Raistlin said:I can't wait to see how much higher resolution everything looks as a result.
Fuck it - he should shoot in 8K too
Makes you wonder if hell re-render the first movie to match the sequels (hell, he should take the opportunity to render the Hallucinogenic trip scene)Solo said:The thought that A2 is going to make A1, which is currently the technological pinnacle, look outdated as fuck, is completely mindblowing.
Scullibundo said:Just quietly, shooting at a higher framerate and at a resolution of 4K+, whilst shooting two pictures back to back and this is going to be one fuck off expensive project for FOX. I do think that this time revealing the production budget will work in their favour marketing wise.
jett said:Do people have me on ignore or something? He's not going to shoot A2 at 4K because he wouldn't able to show the movie anywhere.
Scullibundo said:Just quietly, shooting at a higher framerate and at a resolution of 4K+, whilst shooting two pictures back to back and this is going to be one fuck off expensive project for FOX. I do think that this time revealing the production budget will work in their favour marketing wise.
Qwomo said:Movies higher than 24/25 frames per second look absolutely fucking atrocious.
jett said:Do people have me on ignore or something?
Solo said:FROM THE DIRECTOR OF
THE TERMINATOR
ALIENS
THE ABYSS
T2
TRUE LIES
12 YEAR HOLDER OF THE TITLE HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL-TIME -TITANIC
AND
THE HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL-TIME - AVATAR
COMES
THE MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE OF ALL TIME
ABADAH 2: I'LL BE BACK TO SEE YOU
Scullibundo said:Sorry jett, didn't see your post before I posted. Slipped my mind that 48fps footage was maxed at 2k.
Solo said:I see you, ma'jett.
lolol all streaming futureI NEED SCISSORS said:We're really going to need those bigger BR discs soon.
48fps + 3D + 4k resolution (eventually) + uncompressed surround sound = nightmare for 50gb whilst still upholding the quality we've come to expect.
Dead said:lolol all streaming future
Dead said:lolol all streaming future
Not sure. I know in the past he stated he'd rather do 2K/48Hz than 4K/24Hz.Dead said:I hope he shoots in 4K at least
Isn't The Hobbit being shot in 4K since that RED EPIC camera can shoot up to 5K?
So you would imagine that James Cameron, who adores whizzy new imaging technology like no one else on earth, would be all over 4K.
Ah, actually not. Towards the end of this interview in Variety, Cameron says that, 4K is a concept born in fear [....] I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second. (Todays film standard of 24 frames per second has trouble showing fast motion smoothly.)
AlternativeUlster said:Anything above 24 looks fake to me. I also can't really see 3D either and when I do try to watch it, it gives me a migraine. I guess I will never see Avatar Part Deux.
forgot piranha 2Solo said:FROM THE DIRECTOR OF
THE TERMINATOR
ALIENS
THE ABYSS
T2
TRUE LIES
12 YEAR HOLDER OF THE TITLE HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL-TIME -TITANIC
AND
THE HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL-TIME - AVATAR
COMES
THE MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE OF ALL TIME
ABADAH 2: I'LL BE BACK TO SEE YOU
The Avatar 2 release might do 48 fps in 3d mode on imax screens and then a 24 fps downconversion on standard theater screens so it doesnt look 'weird.'AlternativeUlster said:Anything above 24 looks fake to me. I also can't really see 3D either and when I do try to watch it, it gives me a migraine. I guess I will never see Avatar Part Deux.
Scullibundo said:See, now this is irony.
Qwomo said:I don't give a rat's ass about Cameron or what he can do, I don't suck his dick nor do I hate him, I just know for a fact that movies or television not within the 24/25 fps range look distinctly worse. I even have problems with some games because the FPS is too high. Like others said, it looks terrible, cheap, and soap opera-y.
It's not just the size, the transfer rate isn't remotely high enough for that.I NEED SCISSORS said:We're really going to need those bigger BR discs soon.
48fps + 3D + 4k resolution (eventually) + uncompressed surround sound = nightmare for 50gb whilst still upholding the quality we've come to expect.
Real life must fuck your brainAlternativeUlster said:Anything above 24 looks fake to me.
AlternativeUlster said:Huh?
That's the first thing I turn off whenever I set up a new television. To me it feels like the people on screen are gliding about and move too quickly.MedHead said:A coworker recently purchased a TV that interpolated frames to give it the look of a higher frame rate, and after seeing the setting in action, I left the house very jealous and wanting to have that framerate on every movie. Higher framerates are better.
Scotch said:That's the first thing I turn off whenever I set up a new television. To me it feels like the people on screen are gliding about and move too quickly.
I'm interested in seeing a movie shot from the ground up with a higher framerate in mind though. Too bad it's Avaturd 2.
If the sets are cheaply made maybeNappuccino said:My problem is that everything looks detached and fake... like the sets suddenly are obviously sets etc.
Raistlin said:Real life must fuck your brain
Scullibundo said:One of the main points of upping the frame rates is to eliminate the strobe shit from 3D that causes migraines, yet this solution to the problem is simaltaneously one of the reasons you also wont go see A2.
Dead said:If the sets are cheaply made maybe
AlternativeUlster said:Oh, I don't mind strobes and many instant flashes of color. I watched this for an hour straight last week (best part of the movie perhaps, haha): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0lNGXoP8E. I used to have a lazy eye when I was a child, had to wear a patch for 2 years to cure it, and I could never also ever see those Magic Eye things. I rarely ever watch sequels to movies that I didn't like in the first place. I have sadly seen all the Meet the Parents movies all due to 3 different girls I dated at the time wanting to go see them and I despise every single one of them. So yes, I might go see Avatar 2 if my girlfriend begs me to go see it but everytime she makes me watch a film I have absolutely no interest in, I get to make her watch something like one of the Cremaster films.
Thats what I though as well, but I think at most there would be an 80/20 or 70/30 3D split since people being unable to see 3D is well documented at this point.jett said:You could bust out the ol' eyepatch for A2, you won't be bothered by the 3Dness. By 2013 I wonder if they will even bother to release the thing in regular 2D screens.
Sorry had to change it upSolo said:
Negligible.Chinner said:im a scrub, can someone explain to me the difference this will make?
Yes, I understand that. Considering how much I liked the fake version, I can't wait to see the real version of 60 FPS.Dead said:A movie natively shot in a faster frame rate will look MUCH better though, since that motion interpolation thing is basically making up frames that dont exist
Awesome. Unfortunately, I can't afford a television at that price--actually, I can't afford any new television.Shogmaster said:Umm... Just about every new TV does inter-frame interpolation now days. I think anything over $1000 throws that in there.
Pachinko said:To all those bitching about 48 fps, you do realize there doesn't exist a professionally shot film that any of you have seen running at 2K resolution in a theatre right?
What I and many others have bore witness to is the craptacular 120hz smooth vision bullshit on most tv's released in the last few years. It does look like crap because it's taking something shot at 24 fps and interpolating frame data which makes for a bizzare effect.
Videogames too, although many run at 60fps too few games build their assets around that framerate , instead having shoddy lighting , low poly models or special effects and shadows running at different framerates and resolutions then the game engine is. The few gaming experiences out there that DO run at 60 fps (basically a high end pc game) look fan freaking tastic , so I fully expect that a 200 million dollar film from hollywood created with this camera will completely floor me , not to mention that the higher framerate should make 3d a bit easier on the eyes for most.
What I wonder is how many theatres will bite on new projectors with many of them taking a bath on too many 3d projectors...