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.
James Cameron Wants Game-Like Frame Rates for Film
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
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.
So no, James, 24fps is perfectly fine.
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.fix-the-spade said:
doggie015 said:
You're both forgetting the roto-sync (Rotoscope).Callate said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hah! Personally, I think that wouldn't be such a bad thing at all...Scars Unseen said:
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.
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.
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.SL33TBL1ND said:
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.Steve the Pocket said: