James Cameron loves 3D a whole lot, and he’s still passionately pushing for cinemas to adopt 60 frame per second projection, arguing it’ll make for better 3D.
I’m still rather solidly in the “too much 3D makes me nauseous” camp, and that’s all too often “any”, but Cameron’s still a keen proponent of 3D. But not at today’s poky 24fps film projection rates, or even the 48fps that Peter Jackson’s shooting The Hobbit in. He’s been on this crusade for a while now, but recently told The Hollywood Reporter that he’s ‘favouring’ shooting the Avatar sequels at 60fps. He’s a little hamstrung, however, by what frame rate cinemas will actually display his movies in. Cameron is quoted in regards to his push for 60fps as saying that
The reason I went down that path is because I believe it makes for better 3D. There were lots of arguments for why 48 and why 60. My feeling is if it is a software upgrade (for digital cinema projectors), do both. It doesn’t change anything at the projector; you don’t have to change the lamp house or the lenses. If you are uploading software you can upload it for 48 and 60 and let the filmmakers decide.”
It seems inevitable that he’ll shoot the Avatar sequels at some kind of higher frame rate, but he’s not yet quite certain.
If the exhibitors will adopt the idea of a dual standard, than I’ll probably want to shoot 60. If they don’t, then I will have to look very carefully at the pros and cons of 60 and 48.”
Namarrgon
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 1:41 PMGood for him. Maybe he (and Jackson and Spielberg) can get the industry over their fixation on the blurry, juddery, 90-year-old mess that is 24Hz movies.
I enjoy 3D (if it’s done well), but I’m convinced high frame rates are much more the future of movies. The difference is huge.
Kalem
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 3:57 PMI don’t know about this. When ever I am watching anything about the standard 24-26fps, my mind kick into home-movies mode.
TSH
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:24 AMI’ve heard comments like this from many cultured cinema enthusiasts but I honestly don’t understand it. I spend the first 15 minutes of any movie I see in the cinema seeing nothing but jerky images in a pathetic attempt to simulate motion. Then my eyes adjust and/or I get into the story – but my eyes are accustomed to the fluidity of ~60+ fps, especially from games. 24fps is considered an “unplayable” framerate.
Spock
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 5:00 PMIf Cameron is pushing it, run in the other direction. The guy should worry more about making a good movie before worrying about the fps.
HighlyDubious
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 5:04 PMMan, my old Pentium II ran Doom at >60FPS…. I agree with James Cameron on this one.
Michael
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 7:01 PMClearly a man who wants more say in the movies he makes.
Mike
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 7:10 PMI’m a little confused here. I myself work in the VFX and film industry, and it baffles me as to why we’re attempting to push such high frame rates. Let’s not forget, the human eye isn’t capable of seeing any more than approximately 30FPS, so what’s the point in shooting higher unless you’re pet eagle is watching!?
james_whatsit
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 2:41 AMmabye for active shutter glasses? (which suck!!)
TSH
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:14 AMActually, the human eye is capable of distinguishing changes in the range of 5ms (equivalent of 200fps). Anyone who pays close attention can easily see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Granted, you only really *need* 24fps to fool the brain into seeing motion in still images. But AFAIK that was a technical limitation imposed by the quality of optics and the expense of actual film almost 100 years ago.
These limitations no longer exist. Why not do things better?
Kris
Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 10:39 AMOur peripheral vision can see at a much quicker framerate than 24fps
Kris
Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 10:42 AMAlso, if our eyes were actually “synched” with the camera’s framerate, then we would be fine, however, they obviously aren’t..
Otacon
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:19 PMIrrelevant but I own two copies of Avatar on Blu Ray.