What'st he next Technological Milestone?

[spider-neil]

crossing the uncanny value with human characters not blue characters with big eyes

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Crossing the uncanny valley would be very cool, but then they have to try to make the acting believable also, which is much harder for very good actors...easier for not so good actors like Arnold or Sly.

 

[8wid]

Holographics are bound to be the next breakthrough. I can see Princess Leia asking Obi-Wan Kenobi for help, in a 3D projection, right in front of us in time for the fiftieth anniversary of Star Wars in 2027.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

From James Cameron himself during an interview:

"Here's a big one -- and not enough people are talking about this: 3-D makes us see better certain defects in the basic system of cinema -- the 24 frames-per-second display rate, which already has been eliminated by sports broadcasters as being insufficient. They've already got 60 frames. So I would like to shoot a movie at 48 or 60 frames-per-second, and have it displayed digitally at that rate. There's no reason why the digital projectors can't do it: the little Mims device that is the DLP chip can oscillate at, I think, up to 160 Hz. So, that right there allows us to have a new horizon in cinema, whether it's 2-D or 3-D. Now I think it gets complicated with respect to visual effects because you don't want to be rendering 60 frames when you used to be rendering 24. So what do you do? Do you render at 30 frames and do a 2-D interpolation with optical flow to generate the inter frames? That needs to be looked at. But that's the kind of thing I think about as the next horizon in terms of presentation and really blowing people away in the theater."

Interview here:

http://www.awn.com/articles/3d/cameron-geeks-out-avatar/page/5,1

 

[Timstuff]

IMO the next big advance will be glassless 3D. I know that 3D glasses have improved a lot, but they are still dorky. I think 3D will truly hit its apex when glasses are no longer needed (unless of course, true 3D where you can move your head to alter the camera angle is technologically possible).

 

[Figs]

Next technological milestone? Vibrating theater seats.

I think something similar was tried back in 1959 with William Castle's film The Tingler with Vincent Price.

During certain scenes there was a buzzer put in or under the seats to vibrate them and scare the audience.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

[YT]0wwAH5vJq6g[/YT]

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

The Next Tech Milestone should have IMAX FILMS BE MORE THAN 2 HOURS AND 40 MINUTES.

 

[Firm]

Avatar

 

[Slusho]

From James Cameron himself during an interview:

"Here's a big one -- and not enough people are talking about this: 3-D makes us see better certain defects in the basic system of cinema -- the 24 frames-per-second display rate, which already has been eliminated by sports broadcasters as being insufficient. They've already got 60 frames. So I would like to shoot a movie at 48 or 60 frames-per-second, and have it displayed digitally at that rate. There's no reason why the digital projectors can't do it: the little Mims device that is the DLP chip can oscillate at, I think, up to 160 Hz. So, that right there allows us to have a new horizon in cinema, whether it's 2-D or 3-D. Now I think it gets complicated with respect to visual effects because you don't want to be rendering 60 frames when you used to be rendering 24. So what do you do? Do you render at 30 frames and do a 2-D interpolation with optical flow to generate the inter frames? That needs to be looked at. But that's the kind of thing I think about as the next horizon in terms of presentation and really blowing people away in the theater."

Interview here:

http://www.awn.com/articles/3d/cameron-geeks-out-avatar/page/5,1

ok, I am probably sounding like a noob here, but what would the big advantages of 60 fps be?

and why is 24 fps "insufficient" for sports broadcasters?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

60fps is life-like and more frame rates than the eye can see that helps create a very fluid experience. It's perfect for sports and nature programs. 24fps is the framerate for movies and cinematic experiences.

Heres a good comparison:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

[dark_b]

what if someone finds a way to have a 60 fps movie with a cinematic feeling?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

what if someone finds a way to have a 60 fps movie with a cinematic feeling?

I think thats what James Cameron is aiming for, for Avatar 2, unless another director beats him to it. CG rendered for 60fps sounds like it would be expensive considering they have to render over double what they normally do.

 

[dark_b]

i am afraid that Cameron will like the 60fps so much better then the cinematic feeling that you get with 24. and then we will get a movie that doesnt look right.

the problem is that we got used to those 24 fps so much. i already have problems with those new LCD's that filter everything out. and even some super HD videos look strange to me because i am not used to see so much high definition.

 

[Crook]

60fps is life-like and more frame rates than the eye can see that helps create a very fluid experience. It's perfect for sports and nature programs. 24fps is the framerate for movies and cinematic experiences.

Heres a good comparison:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Can someone please explain this "cinematic" feeling garnered from 24fps, or that an increase in framerate magically detracts from the immersion one gains in a story? The last quote in that link makes absolutely no sense to me.

It might not be best to draw an example from this particular industry, but Bioshock is one of the most impressive narratives I've seen in gaming, and it's immersion was breathtaking. And I played this with close to 90 fps. I want to know what I "lost".

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Were you playing the PC version ? There's no way the PS3/360 version can render that much frame rate.

 

[Crook]

I thought it was obvious.

 

[A&W]

i am afraid that Cameron will like the 60fps so much better then the cinematic feeling that you get with 24. and then we will get a movie that doesnt look right.

the problem is that we got used to those 24 fps so much. i already have problems with those new LCD's that filter everything out. and even some super HD videos look strange to me because i am not used to see so much high definition.

then how do you handle seeing things in the real world with so much high definition with an infinite number of frames per second?

 

[Octoberist]

keep it at 24. Cameron at heart is still old school

LCD has a processor that adds more to the frame of rates, if I'm not mistaken, doubling it which makes a movie look like it's in fast forward. Luckily you can turn it off.

 

[Octoberist]

Can someone please explain this "cinematic" feeling garnered from 24fps, or that an increase in framerate magically detracts from the immersion one gains in a story? The last quote in that link makes absolutely no sense to me.

It might not be best to draw an example from this particular industry, but Bioshock is one of the most impressive narratives I've seen in gaming, and it's immersion was breathtaking. And I played this with close to 90 fps. I want to know what I "lost".

It's weird because I can't explain it articulately enough to back up my claims that 24 fps looks more cinematic than 60.

It's like explain why slight grain actually adds more to movie than it being super crystal clear.

24 fps just feels 'movie like' than 60. I think 60 works in certain movies if that's the style (Michael Mann's HD work as of late) but usually they end up looking like a cam corder. Or at least, it has to look like it's 24; Benjamin Button is an example where it was filmed digitally but it looked like film.

I guess 24 does something to the human eye where it looks richer and we're so condition to like it. it's like a filter for our vision, adding to the actors, direction, sets, props, and visual effects.

But it's like "why should have this type of camera angle" or why should the screenplay have three acts? It's best to think that if it's not broken then don't fix it.

 

[A&W]

the next milestone will probably be 3d where you can turn your head and see it from different angles. Kind of like a puppet show inside the screen. You can't walk up behind the character but you can lean to the side and see stuff rom different angles.

Probably wont need glasses for it. This technology has been in development for a while.

 

[A&W]

It's weird because I can't explain it articulately enough to back up my claims that 24 fps looks more cinematic than 60.

It's like explain why slight grain actually adds more to movie than it being super crystal clear.

24 fps just feels 'movie like' than 60. I think 60 works in certain movies if that's the style (Michael Mann's HD work as of late) but usually they end up looking like a cam corder. Or at least, it has to look like it's 24; Benjamin Button is an example where it was filmed digitally but it looked like film.

I guess 24 does something to the human eye where it looks richer and we're so condition to like it. it's like a filter for our vision, adding to the actors, direction, sets, props, and visual effects.

But it's like "why should have this type of camera angle" or why should the screenplay have three acts? It's best to think that if it's not broken then don't fix it.

do you claim that the way our eyes have evolved to see things in the real world is broken? In the real world we see it with infinite frames per second.

Cameron has rescently emprimented with 60 fps and said it is fantastic. He also said it will solve the glitches with the 3d tech he used for Avatar. At times certain objects would look out of focus for a second. and some viewers suffered from eye strain. this varied from person to person, but according to Cameron that's all fixed when you use 60 frames per second. It has to do with how much information your brain can process. When your only getting 24 frames worth of data for your brain it takes longer to get it into focus because it's not getting the data quick enough. Make it 60 and your brain gets the information guicker so your eyes can focus quicker.

 

[dark_b]

then how do you handle seeing things in the real world with so much high definition with an infinite number of frames per second?

i thought that it was obvious that i was talking about watching movies

 

[A&W]

i thought that it was obvious that i was talking about watching movies

well yeah it was obvious. But if you have trouble watching movies like that then how do you not have trouble watching reality like that?

 

[Silvermoth]

I reckon it will be interactive cinema. The kind of films where the actors turn around and look at the camera and say...

"Hey Silvermoth, how'ya doing?"