Avatar 3D

[Luca Immesi]

I've been on holiday in Brazil and I went to Imax in Sao Paulo to watch Avatar (in Italy it will arrive at the end of January).
Although I really liked the movie (story, effects, CGI etc.) I've found the stereoscopic 3D effect quite poor . I've been a lot of times to Imax and I've found the 3D was very good but not this time. The best 3D I ever seen was the last September where I was invited at Festival of Venice to the sneak preview of the first 10 minutes of the new 3D horror movie of Takashi Shimizu "The Shock Labyrinth" http://3d-shock.asmik-ace.co.jp/
and it was incredible thanks also to the new Persol technology for polarizing glasses. At a certain point a rag doll was literally floating for several seconds in the middle of the theater, it was incredible.
So, what do you think about the 3D effect of Avatar?

 

[Michel Hafner]

Avatar is not interested in exaggerated gimmicky 3D effects sticking out of the screen. The depth is mostly behind the screen and only occasionally objects come closer. Which is a relief. 3D effect was good in both screenings I went to.

 

[Henk van den Doel]

I thought it was stunning. And I feel as if that word does not do it justice. The often subtle way in which 3D was used sets new standards in my opinion.

 

[Thor Melsted]

Cameron and his producing partner Jon Landau stated very matter of factly that they weren't all that interested in the gimmicky 3D stuff where things float into the theater or pop off the screen, and that they're more interested in making it like a window into the world you're watching.
Why? Because it makes for a more realistic experience. We see real life in 3D, and most of the time we don't think about it - it's just there. That's what they wanted. There are 3 shots in the whole movie where something is either pointed or thrown at the audience (a gun, a spear and a smoke bomb, respectively).
To me, that's how 3D should be used in a movie - as a window. The things popping out stuff reminds you you're watching a 3D movie and takes you out of the experience. Leave the pop out stuff for the amusement park attractions. Speaking of which, I can't wait to see Peter Jackson's 3D King Kong attraction opening this summer at Universal.

As for Avatar 3D. Stunning. A staggering cinematic achievement.

 

[Luca Immesi]

Very interesting opinions. Thanks.
What I think, and I can be very wrong because I'm not a 3D expert, the Avatar's 3D look was possible also shooting with one camera and then making the 3D in post. I've seen some test clips shot in 2d and then post processed in 3D and the depth and the effect was really good.
What I mean is this "subtle" 3D effect is possible to achieve with one camera and make it 3D in post. I loved Avatar, it is also a huge production and it is an incredible movie with an enormous production value but I think that kind of 3D is achievable shooting in 2D but, again, I'm not an expert and I can be wrong.

 

[David Dennis]

Okay, I'm just wondering if Jim had a hand in the marketing -- Unobtainium indeed!

Didn't Jim make some of that stuff at Oakley?

D

 

[Ketch Rossi]

3D is a very rare animal, really!

Its quality and effects when reaching the viewer depends on so many things is not even funny, how many get it wrong, at capture, or in post or at the screening venues, and PLEASE don't let me get started on the ABSURDITY of some IMAX Stereoscopic Polarized glasses, absolute nonsense, by far the worst and weakest link in 3D public viewing.


However Avatar was one of those few were, nor in Capture nor in Post any errors were made to make it a lesser of a Stunning 3D, but some screening venues however do F%$@! UP, I have been to two different IMAX, after been very disappointed in the first in some aspect, even so believing the story and look, so I went to a different IMAX I trust and BINGO!! Fantastic!!

Avatar, was shot form conception in Principal Photography with two electronically controlled state of the art Sony cameras, built specifically for this project, (well not entirely as Pace did not wanted to commit to only working for Cameron) but Sony HQ in Tokyo Vince Pace and James Cameron, worked on them to bring them to life to be used in Avatar, there is also an unofficial word of RED cameras been involved for some FX shots, and will confirm this next week after a meeting with my source's post facility.

But there were also other cameras used to film Avatar, and this were Virtual cameras, on this I'm not entirely positive if all shots were done with a stereo set up, or if some very possibly could have been made with a single virtual camera, and duplicated in post.

Also I know for fact that Cameron, has visited the same facilities I have which do Conversion from 2D to 3D, but I was told that this was only for current consideration and work in progress to have Titanic in 3D via such methods.

 

[ericyoung]

Okay, I'm just wondering if Jim had a hand in the marketing -- Unobtainium indeed!

Didn't Jim make some of that stuff at Oakley?

D

I was reading somewhere that actually the term was first coined in the mining industry referring to rare earth minerals used in electronic components. At the moment China has a massive market share on them.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's a fictional material engineers use to refer to a material not yet discovered/created.

 

[ericyoung]

Gavin you're right. If you believe Wiki's, Wiki has a citing dating back to 1957:
^ Hansen, James R. (1987) "Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958." The NASA History Series, sp-4305. Chapter 12, recounting an October 1957 meeting, mentions the problems caused by "the lack of a superior high-temperature material (which the Langley structures people dubbed 'unobtainium')" This paragraph in turn cites Becker, John V. "The Development of Winged Reentry Vehicles, 1952–1963," unpublished, dated 23 May 1983.

 

[Cail Young]

At the moment China has a massive market share on them.

Neodymium in particular, and they're about to restrict production, which is bad news.

 

[Luca Immesi]

3D is a very rare animal, really!

Its quality and effects when reaching the viewer depends on so many things is not even funny, how many get it wrong, at capture, or in post or at the screening venues, and PLEASE don't let me get started on the ABSURDITY of some IMAX Stereoscopic Polarized glasses, absolute nonsense, by far the worst and weakest link in 3D public viewing.


However Avatar was one of those few were, nor in Capture nor in Post any errors were made to make it a lesser of a Stunning 3D, but some screening venues however do F%$@! UP, I have been to two different IMAX, after been very disappointed in the first in some aspect, even so believing the story and look, so I went to a different IMAX I trust and BINGO!! Fantastic!!

Avatar, was shot form conception in Principal Photography with two electronically controlled state of the art Sony cameras, built specifically for this project, (well not entirely as Pace did not wanted to commit to only working for Cameron) but Sony HQ in Tokyo Vince Pace and James Cameron, worked on them to bring them to life to be used in Avatar, there is also an unofficial word of RED cameras been involved for some FX shots, and will confirm this next week after a meeting with my source's post facility.

But there were also other cameras used to film Avatar, and this were Virtual cameras, on this I'm not entirely positive if all shots were done with a stereo set up, or if some very possibly could have been made with a single virtual camera, and duplicated in post.

Also I know for fact that Cameron, has visited the same facilities I have which do Conversion from 2D to 3D, but I was told that this was only for current consideration and work in progress to have Titanic in 3D via such methods.

Maybe this is could be the reason why the Avatar screening I've watched was quite poor concerning 3D.

 

[Alan Zarnegar]

But there were also other cameras used to film Avatar, and this were Virtual cameras, on this I'm not entirely positive if all shots were done with a stereo set up, or if some very possibly could have been made with a single virtual camera, and duplicated in post.

Also I know for fact that Cameron, has visited the same facilities I have which do Conversion from 2D to 3D, but I was told that this was only for current consideration and work in progress to have Titanic in 3D via such methods.

From my understanding, the virtual camera showed Cameron a virtual space being rendered in a basic CG environment. For instance, he could view live action actors as their Avatar/Na'vi or he could come back at a later time when no actors were present and map out coverage and movement for a scene already rendered. The power of the Volume (the large room where live action and CG meshed) lies in the fact that once a scene is captured by the hundreds of cameras, you can literally get any shot you want using the virtual camera. The application for such technology will only grow, and it is very promising especially from a time/funding perspective (once the price of such technology goes down).

Furthermore, you must remember that the virtual camera isn't actually a camera. There is no lens. Rather, there is an LCD unit mounted to handles with a location device that allows the Volume to monitor the location of the camera while traveling through the space. That said, there is no need to have stereo virtual cameras, as the stereo effect is done during the heavy lifting by Weta.

It's much easier to articulate visually in person what I am trying to say, but alas, words will have to do :smiley:

 

[Ketch Rossi]

From my understanding, the virtual camera showed Cameron a virtual space being rendered in a basic CG environment. For instance, he could view live action actors as their Avatar/Na'vi or he could come back at a later time when no actors were present and map out coverage and movement for a scene already rendered. The power of the Volume (the large room where live action and CG meshed) lies in the fact that once a scene is captured by the hundreds of cameras, you can literally get any shot you want using the virtual camera. The application for such technology will only grow, and it is very promising especially from a time/funding perspective (once the price of such technology goes down).

Furthermore, you must remember that the virtual camera isn't actually a camera. There is no lens. Rather, there is an LCD unit mounted to handles with a location device that allows the Volume to monitor the location of the camera while traveling through the space. That said, there is no need to have stereo virtual cameras, as the stereo effect is done during the heavy lifting by Weta.

It's much easier to articulate visually in person what I am trying to say, but alas, words will have to do :smiley:

Yes Alan, correct, but even so the LCD hand maneuvered by Cameron had no lenses, (off course, been virtual, he he) what I was saying is that I didn't know if the computerized rendering shots were done so with two cameras, and their for in 3D or in 2D space.

Such technology is definitely getting a huge boost, and budget allowing will be surely nice to have such tools at your disposal.

 

[Alan Zarnegar]

Yes Alan, correct, but even so the LCD hand maneuvered by Cameron had no lenses, (off course, been virtual, he he) what I was saying is that I didn't know if the computerized rendering shots were done so with two cameras, and their for in 3D or in 2D space.

Such technology is definitely getting a huge boost, and budget allowing will be surely nice to have such tools at your disposal.

Ah ok. I misunderstood your previous comment. No worries :biggrin5:
It's quite remarkable that the work put into Avatar has led to so many breakthroughs in filmmaking. Quite an exciting future we have in store!