James Cameron has been rather vocal recently about his intent to film the next Avatar movie not only in 3D, but at a higher framerate, 48 to 60fps. Why, you ask?
Without getting way too technical (and boring), a faster frame rate theoretically offers a much smoother viewing experience for action heavy scenes with far more detail. However, the problem with faster frame rates in the past is that for less motion oriented sequences, the effect can be somewhat jarring. But Cameron is already figuring out a way to make the leap to even more real looking effects and is set to show off a demonstration sometime today.
Sure, it increases realism to get the film closer to “human eye” framerates, but does it really do anything for 3d? Cameron seems to think so, but I tend to agree with this tweet from @5tu:
Telling me “3D benefits from more fps” is like saying that hitting me in the face with a bat benefits from a good running start.
I agree with Chad. The problem with current 3D techniques is that the brain is being tricked to focus where an object really isn’t. Cameron tries to handle this problem by putting the object of interest in the plane of the screen, but that’s only a bandaid solution for a systemic problem. Increasing the frame rate doesn’t address this problem.
It’s not about 3D benefiting from higher frame rates. I think Stu read too much into it. What Cameron is saying is that both 3D AND higher frame rates result in an experience more like watching something real, not like watching a movie. The same thing could be said about high dynamic range movies too. It makes the screen disappear. Which is sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Digital cameras and digital projectors are here to stay. There’s no technical reason to stick with a frame rate designed around slow and expensive film stock. There might be a creative reason, but so is shooting in black and white, or fogging the lens, etc.