November 30, 2012, 9:43 am Ben Arnold, editing by Joanna Holcombe

James Cameron has said that he will use new faster frame rate technology on his "Avatar" sequels... but only if it works for Peter Jackson's new "Hobbit" films.

Related Video: The stars come out for "The Hobbit" world premiere

Jackson unveiled his 48 frames-per-second film speed on early footage of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," but some viewers have said that it makes the action on screen appear 'too real', like watching television rather than film.

Others, however, reckon that Jackson's use of the new Epic Red cameras has the potential to change the way we watch films at the cinema.

James Cameron and wife Suzi Amis attend "The Hobbit" world premiere in New Zealand. Credit: Getty Images

"If there is acceptance of 48, then that will pave the way for Avatar (sequels) to take advantage of it," said Cameron, who was in Wellington, New Zealand, for the premiere of Jackson's new Tolkien adaptation.

"We charged out ahead on 3D with Avatar, now Peter's doing it with the Hobbit. It takes that kind of bold move to make change. I personally think it's fantastic, but it's different.

"I remember when CDs came in and there was a nostalgic feeling that the sound of a needle on vinyl was what music should sound like - suddenly you've got this pristine clarity and a lot of people were nay-saying it."

The "Titanic" director, who works closely with Jackson and his effects studio WETA, added that he plans to finish writing and start filming the awaited "Avatar" sequels next year.

Gallery: Epic On-Set Meltdowns

He told The West Australian newspaper that he wants his scripts done by February, with filming beginning before the end of the year.

"I want to get these scripts nailed down, I don't want to be writing the movie in post production," he said.

"We kind of did that on the first picture, I ended up cutting out a lot of scenes and so on and I don't want to do that again."

Related Video: James Cameron on 3D technology

Ben Arnold writes for Yahoo! Movies UK & IE

Newest First
Oldest First
Top Rated
Most Replies


  1. John Smith04:41pm Friday 30th November 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    48 Frames per minute? Wow, no wonder its controversial.

  2. Andrew04:04pm Friday 30th November 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    48 FPS was tried with real film too but the cost is prohibitive. The problem with shooting digital like with Red cameras is that no matter wether one uses 24 FPS or 48 FPS it looks like video. Too real. At this point only real film cameras can give the film look people have been used too. And the reason for that is largely to do with the technical difference of how each format captures the image. Digital or video cameras use high speed line by line scanning whereas film cameras have a shutter that results in all lines being scanned at once. This allows a small amount of blur to occur with moving objects resulting in a softer depiction of motion. Not everything that is new is better!

  3. AndrewD03:40pm Friday 30th November 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    48 frames per minute? What's he filming it on? A flipbook?

  4. Merlynn03:02pm Friday 30th November 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    mythbusters are correct and then again so are you there was a 50/50 chance that they both could have made it only at that time it was a fight for survival


Get Social

Latest Trailer