View Single Post
Old March 3 2012, 04:05 PM   #18
Location: New York City

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
^ Why would we need to do that? 3D is a gimmick; HD is not.

Not everyone has, or wants, 3D.
Okay what about higher framerates?

Douglass Trumbull says:
"I'm shooting films right now at 120fps in 3D and I know that the result is absolutely stunning
Trumbull says in the interview he's pushing speeds of up to 120FPS. Why not higher? "I don't see right now any visible advantage to go even higher than 120 frames, I think that's about as much as the human eye can absorb."
TVs already running at higher framerates than 24FPS, but the sports world is already broadcasting at 60FPS.
as well as some documentaries. Part of the video-look that looks like you are looking through a window.
Most have probably had the "realistic" video experience at some point, maybe even on their home 120Hz TVs, but the jump from 24 to 48 was astounding. However, it was 60FPS that really made the scenes feel completely and utterly realistic
the strobing/flickering affect so prevalent in 3D virtually disappears at 60 fps.
[James] Cameron confirmed that in order for theaters to be able to use/show 48 or 60FPS, all they would need is a software upgrade to any existing "Generation 2" projectors - those manufacturer in 2010 and beyond. So most digital cinemas are already capable of running these framrates, it's just a matter of making them the norm. Cameron emphasized that the future of projection is not yet pushing the resolution above and beyond 4K, but rather improving framerates and light output first.
As Cameron explained at one point, if watching 3D in cinemas is like looking through a window - making the jump to 60FPS was removing that window. And that was true and in cinema, not many have been able to see that yet. Just wait until you actually get that opportunity - your jaw will drop as well.
If Trek shoots the next series pilot at 60fps it will be cutting edge for future releases.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote