• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

James Cameron Wants to Blow Your Mind With 60 Frames Per Second

Status
Not open for further replies.
iNvid02

iNvid02

Member
Shooting in 3-D might get you an occasional holy-crap moment, but if you really want to blow an audience’s mind, increase your frame rate.
Movies shot and projected faster than the standard 24 frames per second—at, say, 48 or 60 fps—have startling clarity and emotional impact.
Even better, the strobing you sometimes get with 3-D (filmmakers call it the judders) vanishes at 48 fps and up.

Who cares? Peter Jackson and James Cameron. Jackson is shooting The Hobbit in 3-D at 48 fps with high-end digital cameras—no more film for him.
And Cameron is leaning toward 60 fps for his Avatar sequels. Cameron says that when he screened test footage for theater owners, “you could literally
hear a gasp from the audience when they were shown the difference between 24-frame and 48 frames. And they liked 60 frames even better.”

The irony is that filmmakers have known about the technique for decades. Visual-effects titan Douglas Trumbull wanted to use 60 fps for his 1983 film,
Brainstorm, and invented a projection technology he called Showscan. “I got very hooked on this whole idea of immersive cinema,” Trumbull says.
“We saw a profoundly different kind of experience happening at up around 60 frames.”

But studios and theaters snubbed the pricey Showscan gear. Trumbull was so bummed that he left Hollywood for Massachusetts. Cameron thinks the world
is finally ready. “Doug had the right idea,” he says. “It was just premature brilliance.” Sometimes the industry judders.
Click to expand...

article

i dunno, i dont want movies to look like they're filmed on a home video camera which higher framerates always tend to do
just so accustomed to 24fps movie feel it would be strange switching, they'll prob figure something out though
 
When's he going to blow our minds with a good script? [/snark]
 
Wait, aren't movies filmed at 24fps for a reason? Doesn't anything above look really bad and plain, like a home video? Who wants that shit?
 
Home camera footage is shaky, which makes the 60 fps uncomfortably noticeable.

Professional stabilizing equipment for cameras and a multimillion-dollar CG budget ought to fix most of the issues with 60 fps. I don't know if I would like to see something like The Bourne Supremacy in 60 fps though.
 
So. As someone who doesn't really know shit about movie magic. Would that double the cost of every special effect shot, since now you would have double the frames to go back and add CGI to? If so, Avatar 2 is going to be fucking expensive.

perfectnight said:
Hey James try making a good movie. That would blow my mind.
Click to expand...

Is the Avatar hate getting so strong that we are now pretending Cameron has never made awesome movies?
 
Dan said:
When's he going to blow our minds with a good script? [/snark]
Click to expand...

omg_medium.gif
 
I love 60 fps, but I've never been fond of live action footage at this framerate. There's something about it that looks off. Perhaps it's just the fact that we're used to 24 fps, but a film at 60 fps looks like pre-production footage to me. :\
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
So. As someone who doesn't really know shit about movie magic. Would that double the cost of every special effect shot, since now you would have double the frames to go back and add CGI to? If so, Avatar 2 is going to be fucking expensive.
Click to expand...

no, it will increase render times, but the bulk of effects budgets are the man hours taking to design/construct and animate. Those times wont change.
 
Ithil said:
Oh for the love of god.
Click to expand...

What?


dark10x said:
I love 60 fps, but I've never been fond of live action footage at this framerate. There's something about it that looks off. Perhaps it's just the fact that we're used to 24 fps, but a film at 60 fps looks like pre-production footage to me. :\
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. It looks terrible.
 
perfectnight said:
Hey James try making a good movie. That would blow my mind.
Click to expand...

sho funny

as for 60fps looking like home movies, thats a result of you growing up with 24 fps blockbusters. if you had 60fps movies since birth youd find it to be a cinematic experience. public enemies, collateral, and miami vice were all fine by me, i prefer smoother movies.
 
I don't know if I like the idea of Cameron shooting for 60fps movies. He tends to do a lot of action sequences, and you just know the frame rate will dip during them due to all of that crazy Avatar scenery going on in the backgrounds.
 
dark10x said:
I love 60 fps, but I've never been fond of live action footage at this framerate. There's something about it that looks off. Perhaps it's just the fact that we're used to 24 fps, but a film at 60 fps looks like pre-production footage to me. :\
Click to expand...

I feel the same, there are some research papers done on why 24fps has a certain effect with us, something about how the jutter of it is now associated with quality and professionalism.
 
dark10x said:
I love 60 fps, but I've never been fond of live action footage at this framerate. There's something about it that looks off. Perhaps it's just the fact that we're used to 24 fps, but a film at 60 fps looks like pre-production footage to me. :\
Click to expand...

Well, we really haven't seen 60 fps films; stuff like soap operas use markedly inferior cameras and are, obviously, hamstrung by their tiny budgets for everything.
 
I don't particularly subscribe to notion that Avatar, Titanic, Terminator series, True Abyss, etc were good movies.

Entertaining? When I was young, sure.
 
Pagusas said:
I feel the same, there are some research papers done on why 24fps has a certain effect with us, something about how the jutter of it is now associated with quality and professionalism.
Click to expand...

Does it have to do with the actual 24fps, or the fact that it was the standard that was accepted and deemed cinematic (high quality) for all these years.

I think the Hobbit will look good, and people are connecting soap operas with 60fps, hence linking the quality of the content?
 
I'm not even sure why this thread was posted..the article and news within it are beyond old. Then the op posts what could very well be a comment to stir the pot if shitty ignorance. I'm assuming troll thread.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
So. As someone who doesn't really know shit about movie magic. Would that double the cost of every special effect shot, since now you would have double the frames to go back and add CGI to? If so, Avatar 2 is going to be fucking expensive.



Is the Avatar hate getting so strong that we are now pretending Cameron has never made awesome movies?
Click to expand...

avatar was a fantastic movie and the highest grossing movie of all time! hip hip hooray!

seriously, the backlash was because it did so well. if it did merely 500 million at the box office or whatever and didnt past the dark knight some folks here wouldnt have such disdain for it
 
ive never seen Avatar but when i was at a department store they were playing it on the demos. i couldnt believe how bad it looked. At first i thought it was a TV show like Reboot or maybe a Tide detergent commercial. Looked awful.

im not talking about the quality of the movie but the shooting technique since i still havent seen the movie. Unfortunately i made the mistake of seeing Book of Eli instead of Avatar in theaters. Worst decision of that year.
 
perfectnight said:
Ridley Scott's Alien was superior and still amazing.
Click to expand...

And? Does that mean Aliens isn't still fuck awesome?

-COOLIO- said:
seriously the backlash was because it did so well. if it did merely 500 million at the box office or whatever and didnt past the dark knight some folks here wouldnt have such disdain for it
Click to expand...

Of course. And if it would have bombed this thread would be filled with people clamoring on about how under rated it is.
 
-COOLIO- said:
avatar was a fantastic movie and the highest grossing movie of all time! hip hip hooray!

seriously the backlash was because it did so well. if it did merely 500 million at the box office or whatever and didnt past the dark knight some folks here wouldnt have such disdain for it
Click to expand...
People wouldn't give two shits about Avatar if it wasn't so expensive and didn't make so much money.. your argument can go both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

James Cameron actually wrote Point Break
30
1K
jason10mm replied
Japan breaks internet speed record with mind-blowing 1.02 petabits per second
40
4K
EverydayBeast replied
Saul Goodman wants you to know your rights!
7
166
Go_Ly_Dow replied
James Cameron Speaks On Killing Off Central Characters in Alien 3
2
60
1K
CashPrizes replied
THR Director Roundtable: James Cameron, Ryan Coogler, Kathryn Bigelow, Yorgos Lanthimos + more
15
593
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom