James Cameron on 24 fps cinema

Thomas Smet said:
As for video games you must have high frame rates because they are void of any type of motion blur. Video and film do not suffer from this so we cannot say film and video should be 60p because people are used to videogames at 60p. That is an apple and orange comparison.

Finally how exactly does Cameron plan on delivering these movies to the masses? Apple devices support 30p tops. Blu-ray only supports 60p in 720p mode. Personally I have no problem with a 720p Blu-ray but I think that would be a hard sell to the masses that have been brain washed about how much better 1080p is then 720p. Would a DVD release be 60i?
Click to expand...
Motion blur is no longer a problem for high-end video game production. What high frame rates do for a game is enable it to portray moderately fast motion and three-axis panning without stuttering effects. These are exactly the types of shots that 24p filmmakers have learned to avoid. The classic "dreamy" look of cinema is both an aesthetic choice and a technical necessity. Video games tend to emphasize action and adrenaline. I can easily see sci-fi, action/adventure, and horror filmmakers migrating to higher frame rates to increase the visceral impact of their movies.

James Cameron is no doubt targeting his future productions to digital cinema projectors that are built to handle high frame rates. He may well have set his sights beyond Blu-ray and consumer distribution via physical media. The future is broadband media streamed directly to networked HDTV capable of 120-240hz frame rates. Shiny discs are cumbersome, inadequate, and obsolete.

To my eyes, frame rates from 24-30p do have a special appeal that higher frame rates lack. What I think is misleading is the so-called "180-degree rule", mythologized from the semi-circular shutters of vintage 24p film cameras. This rule dictates that shutter speed should be set as close to half the frame rate as possible, which is 1/48 second for 24p. While I too like the look of motion blur from around 1/40-1/60 second, the 180-degree rule would imply a 60p shutter speed of 1/120 second, which is too crisp for my taste. Particularly in dealing with 60hz lighting, I've found 1/60 second shutter to produce consistent motion blur with 24p, 30p, and 60p frame rates.
 
lpowell said:
Motion blur is no longer a problem for high-end video game production. What high frame rates do for a game is enable it to portray moderately fast motion and three-axis panning without stuttering effects. These are exactly the types of shots that 24p filmmakers have learned to avoid. The classic "dreamy" look of cinema is both an aesthetic choice and a technical necessity. Video games tend to emphasize action and adrenaline. I can easily see sci-fi, action/adventure, and horror filmmakers migrating to higher frame rates to increase the visceral impact of their movies.

James Cameron is no doubt targeting his future productions to digital cinema projectors that are built to handle high frame rates. He may well have set his sights beyond Blu-ray and consumer distribution via physical media. The future is broadband media streamed directly to networked HDTV capable of 120-240hz frame rates. Shiny discs are cumbersome, inadequate, and obsolete.

To my eyes, frame rates from 24-30p do have a special appeal that higher frame rates lack. What I think is misleading is the so-called "180-degree rule", mythologized from the semi-circular shutters of vintage 24p film cameras. This rule dictates that shutter speed should be set as close to half the frame rate as possible, which is 1/48 second for 24p. While I too like the look of motion blur from around 1/40-1/60 second, the 180-degree rule would imply a 60p shutter speed of 1/120 second, which is too crisp for my taste. Particularly in dealing with 60hz lighting, I've found 1/60 second shutter to produce consistent motion blur with 24p, 30p, and 60p frame rates.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point of view I subscribe to - Different films will look better with different frame rates....it shouldn't be 24P VS 60P. It should be 24P OR 60P

24P: Movies like Glen Gary Glen Ross, American Beauty, Fargo etc. would not benefit from 60P (other than select scenes)
60P: Movies like The Bourne Identity, Minority Report, anything with Jet LI or Jackie Chan would probably gain something at 60P (other than select scenes)
 
lpowell said:
Shiny discs are cumbersome, inadequate, and obsolete.
Click to expand...

I think there is more going on with trying to 'kill' physical media. As I see it, and noted by others, the 'studios' make far more from 'e-distrbution', and in particular get paid each and every time a film is viewed, rather than the consumer paying a one time fee in the form of the price of the physical media, and further, if the consumer passes the physical media on to others, there is no pay to the studios for that form of transaction as it is perfectly legal to do so.

The physical media for the distribution system is pennies. What then happens is that e-distribution entities will use 'free unlimited viewing' as a reason for paying higher premiums, or 'no cost' upgrades, or the like. Very similar
to the airline 'perks' these days... want a meal, pay $5/10/25 bucks... otherwise bag lunch it... I personally try to select the most garlic/onion laden item on a concession's menu just to be obnoxious... but I digress... perhaps the 'entertainment' channels on long flights are more like it... there is absolutely no more cost to run as many channels to all passengers... yet some airlines use that as a differentiator between 'steerage' and 'business' class...


The appeal to pry physical media out of the market will be 'oh gosh you won't see the 'quality' of high frame rate, 3-d, or whatever is the next great thing, unless you go with e-distribution'.

I remain unconvinced that the typical viewer is so appreciative of the nuances between 48 60 and basic 24 fps rates as to notice at all.

I personally have never heard a ordinary mortal viewer walking out of a show complaining... gosh I wish the director had used 48 fps... the movie just sucked because of 24...

Right...

Oh, yeah... running at higher frame rates, there may have been no question as to whether Muhammed Ali knocked out Sonny Listen with actual contact, or Listen threw the fight...

From the wiki article:

---
The blow that ended the match became known as "the phantom punch," so named because most people at ringside did not see it. Even Ali was unsure as to whether or not the punch connected, as footage from the event shows Ali asking his entourage "Did I hit him?" after the match. Slow motion replays show Ali connecting with a quick, chopping right to Liston's head (known as the "Anchor Punch" according to Ali) as Liston was moving toward him, and show that Liston was unsteady when he finally got to his feet. (Ali appeared to connect with four additional unanswered punches before Walcott belatedly declared the knockout, ending the contest.) However, whether the blow was a genuine knockout punch remains inconclusive
---
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Showing somebody something shot in 24p and then showing it to them as 60p is always going to make them say 60p looks better. It's like asking somebody if they would prefer a $10.00 bill or a $100.00 bill. If you compare side by side people will typically pick the higher frame rate. That is just human nature.
Click to expand...

My observations have been completely the opposite. As a matter of fact a current service I perform for my foolish buddies who go to best buy and blow $4000 buying the latest wiz bang home theater system and wall mount TV and then ask me why something looks really weird about their blu-rays that they can't articulate... or as one of my friend s said to me..

I spent all this money and my movies look like... like.. soap operas.

I take their remote, navigate through their menu and turn the trumotion or realmotion or bettermotion or tweeninyourface technology or whatever it is OFF. All the sets seem to ship with it turned on.

Then I hear the sigh of relief as their blu-ray movies now again look like 'movies' not 'videos'. So I don't believe everyone at all thinks faster is better. I get hired all the time and show clients both looks and ask "are you going for the LIVE video look or the 24p filmed look" and then I show them the same sequence in both moods. 90% choose 24p and the 10% that choose 60p is because it is usually a news type show or interview and not a documentary or narrative.

Yes, it's absolutely an aesthetic choice - but more frames is not better, it's different. To me it kills narrative flow and looks cheap for a narrative film, but it's great for MTV live ect.

This conversation is really akin to someone trying to state that the color purple is better than all other colors (which is of course true)... people have their favorite colors.
 
How are they going to distribute films shot in a nonstandard frame rate...??? every projector I know is set to 24fps...

if you shoot at 48fps the film will be twice as long and will not fit on the platters that feed the projector...

24fps has been the standard since sound was introduced... prior to sound it was 18fps..

I've been hearing about digital delivery for 20 years but it's just not practical...

Old prints are rejuvenated and sent to 3rd world countries... I'm sure there still old prints of Gone with the Wind that are doing the rounds...

Film has an amazing life...

Cheers
 
Film is dead dude. Face it. The writing's on the wall. I love a movie projected on real film as much as you do but it's expensive, it's bulky, it's a waste. What happens to all those film reels anyway? think of all those thousands of huge multi real platters being shipped to 50,000+ theaters? Hollywood HATES that expense and WANTS to be done with it, and the tech is nearly there. New digital cameras nearly meet the latitude of film and within two shakes of a lambs tale new chips will be out that surpass what film could ever do latitude wise and resolution wise. Film stock plugins are there to emulate the looks you want. As it is, EVERY film you are seeing whether it is on film or not gets scanned at 2k or 4k for color timing and cleanup and then gets spit back out to film so they just want to skip the process and not originate on film.

All the major chains here in NYC are digital projectors now... I have to actively seek out a little art house to cath a movie on real film on platters. Most other big film chains will follow because they do what hollywood tells them to do or they get shafted, and the trend now is to cut costs and pop out these idiot same style plastic looking rendered animation movies over and over again.. more so than live action because it's cheaper and they just have to hire voice actors or one actor can play multiple parts with motion tracking. If a movie IS live action it is generally action and over the top cliche. Really I have only seen a few good major hollywood films in the last few years we have been in the time of the great suck of films. This is good for the indie film maker because I think audiences are getting dulled by the same endless hyper slow motion hyper action hyper effects shots and looking for real stories, real actors, and real characters again - and we indie people can fill that need.

Hollywood is chasing gimmicks. Hence the endless 3D junk with a few rare gems. The INITIAL expense was large such as with Avatar & a Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey but after the development expense is made by the big boys with the big money, it trickles down and becomes cheap. There is tech right now to make highly amazing looking 3D animated movies with your hand just doing a standard "hand puppet" and hacked software that uses the xbox 360's kinect sensor to track your hands motion and animate very complex 3D characters. 3D animated movies are cheap and easy to pump out... very few are actually good. Tech is advancing so fast and cost is coming so far down. Technology is the ONLY thing that actually deifies the laws of inflation and gets cheaper and cheaper. Everything else gets more expensive but now your cell phone has more power than what Nasa had to run space craft 30 years ago. There is a video game out now called "yoostar 2" that uses technology similar to what was used in "Forrest Gump" to insert you into movie footage with correct scale and angles. It cost them millions to do in Forrest Gump.. but today in 2011 - the game is about 50 bucks and it's pretty decent if you light right:


Imagine upping this tech just a little bit more and doing some cleanup in a pro editor?


but I digress away from the original point:

Film is on its death bed.... it's harder and harder and more expensive to even get real 35mm film stock any more and as more movies are switching to digital their won't be enough profit in it and it and film processing houses will shut down and maybe a few will stay around as a special interest thing only. Kodak nearly went out of business, Fuji does a million other things... Polaroid.... I have no clue but I don't think anyone shoots a movie on polaroids (I'm sure someone has if I youtube search it).

The new breed of digital camera and projectors will be able to do all the things that people loved about film and more, and so I think theaters will be able to show films at whatever frame rate the director chooses. You'll probably see Cameron come out with a 48fps movie and huge advertising campaigns touting it as a marketing tool just as is happening with 3D now. Then a bunch of films will follow suite. We'll see how the audience reacts to it but it won't KILL 24p because the projectors will all be digital and be able to handle ANY frame rate.

Yes, us wee little art lovers will go to old movie houses to see films on actual film just as a small percentage of the population actually goes to museums to look at paintings. Sadly though, most people never step foot in an art museum... why would they when they have Dog the Bounty Hunter - a true work of art, on TV?

(heavy sarcasm above)
 
I have to agree and dis-agree.... I've heard the term FILM is DEAD for 20years now...

I've tried to get some figures of how many cinemas there are world wide but have not had any luck...

In the USA it seems there are about 37,000 screens

"As of January, 2009, there are more than 6,000 DLP-based Digital Cinema systems installed worldwide, of which 80% are located in North America."

Which to me means that there is a hell of allot of catch up for the rest of the world...

Looking at Digital Projection I reckon that 2K is would no way compete with a Christie with an Arc lamp... (just my 2c) ... 4k and we might start to get there...

Anyhow the big issue is distribution....

The holy grail is for the studios to be able to feed the cinemas from a centralised location... no release prints.. no transportation... immediate seat numbers etc...

But it just has not happened...

The refitting costs etc are to prohibitive...

The major issue with film equipment is that it is very well made.... Projectors that were built in the 50's run as well toady as back then...

If anybody has made an investment in a Christie Film Projector in the last 15 years knows that it's got a very long life span... including re-sale value...

The film industry is a fast moving snail at times.... the delivery format for most is the same as Edison designed over 100 years ago...

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I am just seeing it in the major cities.. but what starts in the major cities trickles out. No new advances in chemical film is being made as far as I know it's getting harder and more cost prohibitive while imaging chips are getting cheaper and will surpass what film can do soon. Imax, the holy grail of film imagery, is done.. they are converting most of their theaters into fake imax that uses dual digital projectors instead of their incredible robotic projectors that are the size of some NYC apartments. They are leaving a few of the original real film Imax installations that run the 70mm x 48.5mm film prints but those are only a handful.

I would love for film to stay around longer but I also love that technology is achieving the look and leveling the playing field. Eagerly awaiting the 4K AF-200b.

In the debate over streaming media vs owning your stuff on disc - I want the disc. You'll have to pry my blu-rays from my cold dead bloody hands. Bandwidth is still a far way off from achieving full blu-ray quality consitantly. Netflix looks OK on a xbox 360 but blah on a hd computer.
Plus... I want to own my media not have it on some cloud big brother computer somewhere. For CERTAIN things that might be ok but oh the suckage when your internet connection dies for a few days and you want to watch your movies or listen to your music... it's putting to much dependence on the companies to play nice and history shows us that they don't.

I buy my blu-rays, I strip them of all protection, I enjoy the incredible print like quality when I want where I want without bandwidth stutters. Not too mention it's a fantastic back up medium more durable than hard drives.

PS:

I just launched my radio station 24/7 on all devices..... go to your app store and dl the free Tunein Radio (comes pre installed in all new BMWs) type or say "Blackout Radio" and enjoy the insanity. Works on iphone/ ipad / android/ blackberry/ win 7 phone and possibly I can stream out of your Reebok hightop sneakers...
 
Just because projection is going digital across the board doesn't mean acquisition will follow suite. Film still achieves a certain effect and quality that digital has not yet been able to fully mimmick, and in an industry willing to spend millions of dollars on amazing special effects, etc, to have visual things in a movie that SELL, the cost of film for acquisition (with an all digital workflow) is comparatively low given the benefits.
 
Erik Olson said:
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.
Click to expand...


Cameron is essentially making themed attractions. Probably more accurately describes a lot of the new 3D post Avatar movies that are more spectacle and experience than traditional narrative film. Those higher frame rates might work better in those situations.
 
This was exactly my problem with Avatar - after your brain adjusts to the awesome beauty and 3D - which is about 10 to 15 minutes into the film... you get accustomed to it and the movie drags with its paper thin cliche plot that could easily have 2 hours cut from it. Does the end battle LOOK epic? Yes. Is the artwork amazing.. YES.. do you care? No.

Avatar would be a great Epcot 20 minute simulator ride... like the TII ride in Universal. It was a sucky 3 and a half hour movie.
 
Blackout said:
My observations have been completely the opposite. As a matter of fact a current service I perform for my foolish buddies who go to best buy and blow $4000 buying the latest wiz bang home theater system and wall mount TV and then ask me why something looks really weird about their blu-rays that they can't articulate... or as one of my friend s said to me..

I spent all this money and my movies look like... like.. soap operas.
Click to expand...

+1 read this:

Movies at High Frame Rates

http://prolost.com/blog/2011/4/4/movies-at-high-frame-rates.html

and that:

Your New TV Ruins Movies

http://prolost.com/blog/2011/3/28/your-new-tv-ruins-movies.html

Frank
 
Blackout said:
Perhaps I am just seeing it in the major cities.. but what starts in the major cities trickles out.
Click to expand...

A quick reality check. I've never seen Avatar in 3d because there was not a theater in at least 50 mi. of me that could project it. I've also never seen an IMAX film for the same reason. I'm sure I'd have to drive much further for that. And before you think I live in the desert or something I live 15 mi. from the NY state border. A 4 hr. drive and I'm back in Manhattan. All the theaters I know of and go to still project film. New first-run releases. Hell the closest theater to me started out playing silent movies and used a live piano player for music 90 years ago. I'd hate to see the places like that disappear because they can't afford forced tech changes from the studios.

As a native NY'er living in rural America I now know that the major cities are really islands onto themselves in every way. When I go back to visit I'm amazed by things like digital cable with a channel guide (Amazing!) or cell service and wifi everywhere. Even if I wanted an iPhone or other smart phone I couldn't get proper service or bandwidth for it here consistently. They just don't have the towers. My phone just makes calls believe it or not ;)

Oh but they just started running new cable so we can have digital TV here soon if we want it. What the hell is Roadrunner?

And one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is copyright protection. This is a HUGE deal to the studios and has been a major reason for heel-dragging into the new technologies. They can control 35mm reels much better than a digital file that anyone can play or copy. At least for first-run theatrical releases it is still a great choice to at least slow down piracy.
 
The closest cinema that runs regular first-run movies with a digital projector is 2.5 hours away from me. By Jet.


- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
The closest cinema that runs regular first-run movies with a digital projector is 2.5 hours away from me. By Jet.


- Mikko
Click to expand...

Yeah, some times 'technology' only oozes out to the hinterlands... I recall in the 80's finding a peepshow booth running 8mm porn film loops in the middle of Indiana, whereas most in the futuristic high tech world had converted by then to at least VHS videos.

Seeing cheap porn on 8mm film is... almost artistic by comparison...
 
My father had a motion picture lab when I was born... "I was literally born in the stop bath...."

I've been a motion picture processor , printer and projectionist...

I printed the Japanese Release Prints of Crocodile Dundee 2 and was the in house projectionist on "Dead Calm" while working at Colorfilm, Sydney back in the 80's..

As I've said the term "Film is Dead" has been harped for a very long time... and the reason it's not dead is the Motion Picture industry is a slow moving giant...

I see the studio's holy grail is digital distribution... there is actually more security sending a file on a dedicated link than there is sending an inter-neg to be printed...

And once release prints are in the pipeline there is literally thousands of prints around of the film... (hard to keep track of... you'd be amazed at the number of prints lost by transport companies)...

My guess is that they will pepper digital distribution as they are doing now... if the mutilplexes in the USA can off load the Christie's 35mm to their affiliates in foreign territories then at some point there will be a critical spill over to digital...

But they will still do release prints in 35mm for a while I suspect...
 
muckman said:
A quick reality check. I've never seen Avatar in 3d because there was not a theater in at least 50 mi. of me that could project it. I've also never seen an IMAX film for the same reason. I'm sure I'd have to drive much further for that. And before you think I live in the desert or something I live 15 mi. from the NY state border. A 4 hr. drive and I'm back in Manhattan. All the theaters I know of and go to still project film. New first-run releases. Hell the closest theater to me started out playing silent movies and used a live piano player for music 90 years ago. I'd hate to see the places like that disappear because they can't afford forced tech changes from the studios.
Click to expand...

Like I said it might take a bit longer, but the writing is on the wall. Does anyone know what the actual COST of a 35mm print of a movie is? I know that it's about $30,000 to make one yourself but I'm not sure what it costs at the numbers the studies do it at. Do they sell off any of those copies? What DOES happen to the 50,000+ prints that go out after the films run? Who gets them? Sure some go in a vault.. some get stolen... but where do the majority go? Recycled? Is that even possible?

I imagine soon the price of even a high end digital projector will be cheaper than one full 35mm print of a film at the rate technology is moving... not even to factor in multi thousands of prints and all of them that get 'lost' or stolen. My friend was a projectionist and proudly stole and has a 35mm print of "Return of the Jedi" (the clean up re-release) that he shows off once a year. In his mind, it was his only real pay being that he worked at the theater two years and made a whopping $6.75 and hour at the time.
 
Last edited:
So let me throw this question out there.

Lets say 48p and 60p do take off. Would a project shot today hold up better 5 years from now if it was shot 1080p 24p or 720p 60p/50p? Sure 720p may not be as detailed but the temporal resolution is there. Which form of resolution is an audience going to care more about five years down the road?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top