3 ms·
James Cameron's usage of it was gravely flawed because he arbitrarily kept switching back and forth between 24 and 48 FPS from one shot to another in Avatar 2.
by ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
James Cameron's usage of it was gravely flawed because he arbitrarily kept switching back and forth between 24 and 48 FPS from one shot to another in Avatar 2. There's absolutely no discernible pattern or motivation for the changes. WTF.
I wish 48 FPS were adopted widely so we could all just get used to it, because it simply and undeniably renders motion better.
- christoph 4y agoSame to some extent with IMAX Blu-rays. It drives me mad when certain “blockbuster” IMAX disks shift aspect and film stock so quickly, just because… let’s use “IMAX” for some shots... It totally breaks the feel and flow of a movie for me when black bars and film grain suddenly start shifting about and changing. Either film and release it all in IMAX or don’t bother IMO.
- dylan604 4y agoThis is what the Dark Knight does. The majority of the film is in whatever wide aspect ratio, but then for the "epic" IMAX shots the aspect ratio switched to a much more square aspect ratio. It was very noticeable in the theater when I saw it way back when.
- seabass-labrax 4y agoI haven't seen Avatar 2, but this or something similar is something I notice all the time in films on DVDs, especially those originally for TV: the camera will cut to a long shot and everything becomes weirdly smooth until the camera cuts back again. Whether it's due to a change in film speed, frame rate or something else I can't work out, but I would imagine that these long distance shots are in fact library footage spliced into the film.