Avatar 2 and HFR (48fps) any opinions by those that have seen THIS movie in 48fps?

[Steve Guttag]

This has to be one of the first movies to offer a 2D HFR (48fps) version. Normally it is tied to 3D as well, which has its own image issues.

I'm curious, by those that have seen THIS movie in HFR, both 2D and 3D (but mostly 2D), what you think. Does HFR have merit? Does it improve the movie going experience or harm it? The reason I'm most interested in the impressions of 2D is that it decouples the technologies and lets them stand/fall on their own merits/weaknesses. It is a shame that they seemed to have, with the crazy number of versions, decided that HFR would be at the sacrifice of the higher-channel count sound.

[Chris Haller]

I went out and saw Avatar 2 in 48fps tonight invScope Real3D. I think its more apt to call this particular show a variable frame production - it shifts between 24 and 48, sometimes for entire sequences and sometimes between shots in a short sequence which can be a bit disorienting.

You can feel it immediately as the 20th Century Studios logo plays in 48fps, and James Cameron's production company logo flashes so quickly that you feel like it was improperly converted to 48fps. It feels weird, especially when the frame rate changes in quick succession. The difference in motion blur and the feel of camera movement takes a few moments for your brain to adjust. There's an action sequence early on in the film where it makes a quick cut to 48fps as the sequence ramps into high gear that I felt was quite exhilarating, but after the initial wow factor it evened out. It never became a thing that engaged me more, just a thing that I noticed quite often. Some of the faster action shots feel too fast in HFR due to shot length and camera movement like someone is whipping a camera around with a video game controller.

I think I'd honestly have preferred a full 48fps presentation to the variable one that we got. It was weird with The Hobbit Trilogy, but at least it was consistent.

[Scotty Wright]

I saw 2K HFR 3D at a dual laser IMAX on Tuesday. I’m a big fan of HFR 3D. I think it’s an exciting format to explore and develop further. What it brought to this movie is what it brought to previous movies which is a clearer image that cleans up the artifacts of 24fps 3D in a very pleasing way. The depth of the image and subjects within the frame feel much more defined. Quick tight motions that they couldn’t do in 24fps 3D now look really dynamic and exciting at 48fps. And for whatever reason, underwater and night photography at HFR just really pops in a cool way that I’m not sure I can describe.

Not as big of a fan of the ramping back and forth between frame rates. They do it on nearly a shot-by-shot basis even within scenes which made the occasional choppiness of 24 looks even more obvious when intercut with 48. Definitely agree with Chris that the consistency of a straight 48fps presentation would have been the better move; Tackling the issues that people have with 48 by shooting 48 differently vs combining the differing aesthetic look of 24 and 48.

Very confused as to why there’s a 2D 48fps version as well. Cameron has said for years that HFR was specifically a tool for solving issues with 3D presentation. Wonder what changed for him.

[Torsten Juergens]

I looked at the 3D HFR version with Xpand, CP4420 and UHC lens.
I found the switching back and forth between frame rates very irritating. I wasn't "in" the movie anymore.
As for the HFR scenes, it suddenly looked like PC gaming to me.
If you like that, you will surely find this type of presentation fantastic.
For me, the typical film look is more like the everyday view out of the window, which I prefer.
It probably depends very much on what expectations you go into the film with and what the surprise looks like in the end.
Perhaps what is technically possible is not always progress.

[Steve Guttag]

Very insightful. I have not seen this movie and the 1st one didn't do anything for me to want to see any more. I do find it problematic when technology calls attention to itself, like you all describe when the switch between frame rates occur. I would have hoped that they would have done a more Brainstorm type approach and only be at a particular frame rate when in a particular universe (e.g., the idea for ShowScan was to only be at 60fps when in the Brainstorm vision)...instead, Brainstorm just changed ARs between view and the change aided in the telling of the story.

An often cited complaint about panned dialog was the jarring effect of having the dialog dart about. I've noted that the better mixes pay attention to that and if there is a cut to a different POV, that if the last visible position of the character is where their dialog stays is less jarring than if one were to move it to where it, technically, should be (e.g. 2001:ASO's Telephone booth scene).

So, far, no 2D/48fps yet. This would also imply no 4K/48fps either.

[Carsten Kurz]

One issue with this HFR again is that it's so much CGI, so, essentially, you are seeing a computer game. Even with motion capturing involved - it's a different thing compared to real actors.
Hard to say how the HFR/mixed 24/48fps would work with real world footage. Also, they did not just mix 24 and 48 fps sequence wise, but employed complex post production methods for motion blur and strobe reduction at the different frame rates https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut.

Funny: A german colleague just told that he sees a 'stuck' black pixel throughout his HFR 3D version (including the Century Studios Logo - slightly above the 'd'). He does not see it in the 24fps 3D version or other content.

- Carsten

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

One issue with this HFR again is that it's so much CGI, so, essentially, you are seeing a computer game. Even with motion capturing involved - it's a different thing compared to real actors.
Hard to say how the HFR/mixed 24/48fps would work with real world footage. Also, they did not just mix 24 and 48 fps sequence wise, but employed complex post production methods for motion blur and strobe reduction at the different frame rates https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut.

Funny: A german colleague just told that he sees a 'stuck' black pixel throughout his HFR 3D version (including the Century Studios Logo - slightly above the 'd'). He does not see it in the 24fps 3D version or other content.

- Carsten

It finally happened folks..the first record of a digital "NIZ"

( A 'NIZ" was an old expression from the film days of dirt stuck in the aperture of the projector, causing an annoying dark spot on the screen.)

I for one won't bother trying to see this movie in 2D HFR as the constant switching of frame rates will drive me batshit crazy. I can barely stand DLP artifacts as it is ...

[Jason Sharp]

I believe back in 2011 at cinemacon James Cameron showed sample footage of scenes captured in 24, 48, and 60fps. If I recall correctly the 48fps made me feel like I was in the middle of the uncanny valley, everything looked fake. However the 60fps looked amazing to me.

I'd be curious to watch similar examples again through DCI equipment. Does anyone have DCP content in those frame rates?

[Steve Guttag]

Back in the day...ShowScan was arrived at 60fps as providing maximum benefit while going above (e.g. 72fps) had diminishing returns. 60fps had an appeal in a video world, 48fps has an appeal in a 24fps world. Anyone remember "Maxi-48" that was favored by the likes of Roger Ebert? He thought it would revolutionize the world. Todd-Ao had 30fps and that definitely looked better to me. Cinerama was 26fps...probably not enough different to justify having to deal with a 24 or 30Hz conversion.

I really liked 30fps and ShowScan's 60fps. A complaint I've had with recent HFR is tying it to the 3D...which I don't like. I definitely don't like single lens, 3D with its time artifacts. I would like to view 48 and 60fps 2D on DCP. I've seen 30fps DCPs of Oklahoma!...which didn't look as good to me as the film version but didn't have that "sped up" look that The Hobbit in HFR (48fps) 3D had.

I've definitely never seen an HFR movie where it jumps in and out of HFR.

[Mike Blakesley]

What is the point of it going back and forth from 24 to 48? Why not just present the whole movie in one frame rate?

[Scotty Wright]

Cameron doesn’t like HFR as it’s own format. He thinks it’s a tool to fix issues with 24fps 3D projection. He just doesn’t like the look during simple dialogue sequences without fast motion. He hasn’t publicly commented on why they’re offering a 2D HFR version since it doesn’t line up with his previous explanation.

[Marco Giustini]

Watched the HFR-HDR-48fps flat.

as Carsten says, the first thought that comes to mind is ‘PlayStation’ - as in ‘too much CGI’ ?

that said I don’t dislike the use of 48fps but it felt as in some scenes they got a bit carried away! You have a conversation between two people and the frame rate changed between shots. I’m sure there’s a good reason for that but it looked weird.

in short, I feel it’s got potential but I’d like to see that with real footage and not rendered one.

[Fraser Falconer]

Hi Guys,
We are playing both the 48fps 2D and 3D versions and after confirming the 2D 48fps operation have actually deleted the 24fps 2D version. Have previously played the Hobbit in HFR and had done the testing for Gemini man, which ended up only being released in 24fps in NZ, the 60fps 3D and 120 fps 2D test material looked really good. The Avatar 2D 48fps version has all the improvements in clarity and motion that are seen in the 3D HFR version. Chalk and cheese.

Cheers Fraser

[Thomas Piccione]

I saw this movie in Dolby 3D with HFR (flat thankfully, not one of the places cropping to scope) and found the constant changes in framerate super distracting. I started off disliking the 48 FPS look, but enjoyed it more as the movie went on. That being said, I really would have preferred if the whole movie was just in 1 framerate, either 24 or 48, not constantly flipping back and forth. There were some places where it felt like the framerate just randomly dropped for no reason at all, sometimes just for a single cut within 1 scene. I ended up with a headache by the end.

[Jonathan Smiles]

IMAX Dual 2K Xenon 3D 48fps1. 1.85 pillarboxed into 1.9 (1.43 screen), 12 channel audio - Plymouth Cineworld (UK)

48fps - felt like a long video game cutscene combined with watching a frame interpolated "smooth motion" TV.
I am sure 48fps helped the 3D and the use of S3D was very well done and I had no eye strain.

24fps frame doubled shots, big improvement compared to how twitchy The Hobbit looked on low temporal motion shots,
Switching between true 48fps and frame doubled 24fps in the same sequence was very distracting.
From memory of Showscan 5perf65mm 60fps looked more natural.