Avatar

[Thomas James]

The problem with the Sony F-950 cameras used for Avatar is that they max out at 30 frames per second which is not ideal for 3D.

[Ruairi Robinson]

The problem with the Sony F-950 cameras used for Avatar is that they max out at 30 frames per second which is not ideal for 3D.

 

 

They used the F23 as well.

 

R.

[Thomas James]

I do not understand why the entire movie could not have been shot with the F23.

[Thomas James]

Maybe the F23 was not available when Avatar began filming.

[John Sprung]

Whilst it is certainly animating, a CG DP wouldn't have anything to do with the actual animation. They would only be *animating* where the camera was positioned and how it moves.

 

Is anybody credited as "CG DP"? Do they get nominated for awards in that category? The problem here isn't whether it's cinematography. The problem is that recognition needs to catch up with reality. In the interim, who do you vote for?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[georg lamshöft]

Vince Pace is the guy for the "technical" photography-stuff, he was involved into underwater-shots since Abyss and seems to play a major role in Avatar - but we always see JC operating the camera!?

I agree, it doesn't make much sense to give cinematography-awards as long as it isn't clear who is responsible for cinematography here!? But haven't many movies earned prices because of nice landscape-shots done by the 2nd unit or great images because of production design? It's team-work and sometimes hard to tell apart.

 

F950, F23... I simply don't know what the point of these cameras in such a project is!? JC wants to handheld (he hated the 200kg 70mm-rig used on T2:3D) the camera, he wants 3D, he wants highest IQ possible (I assume reosolution, DR...) and 48fps.

 

Isn't it simple just to couple two lightweight 3perf 35mm cameras (235, Arricam Lite, Penelope) to a 3D rig? He can pay for a superior DI (4k oversampled) he can even get rid of the grain with todays tools. And when the F/X or studio-guys don't want to render 4k/48fps he makes a 2k/24p-master first and after the first billion $ ( :P ) he blackmails them to make glorious real 4k 3D @ 48fps at any cost! I would kill to see Avatar this way in an IMAX! Now we get a Blu-Ray with basically the same IQ (let's say 95%) of the cinematic-version just months later!? I thought he loves cinema!?

I simply don't get it why technology-berserks like him choose mediocre technology, that's like Michael Schuhmacher coming back to F1 with a Go-Kart - he will certainly drive better with it than any of us, but he will also compromise his skills/results by technology!

[K Borowski]

Let's go back to traditional cel animation for a moment.

 

There is a 35mm camera, camera movements (keeping parallel to the drawings), lighting, "depth of field," and a whole host of other things that make it similar to the challenges of cinematography.

 

I don't consider cel animation cinematography, though I'd be interested in being involved on either a CG or cel animation project, just once, as a learning experience.

 

 

The're similar but different fields. Giving Avatar or any predominantly-animated movie of any kind, I feel, is a slap in the face of all the cinematographers out there.

 

Of course, I'd say even with his last film, "Titanic," the Best Cinematography nod seems to be doled out as a consolation prize some years.

 

I'd personally, like to see them hand it out one year to a movie that was poor in other areas but had great cinematography. This happens all the time with other categoriess. Why not with cinematography?

[K Borowski]

Whilst it is certainly animating, a CG DP wouldn't have anything to do with the actual animation. They would only be *animating* where the camera was positioned and how it moves. They might also animate lights when they want them to move in shot. Like a film set, there are so many specific roles in CG animation that it's entirely possible and in fact necessary to specialise in just one element.

 

Yeah, but that is only because someone *programmed* an interface to utilize familiar concepts of lights and cameras in an animation program. They could just-as-easily be configured in any number of other ways. They could be configured to code each shot by hand.

 

Sure, you could argue that it is just equipment, just like cameras, lenses, lights and film are just equipment, and ultimately you are using items that you couldn't build yourself, I feel that animation software goes to a level or category outside of photography. A lot of people's favorite shots in movies are supplemented by visual effects artists, and often the team that labored to produce them, the second unit or the SFX unit, goes largely unrecognized uncredited.

 

I never hear anyone on here moping how the 2nd Unit DP the SFX house should have gotten a cinematography award. Should "Tron" have gotten the best cinematography nod in the early '80s?

 

 

This area remains in the realm of special effects, animation. There's nothing WRONG with that field, just that it is obvious that it is not cinematography, but a different field.

[K Borowski]

But it's still acting.

 

R.

 

Yeah, but Captain Christopher Pike could practically act in a CG film, or Stephen Hawking. This is more akin to radio acting than anything else. You need a working voice-box. You don't need to move any other part of your body, express emotion, do stunts, make hand gestures, cry, get naked. . .

 

In fact, didn't it use to be that they *were* using primarily radio voice talents before that medium died out with cel animated movies of the '30s and '40s?

[K Borowski]

The problem with the Sony F-950 cameras used for Avatar is that they max out at 30 frames per second which is not ideal for 3D.

 

You know, it's funny Thomas, I've seen the movie in both 2- and 3D, 35mm, IMAX, and 2K DLP, and I didn't 24-fps frame artifacts being a problem, even in the IMAX version, and I sat close.

 

So, where are you coming from? You'd have to stare at a portion of the screen with binoculars to see objectionable amounts of blur in most Hollywood movies, unless it is intended.

[Thomas James]

Using film for 3D cinematography is a hard sell. Even using 3 perf rather than 4 perf at 48 frames per second for each view effectively triples your film production costs because you are shooting a total of 96 frames per second. Producers are already forking more money over for a 3D production as it is and then they are asked to fork over more money to shoot at 48 frames per second? To reign in costs perhaps 2 perf techniscope can be used which will still appear to be very sharp because of the higher frame rate.

 

The fact of the matter is that the F23 was probably not available when shooting of Avatar began. This left the old Panasonic Varicam which is capable of 48 frames but at only 720p resolution.

 

As 3D evolves stereo cinematography will be replaced by a multiview system. Phillips has developed a 4K system with a total of 46 different views. While of course some of these views can be artificially generated the fact remains that film will be come very expensive if used in this application.

[K Borowski]

Using film for 3D cinematography is a hard sell. Even using 3 perf rather than 4 perf at 48 frames per second for each view effectively triples your film production costs because you are shooting a total of 96 frames per second. Producers are already forking more money over for a 3D production as it is and then they are asked to fork over more money to shoot at 48 frames per second? To reign in costs perhaps 2 perf techniscope can be used which will still appear to be very sharp because of the higher frame rate.

 

Who said anything about shooting 3D on film here? I sure-as-hell didn't.

 

You're either just intentionally staying off-topic, or aren't grasping what is being said here. Plenty of movies, like Avatar are shot on digital but still distributed on film.

 

 

If you want to start a technical discussion, will you PLEASE start your own thread instead of derailing every Single OTHER THREAD with a constant barage of the same propaganda?

 

For someone who professes a modicum of intelligence, surely you've figured out how to use the "new thread" button by now?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Karl Borowski

[Thomas James]

I have been watching Hollywood movies for years and I never noticed a problem until 5 years ago when I bought my first 720p high definition video camera which shot video at 30 frames per second at a high automatic shutter speed. Needless to say I ended up with stroboscopic results everytime I panned the camera. Even though I was a novice I nevertheless questioned the fact whether it was really me or the cameras fault. Of course there are measures that one can take to reduce the motion problems inherent with cinematography but I still felt that the only way the problem can be eliminated would be to up the frame rate. I was then shocked to discover that all Hollywood movies do not even have the luxury of 30 frames per second which can be made to look quite good but rather are limited to only 24 frames per second. After my eyes were opened I was able to see motion aliasing artifacts like a hawk.

 

James Cameron never noticed a problem until he started shooting in 3D. The artifacts were always there but the higher reality of 3D makes them stand out. Unfortunately once the artifacts are noticed your eyes become opened and you can never enjoy a movie in quite the same way because you are annoyed.

 

However high framerates can be equally annoying because it destroys the film look and makes everyting look like a cheesy soap opera video. So people like Doug Trumble have proposed a solution such as the 3D Showscan 30 fps to 60 fps system. When shooting at 30 fps you significantly reduce the motion artifacts while maintaining the awesome film look and you shoot at 60 frames per second when shooting fast action scenes when the film look does not matter anyway. The advantage of the James Cameron 24 fps to 48 fps system maintains backward compatibility with existing work flows.

 

Personally I shoot 90 percent of my footage at 30 frames per second because I have to take a resolution hit if I shoot at a higher frame rate. However for the impossible shots the 60 fps feature is a good ace in the hole.

[K Borowski]

James Cameron never noticed a problem until he started shooting in 3D. The artifacts were always there but the higher reality of 3D makes them stand out.

 

[. . . ]

 

The advantage of the James Cameron 24 fps to 48 fps system maintains backward compatibility with existing work flows.

 

What, besides the name of "Avatar's" director, does this have ANYTHING to do with this thread on a 3D movie shot at 24FPS?

[George Ebersole]

Yeah, but that is only because someone *programmed* an interface to utilize familiar concepts of lights and cameras in an animation program. They could just-as-easily be configured in any number of other ways. They could be configured to code each shot by hand.

 

Sure, you could argue that it is just equipment, just like cameras, lenses, lights and film are just equipment, and ultimately you are using items that you couldn't build yourself, I feel that animation software goes to a level or category outside of photography. A lot of people's favorite shots in movies are supplemented by visual effects artists, and often the team that labored to produce them, the second unit or the SFX unit, goes largely unrecognized uncredited.

 

I never hear anyone on here moping how the 2nd Unit DP the SFX house should have gotten a cinematography award. Should "Tron" have gotten the best cinematography nod in the early '80s?

 

 

This area remains in the realm of special effects, animation. There's nothing WRONG with that field, just that it is obvious that it is not cinematography, but a different field.

"Tron" is probably the exception to the rule, but not because of its early CGI, but rather it was shot in 65mm (blown up to 70). There's a few shots in that film that would've been a piece of cake with standard 35mm stock, but were tricky with the larger format.

 

I think back on all the stuff I worked on many years back, and I think when the awards were given there may have been a wrongful assumption that one DP was in charge of SFX as well as live action. So the FX shots are ignored in terms of cinematography, or fall under the umbrella of the film's DP.

[Thomas James]

According to the James Cameron interview on Avatar James Cameron himself proposed using 3 perf or the 2 perf Techniscope format for Cinematographers who insisted on using film for 3D productions. Although this may seem off topic because Avatar was shot using digital technology one of the purposes of Avatar was to promote 3D technology in general which includes both film and digital technology. James Cameron anticipated that film makers would object to using 2 perf because of a resolution degradation however James Cameron assured these Cinematographers that the resolution loss by using 2 perf Techniscope would be made up by using a higher frame rate.

[John Sprung]

... I bought my first 720p high definition video camera which shot video at 30 frames per second at a high automatic shutter speed. Needless to say I ended up with stroboscopic results everytime I panned the camera. .... Of course there are measures that one can take to reduce the motion problems inherent with cinematography but I still felt that the only way the problem can be eliminated would be to up the frame rate.

 

And that's where you went wrong. Shutter angle is far more important than frame rate.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

The question is why is James Cameron so off topic when he talks this big talk about how great Avatar would have been had it been shot at 48 fps and then fails to walk the walk when he goes ahead and shoots it at 24 fps ? I can only speculate but I think that Cameron was discouraged because there were very few digital 1080p cameras that could shoot at 48 fps during the beginning of the Avatar production.

 

Unfortunately waiters are not creators. Perfectly good 720p Varicams could have been used that would have produced excellent results. Even 16mm film would have been a good choice provided that a fine grain stock was used with an excellent lighting package. Its not technology nor economics that hold this technology back but this idea that using a more humble format is somehow not full high definition. We will have the same problem in the future when cinematographers will wait for a high speed 4K camera rather than using existing high speed 2K cameras that produce wonderfull 4:4:4 images.

[Thomas James]

Using a longer exposure time can certainly smooth out the motion however it introduces motion blur that defeats the purpose of high definition which demands sharper images. Therefore the concept of high definition must be redefined as to only include images with better temporal resolution which means that a minimum of 30 fps would be required. This new standard would allow Cinematographers to preserve the film look.

[georg lamshöft]

@Karl Borowski

 

It's my fault, I came up with 35mm, again :unsure: and Mr. James wanted to give an answer, although money isn't really an issue with "Avatar" (he is even the producer, owner and CEO of the production company!), not a few 100k$ for film stock and DI. For some reason, Cameron loves this HD-stuff, but at the same time complains about it's restrictions (wants 4k/48p, would prefer 2k/48p over 4k/24p but chooses the camera technology that only allows 1080p/24)!?

 

I didn't had much trouble with the low fps, but they had to keep the CGI-movements rather unsharp to keep the experience "smooth".

[Thomas James]

The Pace Fusion 3-D system used the 1080i format for the 2007 NBC Allstar game but who wants to use interlacing for a feature movie? However it is a different story with todays technology now that high speed 1080p cameras are readily available.

[K Borowski]

"Tron" is probably the exception to the rule, but not because of its early CGI, but rather it was shot in 65mm (blown up to 70). There's a few shots in that film that would've been a piece of cake with standard 35mm stock, but were tricky with the larger format.

 

I think back on all the stuff I worked on many years back, and I think when the awards were given there may have been a wrongful assumption that one DP was in charge of SFX as well as live action. So the FX shots are ignored in terms of cinematography, or fall under the umbrella of the film's DP.

 

Come on, George, "Tron" didn't have any real CGI in it, they were frame-animated 8x10" (200x250mm) lithos hand-drawn into the film. the 65mm stock more-easily facilitated the hand-drawing process, nothing more.

 

 

While I disagree with your assertion of "CGI" in "Tron," I agree with the point you make about DPs being given all the credit for areas they shouldn't be given credit (like SFX) in the photography of movies.

[John Brawley]

Let's go back to traditional cel animation for a moment.

 

There is a 35mm camera, camera movements (keeping parallel to the drawings), lighting, "depth of field," and a whole host of other things that make it similar to the challenges of cinematography.

 

I don't consider cel animation cinematography, though I'd be interested in being involved on either a CG or cel animation project, just once, as a learning experience.

 

 

Karl that's why I found the reference to cel based animation curious in my previous post. There's one important difference with 3d based animation environments....

 

Lighting.

 

If cinematography is writing with light, then there is a critical difference between these animation processes. Lighting is so sophisticated in modern 3d. You can choose to have lights behave in very similar ways, obey the rules we're used to in the real world...or not.

 

Either way to get a good result requires someone who knows how to "light"

 

That is a genuine point of difference from animation.

 

jb

[Ruairi Robinson]

Come on, George, "Tron" didn't have any real CGI in it, they were frame-animated 8x10" (200x250mm) lithos hand-drawn into the film. the 65mm stock more-easily facilitated the hand-drawing process, nothing more.

 

 

While I disagree with your assertion of "CGI" in "Tron,"

 

Perhaps you should consider checking your facts before speaking.

 

R.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

In what way do you think ? Do you mean 2D cell (photographed) animation or CG based 2D animation (like flash based work such as South Park).

 

Let's say elaborate Disney multiplane animation.

 

I was referring to the total artificiality of CGI.

 

You say that CGI uses lighting, but it's not really lighting but a simulation of lighting.

& there has been CGI without lighting.

'Roger Rabbit' had lighting added to its cel work.