James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

doggie015:

thenumberthirteen:
This will only apply to the digital cameras and film since 60fps will mean the, already massive film reels, will be over twice as long...

The film industry uses nothing but digital cameras anyway. We have SONY CAMCORDERS with the same quality and several hundred times the fliming time of movie cameras from 3 years ago!

Digital cameras are more common in filming now, but a lot of movie theatres still use 35mm film.

thenumberthirteen:

doggie015:

thenumberthirteen:
This will only apply to the digital cameras and film since 60fps will mean the, already massive film reels, will be over twice as long...

The film industry uses nothing but digital cameras anyway. We have SONY CAMCORDERS with the same quality and several hundred times the fliming time of movie cameras from 3 years ago!

Digital cameras are more common in filming now, but a lot of movie theatres still use 35mm film.

Sorry. I forgot that movie theaters are so profit-minded they won't replace that movie projector from 1950 with the cracked lens because it still works just fine!

370999:

David Bray:
Snip

Shit Citizen Kane, where's the colour? Viisuals come and go but good stories tend to be remembered. That said I don't know about this. I've never really noticed a movie lagging and having bad frame rate but I am quite ignorant over it.

You know what was missing in CK? T&A
The human eye cannot percieve beyond 30fps so it doesnt make much of a difference, but a cleaner image is always better. Its like listening to an MP3 vs WMA

It'd be a total bitch to impliment with todays storage and budgets though.

doggie015:

thenumberthirteen:

doggie015:

The film industry uses nothing but digital cameras anyway. We have SONY CAMCORDERS with the same quality and several hundred times the fliming time of movie cameras from 3 years ago!

Digital cameras are more common in filming now, but a lot of movie theatres still use 35mm film.

Sorry. I forgot that movie theaters are so profit-minded they won't replace that movie projector from 1950 with the cracked lens because it still works just fine!

And it can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to refit a cinema for digital. One of the reasons Multiplex chains have pushed out independent theatres.

Considering Digital has been trying to emulate 35mm film through 24fps modes for a while now, I seriously doubt what he's saying is going to come to fruition.

I never take my camera off of 24fps mode whenever I'm filming, because the added smoothness offends me.

Stammer:
Lots of people may consider movies a superior art medium to video games, but I always find it hilarious how movies are doing everything they can to try and crawl out from the shadow of games.

Though I'd love to see what a movie would look like with 60 frames-per-second. It might even make 3D more bearable to look at.

What shadow? Games have been doing knock-off versions of some of film's biggest stories. Considering the quality of gaming's storytelling, I'd say it's the exact opposite.

Since the human eye has trouble seeing over 30FPS ,60FPS is silly, unless the industry as a whole can easily adjust to it hardware cost wise.

ZippyDSMlee:
Since the human eye has trouble seeing over 30FPS ,60FPS is silly, unless the industry as a whole can easily adjust to it hardware cost wise.

We really only make 24 snapshots in our head, but our input is analog, the snapshots are not momentary but the sum of everything that passed our eye between "frames", like a long exposure snapshot, that's why our images never tear or jerk.

However we do not see like a camera, especially not a digital one and that seems to be forgotten by the ultra high def FTW movement, our view is mostly blurred only about 5% in center of our focus is really sharp, yet these new super quality films smack us in the face with such high detail it feels like your eyes are focused on everything in the picture at once, as if you can see every skin pore on everyones face at the same time... reality just does not work that way.
Then the idea of higher FPS, yes it will bring more detail but yet again that is not what we see in reality, with our low frame rate we get a natural motion blur, but a higher FPS movie will counter that and just give us a clearer picture of every moving object, yet again moving us further from our actual view point.

The old analog celluloid films are flawed, but let's not forget they worked so well because they are so very close to our own way of image perception, so before we jump the gun on new tech let's think for a moment how we make things look real.

Mr.K.:

ZippyDSMlee:
Since the human eye has trouble seeing over 30FPS ,60FPS is silly, unless the industry as a whole can easily adjust to it hardware cost wise.

We really only make 24 snapshots in our head, but our input is analog, the snapshots are not momentary but the sum of everything that passed our eye between "frames", like a long exposure snapshot, that's why our images never tear or jerk.

However we do not see like a camera, especially not a digital one and that seems to be forgotten by the ultra high def FTW movement, our view is mostly blurred only about 5% in center of our focus is really sharp, yet these new super quality films smack us in the face with such high detail it feels like your eyes are focused on everything in the picture at once, as if you can see every skin pore on everyones face at the same time... reality just does not work that way.
Then the idea of higher FPS, yes it will bring more detail but yet again that is not what we see in reality, with our low frame rate we get a natural motion blur, but a higher FPS movie will counter that and just give us a clearer picture of every moving object, yet again moving us further from our actual view point.

The old analog celluloid films are flawed, but let's not forget they worked so well because they are so very close to our own way of image perception, so before we jump the gun on new tech let's think for a moment how we make things look real.

Whats real and whats not? Is not film the realm of fiction thus meant to push us beyond the mundane?

ZippyDSMlee:

Mr.K.:

Whats real and whats not? Is not film the realm of fiction thus meant to push us beyond the mundane?

I ofcourse meant real as in line with our visual perception, I said nothing of content.

Nah. If you film something at 60 fps, it creates that 'live on air' illusion. While that's fine for news programs and breakfast shows, I quite like the 'anti-live' feel of films shot at 24 fps. High definition televisions have already done enough to make me feel like every film I'm watching is a BBC News special, and I'd rather that go no further.

Would the Man With No Name trilogy have benefited from being shot at 60 fps? Fuck no, half the appeal of those films is the gritty cinematography. Clint Eastwood lighting a cigar at 24 fps is just as bad-ass as Clint lighting a cigar at 60 fps. Hell, the sun-drenched, low-fidelity camera-work is part of what gave the Spaghetti Westerns their appeal.

Would the original Star Wars trilogy have benefited from a 60 fps framerate? I doubt it. The animators and puppeteers would have probably walked off set if George Lucas had told them they had to animate all the monsters and space ships at 60 frames a second. That would have meant doubling their workload! And the trilogy would have lost its distinctive western-in-space feel as well.

The problem with James Cameron is that he's a hack. Instead of focusing on story or characterisation (like Speilberg), or interesting direction (like Tarantino) he always focuses on technology. This has been true ever since Terminator and Aliens. His films are gloriously expensive tech-demos. Now that would be fine, if he didn't then try and denounce everyone else's tech and proclaim his own to be the best thing to ever happen to cinema.

No, Cameron, Citizen Kane is the best thing to ever happen to cinema. The Godfather is the best thing to happen to cinema. Films that reach out to people and inspire emotions despite the limitations of the medium, these are the best things the medium has to offer. Hyping your mediocre films off the fact you're using slightly different camera equipment to everyone else, that falls somewhere else entirely.

I would love to see someone like Quentin Tarantino respond to this. There's a director absolutely in love with the properties of analogue film, and it would be interesting to see how he responds to having his methods deemed archaic. Expecially as Cameron mentions 'showmanship', and as directors go, Tarantino is an infinitely better showman than Cameron, any day of the week.

Mr.K.:

ZippyDSMlee:

Mr.K.:

Whats real and whats not? Is not film the realm of fiction thus meant to push us beyond the mundane?

I ofcourse meant real as in line with our visual perception, I said nothing of content.

Well content=how its filmed=frame rate.

ranyilliams:

GeorgW:
Wait, they have 24?? WHY???
Upgrade already, this is ridiculous!!

The reason why is because some people think it looks better. Its the same reason that black and white film camera exists, All of the technology to do the same thing in digital is out there. but some people just have preferences. personally i think that 24fps gives things a more "film like" look when shooting on digital...

Fair enough. I really don't see much of a difference, but there's no reason not to try anything new, right?

GeorgW:

ranyilliams:

GeorgW:
Wait, they have 24?? WHY???
Upgrade already, this is ridiculous!!

The reason why is because some people think it looks better. Its the same reason that black and white film camera exists, All of the technology to do the same thing in digital is out there. but some people just have preferences. personally i think that 24fps gives things a more "film like" look when shooting on digital...

Fair enough. I really don't see much of a difference, but there's no reason not to try anything new, right?

Its funny that you say that, I actually wouldn't want to shoot on 60 FPS unless i was going to slow down the footage in post production. The reason being...The soap opera effect, It makes everything look really hyper real, and your eyes have trouble dealing with the movement. The reason that 24 works so well is because they will every other frame in a movie with a black frame, your eye will fill in the image and give it a blurred motion. This makes it easier for your eye to see the image and makes it look more true to real life. 60 is to much for your eye to handle so when you look at it, everything looks...Weird :p

But ya this kinda concerns me that he's trying to make this the standard in an artistic medium. Thats like saying some famous painter wants to make oil based paints "standard" when some people just prefer latex paint...

dragongit:
With home theater, even now the Blueray seems to be able to handle the length of a full movie and some extras, and nothing more. And thats just running at 24 frames a second. 60 frames is litereally more then double its current rate. A movie like the original Avatar done in 60 FPS may not even be able to fit on a single Blu Ray on its own.

This is my assumption though, I may be completely wrong, but I see the downfall of sheer storage limitations hurting this project.

YEAH!!

Intermissions!!!

Please insert disc 2....

please tell me people remember movies that had actual intermissions....yeehaw sound of music!!

Also movies look fine I think a large amount of the action movie complaints arent the result of the inability of the cameras to film the action sequences without being blurry but the directors choice to put the camera IN YOUR FACE and SHAKE CONSTANTLY TO MAKE ACTION REALISTIC instead of actually filming good action sequences. Like in the Bourne series where its OMG SHAKE THE CAMERA Matt Damon is fighting AHHHHHGGGG!!

Movie frames and video game frames aren't the same. 24 does sound drastically lower than 60 but movies have motion blur to compensate, video games don't and thats why video games can look choppy even when displayed at more than 24 fps. Im not sure what increasing movie framerate to 60 would bring, id have to see it, but i think that would increase file size? Thus making it more difficult to stream and such.

60fps is what gives movies that cinematic, storytelling atmosphere, and I don't feel like supporting so long as Hack Cameron is trumpeting about it.

Higher frame rate would require more lighting, more film (unless digital), projectors to be tuned so that they play 60fps, plus there would probably be an issue with syncing sound.

So no, James, 24fps is perfectly fine.

fix-the-spade:
Jim clearly hasn't thought about the budget implications of doing this.

Full frame by frame CGi and rotoscoping now is hideously expensive, doing the same thing for 60fps instead of 24 is a slightly terrifying prospect. I can't see budgets expanding at a geometric rate to match the increase in labour time.

This occurred to me as well. I don't think the increase should be quite as hideous as you imagine- it ought to be possible to use virtually the same number of "keyframes" in some software to make smooth motion, whether it's 24 fps or 60- but the amount of rendering time would definitely increase.

When we said we wanted to have more substance in avatar we were not refering to the film roll

Will people actually notice?

doggie015:
Seriously... The only thing you need for decent CGI is a high-end Alienware laptop and a mastery of CryEngine 3!

Callate:
it ought to be possible to use virtually the same number of "keyframes" in some software to make smooth motion,

You're both forgetting the roto-sync (Rotoscope).

Every single frame where a live action element interacts or even shares a screen with a CG element has to be indiviudally matched. If it isn't done (and done perfectly) the image on the screen flickers.

24fps is already so expensive that it get's farmed out to sweatshops in India (no really), 60 individual frames for every second, that all have to be indiviudally matched by hand (computers can't do this kind of thing, many have tried). That's a lot of money.

PS: Crysis 2 is not better than film effects. Nor is Crysis 1 for that matter.

hahaha! I thought you meant the prime-minister, David Cameron by the title!

A lot of you seem to be blindly agreeing without understanding exactly why the choice for 24 frames per second has stuck around for so long. The difference between seeing something at 24 frames and something higher like 30 or 60 (which many digital cameras have) is that 24 frames looks like film, while the other frame rates look like video. As audiences, we have this idea that a certain type of motion looks like a movie we'd see on the big screen, while the other type of motion with these higher frame rates does not. It's an artistic choice that has come about because of a collective consciousness.

Right now, there is a huge revolution with web video and even in major motion pictures to using DSLR cameras like the Canon 5D. Aside from the stunning image quality, do you know why people use them? Because they come packaged with a 24 fps frame rate. Many DSLRs also come with the option to shoot in 60 frames per second, but nobody that's shooting a narrative picture uses it... do you know why? Because people have an idea for what a movie looks like, from the color palettes down to the motions, and using different frame rates toys with how people perceive that.

Now I'm not totally against the higher frame rate idea. For action movies or war movies they already use a much higher shutter speed so the action looks more gritty, now they won't have to. A higher frame rate is just what they're asking for. However, a majority of films won't benefit from this, it will change their look and feel artistically more than you know.

I honestly didn't think this man's ego could get any bigger, so this is quite staggering. He's been a co-author for the digital effects movement in films. Two of his films are the two highest grossing pictures of all time. One of those films is only one of two to have earned eleven Academy Awards.

And now he's taking it upon himself to reshape the very fabric of cinema. I don't care what hypothetical benefits this may have. James Cameron is for it, so I'm against it.

Scars Unseen:

Shotgun Sam:

Scars Unseen:
That's all well and good until you try to pack too many actors into a scene and watch the movie start chugging around 12 FPS.

Hahaha. This is exactly what I thought of when I read the topic. James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film.... uhhh... so... James wants it to be pretty smooth when nothings happening and then cram a bunch of explosions and people on screen and have it drop to 10 fps... sounds good.

On the bright side, maybe Michael Bay will have to stop making movies if that happens.

Hah! Personally, I think that wouldn't be such a bad thing at all...

OT: My take on 24 vs 60 fps has been expressed here already. 60 fps movies will end up looking "fake" or at least "weird". Not weird in a way that after a while you're used to it, but weird in a way that it just doesn't seem real. I guess the same way that stop motion looks weird...

Oh good, looks like I'll have to go get a 1TB drive if I want to keep up my habit of loading my movies onto my hard drive.

I support this, however. Motion blur in films is pretty noticeable to me; especially so when I want to take a single frame out of it for an image. I would love being able to take an image of action in a film without having it look like shit.

SL33TBL1ND:
The mouse over text of xkcd 732 is relevant here, I believe.

Of course, this is also the same strip where he makes fun of someone for not owning a workstation-sized monitor, and claims his cell phone has a resolution just shy of the iPhone 4 which hadn't even come out yet, so I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt.

Cameron's too, but for different reason.

Steve the Pocket:

SL33TBL1ND:
The mouse over text of xkcd 732 is relevant here, I believe.

Of course, this is also the same strip where he makes fun of someone for not owning a workstation-sized monitor, and claims his cell phone has a resolution just shy of the iPhone 4 which hadn't even come out yet, so I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt.

Cameron's too, but for different reason.

The mouse over text isn't his opinion, it's what people's opinions of the frame-rate of a sit-com vs a film really are. The comic is a joke, yes. But the mouse over isn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here