Avatar

[Mei Lewis]

I saw the 3D version of Toy Story a few weeks ago, and while I liked it a lot and thought the 3D worked very well, whenever there was a lot of motion it tooked a lot more fake and broke up much more than any 2D film I've ever seen.

 

From playing computer and video games with lots of motion involved there's a definite difference between something running at 25fps and 30fps or 60 fps and higher is better.

 

The answer for games and CGI may be to run at high frame rates, but render the same amount of blur as there would be for lower frame rates. Eg run at 48fps but have the same amount of blur as if it was shot at 24fps.

 

It might even be possible to shoot live action that way with some future sensor technology, eg. two sets of interleaved pixels shooting alternate frames.

[georg lamshöft]

Isn't it quite simple to downsample 48fps->24fps (including simulation of motion blur) because you actually don't need to interpolate information but decrease it?

 

I still can't understand why he used two simple F950-cameras when he is neither happy with their frame rate and resolution!?

I think there will be a great difference in detail on the IMAX-screen between the real and the CGI-scenes!?

 

But anyway, it's definitely the movie I'm looking most forward to this season besides "Up in the Air" (is that weird or a common combination ? Let's just say an affinity for Canadian filmmakers ;-).

 

The first German reviews are in (from reliable sources) and they're quite optimistic, it seems to be a real Cameron: technology for the story - not story for technology. :rolleyes:

[Tom Lowe]

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

 

(Reuters) – Director James Cameron's long-awaited "Avatar" wowed critics at its London premiere on Thursday, with some early reviewers calling it "jaw-dropping," "mind-blowing" and a game-changer in Hollywood for its digital effects.

 

The Sun called it "the most dazzling film of the decade. ... The final battle scene is 20 minutes long and absolutely mind-blowing."

 

"An epic film born entirely of Cameron's imagination, Avatar uses tailor-made technology to create the most astonishing visual effects yet seen on screen and blends them seamlessly into a mythical sci-fi story" -- Screen International

 

;)

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure it's going to be cool and kick-ass, especially in 3D, but I'm not sure how a movie that cost nearly 300-million dollars to make can be much of a "game changer" -- a few other big-budget movies will follow in its footsteps, but the rest will carry on with current trends.

 

I mean, we're talking about a movie shot on the same Sony F950 cameras as "Revenge of the Sith" used, which also was a wall-to-wall digital effects showcase, so what's really different, what's revolutionary over that movie, other than this one being shot in 3D and better-directed? I'm sure huge technical problems were overcome and "Avatar" will be the gold standard for 3D CGI action movies for years to come, but honestly, how will the landscape of Hollywood be different two or three years later? We may have a few "Avatar" rip-offs at best, a few more big-budget 3D action movies. So what? We'll have more movies that remind us of a Sony Playstation game, more "thrill rides", some emotionally compelling but most just empty eye candy to be forgotten as soon as the end credits start rolling.

 

"Avatar" is just going to prove something that has never changed, and never will -- that making a good movie is hard work, and the best ones are rare and generally unrepeatable.

 

To my mind, a "game changer" would mean that if I go shoot another Showtime series or another indie feature next year, that the story content and production and post-production technique will have radically changed because of "Avatar". Which I seriously doubt will happen.

 

"Avatar" is probably just going to be another cool movie that makes a lot of money, and in 2010, we'll be wondering what fundamentally changed about feature filmmaking because of it.

[Phil Rhodes]

What Mr. Mullen said.

 

Trailers for this leave me at absolute zero.

 

P

[Thomas James]

Originally James Cameron wanted to shoot in 3 dimensional 2K at 96 frames per second with 48 frames per second dedicated to each camera. However the Digital Cinema Initiatives DCI simply do not allow for anything faster than 48 fps with 24 fps dedicated for each camera and if you want to shoot at 4K at 24 fps you end up with only 12 fps for each camera which pretty much makes your movie look like a slide show. James Cameron has vowed that maybe Avatar 2 will be shot and projected at 96 frames per second.

 

Next year the Blu-Ray standard will be modified to support the new dedicated 3 dimensional displays. Currently Blu-Ray maxes out at 60 frames per second for the 720p format which leaves only 30 fps for each right and left view. Hopefully Blu-Ray can be modified to support 120 fps at least for the 720p format and ideally for the 1080p format as well. Even if the Blu-Ray format is not modified to higher framerates dedicated 3 dimensional displays will be able to interpolate frames thus obsoleting all the digital projectors installed in movie theatres.

[Phil Rhodes]

How do you know?

[Tom Lowe]

I'm sure it's going to be cool and kick-ass, especially in 3D, but I'm not sure how a movie that cost nearly 300-million dollars to make can be much of a "game changer" -- a few other big-budget movies will follow in its footsteps, but the rest will carry on with current trends.

 

I mean, we're talking about a movie shot on the same Sony F950 cameras as "Revenge of the Sith" used, which also was a wall-to-wall digital effects showcase, so what's really different, what's revolutionary over that movie, other than this one being shot in 3D and better-directed? I'm sure huge technical problems were overcome and "Avatar" will be the gold standard for 3D CGI action movies for years to come, but honestly, how will the landscape of Hollywood be different two or three years later?

 

Me personally, I am hoping that AVATAR revives the grand-scale Sci-Fi/Adventure/Fantasy/Myth genre, that really has been dormant since Return of the Jedi in the mid 80s.

 

What has changed with this technology, perhaps, is motion-capture that actually WORKS. Cameron was looking through his 3D camera not at actors against a greenscreen with dots on their faces, but at 3D renders of alien creatures moving inside a jungle! As he panned his 3D camera, the jungle panned behind the characters... marvelous technology.

 

And what will this allow? I see this type of technology, in the correct hands, making films that have always been impossible to realize. Sci-Fi being very high and important on that list. Avatar itself is the perfect example of what is possible, obviously.

 

Man's destiny, if we survive the next 40 years or so, is not here on Earth, but out in space. I think it is very important for us to be inspired to something beyond sitting around on this rock bickering with one another. I believe that was Cameron's actual goal with this film -- to inspire us to explore. When Cameron was presented with an award from the Planetary Society, he stated: "Exploration is not a luxury we can't afford; it's a necessity we can't afford to lose. Pushing farther into the unknown is our greatest endeavor as a civilization and our deepest responsibility to future generations."

 

Sci-Fi is a way for artists to inspire and warn us about the future. This is very important stuff.. at least as important as any nonsense that governments and "leaders" do. In this sense, artists and filmmakers are of huge importance to the future of humanity, and any technology that helps us explore these issues in an exciting manner is a positive step.

 

Does anyone think that Cameron devoted 10 years of his life to "Avatar" just to make a popcorn movie? Think about it. He is doing something much more important here.

[georg lamshöft]

I interpret the term "game changer" a little bit different:

 

"2001" or "Star Wars" were "game changers", they didn't change the whole film-business but defined new standards regarding what to expect from a good Sci-Fi-movie.

 

This 3D-technology is major change in the business but I agree we will propably see a lot afwful 3D over the next years...

 

They should develop a proper 3D-camera first so that Cameron doesn't need to compromise IQ anymore...

[John Holland]

The Pace Fusion system sounds just about the best at the moment , just need to update the cameras they are using with it !

[David Mullen ASC]

I have a "hyperbole-adverse" personality. Or you can call it cynicism. Motion capture is great for CGI effects movies, but in my world of shooting drama, it doesn't come into play much. I suspect Roger Deakins is not going to be doing a lot of "Avatar" type movies in the next ten years, not to compare myself to Deakins.

 

The advances in digital effects technology are great, making anything that can be imagined into a reality, but that doesn't necessarily make people into better storytellers with more insight into humanity nor a better understanding of the mechanics of drama.

 

It doesn't even expand the limits of imagination, which have been pretty limitless since the dawn of science fiction writing. In fact, "Avatar" is rather similar in premise to a short story called "The Game of Rat and Dragon", written by Cordwainer Smith back in 1955, about combat soldiers in telepathic link to animals (cats in this case) who help them fight battles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_Rat_and_Dragon

 

I feel like paraphrasing Darth Vader, along the lines of "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed..."

 

I'd say that we have been rather inundated with sci-fi action / fantasy over the past decade (look at the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy) -- the problem with most of those movies hasn't been the quality of the visual effects, it's a lack of storytelling skill (though not in the case of "Lord of the Rings"). Putting Cameron's motion capture technology into the hands of a hack studio director isn't going to allow them to become another Cameron.

[John Holland]

I think we are going through the 30 year cycle of 3D when Cinema is threatened by people sitting at home and watching TV , more so this time as we have wide screen TV and 5.1 sound !

[Brian Rose]

Did anyone see that South Park episode that parodied "Avatar" ? I especially got a kick out of their assessment of it:

 

"Dances with Wolves" meets "The Smurfs"

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'm telling you, it's Cats meets Predator.

[georg lamshöft]

Putting Cameron's motion capture technology into the hands of a hack studio director isn't going to allow them to become another Cameron.

 

That's nothing new, isn't it? I wonder if most of these blockbusters even profit from color cinematography...

 

But Cameron opened a door (due to his creativity, skill and power over the studios) - he propably made a new technology possible (and showed what it's good for) for others which extends storytelling. Most movies don't need it (and won't have it), many movies will propably suffer because it's going to be used incorrectly but I think if Avatar is really as great as critics say, it offers new possibilities for coming filmmakers - isn't that great? I don't care what some morons will do wrong with this technology.

 

But I still wonder if he could have convinced the studio to pay another 50mio$ and give it to Arri/Panavision to develop a proper 3d-camera-system for him... :lol:

 

Does anybody know what lenses are used on the Fusion? I just noticed that Cameron always had this "camera-technology problem": he used Super35 when no super-fast/sharp primes, filmstock and DI was available and quality was far worse than anamorphic!?

[Thomas James]

I think Avatar signifies a paridigm change in the movie industry. 3D is just like the introduction of color and the introduction of sound to movies and when first introduced they probably seemed like gimmicks. I think the Wizard of Oz was the first movie that showcased the idea that color was not just a gimmick but it was essential in portraying a whole new world of Oz in contrast to the black and white world of Kansas in the depression era. Seeing the Wizard of Oz remastered in Blu-Ray high definition brings out the colors in all of their glorious detail and if it were not for 35mm film which achieves the high definition enhancement of colors maybe color would still be considered a gimmick.

 

When sound was first introduced it created problems with motion portrayal. Up until that time all films were shot at 16 frames per second and you were not a real cinematographer unless you shot at 16 frames per second. However in order for sound to work the framerate was increased to 24 frames per second which pretty much ended the Charlie Chaplain film look.

 

Now we are facing the same problems with 3D movies in which the images are so real that the motion artifacts stand out like a sore thumb. The minimum framerate for 3D would thus be 30 frames per second but 48 frames per second is ideal for backward compatibility. The drama versus action debate is simple. If 48 fps is unsuitable for drama then 3D is also unsuitable for drama.

 

And even the drama versus action debate gets blurred. Even when one considers the movie "Pride and Prejudice" to be a 19th century drama the fact remains that some scenes will include Victorian dances with elaborate costumes which portray a significant amount of motion that I would not have missed had I attended a live performance rather than trying to watch it on Blu-Ray. And then we wonder why people are not really that impressed with Blu-Ray and there is a reason for it because in reality unless you are a purist it is not that much better than upconverted DVD. For Blu-Ray to really take off it has to become the next generation radical improvement in television picture quality rather than the incremental improvement it currently is.

[Phil Rhodes]

"Pride and Prejudice" to be a 19th century drama the fact remains that some scenes will include Victorian

 

Far be it from me to point out that "Pride and Prejudice" was published in 1813 (and mainly written considerably before that time), whereas Victoria was not queen until 1837.

 

P

[Andy_Alderslade]

Far be it from me to point out that "Pride and Prejudice" was published in 1813 (and mainly written considerably before that time), whereas Victoria was not queen until 1837.

 

P

 

A secret Jane Austin fan Phil? ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hell no, I just knew it wasn't Victorian and then looked the rest up on Wikipedia.

 

Would that our previous correspondent knew how to do the same.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Hell no, I just knew it wasn't Victorian and then looked the rest up on Wikipedia.

 

Yes it never really looked Victorian, much more frill than Dickens!

:P

[K Borowski]

I think we are going through the 30 year cycle of 3D when Cinema is threatened by people sitting at home and watching TV , more so this time as we have wide screen TV and 5.1 sound !

 

I agree John. Can you think back to a point that, with the exception of people like the Czar of Russia, people had access to as-good-as or better-than viewing experiences at home than in the theatre?

 

35mm prints are often lower resolution than HD 1080i (especially flat prints) these days, which is disgusting when you consider it costs 50 times as much to make said print than to buy the BluRay!

[Tom Lowe]

Hell no, I just knew it wasn't Victorian and then looked the rest up on Wikipedia.

 

Sure... sure... ;) :lol:

[John Brawley]

 

Not getting much of a run with the local reviewers here....

 

"But as a story designed to engage, enthral and entertain adult audiences for almost three hours, it is a major disappointment strewn with weak characters, environmental platitudes and anti-progress cliches."

 

and

 

"A compulsive envelope-pusher, Cameron invented a pioneering camera system and ground-breaking visual processing techniques for the film, but perhaps he should have spent a little less time obsessing over the technology and a tad more developing the story beyond the compendium of cliches it regrettably is."

 

jb

[Antti Näyhä]

When sound was first introduced it created problems with motion portrayal. Up until that time all films were shot at 16 frames per second and you were not a real cinematographer unless you shot at 16 frames per second.

Um... not exactly.

 

people are not really that impressed with Blu-Ray and there is a reason for it because in reality unless you are a purist it is not that much better than upconverted DVD.

:wacko:

 

Anyway, there's no denying that the whole 24 vs. 48 fps debate is interesting. Even though I personally tend to see the 24 fps strobe as an essential element of the filmic experience, the problems with 3D material are obvious. And I'd love to see a 35 mm demo shot and projected at 48 fps with various shutter angles, both in 2D and 3D.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Antti Näyhä

[Tom Lowe]

Not getting much of a run with the local reviewers here....

 

Yeah, well, nearly every other critic is head over heels. Ebert just gave the film a positively glowing review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/912119998

 

It's 90% at RT right now.