Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#91

Post by alexqgb »

totalforge wrote: post #6
nhebb wrote: post #3

I assume that higher fps = higher digital payload = higher bandwidth load for ISP's, considering services like Netflix Since this will place a bigger burden on ISP's, they will use it as added ammunition when lobbying Washington re Net Neutrality, and the whole thing will become a political clusterf*ck. Ain't life in the US grand? But other than that, it sounds like a good idea.

ISP's don't enter into it. The goal is to have exclusive tech in movie theaters only.

Indeed. It's all about doing what your ISP can't.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#92

Post by Groxx »

CamperBob wrote: post #87

It's about damn time. I've never understood the rush to increase resolution and 'dimensions' when simple camera pans fundamentally do not work, and never have.

And the increased dimensions merely make it more obvious. I generally prefer to watch things on my laptop / slightly larger screen, things look better than at the theater where a moderate-speed pan means things are jumping foot or so at a time.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#93

Post by jonhohle »

VMG wrote: post #76
jonhohle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be low hanging fruit, but imagine rotoscope work on a 24fps feature vs a 60fps feature. The work has just increased 2.5x for the same shot. For fully rendered content, there is likely no additional man hour time, but for any frame by frame work involving humans, post processing could take a lot longer.

Is this kind of thing really done frame-by-frame though? I think with smart interpolation techniques you shouldn't have to do single frames anymore.

Rotoscoping[0] is by definition frame by frame. Keyframed animation would largely remain unchanged, though rendering would take 2.5x as long.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#94

Post by VMG »

mryall wrote: post #75
relix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because a game's frame is rendered at one absolute time point, while a movie's frame is like a photograph taken with a shutter speed of 1/24th: it includes the motion data of that whole time interval, it contains motion blur, and it's smooth from one frame to the next. That's why a game at 24fps looks bad, but an (action) movie at 24fps looks good.

That doesn't seem like it could be true. The film is rolling through the camera, and if the shutter were open continuously, the entire film would be a vertical blur of light. The shutter would open and close once per frame, so the film can be advanced. The actual shutter speed of a camera shooting 24 fps would be much faster than 1/24 s.

Just hit pause on practically any movie when there is movement

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#95

Post by Geee »

VMG wrote: post #94
mryall wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem like it could be true. The film is rolling through the camera, and if the shutter were open continuously, the entire film would be a vertical blur of light. The shutter would open and close once per frame, so the film can be advanced. The actual shutter speed of a camera shooting 24 fps would be much faster than 1/24 s.

Just hit pause on practically any movie when there is movement

It is really interesting how our brain compensates for the motion blur in films. I mean, you don't usually notice that things are really blurry until you pause the movie.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#96

Post by GFischer »

RVK wrote: post #78
electromagnetic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Hollywood "look" is having tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to dump. TV looks low-budget because it is low budget. But there's a big difference between real low budget TV and simply TV. Honestly, download an original British or Canadian drama show that doesn't get carried in the US and you'll see low budget. You'll see horrific, unwatchable direction. I'm sorry, but give Sam Raimi a video camera with any…

I can't speak for Canadian TV but primetime British dramas are generally technically excellent - for instance, this year's Oscar winner for Best Director, Tom Hooper, has directed episodes of Cold Feet, EastEnders and Byker Grove. Practically nothing that doesn't feature US accents and locations is picked up by the networks - sometimes period co-productions sneak in, as long as there's pretty frocks and no swearing.…

The BBC has some of the best camerawork I've ever seen. Other European productions aren't bad either (RTL comes to my mind)

Disclaimer: I'm a layman, but that's my opinion as a South American that has watched both North American and European TV (with long stays in Canada and Austria).

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#97

Post by Geee »

jonhohle wrote: post #93
VMG wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this kind of thing really done frame-by-frame though? I think with smart interpolation techniques you shouldn't have to do single frames anymore.

Rotoscoping[0] is by definition frame by frame. Keyframed animation would largely remain unchanged, though rendering would take 2.5x as long. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping

I'm pretty sure large budget animations are already rendered with higher frame rate for proper motion blur. You can't add proper motion blur with post-effects, like in video games.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#98

Post by Florin_Andrei »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #52
mhb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

Your claim "But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen." is a fallacy. I'm sure if someone wanted a grain effect in their photograph they would be more likely to actually use film rather than use a digital simulation of what film would have looked like had they chosen to do that. I don't see wide spread use of the 'water color' effect either but people still make water color pict…

> Your claim "But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen." is a fallacy.

Yet it's factually true.

> I was rebutting the claim that shooting film on celluloid would 'go away'

Perhaps I did not choose the best words.

It will not disappear from the face of the Earth, of course. But it will be relegated to "retro" or nostalgic movies, etc.

It depends on how quickly the new, less limited technologies are adopted by the big names in cinema, and of course by how quickly the old generation, accustomed to the old way a film "is supposed to look", will retrain their taste or die off. :)

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#99

Post by Florin_Andrei »

_delirium wrote: post #63
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #13

> The filmmaker said that when he begins shooting the "Avatar" sequel in about 18 months, he will be shooting at a higher frame rate, though he has yet to decide if that will be 48 fps or 60 fps. He said George Lucas was "gung-ho" to make the conversion, and also called Peter Jackson one of his allies. Jackson, he said, had at one point been heavily weighing shooting "The Hobbit" at 48 fps. Awesome! It's finally happ…

Isn't everything about film and film-watching "exclusively a habit, a purely conventional thing, imposed by culture"? Or are there aspects that are objective? (Would I even watch a James Cameron film if it weren't for cultural norms encouraging me to?)

A postmodernist would reply that everything is purely conventional. Others may disagree. But that's an entirely different can of worms.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#100

Post by _delirium »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #99
_delirium wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't everything about film and film-watching "exclusively a habit, a purely conventional thing, imposed by culture"? Or are there aspects that are objective? (Would I even watch a James Cameron film if it weren't for cultural norms encouraging me to?)

A postmodernist would reply that everything is purely conventional. Others may disagree. But that's an entirely different can of worms.

I don't see how it's any different, I suppose. The aesthetics of the 24-fps film are aesthetics, just like basically any other aspect of film, ranging from acting styles to types of cuts. I happen to like the aesthetics of 24-fps film for certain kinds of scenes, and actually prefer 14-fps and 18-fps even more, again for certain kinds of scenes. You seem to be arguing that I don't "really" like the aesthetics, but am being misled by my associations. But I think I do really like the aesthetics!

Mostly, I don't see why my film fps preference is more culturally constructed, or constructed in some more objectionable way, than basically every single other thing having to do with film, which is nothing but an aesthetic and cultural phenomenon to begin with.

I mean, we might inquire into the habits and conventions that lead you to prefer 60-fps film, just as much as we look into those that lead me to prefer 24-fps film! Perhaps you have an aesthetic preference that films "should" be more realistic, and less stylized? Or a technological-aesthetic ideology that films should use "better" technology because it must necessarily be better aesthetically?

Post reply on HN