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.
James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Well...the human eye can see about 13 distinct frames per second...the 24 fps standard was really only chosen for audio...if it was video only, they would have used a lower fps...going higher wouldn't really change anything...
It is different for video- and computergames, since the fps are not only the images themselves being shown, but also being rendered in realtime and the player input results in jerky movement, when the computation speed goes down...it's not the fps that make movements look jerky on a low spec machine...
It is different for video- and computergames, since the fps are not only the images themselves being shown, but also being rendered in realtime and the player input results in jerky movement, when the computation speed goes down...it's not the fps that make movements look jerky on a low spec machine...
Brilliant. Frame rate is the single most "this steam engine is the best thing that mankind will ever come up, so let's get used to it" -kind of aspect in these areas. 23,974 frames per second has been very old news for a long long long time... And the difference is astounding. I've been foaming about this for years.
DO IT
I am actually starting to get annoyed with not being able to see parts of the film due to too much image blur caused by not enough frames. Action movies could really benefit.
I am actually starting to get annoyed with not being able to see parts of the film due to too much image blur caused by not enough frames. Action movies could really benefit.
That's all well and good if you're shooting digital (which more and more people are everyday) but for those that stay true to film, 24fps is the way to go.
Although the visual effects guys of the future may rue the decision to go to 60fps.
Anyway, James Cameron is not Movie Jesus. The producers may love him, but I'll wait for the cinematographers and directors of photography to sway to 60fps before I agree to it.
Also, 24fps has such a nice aesthetic to it when you're watching it in theatres. I hope that never goes away.
Although the visual effects guys of the future may rue the decision to go to 60fps.
Anyway, James Cameron is not Movie Jesus. The producers may love him, but I'll wait for the cinematographers and directors of photography to sway to 60fps before I agree to it.
Also, 24fps has such a nice aesthetic to it when you're watching it in theatres. I hope that never goes away.
I've seen lensflare with the naked eye too. That doesn't take away from the fact that it's literally caused by the quality of the lens in an optical system, but it does demonstrate that the lens in the human eye isn't perfect either.Fronzel said:
(Or at least, the lenses in my eyes definitely aren't. Although the nature of the lens-flares I see are quite different to those you'd get on photos or film, which is what games tend to be copying.)
Thank GOD someone is finally up in arms about this. I've been complaining loudly about it since I was old enough to complain. But hey, I complain about the lack of V-sync and the death of antialiasing just as loudly . . . and nobody listens to me on those accounts either.
Upping the frame rate might however lead to the Soap Opera Effect, where movement is "too smooth" and the illusion disappears.
For some reason I can't find any proper links to describe it, but this kind of covers it: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/
For some reason I can't find any proper links to describe it, but this kind of covers it: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/
Spoken like someone whose only experience with a James Cameron film was Avatar... Jeezbob1052 said:
OT: The man definately makes a point although I wonder what it'll mean for IMAX technology. Those film reels are outrageously large in the first place, having to store twice the celluloid to shoot the same length will seriously impact film-making flexibility. 3D will certainly benefit from an increased frame rate but I firmly believe IMAX is the better advancement... I would have liked to have been at that presentation.
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...GeorgW said:
Not going to happen. The poeple that own the screens have just shelled out large wads of cash for 3D, they are not going spend millions on re-equipping those brand new projectors for higher fps. At $150,000 per screen they wouldn't have made the money back yet on the investment in 3D projectors.