Deep Immersion Triggers Deep Thought

To contact us Click HERE
So you've got Peter Jackson doing The Hobbit at 48 frames per second, and James Cameron gearing up to do Avatar the second at 60 fps. And Doug Trumbull saying this:

... Jim Cameron’s idea of doing Avatar 2 and 3 at 60 frames is a stellar, excellent idea because Avatar is kind of a flying dream adventure.

... The movie I’m developing is a science-fiction space movie; I’m trying to pick up where I think 2001 left off. I’ve actually built a stage where I’m experimenting with 3-D at 120 frames a second projected on a deeply curved hemispheric screen that is silver, so it reflects the light back to the audience. It’s three times the brightness of a normal movie. I want to make something that goes as far into this very intense immersive experience for the audience that I possibly can. ...

Why stop at 60 fps if 120 is better?

But this raises a question, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The higher frame rates kind of kick hell out of the idea of doing hand-drawn features, don't you think? Unless, of course, computers do the lion's share of the inbetweening and breakdowns.

I'm assuming here that rendering speeds continue to increase and technology keeps moving forward. Even so, the bean counters at our fine entertainment conglomerates will be pushing back against the higher frame counts because ... one way of the other ... it will mean higher costs.