Avatar 2 to be shot at 48fps

[BlobVanDam]

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.

I hear most people say it's because they prefer the film look, although maybe it's because of the fact interpolation isn't going to look the same as true 48fps. After all, real life is much higher framerate than 48fps, so maybe you're right. Won't know for sure until they try it, I suppose.

 

[Yoda]

Now that I think about it, NFL games on Fox and ESPN at least are probably broadcast at 60fps. The motion looks great, nobody complains. Heck, most people don't complain when you take a 4:3 source and stretch it to 16:9 either. Did I mention people are stupid?

I think maybe you'll have some weirdo purists who will complain about 48fps if/when it catches on. Kind of like the people who think that the only way to listen to music is on vinyl.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Some people will get headaches, no doubt. C'est la guerre.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think maybe you'll have some weirdo purists who will complain about 48fps if/when it catches on. Kind of like the people who think that the only way to listen to music is on vinyl.

Except the vinyl purists are not "weirdos". The debate between analog and digital reproduction of sound is based on scientific principles on both sides. Furthermore, since the introduction of CDs into the marketplace, audiophiles' criticisms of them have spurred improvements in the technology used to engineer them.

 

[Yoda]

I think maybe you'll have some weirdo purists who will complain about 48fps if/when it catches on. Kind of like the people who think that the only way to listen to music is on vinyl.

Except the vinyl purists are not "weirdos".
The debate between analog and digital reproduction of sound is based on scientific principles on both sides.

They are weirdos. They don't use science any more than the "I ain't come from no monkey derpderp" side of the evolution "debate". Also equating vinyl vs CD to analog vs digital is dishonest as it conveniently strips away the particular strengths and weaknesses of the formats I'm talking about. That is, vinyl isn't even a particularly good analog recording medium...

Furthermore, since the introduction of CDs into the marketplace, audiophiles' criticisms of them have spurred improvements in the technology used to engineer them.

They spurred improvements? Or maybe new technology improves all the time. Vinyl-tards complaining about how CDs aren't "warm" haven't improved anything.

Also, there you go again, conflating vinyl purists with audiophiles. As if nobody who is "serious" about their music prefers CDs

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It appears that you have distorted my position, and are attempting to counter it with straw man arguments.

In any case, perhaps it would be best for us to get back on topic.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Yes! Let's get back to the discussion that reflexively concludes that if a technology exists, it must, therefore, be adequate. I mean, just think of how many Jaws 3D-like films we've missed out on during the past 25+ years. Because clearly 3D is inherently better. We've been robbed ... robbed I say! ... of the opportunity to enjoy countless 3D theater experiences, lo these many years. That movie provided 3D tech, man! And, obviously, any version of 3D is better than crappy old 2D any day. To say nothing of the fact that ... clearly ... just because Cameron's version of 3D is newer it must, necessarily, be completely adequate -- even thought the older 3D was adequate because, you know, as long as as long as we call it "3D" that's all that matters -- and even though it clearly ... clearly ... needs improvement (which is the whole point of maestro Cameron's latest innovation), the 2009 iteration was already perfectly adequate and, really, in no need of improvement.

Yes, let's get back to that discussion. I just can't wait.

 

[Yoda]

3D technology, as is, can be argued against in a reasonable fashion. I have no problem with anyone who wants to see a 2D movie, or keep their Blu-ray player in 2D mode or whatever. The glasses are a hassle... the stereoscopic effect isn't perfectly natural... I get it. But LPs over CDs, VHS tapes over DVDs, black and white television over color, 24fps over 48fps.... Those are all noticeable upgrades with little to no drawback, rejection of them all comes from the same place, "I'm used to things the way they were NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!"

 

[Alex1939]

rejection of them all comes from the same place, "I'm used to things the way they were NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!"

Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

3D technology, as is, can be argued against in a reasonable fashion.

To no good end, because it's delivering for the studios.

 

[Yoda]

Yeah, but the studios can never stop you from wearing an eyepatch

 

[Hyperspace05]

3D technology, as is, can be argued against in a reasonable fashion. I have no problem with anyone who wants to see a 2D movie, or keep their Blu-ray player in 2D mode or whatever. The glasses are a hassle... the stereoscopic effect isn't perfectly natural... I get it. But LPs over CDs, VHS tapes over DVDs, black and white television over color, 24fps over 48fps.... Those are all noticeable upgrades with little to no drawback, rejection of them all comes from the same place, "I'm used to things the way they were NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!"

INDEED.... BTW on this topic, FirstShowing.net has a pretty decent article/blog post about the Cameron presentation of 48 fps and 60 fps content here:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/

 

[JarodRussell]

Some people will get headaches, no doubt. C'est la guerre.