Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

Thirteen years later, Avatar, which caused a sensation around the world, finally launched a sequel. Avatar brought us the era of 3D movies. What will Avatar 2, which also cost a lot of money, bring us? Better special effects, or new cinematic techniques or standards?

In terms of special effects alone, Avatar 2 was clearly standing at the top of 3D movies. No matter how the plot was criticized, many viewers also thought that Avatar 2 was worth the ticket price alone. Of course, if you spent two or three hundred yuan to buy a high-priced ticket, it might be a bit of a loss.

However, in addition to special effects, Avatar 2 differs from traditional movies in that it offers a high-resolution, high-frame version of 4K48 frames. It is worth noting that this "full-blooded version" of Avatar 2 has only a small number of cinemas to support it, and most people watch the "low-profile version."

Does Avatar 2's arrival mark the film's entry into the high-frame era?

Is the era of high-frame movies coming? Friends who know something about movies may know that the number of frames in movies is generally 24fps. As for the source of the number 24, it is generally believed that the lower limit of visual residue of the naked eye is 24. As long as 24 consecutive pictures flash in one second, then the whole picture is continuous to the naked eye.

In fact, this is not the case. Relevant research shows that the lower limit of motion illusion for human eyes is 16 frames, instead of 24 frames, which means that as long as the number of frames is higher than 16 and the pictures are continuous, then the illusion of continuous motion can be left in vision.

If you go back to the early days of the film, you can see that the number of black and white silent films at that time was 16. With the advancement of technology and the emergence of sound films, the 24 frame/second camera began to become mainstream. It can be said that the selection of 24 frames is not due to the lower limit of visual residue or other reasons, the initial reason is only that mainstream film cameras select 24 frames, which in turn affects the number of frames in the film.

In addition, some film lovers have observed that most of the original sound films used the Vutaphone system developed by Warner Bros., which used 16-inch records to play 11-minute movies at 33 1/3 rpm, which was exactly 24 frames.

Source: Warner Bros. So the interesting question comes, why in the modern era of widespread use of digital cameras, movies still maintain the tradition of 24 frames? To some extent, it can be said to be a continuation of tradition, on the other hand, because 24 frames are enough, and better compatible with other standards in the film industry, such as audio sampling, playback equipment, etc.

However, as audience demand for special effects and graphics increases, the film industry is also experimenting with high-frame effects, such as Avatar 2, which is available in 48 and 24 frames. Among them, the 48-frame version is only supported in laser IMAX, CINITY3D and Dolby Cinema. It is worth noting that Dolby Panoramic Sound Hall and IMAX Hall without "Laser" do not support the 48-frame version, and all of them play 2K24-frame "residual blood version."

In fact, many films have tried high-frame images long before Avatar 2, such as The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings, and Billy Lynn's Midfield War, which is not highly watched in China. The film directed by Ang Lee offers four different frame versions: 24,30,60 and 120.

The experience change brought about by the increase of frame number is very obvious. Even people who don't often watch movies can obviously feel that the picture becomes smoother. Most viewers who experience movies with too many frames give positive comments. Some even feel too smooth and a little unaccustomed to watching "tired."

The experience enhancement of high-frame movies is so obvious, can Avatar 2 make it mainstream in the future? If that's what you think, I'm afraid you're wrong.

If you are a gamer, you should know that you need to meet two conditions before you can enjoy high-frame images, one is a high-performance game graphics card, and the other is a monitor that supports high frame rates. The same is true for movies, but they rely on special effects teams and theater systems. Even if you produce high-frame original films, theaters can't support them.

And just as graphics cards require more performance to render high-frame game images, special effects images also require more resources to render high-frame images. Under the same equipment, it takes twice as long to render 48 frames as traditional 24 frames (or even longer).

Simply put, if you want to make a movie with 48 frames of special effects, it will take longer for the special effects team. The labor cost and equipment cost caused by the long-term operation of the special effects team are destined to be high frame movies. At present, only a few film teams are willing to try "new things."

Take Avatar 2, for example, a film that supports 48 frames and uses a lot of special effects. The industry estimates that its production cost may be as high as $400 million. From the current box office performance, it may be difficult to recover the cost. Avatar 2 is an extreme, of course, but for most film teams, there's no need to try the higher-cost 48-frame format when 24 frames is enough.

As for Ang Lee's "Billy Lynn's Midfield War" can come up with high-frame versions such as 120 frames and 60 frames, mainly because "Billy Lynn's Midfield War" is mostly a live shot, which only needs to be partially edited later. As long as the digital camera can support high-frame shooting, it can easily get the high-frame version of the original film.

Source: In addition to this, Bona Pictures also has film sources that achieve high frame numbers through frame insertion technology. Compared with the original high frame number film sources, the film source effect produced by frame insertion technology is much worse. Moreover, it is basically inserted to 60fps, so as to better meet the playback on mainstream display devices such as TVs and monitors, and is not suitable for theater playback.

These are just some of the difficulties involved in making high-frame movies. There is another problem after production--theater systems. A theater system that supports high-frame movies is not cheap. Take the above-mentioned three cinema systems of laser IMAX, CINITY3D and Dolby Cinema as examples, the construction cost is more than 5-10 times that of traditional cinema systems, and even first-tier cities like Guangzhou have less than 10% cinema support.

Globally, high-frame cinemas may account for less than 1% of the number of screens. Before the number of high-frame cinemas increases to a certain proportion, high-frame films are destined to be "new technology" that only a few people can experience. For this reason, it is not worth the loss for most films to make high-frame versions specially.

However, with the development of film and television technology and computer technology, the efficiency of special effects production and rendering has been far higher than before, and the production cost of high-frame movies will also decrease. When special effects blockbusters begin to generally provide high-frame versions, cinemas may be forced to upgrade in order to attract more passengers.

Even so, there is still a long way to go before high-frame movies become mainstream.

This article comes from Weixin Official Accounts: Lei Technology (ID: leitech), Author: Lei Technology Internet Group, Editor: TSknight, Layout: KT

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.