Avatar

[Tom Lowe]

Do YOU want to take a bet that, in three to four years, 3D will be in its 25-year hybernation cycle again?

 

Yes, I will take that bet.

[K Borowski]

OK, where do you want to start at? $500? $1,000?

 

 

I believe in big bets, not bets the size of what I made on the school-yard with lunch money, like $20 (1 week's lunch). Looking forward to hearing back to you. Talk is cheap (especially on a free internet forum). Bets shouldn't be.

[Tom Lowe]

LMAO. That reminds of when Stephen Williams tried to talk like a "high roller" on the Reduser forum regarding our digital cinema bet. He was goading me to bet more, until Jim Jannard showed up and offered to back my side of the bet with "six figures," at which time Stephen ran for the hills faster than a Scotsman with a pack of Edward the Longshanks' hunting dogs in pursuit.... :lol:

 

If you want to bet about 3D for home, make a separate thread about it and lay out the terms.

[K Borowski]

LMAO. That reminds of when Stephen Williams tried to talk like a "high roller" on the Reduser forum regarding our digital cinema bet. He was goading me to bet more, until Jim Jannard showed up and offered to back my side of the bet with "six figures," at which time Stephen ran for the hills faster than a Scotsman with a pack of Edward the Longshanks' hunting dogs in pursuit.... :lol:

 

If you want to bet about 3D for home, make a separate thread about it and lay out the terms.

 

 

Pff, well I am not a millionaire, nor is just about anyone else on this forum.

 

But I want to bet about 3D in terms of percentage of theatrical movies released, in four years. I won't bet six figures, but I will bet if you want to use a serious amount of money, not an hour's wage. Bets should actually mean something. PM me or email me if you are serious. I'm not using this as a theatrical device.

 

 

I firmly believe that 3D is a fad. Show me a good movie that isn't a low budget dud or a video game (granted Avatar looks alright to me in both 2- and 3D, scope and flat though not sure why he'd do that). Still hasn't been one in the 2000s incarnation. . .

[David Mullen ASC]

I think gaming is going to drive 3D for the home more than movies -- even if a number of big movies each year come out in 3D, that won't be enough product to justify a new 3D TV set unless there are 3D games to play on it.

 

I saw a Sony 3D TV monitor demo at NAB and it looked cool... but also a bit odd, since people on screen end up smaller than real life, whereas most theater screens make people larger-than-life. Even a 50" monitor isn't going to be particular large for an immersive 3D experience, you'd have to start going into home projection at that point.

 

Just look at the movies that are out this Christmas, from "Broken Embraces", "Up in the Air", "Precious", "The White Ribbon" -- movies like that are not likely to be shot in 3D over the years. There are barely ten movies a year released that might be cool in 3D. I even kinda doubt that the next "Star Trek" movie, about to go into production, will be shot in 3D, though I could easily be wrong. It's just that a number of directors like J.J. Abrams, Chris Nolan and Michael Bay are very pro-film and aren't so interested in shooting digitally (though in theory there is no reason why one couldn't shoot in 3D using film cameras.)

 

So it's really going to have to be gaming that drives home 3D more than movies will.

[Chris Millar]

IMAX - 3D - last night ...

 

hurrumph

 

Great:

 

Production Design and CG integration

 

Average:

 

Everything else

[Thomas James]

Of course if all these electronic companies are spending millions of dollars they are going to scream for 3D content in order to make a return on their investment. While action movies and video games are the obvious choice for 3D no genre of movie will be exempt from Blu-Ray 3D. The Blu-Ray executives will argue that any live performance such as an Opera, a Broadway play or any Broadway musical is already in 3D because thats the way you see it as a live performance so naturally you will have to see it in 3D if you are watching it at home.

[andrew rogala]

I think 3D used the way Cameron did, enhancing depth and scope of the film, could translate well to the home marketplace. Unfortunately, it seems like most 3D features rely on gimmicky effects (hatchet flying at you in My Bloody Valentine 3D, spears/arrows in Beowulf). Gimmicky effects don't translate well to home viewing, even on a 60" HDTV. They'll be completely lost on anyone sitting 10 feet away from their 32" LCD.

 

I also agree with David that gaming will drive the market, but even if 3D gaming catches on, it doesn't guarantee that demand will continue into mainstream viewing. I think what it's going to boil down to for non-interactive 3D, is who has "final cut." If Sam Raimi has "final cut" on Spider-man 4 and uses the 3D like Cameron did on Avatar, it could start a trend. If Sony, however, gets "final cut" and says, "Let's shoot some webs at the audience," it won't work outside the theater environment, regardless of how popular GTA 3D for PS3 is.

 

As for the film purists shooting in 3D, it absolutely can be done, but not practically. Nolan had complaints about the noise from IMAX cam on Dark Knight. Two 35's rolling are loud enough, but four if you have an A and B setup could be too much. And it always seems like you need an A and B when you're relatively tight and shooting indoors on location (budget an extra day for ADR). Beyond the noise, you've got double the stock, double the processing, etc. Shooting 3D to film the way the Pace/Cameron Fusion does (basically twin Panavised F950's) isn't practical or cost efficient. The more realistic approach is the post 3D. Tim Burton did shoot Alice in Wonderland on a digital Pana Genesis, but not in 3D. They shot 2D and are converting to 3D in post. That's a more cost effective way Nolan and Bay could still shoot to Kodak and the studios get 3D without killing the budget. I'm anxious to see if Avatar will coerce some of these guys to try out the Fusion. I can see Bay and Abrams experimenting with it, maybe for motion control/crane shots, if not an entire film. The real test will be how the next 5 features shot with the Fusion look, compared to the next 5 features converted from 2D to 3D.

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course if all these electronic companies are spending millions of dollars they are going to scream for 3D content in order to make a return on their investment. While action movies and video games are the obvious choice for 3D no genre of movie will be exempt from Blu-Ray 3D. The Blu-Ray executives will argue that any live performance such as an Opera, a Broadway play or any Broadway musical is already in 3D because thats the way you see it as a live performance so naturally you will have to see it in 3D if you are watching it at home.

 

That would look terrible. Most live performances are shot with multiple cameras on zooms with long lenses for close-ups, so all you'll get on your home 3D system is a wide shot that looks like a miniature diorama of the stage with miniature people on it, and a bunch of telephoto close-ups with no 3D effect. If you show that in 3D, you're going to get a lot of people turned off from the 3D experience.

 

There's not much of a "3D" experience sitting in the audience of a Broadway play anyway, especially if you're in the farther seats. It's all at a distance where binocular vision doesn't really matter. A one-eyed person would have almost the same enjoyment factor.

 

And it's silly to say that "no genre of movie will be exempt from Blu-Ray 3D." There will be plenty of movies that won't be in 3D.

 

And who are these "Blu-Ray executives" controlling worldwide production of everything?

[Byron Karl]

I think David makes a good point about gaming... I read recently that one of the only areas to show any growth this recession, is the gaming industry. Which is why so many ads are now built into gaming, as this is where high-paying audiences are flocking. So it wouldn't be unexpected to hear that the movie "industry" wants to follow this trend and adopt production methods that put them in line with a "gaming experience."

 

I think in many ways, this Avatar film is a movie that co-opts many aspects of a video game experience. And I assume it does so in a way that could appeal to that market.

 

The earlier point that streaming is more used than Blu-Ray is a good point. No one should buy a Blu-Ray player, when streams are going to take over HD distribution... However Blu-Ray is bundled as part of a gaming platform, so those ARE the people that would be into watching 3-D Blu-Rays...

[K Borowski]

It's just that a number of directors like J.J. Abrams, Chris Nolan and Michael Bay are very pro-film and aren't so interested in shooting digitally (though in theory there is no reason why one couldn't shoot in 3D using film cameras.)

 

What about the practical problem of twice the stock and camera rental cost and a "3D Puller?" Wouldn't this limit focus pulls without some special hardware? And you make a very good point about 3D: it's very subtle without exaggerated perspective (i.e. the ping pong ball bounced towards the camera lens) tricks.

 

 

Then again, I guess this has been done with IMAX cameras, so some people have overcome the cost in the recent past.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Thomas James]

James cameron has suggested using the 2 perf 35mm Techniscope format in order to reign in costs. That format should be good enough for 2K projection. However your costs will still double if you raise the framerate but your overall picture will be just as sharp as if you used 4 perf anamorphic at 24 fps.

[John Holland]

If you do a bit of history research !! i cant be bothered now , but i am sure 2 perf was used on a system called SterioVision in the 80,s . Sorry but this 3D is anything new as i have said before !! but i did think the use of it was well done and not in your face !

[Thomas James]

Also I do not think that online streaming can yet rival the quality of Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray 3-D streams at a bitrate of 60 megabits per second which is 3 times broadcast television quality. Plus the added convenience of in home delivery of rented discs available for a nominal charge of 1 or 2 dollars makes Blu-Ray an attractive choice.

[Thomas James]

3-D may not be anything new but 3-D done right is an entirely new concept. 2 perf 35mm film negative is only a proposed aquisition format but it is not a good quality projection format. The projection format is 2K which would almost rival the quality of a 70mm blowup if it were not for the digital screen door effect. Add the higher framerates and you not only get 3-D but you also get Showscan Junior which is a reality look that naturally matches the 3-D reality look. And with dual 2K projectors you get 4:4:4 color fidelity.

[Mei Lewis]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/21/av...torage_effects/

[John Holland]

thanks for that just read it , dont understand most of it ! and dont want to really , i am not a computer nurd

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If you do a bit of history research !! i cant be bothered now , but i am sure 2 perf was used on a system called SterioVision in the 80,s . Sorry but this 3D is anything new as i have said before !! but i did think the use of it was well done and not in your face !

Most of the 80s systems were "2-perf".

Spacevision, Stereovision, stereoscope and Arrivision.

 

Actually the frame was a bit smaller than technoscope, because the frrame line between Left and Right frames needed to be wider than normal. Aspect ratio: 2.4/1.

[Keith Walters]

I bet some of the people dissing this trailer are going to change their tune significantly once the film comes out.

STOP PRESS!!

Tom has said something I agree with! Twice in the same year... :lol:

I unexpectedly found myself with a few hours to kill this afternoon and I managed to squeeze in a 3-D screening of Avatar.

I hadn't been terribly impressed with the trailer either, and I was expecting it to look like something like a better version of Final Fantasy

 

I didn't realize that it was a mixture of live action and CGI, and for the first time I saw aliens that look 100% convincing. How did they do it? I can see where most of the budget went.

 

The only pisser is that same o'l ol': the CGI looked more lifelike that the live action stuff! I believe it was shot with Sony 950s in a special 3-D rig, and it shows. Current generation video cameras just don't cut the mustard for large screen work, although I readily admit, they're far more practical for 3-D.

 

I can't help wondering where all this is going. Will Hollywood eventually be populated by plain-looking actors but with extraordinary expressive voice, expression and movement skills who will be controlling motion-capture CGI on-screen "avatars" that have been crafted to flawless pneumatic perfection?

 

This is the major problem I have with the current crop of bimbette actresses trying to play female Bruce Lee type roles using gymnast action stand-ins: they just don't have the poise or posture of the sort of ultra-fit athlete they're trying to portray in th enon-action scenes.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Tom Lowe]

STOP PRESS!!

Tom has said something I agree with! Twice in the same year... :lol:

 

I unexpectedly found myself with a few hours to kill this afternoon and I managed to squeeze in a 3-D screening of Avatar.

I hadn't been terribly impressed with the trailer either, and I was expecting it to look like something like a better version of Final Fantasy

 

I didn't realize that it was a mixture of live action and CGI, and for the first time I saw aliens that look 100% convincing. How did they do it? I can see where most of the budget went.

 

The only pisser is that same o'l ol': the CGI looked more lifelike that the live action stuff! I believe it was shot with Sony 950s in a special 3-D rig, and it shows. Current generation video cameras just don't cut the mustard for large screen work, although I readily admit, they're far more practical for 3-D.

 

I can't help wondering where all this is going. Will Hollywood eventually be populated by plain-looking actors but with extraordinary expressive voice, expression and movement skills who will be controlling motion-capture CGI on-screen "avatars" that have been crafted to flawless pneumatic perfection?

 

This is the major problem I have with the current crop of bimbette actresses trying to play female Bruce Lee type roles using gymnast action stand-ins: they just don't have the poise or posture of the sort of ultra-fit athlete they're trying to portray in th enon-action scenes.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

 

Regarding the actors. I mean, take a look at the career of Andy Serkis. Most people had never heard of him before Gollum. Now he's staring in Steven Spielberg digital 3D movies, once again, basically using an "avatar" on screen.

[John Holland]

Yes Tom never thought of that before , good luck to him , i do think thats what he should stay doing !!

[georg lamshöft]

The IMAX-projection was pristine with enough contrast & brightness even with glasses! No DRM-problems, either :lol:

 

But why wasn't the full wideness of the screen used? About 1m was left on each side!?

 

I agree, the images didn't have the brilliance and detail of Dark Knight (also the 35mm-sequences) and at some point the "real world" felt more artificial than the CGI! But maybe that's what HD-cams are good for - making scenes where they aren't used stand out :P

No seriously, the CGI was breathtaking, the biggest breakthrough since T2, no longer an effect but part of the storytelling due to CG-characters that look "real" (well, as real these fantastic creatures and scenery could look to our tiny brains).

 

I think Mr. Zemeckis is wasting his talent on his motion-capturing-movies and many others will follow with Avatar-technology and make us realize why Mr. Cameron stands out! I wonder which technology he would use when filming something non-sci-fi like "Titanic" today? I love huge sets, masks, models but I think Cameron does that too but really had no choice for Avatar than go 60% CGI!?

[John Holland]

Hi i agree Zemeckis has made so many great films involving stunning vfx to many to list ! why is he doing this motion capture stuff , i dont get it !!

[Keith Walters]

:lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

 

Regarding the actors. I mean, take a look at the career of Andy Serkis. Most people had never heard of him before Gollum. Now he's staring in Steven Spielberg digital 3D movies, once again, basically using an "avatar" on screen.

New technologies require new skills.

 

But all these $500 million CGI features are just "proof of concept" engineering exercises for projects that will be the real licenses to print money:

Motion capture Avatar-Porn! :lol:

You thought some of the things you're seeing now seem physically implausible, just you wait...

(You think I'm kidding, don't you)

[Paul Bruening]

Just saw it. I was okay with it. There's room in it to lambaste or praise it. I definitely feel like I got my $10 worth of entertainment. I was especially impressed by the "humanity" of the blue people. I had heard comments about their "woodenness." I was actually amazed by their natural and human-like presentations. Maybe I had low expectations from word of mouth and was, then, easily impressed. I don't know. It is definitely the best job of this kind of CG dependent movie that I have ever seen. I had fun.