what frame rate will Avatar be presented in? (cinema, film, movie theater)

[Nepenthe]

Anybody know? Or willing to speculate.

Will Avatar be displayed in 60 frames per second in the movie theater?

On 60 Minutes tonight it was definitely being shown at 60fps, but it's unclear whether that means the theater presentation will be at 60fps or the traditional 24fps.

(By the way, I did NOT have frame interpolation/AutoMotion turned on on my Samsung LCD TV.)

IF Avatar is in 60fps, will it then be the first major film presented as such? I believe even Pixar/Dreamworks fully 3D movies are at 24fps in the theater. I'm sure the excellent Christie Digital Projectors at my local RAVE theater can do 60fps if asked to.

If it is 60fps, what do you think of that? Good, bad?

Thanks!

[harry chickpea]

60 fps in a traditional movie theatre is a horrible waste of film, and 99% of film projectors out there cannot handle it anyway. Doug Trumbell (among others) tried to get 60fps into theatres as Showscan and ended up with a small box motion simulator in Las Vegas before going bankrupt. Higher speed 16 mm was even tried at one point. 60fps digital is also overkill, but somewhat useful for alternate image shutter glasses 3D.

Movies today are PRODUCT. The cheaper they are to make, the more the money loves 'em. People not only tolerate such poor values as "Blair Witch", but seem to revel in it. A few of us geeks know the possibilities of really really excellent cinematography, but we don't put dollars in the box office. Teens seeing "Twilight" do.

FWIW, Cinerama had three projectors and the sound donkey, so in a way, it showed 72 frames per second... Theatres with three bladed projectors also had a flicker rate of 72 fps.

[Nepenthe]

Some projectors probably can handle it -- the Christie projectors at my RAVE for instance.

There's a very real difference between 24fps and 60fps as far as human perception of smoothness. 24fps judders. 60fps is technically superior, but movies simply don't look right if interpolated to 60 separate frames as with the optional frame interpolation settings on recent 120Hz and 240Hz LCD TVs.

But Avatar is different, isn't it? It cost over $400 Million to make, it brings green screen and motion capture technology to new levels, and it will be the early killer app for 3D theaters and soon 3D televisions. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Cameron wants to utilize 60fps presentation in this groundbreaking film.

Interesting bit about Cinerama.

Thanks! Anyone else?

[Nepenthe]

James Cameron and Peter Jackson Explore the Future of Film : Rolling Stone

Here, James Cameron apparently talked about increasing the frame rate for movies from 24fps to 48fps. Again, still not clear if Avatar is the first of that breed or not.

I welcome it if it is. I don't think this would be the cheap "soap opera effect" that LCD TVs inflict on current DVDs and BluRays. Rather, I think it's just one more technical reason people will leave the theater amazed after seeing Avatar.

[DaddySpice]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

But Avatar is different, isn't it? It cost over $400 Million to make . . .

Don't believe that hype. The studio may be charging $400 million against the movie, to fund everyone's salaries and the entire cost of the studio, but Avatar really isn't responsible for all that. It's just Hollywood accounting. Lots of hit movies are counted as tax losses on the books, and they may be positioning Avatar to eat some other losses.

[Nepenthe]

Maybe it isn't $400M as was stated on 60 Minutes, but there's no denying it uses 3D display, green screen, and motion capture in unprecedented ways and that it's very ambitious.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry for the film does state explicitly that it is only in 24fps even though Cameron wants to move toward a 48fps standard. Oh well, maybe for the sequel...