AtomicShroom
Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Because soap operas don't shoot on film.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cameron champions higher frame rates at CinemaCon presentation. Shooting A2 at 48fps+
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Because soap operas don't shoot on film.
Nappuccino
Member
This isn't in reference to me is it?Dead said:
Just for anyone wondering the set we have at home was one of the new model sony Bravia's (I guess it was techincally an '11 model even though we got it last year?)
I can't get the numbers for you though, as I'm at college and I have no idea which tv my dad actually picked out.
Nappuccino
Member
Alright, coolSolo said:
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
Raistlin said:
I've always wondered, couldn't they just use two HDMI connections simultaneously (one per image per eye)? They used to split the cables into dedicated ones back in the days of composite/component, so I don't see why they can't again.
AbsoluteZero
Banned
And my wait to buy a HDTV continues.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Dan said:
Because he's trying to make the viewing experience more visceral? He's still telling a story and incorporating every other facet that makes the medium what it is. Trying to heighten the level of engagement with the world the characters and events inhabit doesn't automatically turn it into a ride. Yes he is obviously channeling the escapist avenue of cinema, but to suggest that these technological progressions will ruin what film is about is to sound like every narrow-minded patron opposed to change ever since the films that followed The Jazz Singer.
a Master Ninja
Member
I long for the day of action movies filmed in 60fps.
Pretty much.jett said:
Camerons thing is that he wants Theater Projection to be so far ahead of what you can get at home that it keeps audiences in theater seats, rather than settling for video, vod, etc. I guarantee that "can an HDTV do this?" is the absolutely last thing on Camerons mind when it comes to how he wants to make a movie.
At least faster framerates is less offensive than 3D, for which I don't feel like repeating my argument about how it absolutely flies in the face of film's power and basic foundations. The Jazz Singer added something to cinema, these recent 'innovations' diminish fundamental traits of cinema while providing more "visceral" eye-candy for slack-jawed audiences.Scullibundo said:
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
alr1ghtstart said:
Both look like butt.
Sure they could, but you'd need to get everyone on board. You'd need TV's and BD players to support it. Then there's ancillary gear like video processors, switches, etc. BD players would also need a dedicated HDMI audio out as well, otherwise receivers and pre/pro's would need to support this too. That is, if you want this to gain any traction.I NEED SCISSORS said:
I should note, Mitsubishi actually used to do dual DVI for 3D. Same with some PC monitors in support of nVidia's 3D.
No, it means his brain realizes how artificial a slide show looks versus reality.Dan said:
Dead said:
I don't understand the concern here other than the current 24hz owners.
For most of the planet who still only have 30/60hz capable TV's, it was always showing 24+6 frames per second for movies with the 6 being repeats of some frames of the 24 with 2-3 or 3-2 pulldown. Now we will see 48+12 with 12 frames being repeats of the 48 but all of that will be happening per second so we will notice the judder less because of the speed of the frame changes being doubled, and you will still see 48 frames of different information in your eyeball each second.
So either way, it's a win/win to double the framerate of movies overall. Sorry for people with current 120hz TV's as they will have to go back to seeing that 2-3 or 3-2 pulldown, but you will still get 48 different frames of info each second which will help the movies look more realistic and help to see the really fast action much better than we currently can.
Something Wicked
Member
The humans return, launch nukes from space, and glass that dumpy planet for the sake of revenge. The end.
That's the only way that movie can be somewhat enjoyable regardless of the frame rate.
That's the only way that movie can be somewhat enjoyable regardless of the frame rate.
alr1ghtstart said:
Dead said:
For everyone whining about this and it's impact on the home ... current BD has the capability to do 1080p48. There are some about a bit lower IQ in intense bit-rate scenes, but the same can be said about 3D.
The only thing that wouldn't be possible currently is 1080p48 in 3D.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Cameron has always taken ques from soap operas, from bad acting to horrible writing. Sounds like he's simply coming full circle now
No - well not necessarily.Dead said:
What I'm talking about is the max sustainable bitrates the BD spec affords (well, there is also burst bitrate which is tied to buffer memory, but let's not complicate things). This maximum is directly tied to how fast data can be read from the disc.
If you double the framerate, you're doubling the data that must be read from the disc. That means more vigorous compression may be necessary in complex scenes, yielding artifacts. A very similar problem exists for BD3D. I'm actually kind of pissed they didn't increase the bit rate max when they brought out new players - it was the perfect time.
Count Dookkake
Member
Remember when Avatar was gonna be a bomb?
That was awesome.
That was awesome.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Dan said:
So long as you're not talking about faster frame rates, then you can continue with your whinging toward 3D.
purnoman3000
Member
I'm all for this but doesn't that mean double the cost for CG production/post-production or at least a substantial increase in cost while doubling processing time.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Avatar is the top grossing movie of all time---I think he has a good grasp on making films.PhoenixDark said:
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The only real REASON to switch to 48 is related to the move toward 3D, though. 24 works just fine in cinema as it stands today and has for decades. Somebody noted that they thought the film looked more artificial when they turned off the interpolation on their TV, but art IS artifice; it can never be reality, no matter how hard it tries. The fact that it looked more artificial is not at all a bad thing. Indeed, making film more "visceral" and "engaging" can be a codeword for "spoonfeeding the audiences everything instead of making them do a bit of work." This is not like the switch to sound or the switch to color, which were incremental changes on the same basic idea. This is a change to the fundamental foundations of cinema, and I don't think that it's being done for reasons that are at all artistic, merely commercial.
Edit: PD: T1/T2 and Aliens prove that Cameron can be an excellent, non-soap opera director. Maybe not anymore, but once upon a time.
Edit: PD: T1/T2 and Aliens prove that Cameron can be an excellent, non-soap opera director. Maybe not anymore, but once upon a time.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Qwomo said:
No, they look glorious. 60FPS should be standard. You've just got 24fps stockholm syndrome because the movie industry has been sticking its dick down your throat for the last 80 years.
Nappuccino
Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
While i agree with your conclusion (Cameron isn't trying to make art) i have a hard time buying the rest of it. Reality can be art, its all about how its framed... I mean, some of the most strikingly moving images are photographs of real-world situations and experiences.
Saying that Cameron isn't making art is pretty much pure bullshit. Everyone has their own idea of what art is or isn't, but blanket statements like that are rubbish.
Hes in it to make the films that he wants to make, in the way that he want to make them. He isn't following trends in order to capitalize on others successes. Hes the one taking the risks and creating the trends all for the sake of making the kind of art that he loves.
Hes in it to make the films that he wants to make, in the way that he want to make them. He isn't following trends in order to capitalize on others successes. Hes the one taking the risks and creating the trends all for the sake of making the kind of art that he loves.
bggrthnjsus
Member
i hated the whole look of public enemies, it felt like i was watching a reality tv show rather than a movie. i think that was shot at either 30 or 60fps (?)Spire said:
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Nappuccino said:
But it's not the reality that's the art; it's the artifice: the framing, the choice of subject, the imagined implication of the before and after. Art is a verb, not a noun; it is the act of communication, with everything else being a technique or a route there.
Edit: Seriously, how does making movies look "smoother" improve the art at all? What is wrong, artistically, with 24 FPS?
The comments claiming that we are effectively at the end of innovation in film make me chuckle. Those comments sound more to me like nostalgia for one's childhood over passion about film. Film started with no audio; would it be right for people to expect that style of filmmaking to remain forever? When sound was added, was art diminished? What about the move to color, or higher-quality audio, or widescreen presentations--did we lose more than we gained in those transitions?
You're the one saying art is the act of communication.Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
3D, framerates, etc, all of these things are being done in order to affect how movies communicate with audiences.
Whats wrong with 24FPS?
really?
May as well ask whats wrong with Mono
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
MedHead said:
I don't think that we're at the end of innovation, just that 3D is not an innovation so much as a commercializing gimmick and that 48 FPS doesn't really add anything, at least as it's been used thus far in its existence.
Any innovation has the potential to be used artistically, but most of the time, it ends up just being "there."
Dead said:
3D and framerates are NOT being done to improve the way that the artwork communicates with the audience (though I can at least see an argument for framerates, whereas 3D really hasn't proven itself as anything more than commercial tool to get people in movie theaters).
As for 24 FPS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8MqjoFvy4
Please, explain to me how that would improve the art of that shot.
Higher frame rates, stereo... there's nothing inherently wrong with any of these things, but 99.99% of the time they're used as gimmicks to spoonfeed information to the audience or to "immerse" them at the cost of intellectual engagement. I'm against innovation when the only justifications for the innovation are terms of escapism.
Squirrel Killer
Member
I don't wade in to these discussions much, so forgive me if this has already been hashed out a thousand time before...Ferrio said:
Is it really the frame rate that makes it look "cheap?" I can tell a soap opera from a still shot just by the lighting, DOF, and set design.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I do hope something like this becomes standard. When Cameron sets his mind to something, he doesn't fuck around. He helps establish technological trends in Hollywood, such as CGI and 3D. He is not the first to use these techniques, but he is usually the first person to come along and show people how it is properly done. The problem is then that many of the lesser talents latch onto it and run it into the ground. Just look at the glut of bad CGI and 3D we got after Cameron came along to show children new toys. It is not his fault that he can do it better than everyone else.
I am glad that Cameron is using his clout to push theater (not home theater) technology forward. He pushed for 3D adoption in theaters and got it. (Of course, now studios ruined that). Now he wants to push for higher framerates in theaters. Good.
He has also said he wants to push for exact standards that theaters must meet for light output on their projectors. God be with him on that.
And with everyone coming in here with the Cameron hate: you can criticize him all you want on his screenwriting. His early scripts were incredibly tight and well made. His recent efforts are good but do have issues. But the one area that Cameron is beyond criticism is in his technical prowess and ability to stage action. The man is able to make incredibly massive action scenes that are easy to follow and see everything. Whether or not you care about the why or what is happening on screen will be determined by how much you like his script, but Cameron's visual prowess in the action realm is without equal.
I am glad that Cameron is using his clout to push theater (not home theater) technology forward. He pushed for 3D adoption in theaters and got it. (Of course, now studios ruined that). Now he wants to push for higher framerates in theaters. Good.
He has also said he wants to push for exact standards that theaters must meet for light output on their projectors. God be with him on that.
And with everyone coming in here with the Cameron hate: you can criticize him all you want on his screenwriting. His early scripts were incredibly tight and well made. His recent efforts are good but do have issues. But the one area that Cameron is beyond criticism is in his technical prowess and ability to stage action. The man is able to make incredibly massive action scenes that are easy to follow and see everything. Whether or not you care about the why or what is happening on screen will be determined by how much you like his script, but Cameron's visual prowess in the action realm is without equal.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I would never detract from Cameron's ability to stage action, but nothing like that can exist in a vacuum; Avatar's action scenes were impeccably staged, but like the rest of the movie, the beats were pretty familiar. Without the advantage of a good script - and "like" has nothing to do with it, as Avatar's script is just plain bad by any sort of critical metric - the ability to stage action well becomes kinda meaningless.
- Status