far as 3D is concerned.

EDIT: The LED lights sound very cool though.

EDIT 2: No pun intended.

I wouldn't mind having 2 Alexa's in a 3D rig...

The thing I like about bigger camera's is that more mass = steadier shot. Simple physics.

Of course, I'm not a camera operator, just a director and an electric...

 

[Jason Murphy]

I wouldn't mind having 2 Alexa's in a 3D rig...

The thing I like about bigger camera's is that more mass = steadier shot. Simple physics.

Of course, I'm not a camera operator, just a director and an electric...

Very true, to a point. However, 3D rigs are pretty heavy as it is, and too much mass=herniating operator. Which is still probably a bad thing.