Avatar 2 in 2014

[Utrayä Mokri]

As ImDB says, Avatar Script is being written. James Cameron plans to film both Avatar sequels concurrently.

More Here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029/

[Tsamsiyu92]

....wait a minute - wasn't it 2012?

[Eltusiyu]

No..
Avatar 2 -> December 2014
Avatar 3 -> December 2015

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

The 2014/15 dates have been know for several months now.

[MaTe]

apparently he wants theaters to upgrade equipment once again

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-May-Shoot-Avatar-2-At-60-Frames-Per-Second-22932.html

I'd use more slow-motion for action scenes, and make sure those who finish visual effects see them on the projector at least (or big screen) during development, so they can adjust and correct the problems that are not visible on LCD monitor.

[Toruk Makto]

Double the rendering load too.

Wow!

[bommel]

Double the rendering load too.

Wow!

indeed ^^

['Oma Tirea]

apparently he wants theaters to upgrade equipment once again

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-May-Shoot-Avatar-2-At-60-Frames-Per-Second-22932.html

I'd use more slow-motion for action scenes, and make sure those who finish visual effects see them on the projector at least (or big screen) during development, so they can adjust and correct the problems that are not visible on LCD monitor.

Wou... news to me...

If this is the case I just hope people don't go and see it because it's missing its classic cinematic feel...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Wou... news to me...

If this is the case I just hope people don't go and see it because it's missing its classic cinematic feel...

There is definitely something to be said about the 'organic' look of film.
The digital projection I have seen is too clean-- more like TV. I also do not think that digital cinema, at least as the technology exists now, holds a candle to film. I think the minimal resolution that begins to match film is 4K, and only if it is uncompressed. Unfortunately, what you see in your theater, even if it is proj3ected in 4K, has lost a lot of information through the compression process.

So....shutters and sprockets for this guy! (Growing up doing photography, and living in Kodaktown for 13 years doesn't help, either. Some of my best friends there worked in the motion picture division.)

[MaTe]

eh... I like how blue-ray looks on my LCD screen way more than IMAX cinema. mostly because screen's delay is way lower and it does not have noticeable motion or 3D ghosting.

60fps may fix motion ghosting, but not 3d ghosting.

[archaic]

Vinyl records rather than CD's too?
Maybe Shellac 78's are where it's at?
Or are wax cylinders the only true recording medium for the connoisseur?

Weren't you part of the analogue to digital TV switch over?


That said, I do know what you mean.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Interesting observation on IMAX, because I believe that it is 60 FPS.

Many audiophiles like the sound of vinyl a lot more than CD's, and the pressing plants still in business are doing more work now than they did in the heyday of the LP.

Although cylinders and 78's are really historic relics, someone (I don't remember who) recently produced a 78 RPM record (that few modern turntables can play). I think it was done as some sort of publicity stunt.

And I like vacuum tubes for audio. They do something to sound even the most surgically clean solid state amp cannot do, and really isn't distortion. For high power RF, for FM radio and above, tubes still reign supreme. They are more efficient, and despite the need for periodic replacement, more cost-effective than solid state. The difference becomes more dramatic the higher you go in frequency. Our satellite uplink operates at 14 GHz. The modern tube amplifier we just bought puts out 25 percent more RF power while at the same time consuming 20 percent less prime power. Both amplifiers use traveling wave tubes. The difference is that a lot of work has gone into making these tubes more efficient, higher in performance, and more rugged, all at the same time.

[Ftiafpi]

I'd LOVE it if they went to 60 fps but you'll have a hard time convincing people to accept it. People tend to subconsciously see 24 fps as "high quality film" and associate the faster, 60 fps, with home movies and other amateur productions.

Still, it would be really sweet if they did because it would help peoples eyes for the 3D, it would fix the horrible post production blurring and after-effects that they do, and would generally make a high quality movie even better.

[Txura Tsampongu]

This sounds exciting, I can't wait!

[Ikran Eyktan]

I would defiantly like to see the Avatar sequels released in 60fps.  Would be a nice visual treat.  Not practical for 15/70 IMAX 3D though, this is digital only.

['Oma Tirea]

I would defiantly like to see the Avatar sequels released in 60fps.  Would be a nice visual treat.  Not practical for 15/70 IMAX 3D though, this is digital only.

It would have to be digital if the movie were over 68 minutes in length

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I'd LOVE it if they went to 60 fps but you'll have a hard time convincing people to accept it. People tend to subconsciously see 24 fps as "high quality film" and associate the faster, 60 fps, with home movies and other amateur productions.

Still, it would be really sweet if they did because it would help peoples eyes for the 3D, it would fix the horrible post production blurring and after-effects that they do, and would generally make a high quality movie even better.

I talked to a friend of mine who is a projectionist last night. He told me that most IMAX is indeed 24 FPS. However, there is a small amount of IMAX material that has been done at 60 FPS.

Keep in mind that for each frame of film, the shutter opens twice. This fools our eyes into thinking it is 48 frames. European and French/Russian TV systems use 25 frames/second but send it as 2 field 2:1 interlace, making the perceived frame rate 50 frames. The US NTSC system sends approximately 30 (actually 29.97) franes a second. With 2:1 interlace, this makes the perceived frame rate close to 60 FPS. If you are used to watching the US TV system, and then watch the foreign systems mentioned earlier, you can really notice the flicker. Folks in that part of the world have simply grown used to it. Of course, 1080p gives you true 60 frames (actually 59.94 here), and is in many ways, superior to most film systems (except in actual resolution).

Some tests done about 20 years ago, projecting stimulating materials at different frame rates, showed that the visual impact of a moving image increased with the frame rate, but that the improvement tapered off above about 60 FPS. So, I would expect the higher frame rates would actually give you a better viewing experience.

[Roiki]

 Most films are made at 24fps since it gives the "film look" that many cinematographers desire, and to mimic the eyes perception of events since human eyes create motion blur when not fixed on a moving object. In sports fast capture rates are desired to accurately record the events, in storytelling they're not. In digital systems it isn't a problem anymore but in film increasing the frame rate decreases the amount that can fit into a single reel, IMAX is especially vulnerable to this since a single 2,5h platter would only last 1,25h and the camera could only hold film for about a minute or so(500 and 1000 feet are the standard boxes). 48 fps IMAX was tested in '92 but it was deemed too costly, since normal IMAX is already 5 to 8 times more costly than a regular 35mm film.

In digital production increasing the frame-rate increases the storage requirements for the cameras and post production, creating additional costs. Since 24 fps is adequate in most situations, their reluctance to change is understandable.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Most films are made at 24fps since it gives the "film look" that many cinematographers desire, and to mimic the eyes perception of events since human eyes create motion blur when not fixed on a moving object. In sports fast capture rates are desired to accurately record the events, in storytelling they're not. In digital systems it isn't a problem anymore but in film increasing the frame rate decreases the amount that can fit into a single reel, IMAX is especially vulnerable to this since a single 2,5h platter would only last 1,25h and the camera could only hold film for about a minute or so(500 and 1000 feet are the standard boxes). 48 fps IMAX was tested in '92 but it was deemed too costly, since normal IMAX is already 5 to 8 times more costly than a regular 35mm film.

In digital production increasing the frame-rate increases the storage requirements for the cameras and post production, creating additional costs. Since 24 fps is adequate in most situations, their reluctance to change is understandable.

24 FPS goes way back to the earliest days of film, for the reasons you cited. An interesting footnote in history is that cameras were often cranked even slower-- 18 FPS. They were projected at 24 FPS to allow a theater to show more films in a night. In fact, an early SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) standard called for the camera to be cranked at 18 FPS, and the the resulting film to be projected at 24 FPS! This is why many early films look 'speeded up'. If you can find my friend Rollie Zavada's paper entitled 'A Technical History of SMPTE', it tells this, and a number of other very interesting-- and often humorous stories about the history of the development of standards for film and TV.

[Ikran Eyktan]

Film format IMAX HD is actually 48fps ;-)

60fps is a framerate generally seen in the broadcast world.  A lot of cameras I have seen output to this framerate too.  Something else you will find interesting-> over here in Vancouver British Columbia, we had the first (permanently constructed that is) IMAX 3D theatre around.  It was built for EXPO-86 has since been taken out of service (which is a shame because it was a true GT large venue IMAX setup, and would really show the resolution of 15/70mm).  For any IMAX viewings I need now, I just head over to Langley and watch them there, for free (on the more common SR version).