Mei Lewis

It's a good thing I read this thread! I've yet to go to an Imax theatre of an kind and I want my first experience to be a good one. I've seen Avatar on an ordinary 3D projection and I wanted to go see it in Imax. There's a theatre here in Cardiff that claims to be Imax, but I tink it's one of the fake ones: http://www.odeon.co.uk/fanatic/film_info/s..._3D_Experience/ Can someone who knows this stuff confirm that? and is this one in London genuine? http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_imax

There's another episode of that podcast, this time dealing with the work Weta digital did: http://www.fxguide.com/fxpodcast.html (I'm not associated with the podcast, I just think it's really good)

You're correct that all the rules have been written by people, and that they can be changed at will, but that doesn't make it easy or predictable. Even simple rules can have very complicated results when applied to many things at once and for many repetitions. There's a whole branch of mathematics that addresses the problem, from wikipedia: "Chaos theory is an area of inquiry in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." What that means practically in the case of CGI is that it can be very hard to know the outcome of any changes you make will be before you make them. The same is true to an extent in the real world, but there at least we can have an intuitive sense of how light works and what's practical, because we're exposed to it so much and there are only a limited number of possibilities.

LOL x10

It's stated in the film that in the past Sigourney's cat character had run a school for the natives. When Jake convinces the natives to let Sigourney back into the camp it's said that it's the first time she had been there since the school closed. I don't think it's ever explicitly stated but it seems reasonable that she taught some of the natives English as she was learning their language. --------- Now, if the humans need those electronic coffins to project to the avatar bodies, how do they get back?

The VFX show's latest episode is about avatar http://blog.vfxshow.com/?p=341 and some of what is discussed is relevant to your question. They had some kind of hardware virtual camera rig. Cameron could 'perform' camera moves while looking at a realtime display based on where he was pointing. I imagine it as something like the action replay mode of many sports video games. The action has already happened and is recorded, and as you watch it you're free to move the viewpoint however you like.

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

Others on here have recommended this book about the use of color in film generally to set a mood http://www.amazon.com/Its-Purple-Someones-...e/dp/0240806883 I've just got it and started reading and it's a good book and would probably tell you something of what you want to know. This video shows one way to get one of the really popular colour looks in big movies at the moment: Creating a Summer Blockbuster Film Look http://library.creativecow.net/articles/ma...eo-tutorial.php

It sounds to me like you're blaming a bad piece of film-making on the camera. And some fo the faults you can't know if it was the camera or the transmission/reproduction system surely, like any 'grain' or compression artifacts which might just be down to whatever compression it was broadcast with? I'm not defending the Red, I'm just saying your logic for damning it isn't sound.

and re-draw it all every half second?

I feel very much like that too. Think I'd rather be happy than do something of substance though - not that I've achieved either goal yet. That's a great idea. I'm alreay planning a big drive to get more clients for my business (still photography) in the fresh new year, and I love he way you put it as "saturation bombing"! Thanks!

This week I happened to be working taking photos at a presentation by someone from a marketing company who got burned by those leaked emails. At one point he said there were more people alive now than have ever lived. Not that impressed by his facts...

I think it's often that. It can be done to give the movie a certain feel, or evoke a time period or place. It can also be useful for helping effects sit in with live action.

I don't understand what this means. Focal length is a property of a lens not of a camera. Do you mean a camera with a lens which is the equivalent of 16mm on some certain size of movie camera?

"they rely on 35mm lens which in turn makes the cameras bigger and bulkier than they need to be." That's only partly correct. Cameras like the 7D and 500D have an APS-C sensor which is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm stills frame size, and there are special lenses that only work with these 'crop' cameras that are smaller and lighter than 35mm stills lenses. For Canon they are called EF-S lenses (S stand for "short back focus"), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount. A 500D with a kit lens such as the EF-S 18-55 IS is surprisingly light and small compared to an equivalent olf film based 35mm stills camera. ------- From a photographer's point of view, the compromise between compact digital cameras and a DSLR is something like a Canon G10, Panasonic LX3, or a micro four thirds camera like the Panasonic GH-1 or Olympus E-450, or a Sigma DP-2. Some of these have interchangeable lenses. I don't know enough about movie cameras to know if any of these has the exact sensor size you want, but my impression is that in stills there's a wide continuous range of sensor sizes for really very tiny up to massive medium format digital backs. I've got an LX-3 and it's very, very nice :-)

Okay then, how do you do painting with light with a movie camera?

The custom bokeh would work with motion. Can even use the same fast 50mmm lens in that article on the Canon5D2 for example. I don't know how you'd do light trail though, they need a long shutter time, in the region of seconds or even minutes.

You can derive that formula using equations of motion and the assumption that the miniature will look the same as the real world if things take the same amount of time to move the same distance in the miniature as they would in the real world. That is, if when playing back they take the same number of frames. I can write it up if anyone is interested.

I think carbon emission during what happens after the films is made should be considered. Millions of pages of advertising in print magazines, moving film prints around the world (and producing them in the first place), sending star actors to many countries to talk to the local press there. Cinemas print tickets only for you to walk 10 yeards and have them torn in half or taken from you. Popcorn, drinks and other snacks come in more packaging than they need and all of it is just thrown away. It's s total guess, but I bet for most films, the amount of pollution created by filming is dwarfed by the amount made from promoting, distributing and viewings.

For stills something like the Canon 500D with kit lens would be very nearly as good and a lot cheaper. It's not got the build quailty of the 7D, but nor do any of the digital compacts.

You can get an APS-C DSLR for really not very much money now and the quality is very good. I _think_ the reason why all really serious stills cameras have at least an APS-C sensor is because stills photgraphers want high ISO and the smaller the chip the nosier it is.

Very well written info there, the section on stills photography rings very true in my limited experience.

It's defintiely the Swedish version on iPlayer, I watched the whole episode with subtitles. I thought it would be okay to post a UK only link as there are plenty of reference to the US only Hulu here. According to the end credits it was shot in 2005 so not on Red, but it looks very similar to the screen grabs of the UK version posted on Red User. To me it looks very crisp and real in a way a lot of TV doesn't. Very dry, which fitted with the whole understated tone of the programme.

You could set up the DSLR with heavy ND too, just like 35mm. And no, a 5 sec exposure at a low ISO won't be noisey on a DSLR - using ISO100 you'd have effectively zero noise. Other people have mentioned weight as an issue, I don't know how heavy a film camera would be but an ideal 'pro DSLR' for timelapse would be a Canon 5D Mk2 which weighs 810g body only. Add an extra 100g for a battery and memory card. Lenses can be heavy, but I think they tend to be lighter than motion lenses because stills photographer have to carry them around all day.

What Sam said!