http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/4836414/Avatar-2-to-be-filmed-at-double-speed
Does this mean a 3/2 Pull down becomes a 6/4 Pull Down?
Does this mean a 3/2 Pull down becomes a 6/4 Pull Down?
Avatar 2 to be shot at 48fps
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
Proof positive of what I've been saying since Avatar: Current 3D tech is inadequate and gimmicky. As currently presented, it has the potential to pull audiences out of the story. Let's hope the upgraded approach produces noticeably more realistic results.
Complete and utter nonsense, and trying to twist Cameron's continued innovation and unalloyed success into evidence for a pet complaint is a nonstarter.
This "strobing" is anything but a recent concern among film technicians interested in the believability and immersion of the film experience. Douglas Trumbull developed a film-based technology called "Showscan" a generation ago intended to accomplish the same thing at 60 fps, but one of the things which prevented it from succeeding was the cost of equipment conversion for thousands of exhibitors around the country.
What's happened here is that the success of 3D and of Cameron's approach to it in particular with audiences has driven the widespread adoption of the digital exhibition technology that now makes it possible for him to take the next step to improve movies.
And doubtless when he succeeds again there will be legions of people complaining on the Internet that it gives them headaches and takes them out of the movie. C'est la guerre.
Well that didn't take long.
Oh yeah ... and I was right about Avatar's tech.
Oh yeah ... and I was right about Avatar's tech.
That may help...I can watch movies in the theater, but I do notice strobing, whether 3D or 2D. That said, though, I have no interest in another Avatar; the first was too underwhelming on the plot. I look forward to seeing this on another (better) movie.
(At least I know from this that I'm not imagining it when I have difficulty focusing on images in the theater. TVs typically have a much higher refresh rate, right?)
(At least I know from this that I'm not imagining it when I have difficulty focusing on images in the theater. TVs typically have a much higher refresh rate, right?)
Do current cinemas have the technology to run a 3D movie at 48/60fps? And what about the home movie release? How many 3D TVs will support that? We're talking double the framerate without blurring the left/right frames. I know most will support the frame rate in theory, but in practice is a whole other story.
Not to mention that Bluray currently doesn't support full 1080p at 48/60fps, and 3D adds even more overhead to that. They're going to have to alter the Bluray standard yet again, and a mere firmware upgrade isn't going to help if your player can't handle a faster bandwidth (unless they manage to somehow squeeze double the video information into the same bandwidth).
So now James Cameron can just decide he wants to change every piece of cinema technology when it's convenient for him?
Not to mention that Bluray currently doesn't support full 1080p at 48/60fps, and 3D adds even more overhead to that. They're going to have to alter the Bluray standard yet again, and a mere firmware upgrade isn't going to help if your player can't handle a faster bandwidth (unless they manage to somehow squeeze double the video information into the same bandwidth).
So now James Cameron can just decide he wants to change every piece of cinema technology when it's convenient for him?
Apparently the new digital exhibition technology permits it; today is not the first time this has been proposed. As for home video, who knows?
Of course we're talking several years down the road here anyway. What year would the home video release of this one likely arrive?
2015 I think.
Avatar 2 is suppose to come out in 2014, but I don't know if it's the summer or Christmas.
So we're discussing where home video technology will be in four or five years. Who knows, other than maybe Roger Ebert?
Last edited:
It is about time that theatrical presentation is upgraded... The 24 fps standard in film has existed since the 1920's(!!!), so an attempted enhancement is long overdue.
With digital projection it is much easier to project whatever fps and/or resolution the material uses.
With digital projection it is much easier to project whatever fps and/or resolution the material uses.
Twice the frame rate; twice the headache? No thanks.
So this will mean twice as many reels, right?
I imagine that they use at least Terabyte hard drives for digital screenings, but I don't really have a clue.
:facepalm:
Correct me if I am wrong, but is the lack of blur in moving objects one of the reasons why CGI can look fake? Isn't having a bit of a blur needed for realism?
