James Cameron to Shoot 'Avatar' Sequels at Higher Frame Rates, Aiming for 'Reality'

It may not sound quite as sexy as some other cinematic techniques that Cameron has pioneered, but, according to the 'Avatar' director, faster frame rates could dramatically enhance image quality across all film genres. Today, movies are shot at 24 frames per second (fps), which has become the industry standard. As Cameron pointed out, however, this standard was established in 1927, with the release of 'The Jazz Singer,' adding that a change is long overdue.
To demonstrate the visual difference in frame rates, Cameron screened and compared footage that he'd shot in 24, 48 and 60 fps. Though he openly admitted that he couldn't distinguish between scenes shot in 48 and 60 fps, Cameron emphasized the quality differential separating 24 and 48 fps.
In one scene, Cameron used a series of panning shots to illustrate this gap. At 24 fps, the images seemed to "strobe," creating a blurry, almost slow-motion quality. At 48 fps, on the other hand, the images were much crisper and clearer -- so much so, in fact, that the CinemaCon audience reacted audibly after viewing the comparison.
Cameron acknowledged that some directors might not want to shoot films with this kind of precision, and may opt instead for a more "stylized" aesthetic that slower frame rates can offer. But he's taking it upon himself to spearhead the movement, beginning with the 'Avatar' sequels.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Cameron is seriously considering shooting the second and third 'Avatar' movies at either 48 or 60 fps. With this higher frame rate, he's hoping to transcend 3-D, and move into an entirely new realm of cinematic reality. "When you author and project a movie at 48 or 60, it becomes a different movie," he said. "The 3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window. In fact, it is just reality. It is really stunning."





Live from Microsoft's New Generation Xbox event!
Xbox Reveal liveblog on Joystiq
Dozens Killed in Oklahoma Tornado; Death Toll to Rise
Xbox One architecture panel liveblog!
H&M's Plus-Size Model Jennie Runk Says She Chose To Gain Weight
Okla. Sheriff's Deputy Finds Dog Guarding Body Buried Under Destroyed Home
Watch: Kansas Meteorologist Seeks Shelter From Tornado
South American 'Crazy' Ants Are a Threat in Southern US
Selena Gomez Leaving Justin Bieber's House: Booty Call Rumors Swirl













Comments
4
Subscribe to commentsDr_whiteApr 2nd 2011 2:48PM
48 fps, right..because the human eye that only sees 30 fps at best can really benefit. Or is it more about justifying a new Blu-Ray standard that demands more storage, so we'll have to buy new players and TVs again? This sellout hack needs to go back to making documentaries. He used up what little creative juice he had left with Titanic, and he's nothing but the industry's hardware salesman now. Screw you, Cam, you washed-up, plagiarizing liberal prick.
MitchApr 3rd 2011 8:22AM
@Dr_white We can see the difference easily.The human eye can see way above 30fps. The average person stops perceiving any difference at approximately 70-80fps.
MatthewApr 4th 2011 1:59PM
Douglas Trumbull developed this method almost 30 years ago. It's called Showscan.
HmmmApr 25th 2011 4:21AM
@Dr_white
I swear, every time high framerates are mentioned, there's always someone who claims that "the human eye" cannot possibly perceive beyond 30 fps. I work with computer graphics and use all kinds of video sources and I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps ALL THE TIME. I'm not alone either. Maybe your eyes (or rather, your brain) can't see properly?