James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film



The director of Avatar wants movies to abandon the 24 frames per second standard and go up to 60.

Setting the Wabac Machine to the 1920s when talkies - or motion pictures with an audio track - first became popular across America, I found that the standard frame rate of 24 per second was only chosen because it was the cheapest speed to provide adequate sound quality. Now, a decade shy of a century later, the standard still exists even though digital cameras and projectors are in use, often with the audio track coming from a separate medium. James Cameron, who broke standards with his 3D film Avatar, said to a group of his colleagues that it's time to abolish the standard 24 fps to increase a filmmaker's ability to showcase accurate motion and technique in films.

Cameron gave a presentation in Las Vegas for the movie-business convention Cinemacon in which he showed footage at 24 fps compared directly with sequences shot in 48 and 60 fps. He pointed out the strobing and visual artifacts the 24 fps footage revealed and extolled that the higher frame rate would allow "potential to improve showmanship."

The Titanic director pledged that he would fight for this change, and that other directors like Peter Jackson and George Lucas were interested in increasing the frame rate standard. "I'm going to try to be as active as possible - until we figure out what the best answer," Cameron told the attendees. "I hope this opens the door to testing that needs to be done. I'm making the content [shown here] available to anyone who wants to test it."

While most projectors at movie houses around the world are built for the 24 fps standard, Cameron noted that most digital projectors would be able to handle 60 fps without buying new hardware. "The generation two projectors are capable of doing what I show you with a software upgrade," he said.

As a PC gamer, I'm always struggling to get the best frame rate with my games and frequently push 50 to 60 fps. I really notice it when the display drops below 30 fps. To think that movies have been stuck at 24 fps, especially with the digital revolution of cameras and projectors now taking place, is kind of ridiculous.

Detractors might argue that 24 fps looks just fine, and what a director does with it his or her responsibility. I didn't see Cameron's presentation, but I imagine that the difference between the 24 fps and 60 fps was a little like the jump from standard TVs to HD. I didn't think the picture was bad on my old standard TV until I saw what a fancy high definition TV looked like. Now, I can't imagine going back.

Say what you want about Cameron's movies, but the man has a point.

Source: Hollywood Reporter [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577?]

Permalink
 

Stammer

New member
Apr 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
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.
 

Dr. Whiggs

New member
Jan 12, 2008
476
0
0
Maybe instead we could try for better writing instead of a higher frame-rate?

Nah, that's silly.
 

Galliam

New member
Dec 26, 2008
237
0
0
He's James Cameron, if he makes another "avatar" at 60fps, the world will follow, even if it IS reluctantly. Stop trying to sell it and just do it.
 

Chamale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
1,345
0
0
I think this'll be like the move to colour film. It'll look better, but for many years there will still be movies made at 24 FPS. 30 years after movies change to 60 FPS, there'll be some independents making 24 FPS movies, and a few will be amazing. But the era of 24 FPS from major studios will be over.

Or maybe it'll be like 3D. Everyone calls it the next big thing, but it's just too expensive to film and not worthwhile. I'm not a psychic.
 

Galliam

New member
Dec 26, 2008
237
0
0
Stammer said:
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.
I believe most Soap Operas are now shot at a higher framerate. If you need an accessible example.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
3D certainly needs higher frame rates - anything approaching a quick pan or movement strobes something terrible, even in made-for-3D films like Tron. I don't think TV needs to worry any time soon, but maybe even 2D feature films might be able to benefit from the higher quality.
 

BlindChance

Librarian
Sep 8, 2009
442
0
0
Isn't digital projection's overall resolution and image quality way, way below celluloid's, though? I'm more than happy to be told I'm wrong here, but I understood that to still be true.

I still cannot work out why Maxivision 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxivision) was never seriously considered despite serious hype from Roger Ebert. The idea of it is amazing: All the picture quality of celluloid, plus twice the frame rate.
 

icyneesan

New member
Feb 28, 2010
1,881
0
0
While I've never noticed the huge different between 60 and 24 fps before, I'm starting to notice it now when I play console games for awhile then suddenly switch over to PC games. Anyways, if it doesn't cost anything for movie theaters to upgrade hardware and movie studios can do it, why dont they.
 

bob1052

New member
Oct 12, 2010
774
0
0
Cameron is just looking for some new type of revolutionary technology to carry his next film so he doesn't have to worry about having any actual merit to his film beyond the camera used.
 

Sir Subtle

New member
Jul 24, 2009
23
0
0
This idea has been kicked around for awhile and I'm glad finally someone prolific like Cameron's pushing for it. I don't think much of his movies or 3D but this is definitely something I can get behind.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
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.