James Cameron to film Avatar sequels quicker

Faster frame rate, not a faster shoot

There are some famous equations out there. E=MC². The Pythagorean Theorem: a² + b² = c². Now James Cameron has added a new one: more frames = better 3D. 
Higher frame rates seem to be the way Hollywood is going and Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is currently being shot at 48 frames per second (fps) rather than the standard 24fps most movies use today. 
However, JamCam says he aims to shoot the Avatar sequels at 60fps to create top notch 3D. 
“I believe it makes for better 3D,” Cameron told The Hollywood Reporter
“There were lots of arguments for why 48fps and why 60fps. My feeling is if it is a software upgrade [for digital cinema projectors], do both. It doesn’t change anything at the projector; you don’t have to change the lamp house or the lenses. If you are uploading software you can upload it for 48 and 60 and let the filmmakers decide.” 

Think this is the next leap forward? Or will 3D be old hat by the time Avatars 2 and 3 get here? Add an extra dimension and tell us below! 


    • 5thghostbuster

      Sep 21st 2011, 0:07

      So cinema projectors only need a software upgrade. What about home TVs? People who shelled out £2K for a decent 3D TV are gonna be bummed if it can't handle films at 60fps :O (I'm not one of those people just for the record).

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Sep 21st 2011, 0:52

      Id love to see him do one more Terminator film or True LIes 2 in 3D.. 60 fps? Thats known as a 'Hendricks'.

      Alert a moderator

    • JohnnyMac

      Sep 21st 2011, 12:54

      Sixty Ferns per Second! Can't wait.

      Alert a moderator

    • ilikescifi

      Sep 21st 2011, 17:41

      Sixty Dollars per Second! All to get punched in the eye by Mr. Cam Cam and his cam cam scam

      Alert a moderator

    • sp4cej0ckey

      Sep 21st 2011, 22:55

      i cant really see how this will help. Resolution is greatly reduced when watching a 3d image..so at 24 or 60fps the image will still looked more blurred than 2d ..its time that film makers realised that 3d is just a passing fad and that most people have grown very bored with it and moved on!

      Alert a moderator

    • jamesdarcy

      Sep 23rd 2011, 20:25

      60 fps 3D? Will it be no-glasses 3D? If your still gonna need glasses to see the movie then the heck with it. My eyes are already tired of this round of 3D pictures. If there is a choice on a current movie between 3D or 2D I buy tickets for the 2D version ; and something tells me I'm not the only one.

      Alert a moderator

    • JimmyJump

      Sep 24th 2011, 6:36

      People shouldn't confuse framerate with refresh rate. A TV doesn't care about framerate, so, a movie shot at whatever framerate wil never influence a television's behaviour... as long as the TV has Ful-HD capacity and 2x100Hz (not 200, but 2x100). For the end user, frames-per-second is only of importance when using special hardware (like a hefty videocard in a computer)... For projectors using film-rolls, a higher framerate will only need a slightly brighter lamp, since the frames are illuminated less long because of the higher speeds... JJ

      Alert a moderator

    • Foreo

      Sep 24th 2011, 16:09

      If 3D was scrapped tomorrow who would even care apart from those getting rich off it?

      Alert a moderator

    • agentorange420

      Sep 26th 2011, 19:12

      maybe the next ones can actually be WRITTEN properly? all that money and pinching the Mcguffin unobtanium from The Core, which was a rubbish film as well.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular