Chris Millar Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I personally tend to see the 24 fps strobe as an essential element of the filmic experience Each frame of a 24fps film is projected twice in most cinemas - 48Hz 'strobe' - but only half the actual temporal information ;). Not sure if Thomas wants the same system at double rate or just 48fps of unrepeated frames (?) There is a thread dedicated to Thomas discussion located here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=43368 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Francis Kuhn Posted December 12, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, well, nearly every other critic is head over heels. Ebert just gave the film a positively glowing review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/912119998 It's 90% at RT right now. Hi Tom, If you read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes it seems that while most of the reviewers are impressed with the visuals, they are not so impressed with the story. Reminds me of Cameron's Titanic. -Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted December 12, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, well, nearly every other critic is head over heels. Ebert just gave the film a positively glowing review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/912119998 It's 90% at RT right now. yep. All of them are loving it. Well interestingly, the US reviews love it, but that the rest of the world so far is luke warm.....Many have compared it to the early US history with it's indigenous tribes...maybe that's why it's going down a treat more so in the US.... The Guardian "The Titanic director's monstrously-hyped creation does look fantastic but, in trying to cover all the bases with militarist sci-fi, vacuous eco-waffle and an intra-species love story, it's too baggy" SF Gate "James Cameron's 3-D "Avatar" has all the smack of a Film Not To Miss — a movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 yep. All of them are loving it. Well interestingly, the US reviews love it, but that the rest of the world so far is luke warm.....Many have compared it to the early US history with it's indigenous tribes...maybe that's why it's going down a treat more so in the US.... Don't get me started on the clear similarities between what Cameron is doing with AVATAR and what Malick did with THE NEW WORLD. What's very interesting is that Malick and Cameron are in many ways telling the same story, but with totally polar-opposite approaches in terms of the technology used to tell it. Malick purposefully used very, very simple cinema tools to shoot TNW, essentially banning cranes, dollies, etc. About the most advanced technology you will see in TNW is a Steadicam shot. The film could almost have been shot on cinema cameras and technology developed 50 years ago. Meanwhile, Cameron has gone 180 degrees in the other direction with AVATAR, obviously! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 With a double bladed shutter film projected at 48 fps would actually be 96 hertz projection. For action sequences there would be 48 discrete individual frames but for drama, in order to preserve the film look, there would be 24 individual frames each repeated twice for a total of 48. James Cameron has predicted that film is still economical to shoot at higher framerates but may have to be shot at 2 or 3 perf for each frame. Although shooting at 2 perf results in a resolution loss the footage would actually appear sharper than traditional 4 perf cinematography because of the increased temporal resolution. Remember that high frame rate digital projection is limited to 2K so 2 perf 35mm would work just fine. Of course shooting in 3D would double your film costs. Since James Cameron is the champion of 3D and 48 fps and the movie Avatar II may be the showcase of this technology it is certainly appropriate to discuss these issues here. Although 48 fps lacks sufficient momentum to become a viable format on its own, wedded to 3D it becomes the wave of the future and the bandwagon everyone jumps on. I think this trend will be even more significant than the so called "Red Digital 4K Revolution", Although certainly Red cameras can be used to film Avatar II the current generation Red One can only film Avatar II in the 3K mode which will be downsampled to 2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 "James Cameron has predicted that film is still economical to shoot at higher framerates but may have to be shot at 2 or 3 perf for each frame" James Cameron has trouble with film costs - I love his humour :lol: 15perf 70mm @48fps in stereo - I don't expect anything less next time, Mr. Cameron! :P I've just watched the "b-roll"-stuff and noticed that he is operating the camera on nearly every scene, makes me wonder how much freedom he gives his cinematographer - he seems to control everything!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted December 13, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 13, 2009 Want crazy big? I submit for your copious yuks and giggles, Maxoscope. I haven't even tried to figure out how big the platter system would have to be. Wouldn't 3D double that? I'm guessing a 3D Maxoscope platter would be bigger than most projection booths. Although, you could successfully show a 3D Maxoscope movie to a stadium full of people. Imagine the human, emotional energy that large group could generate. Might be a way to put butts in the seats in the off seasons for those enclosed stadiums. What about those guys that bought Detroit's enclosed stadium for a handful of beans? 30,000 to 60,000 people at $5 a seat, hot dogs and beer might be doable. Egads, run that at 48 fps! That and supercooling might compensate for the whopping lamp heat as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Thanks to James Cameron when 48 fps and stereo 3D cinematography finally becomes mainstream I am going to have to think about what is going to be the next revolution just so I can keep up with the cutting edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Salzmann Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Thanks to James Cameron when 48 fps and stereo 3D cinematography finally becomes mainstream I am going to have to think about what is going to be the next revolution just so I can keep up with the cutting edge. 4D cinema where the viewer is in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Dan please don start him on that !!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Of course you are entirely correct. Doug Trumbull invented 60 frames per second 65mm Showscan to demonstrate the technology for his movie "Brainstorm" starring Natalie Wood which was a movie about interactive virtual reality. In this movie the drama scenes were to be shown at 24 frames per second but the virtual reality scenes were to be filmed at 60 frames per second for a hyper realism. Likewise Avatar also uses a lot of virtual reality technology even though the movie itself is not interactive however I have no doubts that a Avatar video game will be developed. But to have an immersive virtual reality experience where you have artificial intelligence conversations with virtual actors that are convincing rather then the customer service robots that you talk to over the telephone is probably a few years off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 4D cinema where the viewer is in the movie. [Holodeck, ahem ahem] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) There is of course a lot of differences between the technologies of virtual reality and the Star Trek Holodeck. One crude way to put a person inside of the movie was to use Cinerama curved screens or IMAX tilted dome screens. Stereo goggles can replace curved screens because rather than a curved screen a sensor can be installed so that if someone rotates their head a side view is automatically selected. Even crude DVD players for the first time allowed the viewer to select different camera perspectives. Edited December 15, 2009 by Thomas James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Bourgoin Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 So what format are you guys going to see it on? IMAX DOME IMAX Digital 3D (twin Christie projectors) RealD Dolby3D I've seen movies in both RealD and Dolby3D and I prefer Dolby. The color reproduction seems a little better and didn't fatigue my eyes as much. I'm going to see Avatar on the Digital IMAX theater that just opened up near me, I'm hoping having the dual projectors will help with brightness issues associated with 3d. Anybody have any experience with this format? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Näyhä Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Never seen stereoscopic material in an IMAX Digital venue – just one Super 35 originated film that was DMR-processed to hell and looked absolutely horrible. Check out this old thread for details. I haven't been to another IMAX Digital show since, so I don't know if they're still butchering their source material like that. It could very well be that HD-originated material won't be processed as heavily, but you never know... At least the 2K CGI animated trailer that I saw looked OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Peter Moretti Posted December 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 15, 2009 ... Man's destiny, if we survive the next 40 years or so, is not here on Earth, but out in space. I think it is very important for us to be inspired to something beyond sitting around on this rock bickering with one another. ... Man's destiny is inside him. Changing the scenery doesn't change who we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I think I would have to agree with Tom Lowe about space travel. It is in fact man's destiny. However space travel opens up a lot of controversy because affordable space travel means nuclear powered flight and is certainly required for space colonization which means that the planets will have to be terraformed. Certainly Hollywood should explore all of these technologies but these technologies are so controversial that money will have to be spent on environmental impact reports just to get the approval of film makers. And such nuclear technologies are so controversial that to get approval for filming it would have to be portrayed as a doomed technology complete with reactor meltdowns as was portrayed in the film "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I think I would have to agree with Tom Lowe about space travel. It is in fact man's destiny. However space travel opens up a lot of controversy because affordable space travel means nuclear powered flight and is certainly required for space colonization which means that the planets will have to be terraformed. Certainly Hollywood should explore all of these technologies but these technologies are so controversial that money will have to be spent on environmental impact reports just to get the approval of film makers. And such nuclear technologies are so controversial that to get approval for filming it would have to be portrayed as a doomed technology complete with reactor meltdowns as was portrayed in the film "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda. Thomas: take this the wrong way, if you will - but are you a little retarded ? Just a tad ? Its not so much what you talk about (although some might beg to differ on that point), its just the relentless bagging on about the same old s h i t ... You've got your own thread for that - go there and discuss it there - you know there are people that want to talk that kind of stuff with you (me included). BUT STOP INFECTING EVERY OTHER THREAD WITH IT Everyone else: not that I have any control over this but if I did I'd ask an open question, would you boot him if you were admin ? Edited December 15, 2009 by Chris Millar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Again I am not the one who started this topic but it was Tom Lowe who quoted James Cameron as saying of which I will paraphrase in that one of the lessons learned from Avatar is that space travel is man's destiny that should be pursued regardless of the cost and that Avatar proves we cannot afford not to engage in space travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Peter Moretti Posted December 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 16, 2009 Again I am not the one who started this topic but it was Tom Lowe who quoted James Cameron as saying of which I will paraphrase in that one of the lessons learned from Avatar is that space travel is man's destiny that should be pursued regardless of the cost and that Avatar proves we cannot afford not to engage in space travel. "Avatar' doesn't even prove that 3-D cinema needs to be pursued. I'm all for space exploration, increasing NASA's funding, etc.. But to think there is something unique to earth that makes man behave badly on it is just folly. The earth is a rather nice planet, from what I can gather. If we have a problem living on it, it is WE who need changing, not our location to some space station or colony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 But Cameron opened a door (due to his creativity, skill and power over the studios) - he probably made a new technology possible (and showed what it's good for) for others which extends storytelling. The movie cost 300 mil. I wouldn't count on it..............and as long as people have to wear those dopey 3D glasses, don't bet on 3D sticking around as the primary format for long. It is what it has always been, a novelty. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Man's destiny is inside him. Changing the scenery doesn't change who we are. I'm stealing that line and putting it in a script somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I'm stealing that line and putting it in a script somewhere. a paraphrase of "The one thing in common with all your/our problems is you/us" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I'm not questioning the need for relevance nor am I questioning the need to stay on topic however there are going to be differences of opinion as to what is relevant and what is on topic. Nor do I claim that I am always on topic. However there are many times I am totally relevant yet because of a difference of opinion I am being accused of being off topic. Take for instance this thread. It is a known fact that Avatar was shot in 3-D at a rate of 24 frames per second. So it would be totally inappropriate to say that this movie would have been better if it had been shot at a higher framerate. And this would be true had it not been for the fact that in interviews James Cameron himself said he was experiencing motion problems because the 3-D format is so real that it exagerates strobbing. And James Cameron himself has vowed that he will try to introduce higher frame rates if there is a sequel to Avatar. Now would it be appropriate to go on every thread and say that higher frame rates are THE answer to improve the quality of cinematography ? Of course not. First of all spatial resolution would suffer as we would have to use smaller resolution formats to justify the cost of higher framerates. And second higher framerates do not lend themselves to every cinematography style. In this day and age of attention deficit disorder with its flashing imagery it is a welcome relief that we have Stanley Kubrick with his reknown slow panning style so that we have the time to truly enjoy the picture. During the last complaint it was suggested that I was going off topic because I initiated a debate about changing the title of the movie Bladerunner when the topic was about selecting music for these types of movies. Well first of all when you are selecting music it is important to be in the right mood and I think that helps when you get the title of the movie right and it is perfectly appropriate to consider the title of the theatrical release as opposed to the title of the novel. However since I am unfamiliar with the music of Bladerunner, I would have had I been allowed to continue, tackled 2001 since I am more familiar with that music. Had there been an atomic launching of the 2001 Spaceship Discovery (which by the way was a real possibility that was under serious consideration during the filming of 2001) the obvious choice for music would have been "Thus Spoke Zarathrusta". So I hope we can find a real oppurtunity for alternative ways to keep the discussion on topic rather than just quarantining my ideas to a basement category of off topic discussion. However for this to occur we would have to tolerate alternative ways of thinking and not always insist on linear rigid ways of thinking. However is this a truly an open forum dedicated to a community of eccentric artists involved in creative film making? Or are we just a bunch of mainstream technicians who by consensus only consider already established workflows only for the task at hand? The main criticism of the cinematography movement is that they are only concerned with picture quality and that they are totally oblivious to the most important aspect of film making which is the story. Therefore people like James Cameron should be applauded because they do not limit themselves to just the operation of cameras but rather also to the direction of actors and the writing of stories. Of course if writing novels is not your official job description you may find it difficult to demand monetary compensation. Nevertheless writing should be of such an importance that it should be a undertaken regardless of monetary compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Sorry but Camerons love is operating cameras , over riding his DP s lighting rehashing the same story over and over as a writer , not really being able to direct actors that well , thats why he uses the same ones all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now