4 ms·

The jarring part in Avatar 2 is that for some completely inexplicable reason it had sections with low fps. I noticed every single one of them instantly and it w

The jarring part in Avatar 2 is that for some completely inexplicable reason it had sections with low fps. I noticed every single one of them instantly and it was very off putting. And while 48 fps is a major improvement from the prehistoric 24 (apparently it was chosen because of the power grid a hundred years ago??), it's still a far cry from actually smooth motion at 144 and above fps. If rendering the whole movie at this frame rate is too difficult, it would be quite interesting to explore exporting the additional buffers (velocity, depth, etc) that allow DLSS 3 frame generation to work near perfectly in games. Can cameras even capture these?

bick_nyers 3y ago
To capture depth the cameras would need to be augmented with LIDAR. LIDAR is insanely more expensive than a regular camera. Budget friendly LIDAR systems that I've seen will have "refresh rates" in the realm of 2Hz or 8Hz and are absolutely nowhere near what we would consider 4k resolution. Creating depth maps of existing images/videos is one of the interests of the field of Computer Vision, it is not a solved problem. When I watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D I didn't notice the drop to 24, was that during talking/low motion scenes only? I'm sure if I looked for it I could see it, but I went into the movie not knowing that refresh rate switch occured. We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  In VFX generally they don't bother capturing depth because its much noisier than the alternative: replacing the subject with a 3D rendered object. Using markers to track motion, and marrying them up to model marker points is allows artistic interpretation of the actor's movements. (or static object's ) Lidar is noisy, and doesn't have a 1:1 pixel mapping between image pixel and depth pixel. Even when we had stereosopic recordings for 3D the depth map we could generate was always a bit shit. Granted things have moved on in the last few years. > We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically. If its a RED it has shit colour sensitivity. however, generally running cameras at higher framerates require more light. but the shutter angle is generally faster than the frame rate (when you record video on your phone outside in the sun, the shutter speed is 1/1000th of a second, even though its doing 60fps)

bick_nyers 3y ago

To capture depth the cameras would need to be augmented with LIDAR. LIDAR is insanely more expensive than a regular camera. Budget friendly LIDAR systems that I've seen will have "refresh rates" in the realm of 2Hz or 8Hz and are absolutely nowhere near what we would consider 4k resolution. Creating depth maps of existing images/videos is one of the interests of the field of Computer Vision, it is not a solved problem. When I watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D I didn't notice the drop to 24, was that during talking/low motion scenes only? I'm sure if I looked for it I could see it, but I went into the movie not knowing that refresh rate switch occured. We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.

KaiserPro 3y ago
In VFX generally they don't bother capturing depth because its much noisier than the alternative: replacing the subject with a 3D rendered object. Using markers to track motion, and marrying them up to model marker points is allows artistic interpretation of the actor's movements. (or static object's ) Lidar is noisy, and doesn't have a 1:1 pixel mapping between image pixel and depth pixel. Even when we had stereosopic recordings for 3D the depth map we could generate was always a bit shit. Granted things have moved on in the last few years. > We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically. If its a RED it has shit colour sensitivity. however, generally running cameras at higher framerates require more light. but the shutter angle is generally faster than the frame rate (when you record video on your phone outside in the sun, the shutter speed is 1/1000th of a second, even though its doing 60fps)