[Drexler]

I just stumbled across this interview with James Cameron where he reveals that the sequels to Avatar will be filmed at a higher frame rate to remove motion artefact's. Apparently they're currently evaluating filming in 48, 60 and 72 fps.


What are your expectations? Soap opera or more realistic? Necessary for 3D but not 2D? Will a blueray be able to handle the extra data? Do we need new HDMI standards and 3D players yet again? Will our old HDMI cables be able to cope with the data stream? Or do we have to exchange all our video gear yet again? How long do you think it will be before it reaches consumer level? (Say sub $10K projectors.) Shoot!


I for one am stoked!

It's at the top of my list together with an increased native color gamut. 3D needs higher frame rates in my opinion - it's all about creating a window into another world - as realistic as possible. IMHO. And yes, I expect that we will have to change most of our gear again...

Does anyone know the frame rate limit for 1080p for current equipment, can it cope with 60 fps? In 3D? I'm fairly sure 72 is out. When? 3 years?

http://fora.tv/2010/10/27/Filmmaker_...Avatar_Sequels

 

[720p]

I'm guessing you're not the pc type?

 

[Ron Jones]

For 3D higher frame rates will provide a more virtual reality type of experience and that's really what the goal should be for 3D presentations. From an interview 2 1/2 years ago, Cameron wanted to shoot the original Avatar at 48 frames per sec. but Fox Studios, who was putting up the money to make the movie, forced him to stay at 24 fps in order to keep production costs down. For me the 24 fps limitation was by far the biggest technical limitation for Avatar and I felt this limitation really degraded from the overall experience when seeing Avatar in the theater (I saw it in a RealD equipped digital cinema presentation and the loss of motion resolution and the presence of typical "film-like" poor motion were far too obvious).

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/19506510


What are your expectations? Soap opera or more realistic? Necessary for 3D but not 2D?

I'm skeptical. Every time I see video (30/60fps content) it just sticks out at me immediately as not "right", specifically for fiction/fantasy content (not so much for live/documentary type stuff).

Quote:
Will a blueray be able to handle the extra data?

Not that I'm aware of, AFAIK, BD doesn't support anything higher than 1080p30.

Quote:
Do we need new HDMI standards and 3D players yet again? Will our old HDMI cables be able to cope with the data stream? Or do we have to exchange all our video gear yet again?

HDMI should be fine, I think HDMI 1.4 supports up to 1080p120. But as mentioned above, BD won't support it without a rev.

Quote:
I for one am stoked!

It's at the top of my list together with an increased native color gamut.

I'd much rather see 10-bit encoding than anything else, let's kill banding once and for all.

Quote:
3D needs higher frame rates in my opinion - it's all about creating a window into another world - as realistic as possible.

I couldn't care less about 3D for movies personally (it just doesn't work right for me unless it's interactive, eg head tracking perspective). IMO movies shouldn't look like looking through a window. Happy accident or by design, IMO the low framerate of film (24fps) aids the suspension of disbelief that's critical to enjoying movies. You can just sit back, an completely forget about the room around you and just let the experience happen, not to return to reality until the credits roll at the end.


If it looks like a window, then you're acutely aware that you're sitting in a room, watching something transpire in front of you. I mean you're never going to see a star destroyer through a window, or a transformer, or any number of other fictitious things.


At least that's my experience with various frame rates so far. I of course reserve final judgment for when I see the result, but like I said, I'm skeptical, so far, 3D and high framerates to more to take me out of a movie than engross me in it.

 

[Drexler]

Stanger,


I definitely see where you're coming from. However, I have a feeling 3D might be another animal than normal film. I was very aware of choppy movements in Avatar - to the point I became irritated by it. Somehow choppy movements just stands out in 3D. Perhaps it is the separation of the objects from the background that makes it more noticeable. I don't know, but it's an issue for me.


10-bit encoding for sure. Combine it with a wider true gamut and we would get an improvement in color even J6P would see. It's really not that hard to implement. Increased frame rate however requires new expensive equipment that I only think we'll ever see in the big movies. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

[sstephen]

I have no problems with 24fps but I wonder how many directors 50 yrs ago would have chosen higher framerates if they had been available. I suspect most would have chosen as seamless an experience as possible if the technology had allowed. Same goes with grain. Although I don't want it wiped from films where it already exists, I'd have no problems if directors chose to shoot without it (technology permitting). That isn't to say I think they should filter it out before it hits the theatres, but if they choose to do so, and it doesn't introduce other issues, I am fine with it.


As to 3d, at least until I can get a good home experience without giving up other things (like contrast and brightness from a front projector), I'm not that concerned about it.


And I don't want my movie experiences to be like "looking through a window". Ultimately I want them to be like I'm sitting on my front porch watching them with no window at all.

 

[Laserfan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen /forum/post/19529065


I have no problems with 24fps but I wonder how many directors 50 yrs ago would have chosen higher framerates if they had been available.

Wasn't too far off from this (about 35yrs ago) that Douglas Trumbull invented/tested his Showscan process which was 70mm film shown at 60fps. It exposed 60fps as "hyper-realistic" and test audiences were wowed, but it was too expensive for theaters and abandoned except for a few theme park apps iirc. Imagine the size of film platters, and of course the pjs had to run >2x as fast (not sure if it had shutters).


I dunno if Avatar was shot on film (I doubt it) but presumably for the sequels Cameron could decide to exhibit them in special digital theaters capable of the higher framerates.


I understand some people are enamored with 24fps, but in this modern age of extreme action sequences and CGI etc. ad nauseum it seems to me that a higher framerate makes a lot more sense.

 

[Alan Gouger]

Even if they pushed for higher frame rate in the cinemas that would be years off and many more years to reach the consumer. Simpler things could be done much sooner that would make a bigger impact how we watch our movies. I wish some of these same directors pushing the technology envelope would put some effort into something beyond 8bit for the consumer. Sadly I do understand the politics behind why there is "that" difference.

 

[BlackShark]

For FullHD 3D higher framerates, you'll need to change your hardware.

BluRay 3D contains provisions for 60fps content but not at FullHD resolution (they support half resolution 3D, just like broadcast content), the fullHD resolution is limited to 24fps, supporting higher is totally optional.


As a result, Hdmi1.4 was standardized with mandatory support for only 24fps fullHD 3D, 60fps is defined by hdmi1.4 and does fit the available bandwidth but since it's optional, no hdmi input/output chip manufacturer supports it, no BluRay player outputs it, and no 3DTV supports it.



The PC folks aren't happy about it because they're the only ones who currently have content at that resolution and framerate (videogames) but can't output it to 3DTVs.

At the moment the only displays that support these resolutions are computer monitors and dual-projector setups which only work with computers.

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan /forum/post/19533309


I understand some people are enamored with 24fps, but in this modern age of extreme action sequences and CGI etc. ad nauseum it seems to me that a higher framerate makes a lot more sense.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm very skeptical. Every time I see higher framerate content, it's just not "right" from a "fantasy" sort of perspective.


IMO the fact that 24fps doesn't look "real" makes it easier to forget you're sitting in a room watching moving images on a screen.

 

[Drexler]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan /forum/post/19533309


I dunno if Avatar was shot on film (I doubt it) but presumably for the sequels Cameron could decide to exhibit them in special digital theaters capable of the higher framerates.

Apparently, according to Cameron modern digital cinema projectors can already handle a higher frame rate. They run at 144 fps but show the same frame several times. New projection hardware should therefore not be necessary. Just a new source able to handle and feed the PJ the higher frame rate. I think the big extra cost is changing all the recording equipment, cameras etc.


My rationale regarding home cinema is: after 3D is settled and established the big hardware manufacturers would need a new thing to push a new generation of products. If the big movies a la the Avatar sequels are shot in higher fps I think this will be the next logical step. I think it's possible we'll get it quite fast after it's launched at he cinema, the lead times get shorter and shorter - just look at 3D! Perhaps 1-2 years after the cinema?


I think increasing bit depth beyond 8-bit is not enough of an incentive to fuel a new hype - the improvement is not apparent enough to J6P. A higher frame rate or a larger gamut might be. Not saying a higher bit depth won't happen, but I have a feeling it will be bundled in with the next big upgrade.

 

[pteittinen]

I've been planning on testing what high framerate looks like for a while now, but funnily enough there's always been something else, something more urgent coming up. I have a RED One camera capable of 120fps at 2K and it shouldn't require much jumping through hoops to feed that somehow to a 120Hz PC monitor. In theory, that is

 

[BlackShark]

Cameron wants to shoot at stereo 2K 48fps, because cinemas buy 4K servers (which represent 4x the bandwidth of 2K).


You don't need such an exclusive camera to test these framerates, any DV camcorder already does 50/60 interlaced frames per second. Just use the correct deinterlacer, and see the effect.


From my (very) short experiments, the picture looks accelerated (even if it's running at the correct speed) and any camera shake is felt strongly with significantly less motion blur.

 

[Drexler]

From the Sony VW90 thread, which has FI for 3D.


This is what I'm aiming at and why I think I higher frame rates in 3D will be beneficial. I haven't seen the Sony yet, but I'm betting I'll be in Ekkehart's camp with this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home /forum/post/19536456


FI in 3D is very helpful, also for movies! For 2D, I prefer the original 24p "film look", like most of you guys probably.


In 3D however, where everything appears more realistic, the 24p stuttering really disturbs the realism of 3D. With FI, the picture is definately less tiring, less artificial.


Regards,

Ekkehart

 

[VisionMan]

20 years ago, I was engaged as a consultant by the US arm of a european car manufacturer. The CEO at the time was interested in using the Showscan process along with a motion base to create a dealership demo that would highlight the handling of their cars. It never happened, but, but we did fly to LA in the corporate jet and spent a day at the Culver City headquarters of Showscan.


Needless to say, we got the full treatment, and were treated to Doug Trumbull's brilliant 20 minute demo shot 70 mm at 60 fps, each frame flashed once. The projector was a standard Century 70mm, with a mod that allowed to run at 60/one flash. The quality was simply amazing, with fast motion rendered with no subjective blur or strobing beyond what you would see live.


The CEO of Showscan told us that Spielberg had seen the same demo, but didn't like it because it "didn't look like a movie." That is true, but only in the best sense. Go figure.

In 1952, "This is Cinerama" ran at 26 fps, and the first two Todd-AO features, "Oklahoma" and and "Around the World in 80 days" were shot at 30 fps, each frame flashed twice in projection. I once had the opportunity to project "Oklahoma" in 70mm 30fps on a 40 foot screen, and the image stability and motion smoothness were outstanding, if not quite the equal of Showscan at 60. (BTW that print of Oklahoma was several hundred pounds of film -- I was tired after lifting all those reels up to the supply side of the Philips/Norelco DP70 projectors. Not something you would want to throw in the trunk of the Pontiac for a home screening!

And, there was one IMAX 15/70 film shot at 48 fps. It was called, if I remeber correctly "Momentum," and was shown at the Worlds Fair in Seville, Spain in 1992. I never did get to see it. My understanding is that the IMAX rolling loop projector was unreliable at 48, and there were a lot of breakdowns during projection, so no more films were shot that way.

 

[stanger89]

I personally have no doubt higher frame rates look more realistic, I question whether we (I) want that for fictional motion pictures (as opposed to live events/documentaries). Are we really saying we want new movies to have the "soap opera look"?

 

[Drexler]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/19536912


Are we really saying we want new movies to have the "soap opera look"?

What, you don't enjoy soap operas!?!?

I agree with you that higher frame rates makes film look soap opera-ish. However, I do think 3D is a different beast. Also, I think it's somewhat of an acquired taste and that I could get used to watching normal film at a higher frame rate if they were available. From experimenting with FI my impression is that it looks wrong when you put it on, but after a while I don't think that much about it anymore. That being said - I haven't lived with FI so I don't really know how I would like it in the long run. I suspect I could get used to it though. Well, maybe not FI with artefact's and all, but higher frame rate film...

 

[Ron Jones]

Back in the early 80's I saw 4 short films that are were shot in Doug Trumbull's Showscan system and I was convinced then and there that a higher frame really does provide a much more realistic experience than std. 24 fps movies. For 3D I don't believe the "soap opera look" that some fear will be created by the higher frame will be a real issue with the vast major of viewers (including many of those to don't like pseudo higher frame rates created by Frame Insertion for 2D movies) because the ultimate goal of 3D should be to draw the audience into a virtual reality type of experience and higher frame rates are simply a necessary element to accomplish this.

 

[Cine4Home]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Jones For 3D I don't believe the "soap opera look" that some fear will be created by the higher frame will be a real issue with the vast major of viewers (including many of those to don't like pseudo higher frame rates created by Frame Insertion for 2D movies) because the ultimate goal of 3D should be to draw the audience into a virtual reality type of experience and higher frame rates are simply a necessary element to accomplish this.

That is exactly what I meant with my initial posting. I watched many scenes of Avatar in 3D last week and with FI it was just more plausible. In no way was I reminded of a "soap opera", because soap operas are simply not in 3D.


3D is about the audience "being part of the scene, being there" and 24p stuttering definately breaks that illusion. Humans are able to see their surroundings in 3D and -more- than 24p

In 2D that is a complete other story, although i slowly start to think it is just a matter of being used to. I heard from many FI users, that at the beginning they had this soap opera impression, but after watching a couple of movies it is gone and now they hardly can go back to 24p.


It sure is a matter of philosophy, but honestly, what exactly is the artisitic value of 24p stuttering?

Regards,

Ekkehart

 

[pteittinen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cine4Home In no way was I reminded of a "soap opera", because soap operas are simply not in 3D.

That's not much of an argument. The soap opera feel we're talking about is basically the result of them being shot on video at a higher framerate than film's 24p, so one can argue that soap operas are "simply not in 24p film". And yet poorly implemented FI brings that soap opera feel to movies shot on film at 24p.

Quote:

3D is about the audience "being part of the scene, being there" and 24p stuttering definately breaks that illusion.

Something else that definitely breaks that illusion: FI artifacts and unnatural motion.