Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtickleuk
I just hope they have decent script and story this time. The dialogue in Avatar was so awful, so cringeworthy, it had me belly-laughing and took me completely out of the movie! It was the prettiest-looking, yet terrible, movie I can remember seeing for ages. Obviously IMHO since the mass movie-watching public didn't seem to care about the script, only how pretty it looked. Call me old fashioned, but I think a good story should come first.
Thanks for the link. At around 33:30 he says that they shot at 48fps but then says "47.952". I'm astonished and disappointed. If I have understood him correct, then even now, in this day and age with brand new tech, they are still using non-integer frame rates; that is absolutely crazy if true and will only cause problems. Why force TV manufacturers to have to implement both 48fps support AND an archaic-but-not-archaic-because-it's-new 47.952fps? No wonder there are dropped frames and stuttering happening all over the place....
|
With regards to UHD disc, and UHD disc only, there is no 48p support and there isn’t likely to be any either, as such I’m amazed that Cameron still used 48 rather than 60 or 120. Not that he’s interested in making a movie just to show it at 4K60 on a stupid little disc, he’s picking the best tech for what he wants to see on the big screen, but it still seems weird. Then again, if you shoot at 60 you can’t easily make a 24 from that which is why the other guy mentions shooting in multiples of 24, whereas with 48 it’s more (although not entirely) straightforward to extract a conventional 24. Same goes for Ang Lee using 120, though I’m guessing that that format was out of the question for Avadah.
But in any case we’re not going to have to worry about our home screens being compatible with 48/47.95 if there’s no means to actually transport it into the home - although while disc is out of the question there’s no reason why streaming versions can’t be at those frame rates. So maybe you’re right to worry about TV compatibility after all. I wonder why they used 47.95 though, is that so it’ll fit into the legacy 23.98 and 59.94 (inc pull down) rates without having to slightly adjust them as they’d have to do with shooting 24/48 exactly?
Oh, and note that Geoff Burdick mentioned that the films won’t actually *be* in 48fps throughout, that’s what the ‘container’ will be but Cameron isn’t a fan of HFR for the sake of it, he’ll crank it up and down where he feels it’s needed. From 7 (!) years ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
James Cameron has said that he's not a great fan of using HFR throughout a movie, precisely for the reasons you stated. That's why he's mentioned variable frame rates when speaking about the Avatar sequels, because he wants to keep the traditional 24fps style for still or slow-moving scenes and use HFR for the fast-moving action.
|
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
