James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film

[370999]

I'd happily have that. If my grandchildren look back at our films and thing 'shit, that's jumpy' i'd hang my head in shame. Please lets not have that happen.

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.

 

[zpm4737]

Don't many TV shows already use a higher frame rate? I feel like most people already associate the look of a higher frame rate with dytime sitcoms.

 

[Petromir]

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!

A film based movie camera's effective resolution, and optics quality is so far beyond a consumer digital movie camera that its not even a comparison. This is why films pre digital era with no CGI look vastly better than those filmed digitally pre HD when produced in HD.

 

[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.

 

[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 ***** to impliment with todays storage and budgets though.

 

[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!

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.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Smooth Operator]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Spoiler

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?

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

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Spoiler

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?

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

Well content=how its filmed=frame rate.

 

[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?

 

[ranyilliams]

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

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...

 

[MrJoyless]

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!!

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

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.