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

[Elee s]

Is that like your favourite phrase for when you cant explicitly fault anything in the persons argument?
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/sear...searchid=73371

Saying Cameron will do 48fps 'differently' is like saying Star Wars 24fps has a different 24fps than LotR.

[Lee Stewart]

Is that like your favourite phrase for when you cant explicitly fault anything in the persons argument?
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/sear...searchid=73371

Saying Cameron will do 48fps 'differently' is like saying Star Wars 24fps has a different 24fps than LotR.

And there lies the flaw in your argument. You think all that is happening is advancing the frame rate from 24 to 48. It is far more complicated then that.

You do realize that when you go see a movie shot at 24 FPS, you are seeing it not at 24 FPS but 48 FPS. Or maybe you don't realize that. Major difference between the two yet the frame rate at the projector is the same . . . 48 FPS.

[Lee Stewart]

THE HOBBIT Shooting At 48 Frames Per Second!

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/0...er-second.html

[Elee s]

And there lies the flaw in your argument. You think all that is happening is advancing the frame rate from 24 to 48. It is far more complicated then that.

You do realize that when you go see a movie shot at 24 FPS, you are seeing it not at 24 FPS but 48 FPS. Or maybe you don't realize that. Major difference between the two yet the frame rate at the projector is the same . . . 48 FPS.

Im not talking about the difference between 24fps and 48fps.

[cheez avenger]

THE HOBBIT Shooting At 48 Frames Per Second!

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/0...er-second.html

They sky just landed on my head.

[high_rollin]

The argument that there are no possible difference from one 48 FPS to another 48 FPS is in fact flawed, because there are other elements at play when recording motion. There's shutter speed, for one, which affects the way motion looks in a major way. There are also different types of shutters. The quality of the camera, for another. Two different cameras shooting at the same frame rate and shutter speed can have different qualities to the motion if things such as compression quality or data rate or the scan rate are different.
If you think there's no difference between different uses of the same frame rate, then you haven't paid much attention to movies, because even at 24 FPS, there's very different types of motion in different movies. Not only do technical details make a difference, but just the type of motion of that being put into the frame affects the way that the motion feels. A slow dolly feels different than a fast dolly. Motion in a James Cameron movie does indeed feel different from motion in a Ridley Scott movie. Check out the difference in the way that motion feels between one of the fight from Terminator 2 to one of the fights in Gladiator. Big difference in the way that the cameras, actors and objects move, not to mention the different use of shutter speeds in Gladiator's fights. Just in the opening battle alone, we go from full speed, high shutter speed to slow motion extremely low shutter speed when the melancholy music kicks in, and it feels vastly different.
All of that was being presented to you in 24 FPS, but the way it was shot was notably different.

So please don't tell me that all 48 FPS will be the same. There's tons of variations that can be applied within it, just as there always has been with 24 FPS.

[Elee s]

So youre saying the difference is the same difference that a single movie employs between scenes.
Thats beside the point dont you think? youre in a thread where people are claiming they cant say anything about 48fps until theyve seen cameron employ it.
Anyone can give their opinion about 24fps in gladiator without having to watch every scene. If that wasnt the case then people would not associate 24fps with a certain 'look.' But they do.

[cheez avenger]

So youre saying the difference is the same difference that a single movie employs between scenes.
Thats beside the point dont you think? youre in a thread where people are claiming they cant say anything about 48fps until theyve seen cameron employ it.
Anyone can give their opinion about 24fps in gladiator without having to watch every scene. If that wasnt the case then people would not associate 24fps with a certain 'look.' But they do.

You'll see, when Cameron employs it, it will knock your socks off. Then again, if you're in the hater camp, it won't really matter, because you guys will hate on it anyway.

[Lee Stewart]

'2001' VFX Wizard Douglas Trumbull to Direct New Feature Film

The movie will be in 3D and use higher frame rates, a process that James Cameron also has been touting.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...rumbull-176813

[Motorheadache]

So let me get this straight, because this is the one thing I care about regarding this whole frame-rate business. This will NOT make the movie look like that smooth-motion garbage that HDTV's have, correct? That would be awful beyond belief.

[Maxx_75]

There is a long slow pan at the begining of Sahara that plays horribly. To this day I don't know if it's my equipment or the Blu-ray cadence or what but it's choppy as all hell. This is what I would like see go away. Seems like what with all the work they must have done on that shot they would think about the frame rate.

Are you feeling me ?

[Elee s]

You'll see, when Cameron employs it, it will knock your socks off. Then again, if you're in the hater camp, it won't really matter, because you guys will hate on it anyway.

Ive already decided that Ill like the look for Avatar 2.
Its the Hobbit thats up in the air.

Its a fact that a higher framerate can make a great actor look melodramatic. Especially the ones that use alot of hand movement and facial expressions when they talk.

[high_rollin]

Its a fact that a higher framerate can make a great actor look melodramatic. Especially the ones that use alot of hand movement and facial expressions when they talk.

Hmm... guess actors will have to get better, eh? Darn, how terrible.

This is what I'm talking about. This is such a cop-out excuse for being against increasing the frame rate. There is no disadvantage to increasing the frame rate. I repeat: NO DISADVANTAGE! Just because it might (and I put a lot of emphasis on the word "might") reveal some actors' poor mannerisms a bit, it doesn't mean that the better technology is bad or even flawed in any way. Your problem is with the actors that you fear won't be good enough for 48 FPS. Don't re-direct those fears onto the technology. That's not sound logic by any means. It's like your back in 1927 and saying that movies shouldn't have sound because now actors' accents will give away that they aren't American. 1) Actors don't have to be American, and 2) Any actor that should actually deserve to be in films can do accents anyway. There's no problem with films having sound and there's no problem films being shot in 48 FPS. If an actor's mannerisms or expressions aren't working for 48 FPS, guess the director will have to tell him that, won't he? Oh geez, I guess even at 48 FPS, filmmakers still have to, y'know... WORK!

[Elee s]

Well you'll just have to hope its something that direction can fix.

[Lee Stewart]

Watching a high frame rate movie will need getting used to. No question, it will look different. And it will require more skills from the production team. Just like shooting in 3D.

But I can tell you from personal experience (I saw Showscan) that it is something to look forward to, not shunned. Using connect-the-dots thinking ( it's going to look like live HD) isn't correct. It won't.