Avatar 2 to be shot at 48fps

[Greylock Crescent]

Wasn't there an Aesop fable about a horse and a man? The theaters were willing enough to jump onto the latest 3D bandwagon to up prices and increase profits despite subpar presentations. I've no sympathy if they now need to upgrade their presentations just to obey the orders of Master Cameron.

 

[Klaus]

The 3D made my eyes water and the story made my head hurt... fps won't help one of those!

 

[Sagart]

Imagine if Cameron does this AND manages to write a decent script?

Then he'll have done it again.
One reason that Avatar - and Titanic, thank you very much - are the most successful films in history is that the stories and characters make sense to and connect with such a vast audience of all kinds of people.

Thanks. I needed that after a long, hard day.

 

[AvBaur]

I think movie theaters will be pretty angry for having to buy new projectors yet again.

They won't have to. Modern digital projectors are already capable of frame rates much higher than 60 fps. (as are most high-end digital film cameras)

Some interesting details on the technology: http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/

 

[Candlelight]

So this will mean twice as many reels, right?

HDCAM SR tapes, probably.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I would have thought increasing the frame rate would reduce headaches and eyestrain. Here's this about refresh rates:

For example, most movie projectors advance from one frame to the next one 24 times each second. But each frame is illuminated two or three times before the next frame is projected using a shutter in front of its lamp. As a result, the movie projector runs at 24 frames per second, but has a 48 or 72 Hz refresh rate.

For me to avoid nasty strobing effects on a CRT monitor, the refresh rate needs to be up quite high. 60Hz is so bad I can't even look at it. 72 starts to get better, but I typically need it at 80 or higher.

If I am reading this right, increasing to 48 fps might take movies out of the range that causes me eyestrain.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I'm actually pretty interested in how this will look. I personally can notice quite a difference in video games between 30 and 60 fps.

The reason it's more obvious in video games is the general lack of motion blur. A game looks terrible at 24fps because there's no blur to imply the motion inbetween the frames, but movies have a lot of motion blur, which is what gives that signature film look. A movie at 48fps will probably look like a movie does on a newer 120/240hz TV with whatever they call that fancy frame interpolation.
A film at 48fps will have a very different look to a film at 24fps. I know a lot of people turn off the smoothing feature on new TVs because they prefer the classic 24fps look, because that's what they're used to. It will be interesting to see how the majority feels about this when it comes out.

 

[Tiberius]

He said that Avatar 2 would be shot at 48 or 60 frames a second to reduce an effect called "strobing" that can blur moving images, particularly those in 3D.

Proof positive of what I've been saying since Avatar: Current 3D tech is inadequate and gimmicky. As currently presented, it has the potential to pull audiences out of the story. Let's hope the upgraded approach produces noticeably more realistic results.

And do you think that television of a decade ago was inadequate just because it wasn't HD?

Geez, just because a technology can be improved doesn't mean it is inadequate!

 

[JarodRussell]

The article also talks about going 60fps, futureproofing.

60fps, stereoscopic, and then probably even 4K resolution... man, they gotta find a replacement for blurays soon. Otherwise they won't be able to fit a standard James Cameron 3 hour movie on one disc.

 

[Alex1939]

What was wrong with Stephen Lang's performance?

Nothing was wrong with his performance but his character was as cartoon as you can get. But every character was as cartoon and one dimensional as you can get.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

What was wrong with Stephen Lang's performance?

Nothing was wrong with his performance but his character was as cartoon as you can get. But every character was as cartoon and one dimensional as you can get.

Exactly. The movie was nothing but FernGully with adult language and 3D. Pretty pathetic when you strip away all of the effects.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Exactly. The movie was nothing but FernGully with adult language and 3D. Pretty pathetic when you strip away all of the effects.

No.

People didn't make it the most successful movie in history because they aren't as perceptive as a few Internet "critics." Avatar will still be popular when everyone's forgotten the complaints.

 

[Alex1939]

One reason that Avatar - and Titanic, thank you very much - are the most successful films in history is that the stories and characters make sense to and connect with such a vast audience of all kinds of people.

A continuing theme with your opinion on movies seems to be that mass appeal is the most important criteria in determining a movie's worth.

Yawn.

 

[Alex1939]

No.

People didn't make it the most successful movie in history because they aren't as perceptive as a few Internet "critics." Avatar will still be popular when everyone's forgotten the complaints.

Wrong.

There will be complaints about this movie forever. People are unique individuals and there will always be people that see this movie as eye candy and little more.

IN fact, it probably has less chance to stand the test of time considering that eventually the effects will be dated, and then what's left?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Exactly. The movie was nothing but FernGully with adult language and 3D. Pretty pathetic when you strip away all of the effects.

No.

People didn't make it the most successful movie in history because they aren't as perceptive as a few Internet "critics." Avatar will still be popular when everyone's forgotten the complaints.

Oh please. As though I couldn't have come up with that opinion before I logged onto the Internet and saw what others were saying.

My whole family came to the same conclusion, completely independent of any Internet critics, thank you very much.

 

[JRoss]

What 3D craze?

 

[Kelso]

I can't wait to see what he comes up with. His talent for filmmaking is indisputable, despite the fanboy caterwauling.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hey, maybe between now and Avatar 2 someone will make a film that's more popular and successful than Avatar?

Probably not, though. Cameron will just have to do it, again.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Exactly. The movie was nothing but FernGully with adult language and 3D. Pretty pathetic when you strip away all of the effects.

No.

People didn't make it the most successful movie in history because they aren't as perceptive as a few Internet "critics." Avatar will still be popular when everyone's forgotten the complaints.

But not as memorable as the first two Terminator movies. Or be generation spanning like Star Wars.

 

[Yoda]

I don't care, as long as Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a super muscular chief of a Na'vi warrior tribe.

This idea has promise.

Twice the frame rate mean twice the shutter speed, right? Which means it'll look like shit. In my opinion of course. Didn't I read an article about that strobe effect from Saving Private Ryan that no one really likes because it's already way too over used just a few days ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpPnfEME02A

I hate it personally.

I'm going to guess that no, it won't look like that. It'll look great.

I'm not a camera geek, but if I understand what they're saying, the exposure time in that youtube video is 1 millisecond, and it's 50 frames per second, so each frame lasts 20 milliseconds. So 95 percent of real time is being 'skipped' in the frames whereas that motion would normally be 'blur' in an exposure that lasts 20ms. That's why it looks sharper and more choppy. If the shutter speed is set 'normally' I imagine motion might look less blurry, but not in a bad way, because you're not skipping any of the actual motion.

The reason it's more obvious in video games is the general lack of motion blur. A game looks terrible at 24fps because there's no blur to imply the motion inbetween the frames, but movies have a lot of motion blur, which is what gives that signature film look. A movie at 48fps will probably look like a movie does on a newer 120/240hz TV with whatever they call that fancy frame interpolation.
A film at 48fps will have a very different look to a film at 24fps. I know a lot of people turn off the smoothing feature on new TVs because they prefer the classic 24fps look, because that's what they're used to. It will be interesting to see how the majority feels about this when it comes out.

People turn off interpolation not because they have any love of 24fps, but because interpolated frames look unnatural. I doubt most people who hate interpolation will have any problem with real 48fps.