James Cameron wants movies in 48fps instead of 24fps

[QuickyAPI]

Hey guys, some of you probably read already about this, but James Cameron recently demo'ed some footage in 24fps, 48fps and 60fps to lobby for a change in frame rates used in Hollywood. See for example: here.

Personally I welcome this push towards higher frame rates. A higher frame rate means smoother images, means more realistic footage, means more immersive experience.

I don't understand some of the arguments objecting to 48fps. Check this one for example:

The problem with increasing frame rates is that our brains have been trained our whole lives to interpret images at 24fps as movies aka fiction and things at higher frames such as 60i or 30p as real like news, reality tv, etc. ... It is going to be a tough sell to convince people that have been watching movies at 24fps their whole lives that this new footage is "better" because the motion is smoother. I understand why Cameron wants to do it, but I think it is just going to distract me the whole movie.

Basically what this person is saying is that he has been brainwashed to connect 24fps with cinema and 60fps with camcorders. To me that is like some granny not wanting to use an iPhone because she's not used to a touch screen. Sure, I understand, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to remain in the stone age, right?

I think 48fps will be great for movies that want to increase the immersiveness of movies, such as 3D-films like Avatar 2, but also films like The Hurt Locker where you want it to feel *real*.

I'm very curious what your opinion about this is.

[TheDenizen]

meh.

Being a devotee of low budget flicks from the 70s and 80s, I've never been a stickler for impeccable video quality. I couldn't care less if a movie image has a little grain, or slight blurring on a fast pan. It just doesn't matter, so they can fill their boots as far as I'm concerned. The stated objection to the idea (that our brains won't be able to tell that a movie isn't real) is patently absurd. As long as it doesn't necessitate an increase in Box Office prices to offset the cost of filming in 48 fps, I don't get the problem anyone would have with it.

It just seems totally unnecessary IMO. Before this technology was available, competent filmmakers were still able to craft visual masterpieces. Seems to me that all 48 fps will do is give vindication to modern hack directors who have no clue how to frame, choreograph or edit a decent action sequence, since now their shaky, blurry messes will be slightly clearer.

For the record, I think 3D technology is just a gimmick and a huge waste of time and money.

Also, get off my lawn you damn kids! *waves cane menacingly*

[Spunkie]

Aww damn. I hope this doesn't go through, it just means double the render times for me which are already painfully slow since the standart has been 1080p.

[QuickyAPI]

The stated objection to the idea (that our brains won't be able to tell that a movie isn't real) is patently absurd. As long as it doesn't necessitate an increase in Box Office prices to offset the cost of filming in 48 fps, I don't get the problem anyone would have with it.

Agreed.

It just seems totally unnecessary IMO. [...] For the record, I think 3D technology is just a gimmick and a huge waste of time and money.

Well, there's 'unnecessary' and there's 'would be nice to have'. I agree that 48fps isn't necessary to have great cinema. But I would argue that it could make great cinema even greater (in the hands of a decent director).

Also, get off my lawn you damn kids! *waves cane menacingly*

Not sure what this is about?...

[edkrak]

Can DVDs/BDs display films in 48 fps? Would it require new type of players/discs? If yes than I'm totally against it, blu ray's existence is painful enough for me.

[TheDenizen]

Also, get off my lawn you damn kids! *waves cane menacingly*

Not sure what this is about?...

Because I'm a cranky old fusspot

And yeah, there's nothing wrong with putting new techniques into the toolbox of filmmakers (48 fps or 3D). The issue is that for every guy who goes out of his way to do something innovative and cool with the new technology, there will be 20 artless goons who will just use it as an excuse to cut corners elsewhere on the production, or to cover up mistakes.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that so far the "new" 3D stuff has all just been a gimmicky excuse to throw something into the audience's lap a few times over the course of 90 minutes, and not a way to actually enrich a film experience. Until the tech gets over these growing pains and actually starts getting used for something interesting, I'm not very enthusiastic.

edkrak also raises a brilliant point. I've only just recently gotten on board with the Bluray thing, if they change the formats again now I might go postal.

[djross]

x

[ShogunRua]

Basically what this person is saying is that he has been brainwashed to connect 24fps with cinema and 60fps with camcorders.

Yeah, pretty sure no one is claiming that any "brainwashing" has occurred. The commentator's point is completely valid, even if it's something that can be overcome much quicker than he expects.

To me that is like some granny not wanting to use an iPhone because she's not used to a touch screen. Sure, I understand, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to remain in the stone age, right?

If you're going to use hyperbole, at least be funny, if not insightful.

Anyways, I'm not sure whether 48 fps will be an improvement over the current 24 fps, but if Cameron has enough money to spend on double the frame-rate, then sure, go ahead and try it out.

[MmzHrrdb]

Who else but Cameron would push for such an innovation? (Bay perhaps?) I can't say I find it objectionable per se, but moreover that it seems somewhat superfluous. I think you're blowing it a touch out of proportion by accusing that person of being 'brainwashed', or with that stone age remark; while I'm no expert in this field it seems apparent that, yes, our brains are quite comfortably adapted to that which we have been viewing for decades. Granted, you could call this kind of thing comparable to society's usually tsundere reaction to technological advancements, but this isn't the compact disc. Either way, I suppose this doesn't apply to me because I could scarcely manage to care less about Cameron's work at this stage, or for the majority of blockbuster flicks for that matter.

[Stewball]

I have several questions. Would that make it look more like watching digital video rather than film? Probably not, since they could likely add some "fuzz" or cut the contrast or something to make to soften the digital.

I know it would make it better for pan shots, which I always notice if there's any speed to it at all. (I guess my brainwashing didn't work for that. They need to switch to 60 fps for that. Could they use a variable speed? They should be able to if film isn't involved, and maybe even then. My camcorder has 3 frame rates, two of which are progressive to cut the pan stutter.

Are they still using film exclusively, frequently, not much or what, vs. digital? It shouldn't make any difference for blu-ray except probably for memory storage. My local theaters are mostly using digital projectors now for almost everything, which again begs the question, is it still necessary to film in (ahem) film?

I know just enough to be dangerous on a shooting location.