The future of cinema is slowing down

Hobbit fans have probably been hearing about 48 frames per second (now branded as High Frame Rate) for longer than any other fan group except hardcore A/V techies. That would be because Peter Jackson has taken up that torch and forged ahead, attempting to blaze a new path for the future of cinema. One gets the sense that he is trying to emulate James Cameron's success in bringing 3D to the mainstream with Avatar. Interestingly, Cameron himself has also endorsed shooting at higher frame rates, but since he's taking so long to make the Avatar sequels (probably too busy pushing the boundaries of deep sea exploration), he's seemed content to let PJ be the standard-bearer.

Despite his other projects, however, Cameron has talked about his plans for shooting Avatar in 60 frames per second, which he claimed would be noticeably higher (and "better") than 48 fps since it's effectively the . PJ and his camp, however, have claimed that the difference between 48 fps and 60 fps is negligible.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-eyeing-60-frames-237522

James Cameron in 2011 wrote:Last March at CinemaCon, Cameron said he “fully intends” to film the Avatar sequels at a higher frame rate and he presented an extensive test showing the differences between images shot at 24, 48 and 60 fps. At that time, he said, "The 3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window.”

However, over a year since AUJ came and went, The Hobbit movies are still the only major films to have been released in HFR, and TABA and the Avatar sequels are the only major ones on the schedule (the new X-Men movie was rumored to be coming in HFR 3D, but that's not going to happen. More here and here). We've discussed how The Hobbit movies have not been a cultural phenomenon like LOTR, but they also haven't really been a technical watershed like Avatar. And now, even Cameron himself is scaling back his public comments on HFR.

http://collider.com/avatar-2-sequels-news-james-cameron/

James Cameron in 2014 wrote:[We’re] looking at high frame rate. I’m studying that. I haven’t made a final decision yet, whether the entire film will be made at high frame rate or parts of it. You know, we’ll be shooting at a native resolution of probably 4K and so then there should be a lot of true 4K theaters by then as well.

Cameron is covering his bases here, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if HFR had really been the phenomenon that he and Jackson were claiming, then Cameron would be all over this shit trying to hype people up for Avatar 2. Presumably the variable frame rate would be achieved through a process similar to "animating on twos" in the world of hand-drawn animation. Maybe using HFR sparingly will allow it to showcase fancy special effects while not distracting at other moments of the film. But I think it's more likely that HFR will be tossed on the ash heap of cinema history sooner rather than later.

Thoughts?

With digital projectors I can't see that HFR won't take over. I think the cameras will also improve enough to compensate for shorter exposure time. I don't think there's enough difference between 24 and higher to really propel the technology, but it will become so easy that it will feel silly to stop it.

The main thing that needs to improve is 3D. Right now it's too dark.

HFR doesn't add anything to the experience of the film. It doesn't "immerse" the viewer, as it was touted to do. It didn't do anything for me when I saw DOS, although I will admit that it does make it easier to focus on the 3D and my eyes didn't feel strained at the end of the movie.

But even then, 3D is a gimmick and has been ever since Bwana Devil. If you can't sell the audience on a good story/script/acting/characters/music/drama/comedy you thrown in a gimmick (3D, HFR, D-Box, etc.) and also jack up the price of the ticket at the same time.

I saw HFR once, that's all I needed. I don't feel the need to ever see a movie like that again.

halfwise wrote:With digital projectors I can't see that HFR won't take over.  I think the cameras will also improve enough to compensate for shorter exposure time.  I don't think there's enough difference between 24 and higher to really propel the technology, but it will become so easy that it will feel silly to stop it.

I dunno; I think HFR's biggest problem is that it hasn't even really started. We're starting to see widespread industry adoption and consumer interest in stuff like 4K digital projection (and they're even beginning to push 4K for home video). And 3D became quite popular and successful in the aftermath of Avatar, and even though interest in it has waned somewhat it's still common. To be fair, the bulk of 3D is converted after the fact, although you can also do conversions into HFR with TrueMotion and the like. Sure, it's widely believed to look like ass, but so is post-converted 3D. Given that the response to HFR so far has been mostly lukewarm, I'm not seeing how its in anyone's financial best interest to keep pushing the technology, and reading between the lines, James Cameron seems to be thinking along similar lines. I could be wrong, though (obviously).

I guess it's just a little early for this sort of tech. Taking 4K as an example it's definitely on the horizon, but it's going to be some time before we see it widely adopted for home use. I think Asus has a 4k monitor for under 700 dollars, but it's only 30hz. I haven't seen any 60hz 4k monitors for home use. It's probably a ways off. I can only imagine how expensive a 4k 60hz 3d monitor would be.