What'st he next Technological Milestone?

[Space Moose]

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

Impossible. You'll always be able to tell the difference. (I asked this to a cinematographer who was assessing our HD cam skills).

 

[Octoberist]

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.

as long as it doesn't look like a cam corder then I'm okay with it (Public Enemies) but otherwise, I'm sticking with 24.

 

[Space Moose]

We tried the Red One and played with the frame rates. It usually comes down to lighting and camera movement. When we filmed inside hit seemed to give what many call the 'cinematic 35mm look' but when natural light was used (especially with hand held camera movemnt) it gave away the 'digital look'. The high definition cameras also tend to be fussy when it comes to remote controlled units since the fibre wires don;t like to be broken during the signal. Exapmle: a 360 view.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Anyone ever seen a Blu-ray playing on a TV at Best Buy with the so-called "MotionFlow" turned on the TV? It makes the movie look like a behind-the-scenes featurette. I saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing like this one time at Best Buy and thought it looked ridiculous. I hope that is not the future of movies. I like the way they look in 24 fps with none of the extra effects. There is a certain richness with 24 fps. The director and cinematographer work very hard to create that quality. Why destroy it with gimmicks intended for viewing live sports programs?

 

[Octoberist]

We tried the Red One and played with the frame rates. It usually comes down to lighting and camera movement. When we filmed inside hit seemed to give what many call the 'cinematic 35mm look' but when natural light was used (especially with hand held camera movemnt) it gave away the 'digital look'. The high definition cameras also tend to be fussy when it comes to remote controlled units since the fibre wires don;t like to be broken during the signal. Exapmle: a 360 view.

interesting. is that the case with most HD cameras or just the Red One?

It seems like HD cameras are being used and their disadvantages are being used as an aesthetic than anything else. For example, District 9 used the Red One cameras if I'm not mistaken but they were never aiming for that '35mm' look anyway since it was filmed as a mock doc.

 

[Octoberist]

Anyone ever seen a Blu-ray playing on a TV at Best Buy with the so-called "MotionFlow" turned on the TV? It makes the movie look like a behind-the-scenes featurette. I saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing like this one time at Best Buy and thought it looked ridiculous. I hope that is not the future of movies. I like the way they look in 24 fps with none of the extra effects. There is a certain richness with 24 fps. The director and cinematographer work very hard to create that quality. Why destroy it with gimmicks intended for viewing live sports programs?

it's a feature that you can turn off on your TV and I've got many friends who hate it.

I think MotionFlow is designed more for video games and it's being misrepresented at Best Buy.

 

[redfirebird2008]

it's a feature that you can turn off on your TV and I've got many friends who hate it.

I think MotionFlow is designed more for video games and it's being misrepresented at Best Buy.

Of course it is being misrepresented. They have the TV's set on torch mode, which is also a misrepresentation of how the TV should look with a good setup. They leave the MotionFlow effects turned on, probably on the "high" setting and then they go from there.

 

[Octoberist]

is it just to show off the features of the TV? to me, it's just a turn off.

anyway, but no, I doubt anyone wants movies to look like 'behind the scenes' segment. At heart, most of the newer 'tech savvy' directors are traditionalists when it comes to actual film-making, digital or film.

 

[Space Moose]

interesting. is that the case with most HD cameras or just the Red One?

It seems like HD cameras are being used and their disadvantages are being used as an aesthetic than anything else. For example, District 9 used the Red One cameras if I'm not mistaken but they were never aiming for that '35mm' look anyway since it was filmed as a mock doc.

Most. But the mistake people make is assuming it's a case of point and shoot. Lenses, lighting, focus and shutters are many elements that are used to acheived the desired aesthetic.

The difference between HD and film? Film uses salt. It adjusts the light and absorbs it, hence the need for negative cutting. HD uses binary the capture the image(s). They both have the same adjustable frame rate.

I found that the main advantage when filming long takes (apart from costs) is the Red One could be left static for long durations while we filmed scenes making the actors more comfortable and allowing mutiple takes to be done with ease. However the Panavison 35mm cam had to be restocked after approximately 15 minutes of running, so we had to make sure the shot was done so we could change camera angles.

 

[Paroxysm]

transmitting data directly into the brain to create a simulated reality would be pretty sweet.

 

[Space Moose]

transmitting data directly into the brain to create a simulated reality would be pretty sweet.

You mean like that movie, Strange Days? Yeah, until some guy goes around raping everyone uploading it under the name "Happy Rainbows" or something.

 

[Crook]

Anyone ever seen a Blu-ray playing on a TV at Best Buy with the so-called "MotionFlow" turned on the TV? It makes the movie look like a behind-the-scenes featurette. I saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing like this one time at Best Buy and thought it looked ridiculous. I hope that is not the future of movies. I like the way they look in 24 fps with none of the extra effects. There is a certain richness with 24 fps. The director and cinematographer work very hard to create that quality. Why destroy it with gimmicks intended for viewing live sports programs?

MotionFlow and any other special feature touted on a tv, are all artificial techniques. It's certainly not indicative of how a 'true' 60fps Hollywood movie would look, any more than an upscaled DVD is representative of high-definition.

There's a glaring difference between 24 and 60, but I see nothing in the latter that effectively destroys the foundations of the traditional movie. Art direction does not change, nor does cinematography (to a point), or acting and directing.

I'm just not seeing how this is bad thing at all, asides from it being different from what we're used too. The complaints have boiled down to: it looks like real-life and it's too crisp. I mean...honestly I can't help but laugh in confusion. I very much think this is a result of our eyes being trained for such a long time to 24. Honestly if we get full motion-pictures shot and screened at 60 frames, I think it's only inevitable that people will grow to like it's advantages.

 

[dark_b]

Anyone ever seen a Blu-ray playing on a TV at Best Buy with the so-called "MotionFlow" turned on the TV? It makes the movie look like a behind-the-scenes featurette. I saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing like this one time at Best Buy and thought it looked ridiculous. I hope that is not the future of movies. I like the way they look in 24 fps with none of the extra effects. There is a certain richness with 24 fps. The director and cinematographer work very hard to create that quality. Why destroy it with gimmicks intended for viewing live sports programs?

i hate the motion flow function.

my father likes it and thinks that it makes everything look better. i asked him if he didnt notice that it looks different and of. and he said that it looks better to him. stu....

 

[dark_b]

Impossible. You'll always be able to tell the difference. (I asked this to a cinematographer who was assessing our HD cam skills).

then i am afraid what Cameron will do with more fps

 

[Octoberist]

i just don't see how putting more fps can help to improve anything when the 'quality' of the image looks fine. If it gets anymore crisp any more real (sans visual effects), it might be too much. Like in Public Enemies (I hate using that movie again and again) but there were times where it felt like it was play acting with actors dressing up as mobsters.

 

[dark_b]

i just don't see how putting more fps can help to improve anything when the 'quality' of the image looks fine. If it gets anymore crisp any more real (sans visual effects), it might be too much. Like in Public Enemies (I hate using that movie again and again) but there were times where it felt like it was play acting with actors dressing up as mobsters.

well Cameron wants to do this because of 3D.
didnt you notice the strobing effect? the artifacts with to low frames ?

 

[Octoberist]

omg. that's just silly.

 

[dark_b]

you didnt see it?

 

[Octoberist]

not really.

 

[Eggyman]

I might've seen it. What is it? What should I see?

 

[dude stannis]

The only "strobing effect" I saw in Public Enemies was intentional. When Bale was firing his Thompson from the side of the car.

i am sorry but we will never know how a glowing forest looks like. never.

*cough*4:20*cough*

 

[Crook]

i just don't see how putting more fps can help to improve anything when the 'quality' of the image looks fine. If it gets anymore crisp any more real (sans visual effects), it might be too much. Like in Public Enemies (I hate using that movie again and again) but there were times where it felt like it was play acting with actors dressing up as mobsters.

That had nothing to do with framerate. Especially since Public Enemies and every other movie you see in a theater are all screened at 24 fps.

I have to ask you, before we had Blu-Ray, were you one of those that said DVD was "fine"? Before that, how about VHS? At what point do you draw the line? Because what's silly is to dismiss something that does nothing but allow more information to be processed by the camera, to our eyes.

 

[the a1ant]

that's weird. avatar looked completely real. there were no shots that looked like fake cgi. And the Alice in Wonderland trailer was loaded with gimmick 3d shots braggin, look I'm right in your face. Especially that chainsaw at the end of the trailer.

I'm not saying Alice doesn't look like a good movie, but Burton definitely made the mistake of making the 3d seem gimmicky.

To be completely honest, I want gimmicky 3D at times. In addition to the "depth perception", I want things popping out and looking like they're off the screen. I remember the Alice in Wonderland had a shot of the cheshire cat's face coming right at you. It was very impressive (although it wasn't in the actual film for some odd reason). Avatar had great depth, but a part of me was hoping more things would pop out of the screen. I know many don't agree with this, but that's my opinion.

 

[GhostPoet]

A robotic hand that feeds you popcorn while you watch!!

 

[redfirebird2008]

MotionFlow and any other special feature touted on a tv, are all artificial techniques. It's certainly not indicative of how a 'true' 60fps Hollywood movie would look, any more than an upscaled DVD is representative of high-definition.

There's a glaring difference between 24 and 60, but I see nothing in the latter that effectively destroys the foundations of the traditional movie. Art direction does not change, nor does cinematography (to a point), or acting and directing.

I'm just not seeing how this is bad thing at all, asides from it being different from what we're used too. The complaints have boiled down to: it looks like real-life and it's too crisp. I mean...honestly I can't help but laugh in confusion. I very much think this is a result of our eyes being trained for such a long time to 24. Honestly if we get full motion-pictures shot and screened at 60 frames, I think it's only inevitable that people will grow to like it's advantages.

It's not an issue of looking "too crisp." It's an issue of looking tacky. 35mm film at 24 fps has a potential resolution in the 4k to 8k range (no one knows for sure because it doesn't have an actual resolution). The level of detail and crispness available is not just "fine," it's stellar.