James Cameron on 24 fps cinema

HMR

Member
He is ready to move beyond 24 fps. says that it is outdated and plans to shoot his next feature at a higher frame rate.
from LA Times :
To demonstrate the difference a higher frame rate can make in the quality of picture, the filmmaker presented footage shot and projected in all three frame rates -- 24, 48 and 60 -- back to back. True to character, Cameron went to great lengths to create the presentation, saying that over the last five weeks he built a set, hired actors and rented costumes to create a handful of scenes set in medieval times that he could show the audience.
He used a number of cinematic techniques in the footage to illuminate what he called the gravity of the gap between, say, 24 and 48 frames. One scene set at a dinner table included a number of panning shots, so the crowd could see how a 24 fps shot caused the image to "strobe" -- which is when an image looks blurry, almost as if it is appearing in slow motion, seeming out of sync.
While even the filmmaker admitted that he was only able to notice a slight difference between a 48 fps and 60 fps, the audience audibly reacted to the increase in quality between 24 fps and 48 fps. The footage shown at 48 fps was far clearer and also had a much more realistic tone to it. That might be an issue for some filmmakers, Cameron acknowledged.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/03/james-cameron-champions-faster-film-projection-rates.html

Now that we finally have 24p available for our GH2, are we ready to move on?
 
If you born today and only watch 48+ FPS, then 24 strobe is "out of sync". Personally, I like the 24 artistic look, away from News TV look.
Just don't forget that James Cameron is a "digital" guy :) Maybe Steven Spielberg opinion is different.

Ulisses
 
Yeah,,, he says "That might be an issue for some filmmakers,..."

And, what if i don´t wat "more realism" in film... he is a activist of the capital, industry, market nd political messages of "good people/bad people"
 
When ever I show my home movies to people on my 100" screen with an Epson 1080p projector they ALL (with out question) prefer the films shot at 50fps 720p compared to 25fps 1080i/p. I'm talking aunts, uncles, sisters, mothers, cousins nephews and nieces. It isn't just Cameron.
Cheers
Paul
 
Well...yeah....home movies are what I would expect at those frame rates. But cinematic films...no. 3D might work however.
 
Well...yeah....home movies are what I would expect at those frame rates. But cinematic films...no. 3D might work however.

They just all think they "seem" more HD....... i think this is what more people seem to expect.
Cheers
Paul
 
When ever I show my home movies to people on my 100" screen with an Epson 1080p projector they ALL (with out question) prefer the films shot at 50fps 720p compared to 25fps 1080i/p. I'm talking aunts, uncles, sisters, mothers, cousins nephews and nieces. It isn't just Cameron.
Cheers
Paul

Haha. Nicely said.
 
I wonder if these are the same people who like that 240hz motion on LCD tvs.

Cameron can do what he wants, but I'm staying with my 24p thank you very much.
 
I asked this very question during a Q&A at a local film festival with a panel consisting of a Hollywood feature film editor and a rep from a prominent post production service. Their opinion was that 24fps production was too ingrained to ever change. I agree to an extent - 24fps will continue to be the standard, barring widespread demand from professional filmmakers for a wholesale upgrading of production/post processes, also which undoubtedly would need studio support to happen. More fps means more expense, be it higher filmstock cost or greater storage and processing requirements for digital origination. But if anyone can cause this change to happen, it would be James Cameron. Of course, he would need another Avatar-like megablockbuster to prove his case. But like 3-D, high temporal resolution poses challenges for audiences. Whereas eyestrain is an issue with 3-D projection, higher TR with its "live" look isn't associated with fantasy, and we all know how bad dramatic acting tends to look when given the soap opera treatment. Anyhow, I see higher fps as an option with its uses in virtual reality presentations. But for fantasy filmmaking, I'd prefer 24, maybe even 30 on occasion, but no higher.
 
I can't stand watching anything else than 24p. I really don't like 30p or 60p motion at all. it looks strange to me.
 
I can't stand watching anything else than 24p. I really don't like 30p or 60p motion at all. it looks strange to me.
For drama, I agree. But for live events, 24p video looks weird -- MTV broadcast the MTV Music Awards in 24p a couple of years in a row, and it was just ... wrong. Disturbing. Didn't work.
 
yeah I suppose. I never watch events like that. Sports I can see needing high FPS though.
 
Higher frames rates are critical for 3D to progress. Motion blur is very destructive to the edge information that helps define objects against their backgrounds. Objects in negative parallax (popping out of the screen) moving parallel to the sensor are the most demanding in this regard. 3D cinema projectors already triple-flash each frame to partially deal with judder, flicker and apparent blur - but - the baked-in lack of temporal resolution still results in fast pans and fast moving objects destroying the 3D composition.
 
No one size fits all solution. We need a set of 24p/30p/48p/60p/96p/120p.

2D movie 24p. 3D movie 48p. MTV 30p. sports 60p. 4D movie 96p. outer space 120p.
 
Why stop at 48? If he is so into high frame rate stuff then why not use 60p or 120p or 240p? I Know that it would take more storage space and larger data transfer speeds for high res video at 240p but I can't Imagine a studio telling James Cameron "no we can't do that it costs too much". I have no love for higher frame rate video and I really dislike "3D" but if thats his bag then go for it.
 
Why stop at 48? If he is so into high frame rate stuff then why not use 60p or 120p or 240p? I Know that it would take more storage space and larger data transfer speeds for high res video at 240p but I can't Imagine a studio telling James Cameron "no we can't do that it costs too much". I have no love for higher frame rate video and I really dislike "3D" but if thats his bag then go for it.

For those of us who have limited means, several issues come up about 'higher frame rates'. 1) at 48 fps you 'lose a stop'. Well for a Cameron, 'just-add-more-light', and all is well... for those who are running with the minimal lights they can now afford, going up a stop's worth of light, may be out of reach. 2) 'benefits 3-D'... well, I've not convinced myself that 3-D is a benefit at all... at least the 'fake' form that tends to just hurt my eyes...

And needless to say, for 'why stop at 48'... even more light loss, or required incredibly high ISO values to compensate, which again at the current level that many people are buying equipment, results in noisy images, again for a Cameron, rent high speed high quality image acquisition equipment and that 'problem is solved'...

I'm not interested in waiting around another 25 years for me to make films because X feature won't be available till then, that is within my financial resources to acquire.
 
I keep thinking I've heard this before... like in 1988 or something. And it didn't catch on then, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

I remember watching a Showscan movie of a downhill bobsledding run shot in 1st person POV - what a rush! Any subject matter that has a lot of motion definitely benefits from super hi-res and high TR. It almost seems to me like a requirement to shoot in the first-person to maximize the vicarious thrills. I could imagine a well-directed action movie shot this way doing very well, the problem with Showscan is that it was mostly limited to gimmicky ride simulations that never lasted for more than a few minutes.
 
I don't know - the super high shutter action movie style might not play nicely with this not-so-new concept. It should be good for themed attractions.
 
Back
Top