James Cameron will shoot Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 in 60 frames per second
"I think it is such an affinitive answer. But other people may choose 48 for other reasons. The 3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window. The reason I went down that path is because I believe it makes for better 3D. There were lots of arguments for why 48 and why 60. My feeling is if it is a software upgrade (for digital cinema projectors), do both. It doesn't change anything at the projector; you don't have to change the lamp house or the lenses. If you are uploading software you can upload it for 48 and 60 and let the filmmakers decide. If the exhibitors will adopt the idea of a dual standard, than I'll probably want to shoot 60. If they don't, then I will have to look very carefully at the pros and cons of 60 and 48."
24 frames per second has long been the industry standard, although movies such as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, are shooting at 48 frames per second. We'll have to wait until 2014 to see if this higher frame rate pays off for Avatar 2.
for the full article on Avatar 2 and Avatar 3.Avatar 2 comes to theaters in 2014. The film is directed by James Cameron.
Avatar 3 comes to theaters in 2015. The film is directed by James Cameron.
Comments (28)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Pup Che
Finally the squares who worship 24 f/s will see they are wrong...
2 years agoby @Pup-CheFlag
Hardboiled
He needs to sort out the skin texture on his blue people before he starts worrying about film rates.
2 years agoby @hardboiledFlag
TheMime
60 uh?......hmmmmm....well, it would be......AWESOME, hands down....Michael Bay made 3D better by making the shots brighter to combat the dimming of the 3D glasses....But to use that, which The Mime is sure J. Cameron is gonna use, but make it better with clearer, 60-frames-per-second shots........NICE. It could go either way, but it will likely be on the upside.
2 years agoby @themimeFlag
SomethingMore
Well we're waiting for the movie
2 years agoby @SomethingMoreFlag
Jay.A.Ottley
@felipe-11 2D films will always be shot in 1k (24fps) this technological advancement that Cameron is creating is for 3D only, to enhance the quality and viewing experience of the 3D effect.
2k (48fps) and 2.5k (60fps) will never be used for 2D Films,because it would be cost-effective
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
Dan
Cameron is the man when it comes to technological leaps, I'm sure he'll make 60 FPS look amazing.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
felipe-11
@jayaottley I wasn't talking about 3D films, I was talking about regular 2D films (both film and digital).
2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
Cameron has been dominating his cinematic revolution. Don't see why it will stop now, for it will keep booming til we salute his legacy
2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag
Sean
Cool. It will will be interesting to see how, Avatar 2 and Avatar 3's picture quality will look.
2 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag
Jay.A.Ottley
@felipe-11 This because the majority of them are conversions, hence the quality. see my lecture for further details :)
@ghostman You have been a mighty fine, Padawan
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
Ghostman
@jayaottley And a damn good bloody Prof. you are :D
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
felipe-11
This is great, not just for Avatar, but even for 2D films.
I hope this'll set a new standard and everyone will start shooting in higher FPS, which honestly I think is quite needed, more than 3D anyway. No more blurry shots when the camera is moving fast, which happens in almost every single film.
2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag
Jay.A.Ottley
its like when you see a 3D conversion, and it has that awful blur this is because the frame rate can't enhance itself and adapt to the final product being 3D, hence the awful motion blur and motion sickness. Because 3D is not suited for films shot at a 1K (24fps) quality rate.
Haha i sound like a bloody professor :D
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
Jay.A.Ottley
technically possibly both, because the result is unsure.
The higher the frame rate the smoother the visuals, so technically this could revolutionise 3D to a whole new level and aspects, in the sense that 2D & 3D would be one in the same, the downside is your still be paying the 3D uplift, but it would put it at a stage where the film can be viewed in 2D but once the glasses go on the film becomes 3D, without getting motion sickness and also there would be no blur.
Like Avatar was shot in 2K short term 48fps for cinema projectors that went digital and could handle this, hence why the 3D effect was so smooth and real and consisted of no blur.
So they're trying to enhance the viewing quality to 2.5k (60fps) which will enhance the viewing quality to something beyond words can express. I guess Vince Pace and James Cameron are nearly on their way to accomplishing their dream.
@ghostman
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
Ghostman
@jayaottley So, are you implying that he's trying to create a film that you can view without 3D glasses, or just make it a better viewing experiences for the fans that won't get motion sickness?
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
skywise
very interested to see how that turns out.
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
Jay.A.Ottley
@moviegeek brief the higher the frame rate,the smoother the film will look as @ghostman stated, it will get rid of the motion-blur effect.
Lament terms, the quality would be so superior to any 3d film seen before and your probably be able to watch it in 3d without the glasses,in 3d without gaining yourself a splitting headache. Just an example of how good the quality would be, even though well no one is stupid enough to watch a 3d film without the glasses
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
Jay.A.Ottley
hmmm,interesting theory, i agree with Cameron. 60fps will enhance the quality viewing of 3D and well essentially,make this the best 3D visual effect of the current times.
2 years agoby @jayaottleyFlag
ROFLitschristian
YAY... I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!
2 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag
Ghostman
@k-man I'm sure the 60FPS will make the 3D look better...we'll just have to wait and see what Cameron has up his sleeves.
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
K-Man
@ghostman - I know......but its still crap.
2 years agoby @k-manFlag
Ghostman
@moviegeek@k-man Having James Cameron use 60FPS will take the 'motion-blur' effect away from any action scenes that critics hated about the original Avatar's 'ghosting' when the action scenes were filmed using 24FPS.
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
Ghostman
In other news: Disney plans on building an Avatar theme park for 2013.
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
K-Man
Here's the thing.......60 fps is shot, as of right now, for filmmakers to CONVERT back in slow mo. Having all those extra frames in each second of recorded film (or digital space) allows you to slow the image down and see all the fine details within the image. When shooting at 60fps, the raw image that you get back looks unnatural and, quite frankly, it looks terrible!!!!!!
Now I'm assuming that he is going to shoot the image at 60fps and then convert back to 48fps because there is absolutely NO way he can actually think 60fps looks good in raw form......but the image is still going to look weird and "un-film-like". It will look more like reality tv than a film made for the big screen........and that is NOT ok, in my book.
I'm extremely against higher frame rates unless they are used for slow motion scenes because it takes away that beautiful, surreal feeling that shooting in 24fps give you. This new "wannabe trend" of shooting in higher frame rates to make the image "smoother for 3D" is a joke. It's making potentially great films look like something that was made for the SyFy channel.
What's worse is that this is showing that making a 3D image look cool is becoming more important, to some filmmakers, than the quality of the story they are telling. Because once the 3D element is taken out all you have is a weird, unnatural looking image that doesn't feel right.
P.S. James Cameron is an idiot if he thinks that making all these drastic changes is the only way to get amazing looking 3D......because Harry Potter was equally as good, IF NOT BETTER, than Avatar in 3D.......and it was post converted, shot on film and shot at 24 fps!!!!!
What Cameron has to understand is that that "glass in the window", that he is so eager to remove, is what makes movies so special. It's what seperates films from the garbage that is reality tv.....and it is also what gives people that escape. He's a fool if he cant understand that part of it anymore.
I think it's pretty safe to say that James Cameron now has a pretty bad case of George Lucas Syndrome, where all he now cares about is what crazy, technological advancements he can make in his films......as opposed to just telling a good story.
Its a shame that James Cameron is having such a huge influence on the industry with his unnecessary changes, like this.
2 years agoby @k-manFlag
Jcberry526
is this not old news ?? i heard about this months ago
2 years agoby @jcberry526Flag
moviegeek
hmm.. The higher frame rate you have, the harder it is for a smooth look. I'm sure Cameron can make this a revolutionary change.
2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag
Darkmarkman
Well, the first film was a big piece of garbage, so I am sure this will be as well. (I am all for directors shooting at higher frame rates as long as it looks good, but this just gave me a reason to show my dislike for this franchise.)
2 years agoby @darkmarkmanFlag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
Go for it. No complaints here
2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag