Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 75
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    4,641
    Default
    I don't think you really have any room to talk, considering that fps is not all there is to a cinematic look. And moreover, I think the point is to "re-imagine" the cinematic look in the first place.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Steadi-Guru mikkowilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    9,231
    Default
    I think a big part of the issue is how films look when they are shot with the restrictions of 24p.

    I think if you shoot with 24p's restrictions (like panning speeds, etc..), even at a higher frame rate; you are likly to stay closer to the "look" of "film", along with other key techniques like lighting.

    - Mikko
    Mikko Wilson
    Steadicam Owner / Operator - Juneau, Alaska, USA
    +1 (907) 321-8387 - mikkowilson@hotmail.com - www.mikkowilson.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Filmmaker's Mod
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    17,389
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by pulpfiction007 View Post
    Agreed 100% ..... But there are two arguments that keep getting brought up though that are just going in circles -(one side brought up... by Jackson and Cameron)

    24 fps - It's outdated, it's too slow, blah blah blah- I disagree completely, but agree higher fps will be esp. good for 3D, action, animation, action type sci fi

    48 or 60 fps - It looks like video or a soap opera, etc etc - Yes 60 can add to that look....but many of us haven't even seen what FILM shot in 3D and projected at 48fps looks like. I'm sure Jackson doesen't think his film will look anything like a soap opera...and he knows what he's doing. However....his style is not the next guy's style- and certain films are better left at 24.

    Why can't we just agree that not every film needs 48 or 60 fps and not every film should be shot at 24?


    and to what Finnegan said...yeah Cameron and others live in their own world ,which is good for creativity's sake and pushing for new tech, but it's like they think EVERYBODY wants to make films like they do. Not every director lives by tech, special effects and grand mind blowing visuals. Some live by nuances, beautiful lighting, and smooth flowing camera moves.
    So very with you on all points. I'm willing to bet that on a massive screen, the 48 does not look like a soap opera at all, and more engrossing for a 3D feature. I know of at least one person that was at James Camerons 48Fps screening and he said it looked incredible.

    I'm all for the push. About three years ago I had asked Barry Green how I could successfully mix 24 and 60P realtime on one timeline but it wasn't really plausible, looking forward to being able to experiment in the near future.
    Comet Color Page
    Allow me: fanboy of great images.



    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,507
    Default
    this is not about panning speed and restricitons,too many frames doesnt make motion to appear "Serious" like it is in movies with 24 frames,it reminds people of their VHS camcorder look and holiday videos ,we all saw behind the scenes videos,on movie sets with good lights and good acting,it looked fake and like behind the scenes video because of how motion is recorded and played back ,its very smooth,movies dont look like that,so i have very huge doubts about serious movie shot in 48p,i dont know if changing shutter speed is gonna save it from this camcorder motion feeling.

    Come on,Cameron said that avatar looks amazing but it looks like regular video game cinematics,Asassins creed cinematic sequences look more realistic at times than avatar.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Filmmaker's Mod
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    17,389
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by bwwd View Post
    this is not about panning speed and restricitons,too many frames doesnt make motion to appear "Serious" like it is in movies with 24 frames,it reminds people of their VHS camcorder look and holiday videos ,we all saw behind the scenes videos,on movie sets with good lights and good acting,it looked fake and like behind the scenes video because of how motion is recorded and played back ,its very smooth,movies dont look like that,so i have very huge doubts about serious movie shot in 48p,i dont know if changing shutter speed is gonna save it from this camcorder motion feeling.

    Come on,Cameron said that avatar looks amazing but it looks like regular video game cinematics,Asassins creed cinematic sequences look more realistic at times than avatar.

    Please step back two pages or so and read what I said about video game cutscenes. They're typically at higher frame rates...

    Every cutscene in final fantasy 13 and God of War 3 is at 30fps. That's why they look so good.

    It's not a matter of panning etc. It's a matter of perception: the higher the Fps for certain content the more realistic or believable it is. So again, Pirates non-3D at 48 is probably going to be laughable, but in 3D that changes things. Likewise, an all cgi movie from pixar can probably benefit in a massive way by higher Fps just like video games do.

    But I guess some people will have to fight it until they actually see it with their own eyes. Natural.
    Comet Color Page
    Allow me: fanboy of great images.



    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    657
    Default
    Avatar 2 will surely look fantastic, but I wonder how late in the game this was a final actual decision on Hobbit.

    Just imagine the entire scene with Gandaf riding through the Shire in 48p. Isn't Middle-Earth, if any place, where every extra pinch of not-looking-like-a-documentary is benifitial? Oh well, I guess I'm naive...

    Last edited by ICD Films; 04-13-2011 at 11:42 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Filmmaker's Mod
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    17,389
    Default
    Imagine that it does look like a documentary but 60ft large and you have on 3D glasses.

    It's also already been said that they can easily distro a 24P version for traditional viewing. Doesn't seen like many are paying attention to the fact that there's an off switch.
    Comet Color Page
    Allow me: fanboy of great images.



    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,507
    Default
    So it will be 48p and shutter 180 degree 1/48 shutter speed ? I want to see it ,why they didnt show even a second of dailies


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Filmmaker's Mod
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    17,389
    Default
    You can still shoot 180 degree shutter at 1/48 and the motion should look similar, but just smoother. That's what I gather.

    I wouldn't show dailies, either, honestly. People will understand when it's time for them to do so.

    Again, though, they're not saying this is the end all. It's just another way.
    Comet Color Page
    Allow me: fanboy of great images.



    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Senior Member rsbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    635
    Default
    What I'm interested to see is how 48fps affects the actors' believability. It's my perception that the slightly unnatural motion rendering of 24fps aides in the believability of the actors' performance. It's one of the problems actors on soaps face, the more "real" the motion rendering is, the less forgiving it is toward the performance.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •