A 24fps Filmmaker Reacts to Avatar 2 in "HFR"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- NO SPOILERS.
It's been 3 years since any HFR movie has hit any movie screen. So will this be the one that convinces me that HFR is truly the future? C'mon, you know the answer already... it was the worst thing I've ever seen and would have been better if it was ENTIRELY HFR.... wait wut?
Watching Avatar 2 in variable frame rate feels like playing a badly optimized video game. Who knows, maybe the frame rate will be more stable in the next patch.
"Early AAAccess"
it felt like someone was constantly switching between RTX ON/OFF
@@ravignir you feel things in memes?..
(You do realise, that RTX is about lighting in a scene, which was EXACTLY the same and perfect in all of those movie shots?)
@@JenyaIsJustChilling i was referring to framerate dropping randomly :)
I thought I was seeing things, HFR cutting in and out, I was about to see the owner of my local IMAX and ask him to get the 4k laser projector serviced.
First time watching Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D HFR I was getting distracted by fps changing through the scenes especially in first hour of the movie. Then after week passed I re-watched Avatar 2 second time in same IMAX 3D HFR cinema and I wasn't bothered by variable frame rates that much so I'm not sure if I get more used to it after first viewing or something.
Same thing happened to me here I felt I was sort of dreaming watching it the first time and then I watched it two more times in the same HFR in both imax with laser and Dolby cinema 3D and I found myself feeling a lot more comfortable in the HFR than the 24
Same here, I never dared Imax 3d HFR again. My brain didn't really record the movie well because when I saw it again in 2D there are scenes in it I didn't even realized where there (kids underwater and the pursuit by subs, I swear I didn't see that scene the first time, probably because my brain switched of). All the things with the eclipse, the boat I didn't get any of the logic the first time. Later on I went back, yes, totally made sense, especially 2D.
The variable framerate thing actually reminds me of a quirk in old television shows, specifically the UK before the late '80s or so: If you go back and watch Doctor Who, Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Goodies, etc. half of the production was shot on video indoors, but when the characters went outdoors it switched to film cameras as they were much easier to use outside. But the film parts were still shot at 24fps, so the overall look and framerate changed as it went between that and the 50i of PAL video. While I still enjoyed the shows, there was that jarring feeling for reasons that my kid brain couldn't explain yet. In other words, you watched the 3-hour epic VFX version of technical limitations for British TV in the mid-late 20th century.
(I specified the UK because I don't believe the USA used this technique? American shows of that same vintage either used all film or all video, and nothing in-between like what the UK did.)
Actually happened on shows like SNL where you had intro bumpers in 24 and live portion in 30fps (or 60i). Happens also in reality shows like American Idol or America's got talent where the preproduced segments are 24 and live performances are 30/60...
"Good lord. We're on film!"
I remember this so well! But film for UK TV was shot at 25fps. I used to film animation for BBC shows -- where as you say the studio work was on video, and any exterior sequences (and animation) was on film. :)
Monty Python has a great sketch making fun of this.
And for the highest budget BBC, ITV, or Granada productions, they just shot film throughout. Brideshead Revisited, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Fortunes of War...
In the US you can tell the difference between sitcoms filmed in studio on video (lots of Norman Lear productions) and sitcoms shot on film at 24 (higher dollar ones like Seinfeld and Friends)
I 100% agree. For me that constant change of framerate did not allow me to fully emerse myself in the story.
Was “pulled out of it” for the entire 3 hours!
The one scene that took me out was the train scene. The derailing movement looked exactly like a COD cutscene. There were also certain scenes where it switched from HFR to regular 24fps and it felt like the movie was lagging.
The train, every time an airship was on screen, and that extreme zoom-in, when the city is introduced. I couldn’t help myself from blurting out “video game” in the theater. I kept waiting for a QTE prompt during the giant fish/shark scene.
I thought EXACTLY the same. I thought "this is a nice trailer of a game... is this the latest Unity engine?" 🤦♂
Lmao lagging great way to put it
The main reason that shot felt fake is because the tracking shot of the train inherently had no natural camera shake and was too smooth.
When Jake fights the dude at the end on the boat, whenever they were wet it looked just like a warcraft cinematic but the day time shots in water looked incredible
I saw it in 48 HFR 3D and I honestly didn’t mind it. The underwater sequences were so beautiful. However, what I found annoying that in the middle of 48 HFR sequences, it would go back to 24 FPS for brief takes, even in action sequences that somehow wasn’t in 48 HFR. It’s similar when the aspect ratios constantly keep changing for the Batman films. If the entire film was 48 HFR, or at least keep the frame rate more consistent, I think it would’ve made the overall experience better.
I generally agree. The ending fight between sully and the captain on the boat really threw me off. It looked so bad. I still say the hfr 3d is the way to go however. Those underwater moments cant be beat and, from my experience at least, the hrf helped with the 3d a lot. Considering its a 3 hour long movie, I didnt get tired and stained like i did with the first avatar
Thats a very subjective point,im willing many ppl didnt mind the variable framerate
@@alahsiaboi8909 it's obvious the vast majority don't mind. They also don't mind motion smoothing on their TVs. But the people who do mind... Really don't like it.
@@FilmmakerIQ And the people who the idea worked on, really liked it.
@@noimnotakpoppfpsheacy2526 most the people I hear hated it or didn't know it was a thing. Far more people hated it than those that actually liked switching frame rates (I've only seen one)
I loved the HFR - I think it should have been consistent more often but generally speaking I think Avatar works better in HFR. Most importantly, filmmakers are the last audience any director should be considering when making their movie.
Filmmakers are the first audience.
@@FilmmakerIQ Absolutely correct! I'd even argue that the filmmakers themselves are the primary audience... why make a film that you don't love yourself?
anyone that has played videogames as a main source of entertainment for more than like 3 months could have told you from the get go that constantly changing framerates or incosistent time between frames will always look worse than any possible stable value
Ironic that I've been told on RUclips consistently for three years that variable frame rate is the solution
@@FilmmakerIQ variable frame rate only looks good on displays with the ability to dynamically change their refresh rate to match, something movie projectors can't do, and even then only within a certain window of variance, whatever framerate you pick, you need it locked, and you need every frame to take the exact same amount of time to come out, otherwise the effect is a jerky motion that almost feels like digital shaky cam
maybe people who don't really get how movie projectors work think variable refresh rate can just be a thing the same way it is on high end tvs and gaming monitors
No, this process really is variable frame rate. This is not an issue of the "screen not accomodating"... This IS REAL VARIABLE frame rate.
The true answer is variable frame rates DO NOT WORK.
@@elizabethagudelo7179 do you mean the backlight strobing feature that only exist in some TV (called "LED motion mode"), and gaming monitor ("ULMB", "lightboost", "DyAc", "ELMB",etc)? it matches the backlight with the framerate, but it cut the maximum brightness of the screen by half, so it is never ON by default (except on CRTs and old projectors screen).
thank you! this is what i wrote on facebook on the 16th after i had seen the movie in "variable HFR":
the variable frame rate is AWFUL. i'm actually the one person who LOVED seeing all 3 HOBBIT movies in HFR 3D. and whenever THE WAY OF WATER was doing HFR, it looked amazing. but it switches back and forth between HFR and 24fps all the fucking time! there are lots of scenes where literally one shot is in HFR, the next shot is in 24fps, the next shot is in HFR again, and so on. it was JARRING. and whenever it's in HFR for a while and your brain gets used to the super smooth gorgeous look, and then suddenly it switches to 24fps, it looks like there's something wrong with the playback because the low frame rate looks outright choppy for the first few seconds. what an absolute mess. they should have done the whole movie in HFR, then it would at least look consistently awesome. but this... what the hell were they thinking??
If you think HFR looks amazing we’re going to have to take anything you write with a grain of salt.
@@JJ-ze6vb do whatever you want, i don't care.
JC simply considered 'proposals' from people to use VFR instead of constant HFR to preserve the 'cinematographic touch' in dialogue scenes and to use HFR in action scenes. Personally, I didn't like that decision; if he wanted HFR, he should have kept that effect throughout the entire movie.
@@JJ-ze6vb Why do you complicate things so much? If you don't like HFR, there will always be its 24FPS version. Don't be so bitter.
@@jerchongkong5387 couldn't agree more.
I'm a big fan of HFR but couldn't wait to hear your take on this. Agree with much of what you said, but I'm glad Cameron is experimenting with the format - Avatar is the perfect sandbox for the tech and I did enjoy the experience. Unfortunately the distributors have made a complete mess of clarifying what customers can expect at each cinema chain/screen/format, its wildly inconsistent and results in a lose-lose situation for both creators and consumers
Wish I knew before I bought IMAX tickets for the whole family. Avatar 1’s frame rate was good as it was. I don’t understand the need to mess with it unless it was necessary. Not sure if I disliked the movie because of vfr. Also I know with 3d there comes dimming but I didn’t remember 1 being as dim as 2.
Don't forget exibitors. Most people don't know the movie has a variable frame rate and blame the theatres for having "faulty" projectors.
It's unbelieveable the amount of friends, family, & co-workers who have the smooth framerate'd wool pulled over their eye sockets... To them, there's no difference.
I like hfr, but the people I know don't even care about home theaters. My girlfriends family came over and picked a red box movie to watch on my lgc1. Low resolution and no surround sound. They couldn't care less about 4k Hdr vs a dvd or the type of tv. It's more than what you're saying. lol
The first time I watched it, I didn’t know about this HFR stuff, and I genuinely thought they sped up the action scenes to make the movie shorter LOL
Tbh thats a pretty dumb conclusion
thanks
Excellent video.
I personally really enjoyed the HFR, but it's because I was able to easily adjust because I'm also used to 60FPS video games.
HOWEVER, what bothered me was the lack of motivation when to cut to HFR, the fact that in a dialogue scene one shot is 24 and then you cut to 48 on the reaction then back to 24 for no good reason was infuriating.
I think it should been exclusive to water scenes, because those were incredible.
The high frame rate is so creepy… it’s actually mildly traumatizing
Hi John I appreciate the video. I saw this movie in a true IMAX theater in 3D. I noticed there was two projectors running simultaneously. I had an enjoyable experience. I did notice the frame rate switching. It was evident to me as someone who appreciates film and 24 fps, but it was something I quickly adapted to and appreciated because of the 3D action scenes. I did not find it distracting or unpleasant
Those 2 projectors are for the 3D effect, not the switching framerates. Those are "baked" into the file itself.
I also saw it in IMAX Laser 3D, and I did not find it off-putting. I did not know going in that it was HFR, but part way through the show I realized it was HFR because of the clarity of the image, but I did not detect the switch between frame rates. I was at the AMC Universal City Walk IMAX in LA.
I have a feeling Cameron is going to rerelease a fully HFR version to get people to go back to see it.
Doubt
Agreed. It felt like the film was unfinished.
Yeah wouldn't be surprised
@@kurtdewittphoto So true!! Felt like a temp cut before some technical side effect was removed.
It would also be great to see a 100% HFR version. Neither my girlfriend or I were bothered by this HFR version. I prefer HFR generally, so It would be best to be able to choose the version with either full HFR or complete 24 frames per second.
100%.
It looked like shit.
I hate to say it as I am a huge fan of HFR.
But I agree. The switching between frame rates and the in between frame rates and more, it was just a complete turn off for me.
The *TruCut Motion* interpolation software that was used just isn’t there yet to be implemented on this level.
I hope that Avatar 3 is HFR from start to finish or 24fps.
It's the switching back n forth that threw me off. But in general, for a movie like Avatar,
it's not a matter of debate for me. HFR was so much better.
Saw it in Real 3D yesterday. The HFR was very noticeable, but I had no problem with it. I got used to it. I definitely see the challenge in making realistic action at high frame rates, but can you imagine if the technology existed to film Bruce Lee fighting without resorting to slow motion? There’s so much potential. Finally, I am a gamer and I’m accustomed to high frame rates. Your brain adjusts. My iPhone has a max 120Hz refresh rate. It’s hard to use a 60Hz phone anymore. That could be why I have no criticism of the HFR experience.
The technology to film Bruce Lee existed... that's a bunch of myth building bullshit. The problem if the camera is Faster than Bruce Lee than Bruce Lee becomes mundane and boring. You want him to be faster than the camera - that's cool.
I watched the movie in normal IMAX 3D and the experience was stunning and immersive, it's like you're transported to a different work for three hours. I never go to High frame rate movies because the normal video in 60fps , 120 fps looks so unnatural so watching movie in HFR is a big no.
Sorry but imax 3D is actually in HFR..
Did you notice that in some of the water shots during close ups you could still see reflected eye lights in the eyes? This just wouldn't happen under water, eyes stop looking glossy and instead take on a matte quality. Same with skin. You see this for example at the shot at 14:54.
Interesting point. One of those things where reality probably looks fake or dull compared to our fantasy
@@FilmmakerIQ I think so, but I have seen many films where you really see an actor eyes wide open underwater and to me rather than mundane it just feels more real. Check out the scene where Ripley is underwater in alien resurrection. I don't find it mundane at all.
Technically it's very true that you don't get that glossy eye ping underwater, but I'm 100% confident that Cameron know that there shouldn't be any eye reflections underwater, but without it the characters would feel slightly off or maybe a bit "dead", so adding those reflections was an active choice that I do agree with even though it is technically wrong :)
I absolutely agree!!!
I saw the 3D HFR version of AVATAR and my brain checked out by the 45 minute to hour mark because I became annoyed by the constant switching, but it was such a subconscious thing that I didn't realize what had fully happened. During the screening I realized only a few scenes from the entire film were HFR, but the inability to focus on the film wasn't understood until now.
Finally, somebody to give me explanation for my experience in IMAX cinema in Belgrade. In the first part of the movie, I think I didn't notice changing framerate, but in the second part of the movie, I noticed it very much, in few scenes, it was very hard to watch, just like you said, like playing game on 60fps, and then suddenly it's fps drops to 15 fps or similar. Interesting, my sister and brother in law did not notice anything...
Interesting. I wonder what happens if you film "jump cuts" of the old MTV music video style, like Max Headroom, in HFR? Will anybody tell the difference? LOL that's a trick question for you non-boomers who never heard of Max Headroom, hehe.
Saw the movie in Imax Laser HFR. Jeez the switching around was everywhere, no strategy what he is mentioning. Switching really made it worse. I don't like the HFR look, but I do think that 3D needs a bit higher frame rate. The 24fps 3D was sometimes too juddery. It might have been a lack of motion blur, but I think it can benefit. But double? I don't think. I think we should try 30 or 36 for 3D cinema. I think we might be able to create then a cinematic look for 3D cinema and hopefully not make it look too smooth, fake and weightless.
Agreed. 48fps worked better than i thought it would but only if it wasn't mixed back and forth with the 24fps scenes. it made the 24fps scenes look real choppy. would have been better if it was 48fps for the entire runtime.
Renaming it to the "video game effect" makes sense since every time I noticed a switch I thought I was entering/ending a cut scene. Great video.
Still curious if people could ever get fully used to 120 fps movies and still get the cinematic feel.
The visuals stink. If I wanted to watch a movie with that motion blur soap opera affect, I would have stepped into an electronics store a few months from now. Keep these movies at 24fps, all that blurry cut scene 48fps is some video game garbage. It looks silly and characters looked like puppets at times thats how bad it looked. They just don't move normal.
I'm no fan of HFR, but I will see Avatar with it, if only to understand what a complete shit show it will be. haha
Well there was one scene in HFR that made me sick. I can't remember where it is in the movie, but the camera moved so violently so many times in a row I had to look away for a moment.
It's like you're reading my thoughts. 24fps is fine for 2D, but the flicker feels worse in 3D. If a 3D movie is 24fps my eyes will adjust in a few minutes, but not with the constant switching of frame rate. Might have been more tolerable for longer sequences. It convinced me that a consistent 48fps is better for this type of movie - Cameron can't have it both ways.
I watched Avatar 2 in IMAX and it definitely was in HFR (for the most part).
The parts that were shot in HFR looked really nice, not at all like a soap opera. I often have troubles understanding what happens in action-packed Michael Bay-style scenes in 24 fps, but here possibly thanks to the HFR everything was crystal clear.
With all that the parts that switched back to 24 fps looked unnaturally jerky and a jarring.
Which supports the theory that there may be an audience for HFR, and of course one for 24 fps, but probbaly not really one that would prefer a mix.
0:21 I have no idea why someone would shoot a movie at a frame rate higher than 60, unless it was for slow-mo
I loved the new HFR as it was selectively used, whole new viewing experience
I actually prefer 30 fps in games as it gets me closer to the cinematic 24 fps standard.
For me that trick worked fine. And I would like to try to see 60 FPS.
Now I understood why in our 3D IMAX (Not actual IMAX) screen, I felt kind of disconnected from certain scenes… thanks mate 👍…
8:00 Just like Transformer last knight with imax scenes
I’m 43 and absolutely love movies. I’m not so much stuck on keeping movies at 25fps. I believe the 25fps became standard bc it was the best balance of decent motion and the amount of film needed to make a movie. If 60fps was the standard long ago the film reels would have to be double the size and would take longer to edit. I never had a moment while watching Avatar 2 that I thought it was horrible and unbearable to watch. I think the “cinematic” effect we are used to seeing with 24fps will slowly change with newer generations whom are used to seeing games “and more movies” at higher frame rates. It may become the norm. It’s definitely apparent this was done to increase the immersive feel and make it seem more real. I like both the high frame rate and the standard.
60fps was the standard for live broadcast since 1950. Soap Opera look is a term that's been around longer than you and I have been on this planet ;)
I think filmmakers should make the frame higher than it needs to be. They should increase it to the next frame rate until the scene looks smooth, and then revert back to the original frame rate, and rinse and repeat.
Nope.
I honestly didn’t care and no one else I went with noticed.
Finally! I've been waiting to see someone talk about this since I saw this movie opening weekend. Saw it in 4dx, and noticed the changing frame rate right away. I wondered if it was an artistic thing or a way to save time on rendering frames. James Cameron makes it sound artistic, but I could imagine it being a combination of both. It was strange that some scenes I thought would be standard were in HFR. It was hard for me to understand why some scenes were 24 and some were 48. Either way, It didn't bother me or give me a headache. I thought it was neat, but would have liked HFR the entire time. The general public probably never even realized it, as the rest of my family that i saw it with said they didn't even notice.
To be fair Cameron has never been known for subtlety in his writing or his characters. The hissing seems par for the course.
I demand 240 fps in all my movies and TV, and I'm staying away from all cinema until I get it.
I fully support your decision. :)
I think they hiss because they don’t hide how they feel. They even say in the first movie I think that they don’t have a word for “lie”
I agree about the switching back and fourth of the frame rate. The 48 did make me feel a little sick the first time (because I was also on mushrooms) but didn’t bother me as much the second time (not on mushrooms)
Kinda wish they only did 48 for underwater shoots.
They hiss because nuance is not in the film's vocabulary.
It’s a movie about 9 foot tall blue aliens that ride fish dragons man. The hissing is your issue? I think you may need some mushrooms my dude.
You're not wrong. But why can't they make a movie for the man with the 105 IQ?
*[dismounts my ilu] [comes out of the water] [starts speaking Na'vi]*
Srane. Oe kangay si. "Nuance" ke lu lì'u Na'viyä. Oel fwolew Na'rìngit sì Txampayit sì keng aywayit Tulkunä.
Translate to English
Yes. I confirm. "Nuance" is not a Na'vi word. I searched the forest, the sea, even Tulkun songs.
See original (Translated by RDA)
I've seen it 3 times in 3D HFR and each time I legitimately tried to see the changing frame rate that everyone is always wining about and still couldn't see it.
You must be among those that are frame rate blind. That's not a bad thing necessarily
Wut? You exist? :O It was very obvious and jarring to me, same to a friend of mine I watched it with. Did you watch it 3 times in the same cinema? Maybe it was advertised incorrectly and wasn't actually shown in HFR.
I watched the 3D 48 fps Avatar and I actually liked the variable frame rate! (I noticed and liked it) All the other people that watched it with me, didn't notice anything.
Sorry don't agree. This is like the old audio discussion. Only Vinyl produces real sound. CDs were worse (except in a few cases). Then we move to full digital iPods and iPhones. I loved Avatar for its action and story line. This is also skin to pixel peeping where you lose the "larger picture." The old 24 fps was a construct. Determined by multiples of 12 and the realities of film length in production. 60 fps would never have been possible in the 40's and 50's Poor guys slaving away on the old moviolas editing feet after feet. And to top it off, you can have perfect film or video and then totally destroy it with the wrong or even ear popping music.
24fps is the frame rate of every single movie except for one (and only in parts) in 2022 and as far as I know every single movie of 2023. It's also the frame rate of every single scripted TV show and virtually every single music video on RUclips. So to call it old is a bit silly, everything new today uses 24fps.
That's why if it's not 24fps, it doesn't look like a movie... because quite literally all movies are 24fps.
@@FilmmakerIQ Thanks for noticing. There is nothing sacred about 24 fps. It's just ingrained. The standard for TV was 525 lines. Until it wasn't. NTSC in US and PAL in Europe. These are all human constructs. And again, the music makes film and video. Or destroys it. Just look at Ennio and Sergio. It's all perfect. And what personally bugs me most are on set in house driving scenes of movies of old. Where the rear view window is obviously fake. Who was the greatest of them all? David Lean 70mm. Why not shoot everything in 70mm? Because it's too expensive. And 2001 Kubrick. And finally it's lighting. All film noire has its own magic because of lighting.
I totally agree that there's nothing sacred about 24fps... except that we have picked it.
If we didn't have 100 years of making iconic films at 24fps, and still continue every single year to add to that catalog at 24fps... if this were 1928, then maybe you could find a new standard.
But it is what it is. That's why 24fps remains the frame rate of cinema.
Line resolution is a different beast. So is 70mm or IMAX - those are spatial resolutions and your perception of them can be altered based on how far you sit from the screen. But frame rate is about the character of the motion.
maybe 48fps is too much, what about 30fps?
No. This is not a hostage situation, there is no need for compromise.
To better explain it in analogy. Say you like wine but your buddy likes beer. So to compromise, you pour the beer and the wine into the same glass. Now both of you are miserable.
Now to be fair, 30 is a separate look than 24 or 48/60. It's something else (beer wine?), but compromise is not a viable option.
That was exactly my experience. And even my gf, who knows nothing about this stuff was complaining it looks super weird and distracting.
I disagree, I saw it in HFR and was enjoying the high frame rate when it came on. I did feel like the action and immersion was better.
Nice, I really enjoyed your video on 'Gemini Man' (had no interest and still have no interest in that film, whatsoever, but your video on it might be my favourite of yours) and while I do have a tiny bit of interest in this Avatar sequel I'm sure it'll be a while before I give it a chance. Looking forward to hear how your experience went; another engaging story time video for a cinema experience along with some diving into the delicate area of those set FPS... or the dreaded variable FPS :')
Agree with this, however I wouldn't go to far to say it was unwatchable or the worst experience. The rerelease of the original did put me off, but I still enjoyed it.
It was good 👍
I wonder what the experience would be like if frame rate was variable within a scene. So like the actors are rendered in 24fps while the surrounding shot was rendered in HFR.
Into The Spiderverse did a version with that but with 12 and 24.
But for live action at 24 and 48, I think it would just be distracting. Could it be interesting, sure... But it won't be a practical everyday thing
@@FilmmakerIQ Very cool. Thanks for the response. Love your channel. Watched all of your videos on the topic and more over the weekend.
There is a lack of credible and reasoned OPINIONS on the topic, so I'm glad you took the time!
I say opinions because as you pointed out art is subjective. But at a certain point the artistic benefit of 24fps becomes objective. I'd love more research into that. Why 24 fps works better. Everyone just says very vague things like "dream like" or "cinematic," but there is certainly some biological reason that can be scientifically validated; why 24fps feels like a story and HFR feels like a documentary.
The problem with biological reasons for 24fps that can be scientifically validated is... our understanding of human biology and the visual system is WOEFULLY lacking. We really just don't know that much about how vision works. Sure we know about optics and rods and cones and all that stuff...
But as you dive deeper into vision, you start to realize we're much more in the realm of psychology than biology. Everything you "see" is really a function of your brain, not really your eyes. And in terms of how the brain works... we're still barely cracking the surface.
This is why self driving cars are still a hard nut to crack and require tons of AI training.
High frame rate is the equivalent to slowing down a magic trick. It losses all the magic 🤷🏻♂️
Well I WAS interested in taking a look at number 2 but you have totally put me off the idea. Even the 2D version sounds dodgy. Thanks for saving me $20 and 3 hrs. Cheers from Melbourne Australia.
When I saw it, I dont remember seeing that.
I agree. I think your views on the constant swtiching reflect my greatest disappointment with Avatar 2. I think variable framerate could be done well with proper logic/artistic intent behind it (think IMAX aspect ratio changes), but using it as a means to de-blur shots that "need" it is not the way.
My experience of Avatar 2 in 24 was an unintentional one. I've heard that realD 3D HFR screenings are not available in the UK, something I didn't know until I saw a 24fps screening. The film looked unremarkable and like any other, and I was constantly reminded of what I was missing out on (much like when I see a 3D film in 2D).
I'm hoping James Cameron takes on the feedback of this attempt at HFR and makes the rest of the sequels fully in HFR, because I felt the hyper-real look really benefits Avatar in particular. My first time seeing it in IMAX 3D HFR is something I will never forget.
Avatar 1 in 3D gave me the biggest headache ever.
And the Hobbit's HFR down-interpolated to 24fps looked horrible. No motion blur, and it looked like they frame blended every other frame to make the FPS work. I thought that was the worst solution, but now I see that there are worse solutions.
I loved Avatar 2, James Cameron did a phenomenal job, not many will like or agree how he did things but I give him a thumbs up, it takes courage to do what he did, well done James!
I’m sure James Cameron will be very happy when he reads this.
Even a year later, I agree 100%. I'm more addicted to finding negatives things in "new movies", but our daughter asked me while seeing the HFR Avatar 2 (she was at an age of 10 at that point) "Dad, why do the cars and birds are looking like toys?". Kids are are honest and ask what they currently think.
Games were in a constant broken Beta state and now the movies???… Don’t get me started on the films with variable aspect ratio 😳 Honestly lately it’s like watching rough cuts 🙈
I saw it in IMAX Laser 3D (Universal City Walk, LA) and did not find the frame rate distracting. I was more annoyed by the hissing he mentions. These tribes are too culturally sophisticated to be hissing and growling like animals to express themselves. It seems like lazy writing. It was appropriate in the first movie when Natiri hisses at the animals she was fighting, because animals would comprehend hissing more than speech.
I'm team 24fps, but HFR worked well for many shots in A2. I agree that the transitions sucked.
24 was our habit. Might be similar to our vison.. The presence of motion blur.. But 3hrs of motion blur in 3D may give you eye fatigue.. So i my opinion.. HFR reduce that situation
No it doesn't. Instead, this HFR gave me a massive headache.
Thaaaaank you for this! I thought I was going crazy 😅 this framerate switching drove me nuts, and no one else noticed it at all. I even researched this online, and no one seemed to have an issue with this.
Glad you put it out there 🙏
yup weightless. Hated the HFR. Didn't mind the 24fps looked perfect in the theater I went to.
Oh yeah, so it wasn't only my cinema!
(watched in 2D HFR)
Edit:
I'd love to add that I specifically went for 2D cause I feel like I can't really see 3D all that well, with my eyes being weird - but I also went for HFR, just because I was very curious about it!
I'm kind of a frame rate snob, and this got worse since I got a 144Hz PC monitor to game and just desktop around on - it's been probably the so far best while also equally worst decision of my life!
Just (or especially) moving a cursor around on a regular 60Hz display feels really stuttery to me now! And those have looked perfectly smooth to me for... around ~16 years of personal PC gaming history before!
**Well, so! Most importantly!:**
Tiny frametime hiccups (microstutter) and big, sudden 'non-VRR, regular Vsync enabled switches' from 60FPS to 30FPS (or now 144Hz to 72Hz - it's really not *as* bad) always felt really jarring to me, and I might have 'more of an eye' for that, than the average person (e.g. my parents, they didn't really notice/feel what I was complaining/explaining about afterwards) - so I definitely noticed that occasional FPS switching in A2, which really confused me, and interrupted the... flowyness, immersion for me throughout.
It really made me imagine 'how could this've looked at 24' while sitting in the cinema, in some scenes, longing for it, while in some other scenes it felt, I'd say: "hrm, pretty neat!"
It's difficult to say what I would prefer/go for - but it's probably 24Hz, cause it basically works always, and never really subtracts anything from a movie, and definitely doesn't ruin... I guess 'emotional impact' or I guess a sort of relaxed, dreamlike disconnect - but that's at the same time easily digested and perhaps 'improved/worked out' by your mind. Just feels right.
While it's at the same time very easy to say what I would go for - cause it's consistency.
(Random personal, more gaming related rant, cause I wrote myself into a ranty mood now:
in a broad sense I usually like improvements to things I can easily see - high brightness/perfect black, accurate but if needed also vibrant colours, and I guess also high refresh rates - maybe not for movies tho - I definitely don't see the necessity for and even fear the push for "×K" resolutions that keep increasing the amount of pixels in an exponential curve so far - it especially makes my graphics card, bandwidth, storage space and in turn wallet cry in anticipation, while my eyes are rather indifferent.
Consoles pushing for that doesn't really lead to "better graphics", cause you can't render something "1080p stunning" for an quadrupled amount of pixels, needing to decrease the quality of the "meat and bones" of what you're seeing, which is a really counterintuitive tradeoff to me, especially cause you're now seeing worse performance at higher clarity - when sitting a few centimeters in front of some huge display!
Also it definitely leads to more cinematic framerates.)
24 fps doesn't work 'always' - even in cinema! Take 1914 for instance. I watched it in IMAX - and the 24 fps judder was awful at times! And I notice it rather regularly in other movies (be it a recent film or a classic). Especially in panning shots or during dynamic scenes.
I watched the movie in IMAX 3D HFR. 48fps is way better than 24fps (a blurry mess) on 3D, i wonder if Speed Racer's fast movement would be way better if it was shot in HFR, because it's unwatchable at 24fps.
Without Dolby Vision and careful cinematography, HFR is a mess.
I really enjoy watching 60fps videos where they carry a camera around and it looks a bit like slow motion. TV news on the internet are usually downsampled showing just every other frame. A speaker's mouth looks hyperactive where in films it hardly moves as they deliver a thundering line in closeup.
I think the notion of "subtlety" in conveying cinematic emotion, humor, double-entendre, and the like has been continually eroded over the last several decades. Modern movies lack nuance, beating you over the head with "telling" as opposed to "showing." The "telling" for comedic elements is particularly cringe-inducing, with punch-lines typically spelled out for the viewer and repeated ad nauseum throughout the showing. I personally chalk this up to the globalization of the film industry, correlated with an ever-mounting pressure to ensure plot and comedic elements translate easily to all cultures and ages. But, while I can understand the fiscal motivation, I really can't say I care for it. It's a horrible trend.
Variable framerate for film sounds like a nightmare. Its about as jarring as playing a video game and having it switch from 60fps in games to 30 for cinematics. Can't imagine sitting through a movie where is constantly changing frame rates.
I just saw the Dolby Cinema 3D version, it was good, but man was the frame rate switching distracting…
Well John, I could agree more with HFR in the cinema for narrative content. I have no time for it. It completely ruins the experience of watching a movie for me. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not a Luddite, I’m all for technological advancements; the coming of sound, colour, move to widescreen, stereo sound, Dolby Processing, digital cinema, Dolby Atmos, IMAX, 4DX etc, etc But not 3D and definitely not 3D with HFR. From the first time I saw motion smoothing on a TV I never wanted to watch even normal TV programmes that way let alone a movie! And yes I’ve seen Avatar 2 in IMAX in 24fps and Dolby Vision in 48fps, much prefer the large screen IMAX version, just as I did for The Hobbit. 24fps every time for me. Incidentally I loved Avatar and Avatar 2 so this is not a critics of the movie but just the same it’s presented in some cases.
I've seen IMAX 3D version few days ago and I am still thinking about it.
Movie is decent, nothing groundbraking, exactly what I expected from from second part out of four? five?
From a technical point of view of 24/48 fps:
There were parts in 24 fps that looked ok and handful of scenes where it was a bit jarring (probably due to softened 24 fps).
Now, for those "hated" 48 fps. Some parts felt great, absolutely great, action was nice and comprehensible. Problem is with majority of scenes where is not enough action to put in 48 fps, yet they put it there anyway. These shots triggered that soap opera/cutscene/gameplay look. I.e. scenes with slow camera panning and flying ikrans - 24 fps would be much better.
Imo, they overdid the desired effect of 48 fps. Dialed it down to 5 or 10 percent, just for really fast action, especially with fast camera movement/fast pan, they would had done better.
PS: It was my first movei in 3D and I felt exactly like that 24/48 fps change. Some parts had "a depth" to them followed by parts almost in 2D.
Sumary: Decent movie, an ok testbed for some new technologies.
As a Gamer, I prefer HFR, it doesn't feel video gamey to me. Maybe because I am used to High Frame Rates, but I really hated when they got back to 24FPS.
I have not seen the film and if I do so, I will probably watch it in 2D (no HFR available in my area). But let me ask this: isn't this basically the same thing as when Christopher Nolan started mixing up aspect ratios to get full advantage of IMAX footage? The problem there was that he - in many cases - switched aspect ratios from shot to shot, depending on what camera they were filmed with and it was jarring to see the inconsistency. Fortunately - however - e.g. the makers of Top Gun Maverick learnt their lesson and switched to 16/9 at the beginning of an action sequence and switched back when it was over. I'm starting to think that both Nolan and Cameron are too anal about certain technical aspects of filmmaking that do wrong to the artistic side of it all.
No, because regardless what aspect ratios, they all still look like film. There are 2.39 films and there are 4x3 films... But there aren't 48 fps films (just a few that didn't do well)
@@FilmmakerIQ Yes, I get that, but my comment was more in line with what you referred to in the video twice, saying that you'd rather watch the whole thing in HFR exclusively. That the switching back and forth - especially when its inconsistent - does more harm than the advantage it might take from the intended use of it. That's what the aspect ratio switch done to me as well in many cases. It took me out of the immersion almost every time it happened.
I think HFR throughout would have been less offensive. I'm not saying HFR is my preference, just less offensive.
BTW HFR is for your personal emotions, like you said - sport....when you have been experienced this in real life. But when you are telling story as an example....it should be more intimate(24fps).So our imagination can complement the picture.
I can't wait for video game style stuttering for another massive overhyped big budget movie, meanwhile Puss in Boots 2 which is Spiderverse 2 for now gets ignored.
No frickin wonder it suddenly felt like Doom 2016 levels of speed and then shifted randomly to doom 2003. 😑 I had to explain to my fam why it was so jarring
Yo man, haven't see you in a while and I'm glad that you're still around. I've been working on a project that I should be able to release something soon. I'll let you know, it's something great!
Truecut motion is horrible variable framerates are jarring you want a consistent framerate, pick your framerate and stick to it. it's like when games go from 60fps to 24fps cutscenes extremely annoying.
That scene you mentioned switching back and forth in frame rates when they meet the sea people my stomach couldn't take it anymore and I left. The harsh frame rate changes with 3D didn't help either.
I thought that the cinema projector could not keep up with the bandwidth so it dropped frames, I blamed the cinema for that, I did not knew it is intentionally switched back and forth.
Not making fun of you but I gotta love the naivete of that original thought.
I am so glad you posted this video. I was hoping you'd discuss it in one of your livestreams, knowing how strongly you feel about cinema being 24 fps.
I loved the HFR scenes and hated the switch to LFR. They should have simply committed to HFR.
I didn't notice what you mean, I just thought it looked real and awesome. I guess I don't play a lot of computer games though.
Wasn't impossible to watch.. just didn't expect it...
There's no evidence I watched this video but here's my very angry comment...😉
The incapacitated of create made mediocrity, bad criticism is a reflection of frustration, is all ego , he need a body and brain diet
Still my favorite film channel on RUclips.
Captain Disillusion had tweeted about this frame rate disaster last week.
I missed that. Good to see I'm not the only one.
Fine by me. Saw it twice. Hated Gemini Men but Avatar was cool dude
You should take off your glasses. Problem solved.
rest in peace Disney Studio,parks & company.
Oh they'll make their money. Not worried about the Disney corporation for a second.
leaving a few words here for our overlord, big Al