"avatar 2" to be shot in 60fps

PorkPieCat

PorkPieCat

PorkPieCat

Associate
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Posts
956
title is old news but i just found a clip demonstrating 60fps (which is pretty old too, but nevertheless...), and it's got me excited for "avatar 2", despite not looking forward to the actual film at all :p.

http://hfrmovies.com/avatar_60.mkv

let it load. it's bits from "avatar" that've been artificially rerendered in 60fps using prediction/blending software. it doesn't look 100% organic because it's not the real thing, but i'm still just a little blown away.

i enjoyed 48fps in "the hobbit" after about 15 minutes of adjustment. unfortunately it was a bum choice on peter jackson's part imo, because tvs don't display at 48hz, and 48fps isn't part of the bluray specification. it's also immensely annoying because 48fps won't play on ANY pc monitor without pulldown. 24fps (normal film content) doesn't display correctly on 60hz monitors, which is why i'm grateful for my 120hz monitor. but 48fps brings the same problem to my monitor... good thing the film wasn't that good :D. if only because of tv and bluray issues i think and hope the hobbit trilogy will be the first and only films to use 48fps.

however aside from looking better than both 24 and 48fps, 60fps would also be great for film watching on any modern pc monitor or tv - there'd no longer be miserable pulldown. i understand opposition to 3d technology as it's clunky, fades colour, and doesn't look that good yet, but i really don't understand people who won't accept that high framerate film is the future. it's unquestionably progress in film making. at worst i thought it might look cheap, but the "documentary effect" in the above avatar clip is nothing short of breathtaking to my eyes... if people are worried it'll make film acting look ridiculous, maybe hollywood actors should learn how to act?

anyway i just thought i'd share this clip, since i do find it really cool.
 
Last edited:
yeah of course :D. my main motivation for watching "avatar" was the 3d... similarly i'll be watching "2" for the 60fps eyecandy! i guess "avatar" is like the "crysis" series of the film world.
 
The CGI stuff looked good in a high res video game kinda way. It was like seeing a next gen Heaven benchmark or something :D
The live actor bits lost the filmic look entirely imo. Not quite as bad as the TV soap-opera effect, but for what it gained in smoothness and clarity, it lost in terms of 'movie feel'.

Perhaps the fully developed system can combine the best of both.
 
i partly agree and disagree at the same time. it does seem to remove some "movie magic" but i like that it feels like i'm there in the moment - the bit in the helicopter where michelle rodriguez looks back and smiles feels really natural, like i'm in the helicopter. i think maybe things like dramatic pauses could look silly or clownish in 60fps but then maybe actors should be acting more like real people do anyway. i never enjoyed corny acting very much :p. you have to be overdramatic in theatre, but films can focus and zoom in on people so acting should be a lot more subtle than *slowly turns head* or *dramatically stares into the camera for 5 minutes* or whatever. i think the feeling of watching a documentary could make the film seem more real, and the story more immediate (as long as the body language is natural).

there is one thing i couldn't shake while watching the hobbit though... the sets looked very fake with better framerate. presumably any man-made sets would look a lot less "magical" in 60fps than they do now. though my response to that is maybe they should make better sets!

so ok... actors' body language today in some films would look less than stellar in 60fps. sets as they are made today would look crap in 60fps. but those could/should be addressed with skill, and not every film requires ostentatious acting/man-made sets/costumes. i think as it stands today well acted films set in the modern day would be a very good fit for 60fps film-making with no adjustment whatsoever. you'd get the intimacy and immediacy of theatre, but with the subtler acting and better "sets" of cinema.
 
That makes an amazing difference to me. The filmed shots look real :eek:

I'd rather they used the 3D budget on high frame rate instead, so much difference. Probably been spoilt by video games.
 
I must say, that looked AWESOME!

Weirdly, even the real shots didn't look like the soap-opera effect 48fps gives, it just looked real!
 
To me it looks as real as you can get, the smoothness and clarity of the film is far better on the eyes than 3D and 24/48fps. The motion blur that is so apparent in current film/tv is only there because of the poor frame rates.

When you look out into the world through your own eye's it is not a big blurry mess (unless you need glasses :P)
 
Not a fan - I prefer the cinematic blur that comes with 24fps, 60fps doesn't feel movie like, it feels too TV like.

Sometimes the relentless march of technology isn't always a good thing I feel.
 
Anything that makes cinema look more realistic is a good thing in my book. This misty-eyed holding onto the golden ages of cinema type thing won't last too long as people begin to realise that.
 
some looks so real its frightening. Some looks so generated now its almost "bad"

interesting times ahead
 
That Avatar clip is amazing, some of the sections looked "real" (the waves hitting the cliffs, the pilot in the helicopter etc) while others looked no different (the Jakes Navi in his water tank) but, to my eyes, none of it looked worse than the original.

It should be very interesting to see a filmed 60fps rather than mocked-up version.
 
Robbie G said:
Anything that makes cinema look more realistic is a good thing in my book. This misty-eyed holding onto the golden ages of cinema type thing won't last too long as people begin to realise that.
Click to expand...

Plus, if people really want to, 60fps can be scaled down to 24fps, that way purists can still have what they like.

Unlike the analog music vs digital, where it is one or the other, at least having 60fps as the base can still be downscaled.
 
I find that with all this higher fps shenanigans it can look great in certain scenes but when watching say just the actors in a room talking it can look... not sure how to put it but not movie like, more like you're watching them on set.
 
krooton said:
Plus, if people really want to, 60fps can be scaled down to 24fps, that way purists can still have what they like.

Unlike the analog music vs digital, where it is one or the other, at least having 60fps as the base can still be downscaled.
Click to expand...

well if you're at home and you downscale 60fps material to 24fps you wouldn't get the motion blur that exists in today's films to compensate for the low framerates. unless studios released 2 versions, that's not going to work
 
NZB said:
I find that with all this higher fps shenanigans it can look great in certain scenes but when watching say just the actors in a room talking it can look... not sure how to put it but not movie like, more like you're watching them on set.
Click to expand...

yeah again, i kind of agree but how much of that is just bad acting/us not being used to 60fps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom