And its official, Cameron to shoot Avatar 2 in 48-60fps

[cheez avenger]

When he shot his mini 3D feature T2: Battle Across Time, he shot it in Dual Strip 70mm @ 30FPS. Anyone who has seen it can atest to how good it looks.

True. I don't get the whole "hater" "he'll fuck it all up" mentality of shitting on Cameron. I really don't. As usual, he will silence the haters when the time comes and a new crop of haters will emerge. It's a given.

[Lee Stewart]

True. I don't get the whole "hater" "he'll fuck it all up" mentality of shitting on Cameron. I really don't. As usual, he will silence the haters when the time comes and a new crop of haters will emerge. It's a given.

So true . . .

"George Lucas announces he will use computers to control cameras in his latest film!"

"He will fuck it up. A computer will never replace a human"

. . . Star Wars.

[twonunpackmule]

That is not a true statement.

Yes it is. Thank you.

60fps is a framerate. If Cameron lit and shot a scene in 60fps, and then say, Ridley right next to him did the same in 60fps...the only difference would be how each director decided to cover the scene. Motion would be the EXACT same. If I move my hand and it's captured at 60fps by Camera, and that same movement of my hand is captured by Ridley, that hand will move EXACTLY the same. It's a technical fact this will happen. My hand isn't going to magically move any different. Seeing that I've seen things shot at 24, 30, and 60fps, the idea of "motion" being displayed at this framerate does nothing for me. I don't like it.


Motion is what we are talking about. You brought up "manipulation" which is different subject. Will fps have an effect? Yes. But, it's main and really only real pull on the scene will be how it handles motion. MOTION. You know, how things MOVE. These things aren't "oh, just wait till you see it." I have seen it. I know exactly what to expect. I'm not going to be blown away because I've seen it. Sorry, I'm not posting out of ignorance, nor is what Cameron preaching anything new. It's been done before. He's merely trying to make it a standard. Which, I don't agree with. Just like I don't agree with 3D. I think both are bad, bad ideas.

What you say about his T2 short is true. It was displayed at a higher framerate. However, so are the majority of 3D Amusement rides. But, I already talked about how I only see the benefit with 3D films.

True. I don't get the whole "hater" "he'll fuck it all up" mentality of shitting on Cameron. I really don't. As usual, he will silence the haters when the time comes and a new crop of haters will emerge. It's a given.

Didn't silence them towards 3D.

[Lee Stewart]

Yes it is. Thank you.

No it isn't . . . thank YOU!

60fps is a framerate. If Cameron lit and shot a scene in 60fps, and then say, Ridley right next to him did the same in 60fps...the only difference would be how each director decided to cover the scene. Motion would be the EXACT same. If I move my hand and it's captured at 60fps by Camera, and that same movement of my hand is captured by Ridley, that hand will move EXACTLY the same. It's a technical fact this will happen. My hand isn't going to magically move any different. Seeing that I've seen things shot at 24, 30, and 60fps, the idea of "motion" being displayed at this framerate does nothing for me. I don't like it.

Motion is what we are talking about. You brought up "manipulation" which is different subject. Will fps have an effect? Yes. But, it's main and really only real pull on the scene will be how it handles motion. MOTION. You know, how things MOVE. These things aren't "oh, just wait till you see it." I have seen it. I know exactly what to expect. I'm not going to be blown away because I've seen it. Sorry, I'm not posting out of ignorance, nor is what Cameron preaching anything new. It's been done before. He's merely trying to make it a standard. Which, I don't agree with. Just like I don't agree with 3D. I think both are bad, bad ideas.

The only thing that is consistant is the frame rate. There are so many variables that are associated with using a motion picture camera. The only way they would be the same is if they both shot the EXACT same scene using the exact same camera, lighting, lenses, F-Stop, focus, etc. All can change the look of how a scene is presented.

What you say about his T2 short is true. It was displayed at a higher framerate. However, so are the majority of 3D Amusement rides. But, I already talked about how I only see the benefit with 3D films.

A faster frame rate reduces motion blur due to either the events happening within the scene (they are moving faster then the camera can capture them) or when the cameraman pans the camera. Both exist in 2D and 3D movies. Just like you can increase your focus giving a greater depth of field which can be a benefit to both 2D and 3D movies.

[Favelle]

I like 24fps better. If I wanted videos, I'd watch MTV.

[cheez avenger]

Yes it is. Thank you.

60fps is a framerate. If Cameron lit and shot a scene in 60fps, and then say, Ridley right next to him did the same in 60fps...the only difference would be how each director decided to cover the scene. Motion would be the EXACT same. If I move my hand and it's captured at 60fps by Camera, and that same movement of my hand is captured by Ridley, that hand will move EXACTLY the same. It's a technical fact this will happen. My hand isn't going to magically move any different. Seeing that I've seen things shot at 24, 30, and 60fps, the idea of "motion" being displayed at this framerate does nothing for me. I don't like it.


Motion is what we are talking about. You brought up "manipulation" which is different subject. Will fps have an effect? Yes. But, it's main and really only real pull on the scene will be how it handles motion. MOTION. You know, how things MOVE. These things aren't "oh, just wait till you see it." I have seen it. I know exactly what to expect. I'm not going to be blown away because I've seen it. Sorry, I'm not posting out of ignorance, nor is what Cameron preaching anything new. It's been done before. He's merely trying to make it a standard. Which, I don't agree with. Just like I don't agree with 3D. I think both are bad, bad ideas.

What you say about his T2 short is true. It was displayed at a higher framerate. However, so are the majority of 3D Amusement rides. But, I already talked about how I only see the benefit with 3D films.



Didn't silence them towards 3D.

And they're stupid.

[Elee s]

Cameron isnt pioneering 48fps, the option has always been there. And this is avatar we're talking about, its gonna be 95% digital anyways so I think the high framerate will be a great match.

Now.. if they decided to make The Hobbit in this.. Id complain.

[high_rollin]

It never ceases to amaze me how people still, after all these years of advancements and growth in filmmaking technology... continue to complain anytime there's an advancement or growth in filmmaking technology.

The reason you don't think the 48/60 FPS look works for movies is because it's never been used for movies before. You have to realize how much conditioning affects the way you think. If you let yourself fall into thinking traditionally all the time, then of course your'e gonna be annoyed anytime something new happens.

I've seen 48 and 60 FPS footage... and yes, it gives a "video" and "non-movie" look. But that's only because that's all it's ever been used for. If you open your mind for just one second and let yourself get used to it being used for movies, then you'll come to associate it with movies as well.

In the end, this is just a technical aspect. It doesn't affect how good the story/acting/everything else will be. It's really not such a big deal if movies start looking like videos. Video is getting higher and higher in quality and really shouldn't be associated with the idea of being "cheap" anymore. It's only because video has always been considered cheap in the past that it triggers the "cheap" reaction in your mind. Now that things are changing, your ideas need to change with them, or you'll get left in the past, clinging to nostalgia and cursing how new and scary the world of advancing technology is. If that sounds like fun to you, then by all means... continue being scared of the future. But technological advancement ain't gonna stop until humans become extinct, so you might as well get used to things changing.

This IS an advancement worth pursuing. There are have been many times in the past when watching movies that I've noticed strobing, and it does jar you out of the movie sometimes. I like the 24 FPS look otherwise, and 24 FPS ain't gonna go away. Any display that can do 48/60 will also be able to do 24, so the 24 option will always be there for filmmakers who wanna use it, and all the movies that already exist in 24 FPS will still be in 24 FPS. Nobodies ruining anything... Cameron is just pioneering the use of another option.

Reactionaries will never learn, will they?

[Elee s]

When people say it looks 'cheap' they dont mean cause its associated with 80's video technology. It looks 'cheap' because the higher framerate accentuates the flaws in peoples movements. An oscar movie can end up looking like a live stage show. Its almost the same effect as when you see a finished scene in a movie, and then watch the same scene in the behind the scene video footage.

But like I said I have no problem using this since Avatar is pretty much a CG movie so movement wont look as awkward and out of place.
Now, if someone asked James cameron if he would have shot Titanic in 48fps if he had the chance to... I dont think he'd be as enthusiastic.

[high_rollin]

It looks 'cheap' because the higher framerate accentuates the flaws in peoples movements.

What flaws? And why do these "flaws" pose a problem when they're more true to what the actor was doing?
Like I said, it only seems strange to you because you're not used to seeing it. Give it time and it will seem as normal as 24 FPS seems now.

[Pyrochaos]

What flaws? And why do these "flaws" pose a problem when they're more true to what the actor was doing?
Like I said, it only seems strange to you because you're not used to seeing it. Give it time and it will seem as normal as 24 FPS seems now.

The same way Blu-ray flawed porn. The detail sometimes isn't something you want to see.

[twonunpackmule]

And they're stupid.

No. They just understand that the technology that exists now for 3D goes against our evolution. Most people don't like getting headaches when watching films, or have the photography be dimmed because you lose brightness.

[twonunpackmule]

No it isn't . . . thank YOU!

Again, my statement is true.

The only thing that is consistant is the frame rate.

I'm not going to read the rest of your response because you have consistently skimmed over what I've already covered. Since you seem to lack the ability to read my responses from earlier...I'm just going to ignore your repeated areas of my already talked about points.

Framerate is a technical depiction of the movement on screen. That's it. Whether Ridley films, or Cameron films in 60fps, the movement will be handled in the same way. It's like cars going 30mph. Sure, some drive nicer, but they are still going 30mph. It's only going to go that fast. It's a technical fact it's going 30mph.

So whether Ridley is driving 30mph, or Cameron...they are still only going 30mph. Not one of them is going to magically make that mph appear like anything other than 30.

What I've already discussed is entering the realm of "photography." That will be an artistic debate. That is something that remains a variable with 24, 30, 48, 60, or whatever framerate you choose to shoot at. This is not the discussion we are having. Yes, Ridley films a different way than Cameron. However, movement - since they both shot in 24fps - is handled the same way. Just watch T2 or Blade Runner.

So, yes, my statement still remains true. Thank you.

However, with 60fps/48fps you will still fundamentally light and frame scenes the same way. This isn't going to change. 3D changed staging...a BIT. But, if you're trying to not make a shitty movie, then you usually ignore the 3D staging. It will merely change how movement is depicted.

60fps is sharper and smoother. I've already agreed to that. I've seen it. However, I also stated that I don't like it.

[Elee s]

What flaws? And why do these "flaws" pose a problem when they're more true to what the actor was doing?
Like I said, it only seems strange to you because you're not used to seeing it. Give it time and it will seem as normal as 24 FPS seems now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXrtvwqseu8
Flaws.

[Lee Stewart]

Again, my statement is true.


I'm not going to read the rest of your response because you have consistently skimmed over what I've already covered. Since you seem to lack the ability to read my responses from earlier...I'm just going to ignore your repeated areas of my already talked about points.

Framerate is a technical depiction of the movement on screen. That's it. Whether Ridley films, or Cameron films in 60fps, the movement will be handled in the same way. It's like cars going 30mph. Sure, some drive nicer, but they are still going 30mph. It's only going to go that fast. It's a technical fact it's going 30mph.

So whether Ridley is driving 30mph, or Cameron...they are still only going 30mph. Not one of them is going to magically make that mph appear like anything other than 30.

What I've already discussed is entering the realm of "photography." That will be an artistic debate. That is something that remains a variable with 24, 30, 48, 60, or whatever framerate you choose to shoot at. This is not the discussion we are having. Yes, Ridley films a different way than Cameron. However, movement - since they both shot in 24fps - is handled the same way. Just watch T2 or Blade Runner.

So, yes, my statement still remains true. Thank you.

However, with 60fps/48fps you will still fundamentally light and frame scenes the same way. This isn't going to change. 3D changed staging...a BIT. But, if you're trying to not make a shitty movie, then you usually ignore the 3D staging. It will merely change how movement is depicted.

60fps is sharper and smoother. I've already agreed to that. I've seen it. However, I also stated that I don't like it.

You really don't understand perspective when it comes to shooting movement do you?

Again, what you think is constant is not. Your analogies hold no water because they are based on a very weak connect-the-dots argument . . . that is missing very important dots.