JC's Official next project: Avatar 2 & 3

[Tolalla]

I remember reading ages ago that JC wanted to film Avatar at 48fps to reduce the 'strobing' effects in 3D, but Fox would not agree to it. Maybe he is thinking more for 3D than 2D movies.

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

Originally Posted by Human No More

wait, WHAT?

Movies have held back progress with 24fps for AGES... there is a huge difference between 24fps and a decent rate, that's why films have to have artificial motion blur that reduces quality.
I'll be REALLY happy if Avatar 2/3 finally improve quality of film

Honestly, I hate the look of 48, 72 fps in movies. Maybe I'm just set in my ways about films, I know some people love the higher fps. It might make Avatar more realistic (if done right), if not, it'll look like a documentary. I like the way movies and TV are at different frame rates (TV being 30 fps).

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...Public Enemies and 2012 looked like normally-filmed movies to me.

2012, not so noticeable. Michael Mann shot Public Enemies with a Sony CineAlta F23 (same camera used in Cloverfield which gives the effect of a HD handheld camcorder) at 30 fps, which gives the movie a reality TV sort of look or one of those reconstructions you see in documentaries. 24 fps would've given the film a more artistic, cinematic look.

Overall I think the spirit of movies are kept in 24 fps. Digital film-making is definitely the way forward, but I can also see why Star Trek (2009) was shot on 35mm film with an anamorphic lens when JJ Abrams had the option of shooting it digitally. Because the lens flares, the wide field and crisp look of film can't be translated onto digitial recording. There's a certain artistry to making movies on film. Sure, it's convienient to make a film digitally but some of that cinematic look is lost in the translation.

I have solid opinions on why I prefer 24fps in movies and only the sequel to Avatar can change them.

[Human No More]

You do realise that lensflares in that Abrams thing were ALL 100% CG? (Insert snarky comment about how a BAD thing that decent cameramen try to AVOID was being deliberately added... not that it was in ANY way a good film though)
I could make some remark about Abrams' (lack of) intelligence and the naturally lower standards of filming of a parody too...

I watch films and TV, I play games. Games are by FAR the best (my PC renders anything at >60fps, 60 being the maximum my monitor actually displays as it is 60Hz). They all look better for motion than TV, which does look marginally better than films - motion blur is much less fake and it seems smoother.

[ISV Venture Star]

The weird thing is that in the past decade or so TV shows have been reducing frame rates to look more 'filmic'.
Field-removed video - Definition

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You do realise that lensflares in that Abrams thing were 100% CG?

*zoink... bzzzt... ERROR* If you saw the Blu-ray special features you would retract that statement. I'm sure there's something on it on youtube if you want to try and prove me wrong.

[Tolalla]

Most of the lens flare was created artificially, either by shining a light into the camera lens, or added by cg onto cgi shots. Very little of it was created by accident.

[Human No More]

Yes, but I was still remarking that deliberately creating lensflares is tacky and in my opinion just looks bad. Good cameramen AVOID setting up shots that produce them and modern equipment is designed to reduce the chance and severity of them. A film should be made as if there isn't a camera there (also means no effects like stuff visibly hitting a camera, and no shaking camera during explosions etc). Avatar got it right, where you should be actually able to feel you ARE there, rather than feel you are watching a recording of something.

The problem is sometimes people EXPECT these bad effects, just like they expect a 'silenced' gun to make no noise (when in actual fact, there is no such thing as a 'silencer', there's a reason it is called a suppressor). There is a whole list of these which people have come to expect in films despite the fact that reality does not work that way.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...yIsUnrealistic

[Stanley_9875]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Yes, but I was still remarking that deliberately creating lensflares is tacky and in my opinion just looks bad. Good cameramen AVOID setting up shots that produce them and modern equipment is designed to reduce the chance and severity of them. A film should be made as if there isn't a camera there (also means no effects like stuff visibly hitting a camera, and no shaking camera during explosions etc). Avatar got it right, where you should be actually able to feel you ARE there, rather than feel you are watching a recording of something.

Indeed, I remember the first time I saw Avatar in IMAX (my first viewing was 2-D, I wasnt sure if I would like the movie or not [remember, I did absolutely no research on the movie, never saw a commercial... oh dear god here come those emotions... I'm crying right now... didnt seen that coming, need to give myself a second, sorry, I really did just have a breakdown right now])

Anyways I remember the first time Jake in his Avatar form got off the chopper onto the Pandora jungle, and when the bugs were flying around, its like I could feel the bugs around me, and no flare and whatever... done perfectly