Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"I just saw Avatar" Thread

Emery Wells said:
In IMAX the edges of the screen seemed to fade away and I was just living in Pandora, while in the RealD screen I was clearly watching everything unfold inside of a rectangular box. I was often removed from the movie when I noticed a character that was very close in z space suddenly get cut off by the edge of the screen. This breaks the 3D experience.
From now on it's IMAX only for me.
Click to expand...

I also saw it in IMAX and was a bit surprised when (even in IMAX) certain scenes purposely had certain foreground objects that were cut off.
(I remember thinking how that must be much more noticable on smaller screens).

I realize that there is a fine line in choosing when to frame for 3D and for story telling, but I thought a few times the 3D frame edge for certain foreground objects could have been avoided to allow for a more immersive experience.

I worked on a 3D episode of an TV show last year, and I specifically remember the DP avoiding this as much as possible. I imagine that it was even more important to avoid for the much smaller TV screens that most have in their homes compared to theaters, however, eventually, Avatar will be released on Blu-Ray, etc...
 
M Most said:
Interesting scenario. Also one I don't think will happen. And even if it did, 70 inches is a hell of a lot smaller than any of the Imax screens that viewers are very happily watching Avatar on now. I don't hear a lot of complaints. They seem to be quite satisfied, as is Jim Cameron.

I think you're giving the viewing public - the same viewing public that seems to be quite satisfied with watching both TV and feature material on things like Hulu, on screens as small as iPhones - far too much credit for actually caring about some of the things you (and I) might. Empirical evidence tells me that the average viewer cares far more about seeing things quickly and cheaply than seeing them well. And they don't know or care about things like 4K, 2K, or 1K at all. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Resolution matters. What may well be the the biggest grossing movie of all time was just mastered at a quarter the resolution of what may well be the baseline viewing platform in just a few years. The live action scenes were barely holding up to 2K on film in the theatre. The jury is very much still out on this, but its far from a slam dunk.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Resolution matters. What may well be the the biggest grossing movie of all time was just mastered at a quarter the resolution of what may well be the baseline viewing platform in just a few years. The live action scenes were barely holding up to 2K on film in the theatre. The jury is very much still out on this, but its far from a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

In some ways, I'm with Mike on this one. I admit there is a sophisticated audience/market out there that will appreciate some of the things we do. But I have to say I am surprised one HDTV is sold at Best Buy or other high volume electronics stores. The images they are showing as HD, high quality make my Sony CRT standard def TV look really nice. They are using cheap DAs, and even the source footage isn't properly setup. I walk in there and often I'm just amazed at what they are showing. But people don't seem to care because they still buy the TV.

But, having said that, I still like to see things acquired at the highest level budget will allow. And hopefully mastered at the highest quality that budget will allow so that subsequent delivery formats will always be starting at a high level. But I also understand that this is not always possible given a variety of factors, budget being one of them.

I think Avatar will see most of its success in the theaters, and possibly in home theater if more people adopt 3D technology. Most will probably be happy with what they see. Others who have a better eye for this kind of stuff may not be as satisfied, but time will tell once it's available for home distribution.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
But, having said that, I still like to see things acquired at the highest level budget will allow. And hopefully mastered at the highest quality that budget will allow so that subsequent delivery formats will always be starting at a high level. But I also understand that this is not always possible given a variety of factors, budget being one of them.
Click to expand...

The state of the technology is another. Avatar was in production and post production for over 3 years. Not to mention that Jim wanted a 3D camera rig he could hand hold, as well as the ability to see live composites involving complex CG animation. This requires small, light camera heads on the rig, and live video coming from them that can work with other equipment in a high def environment. And post production required enormous amounts of storage just to work at HD and 2K resolutions. It would have required 4 times as much, and much more processing power, to be turned around at 4K resolution in anywhere near the same time frame - which was ridiculously long to begin with.

Everyone would like to think they can do anything their imagination demands. But there are practical limitations at any point in time, both budgetary and technical. Avatar is a great achievement by all involved. But I guess that just isn't enough for some people here.
 
M Most said:
Interesting scenario. Also one I don't think will happen.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that 4K displays are not the way of the future. You're not seriously denying that at least a few sales could be lost to people who will eventually have 4K displays? To me, that's intellectually indefensible as a position to take. I gave you a clear-cut example of how money for Avatar will, without question, be lost one day.

I think you're giving the viewing public - the same viewing public that seems to be quite satisfied with watching both TV and feature material on things like Hulu, on screens as small as iPhones - far too much credit for actually caring about some of the things you (and I) might. Empirical evidence tells me that the average viewer cares far more about seeing things quickly and cheaply than seeing them well. And they don't know or care about things like 4K, 2K, or 1K at all. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're right, people don't care about resolution. That's why they are spendings thousands and thousands of dollars and even mortgaging their houses to buy these big 1080p flatscreens, right? Because they don't care about resolution? That's why they are paying 19 dollars per ticket and driving 50 miles to IMAX screens to see Avatar, right? Because they don't care about image quality?
 
Tom L said:
Are you saying that 4K displays are not the way of the future. You're not seriously denying that at least a few sales could be lost to people who will eventually have 4K displays? To me, that's intellectually indefensible as a position to take. I gave you a clear-cut example of how money for Avatar will, without question, be lost one day.
Click to expand...

I don't think a contrary opinion to yours warrants a personal insult, not to mention an attack on my intelligence. Your "example" isn't any more valid than my opinion because you're basing it on a scenario that doesn't currently exist. Both are yet to be determined.

You're right, people don't care about resolution. That's why they are spendings thousands and thousands of dollars and even mortgaging their houses to buy these big 1080p flatscreens, right? Because they don't care about resolution? That's why they are paying 19 dollars per ticket and driving 50 miles to IMAX screens to see Avatar, right? Because they don't care about image quality?
Click to expand...

Driving to an Imax theater is about an entertainment experience that has little to do with "resolution" and everything to do with the fact that a very large screen can provide a different experience than a smaller one, especially when word of mouth about that experience is positive. I don't know anyone who has mortgaged a home to buy a flatscreen TV, especially now that they can be had for a hell of lot less than "thousands and thousands" of dollars. As for $19 a ticket, I think you need to spend time in some towns in this country that aren't Los Angeles or New York for a bit of a pricing and priorities reality check.

But beyond that, I think we need to just agree to disagree.
 
Tom L said:
Are you saying that 4K displays are not the way of the future. You're not seriously denying that at least a few sales could be lost to people who will eventually have 4K displays? To me, that's intellectually indefensible as a position to take. I gave you a clear-cut example of how money for Avatar will, without question, be lost one day.

You're right, people don't care about resolution. That's why they are spendings thousands and thousands of dollars and even mortgaging their houses to buy these big 1080p flatscreens, right? Because they don't care about resolution?
Click to expand...

Anyone mortgaging a house to a 1080P flatscreen is not doing it because they want better resolution, they are doing it to keep up with the joneses/retail therapy/because they are idiots.

Most people care about what they are TOLD to care about, you see this again and again when you walk into an electronics store and badly set up tv's are showing inferior pictures and people fawn all over them. They buy not because they want the resolution, they buy because they want the thing they don't have.

I recently brought a HDTV for home use - I wouldn't walk out of the store until I had tried the remote - reason being a bad remote is the most ANNOYING thing for me, and I'd bet most average users of TVs, and I bet 90% of them make the purchase without ever picking up the remote, because the sales guy don't usually list them as a sales feature, because that's not what the SALES guys are told to care about.

Mastering to 2K makes sense with Avatar, it's not going to cost it a penny, because when they started production it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot it in 4K, it simply wasn't a choice, so the option would be not make the film versus make the film, not even make it at more expense versus less.

Even at that point it would be a bold man who made the argument that the cost of a 4K pipeline would equate to a greater net income just because they can master to 4K much further down the track and ring out a few more sales from some not yet announced format... how exactly can that argument be supported.

Cost should be viewed in terms of net, not just revenue.
 
Most made a direct statement -- an assertion -- that "not one penny" would be lost because the film was not finished at 4K. I simply think he's wrong. To make that statement precludes 4K or greater resolution from emerging at ANY time in the future -- which, again, is a totally indefensible position. Does anyone believe that screen resolutions will not increase beyond 1080p in the future???
 
Tom L said:
Most made a direct statement -- an assertion -- that "not one penny" would be lost because the film was not finished at 4K. I simply think he's wrong. To make that statement precludes 4K or greater resolution from emerging at ANY time in the future -- which, again, is a totally indefensible position. Does anyone believe that screen resolutions will not increase beyond 1080p in the future???
Click to expand...

Tom, I don't think that statement was meant to be taken literally but lets pretend it was. Avatar has already grossed a billion dollars so if a 4k master would have earned a few hundred thousand more over it's life, or even millions, that would still not be enough to justify the tens of millions it would have taken to master in 4k. Therefore, not mastering in 4k probably made them money and *literally* did not cause them to lose a single penny.

How long did it take to transition to HD? It will be many years before 4k screens are common in the home. 3D will come long before 4k.
 
Tom L said:
Most made a direct statement -- an assertion -- that "not one penny" would be lost because the film was not finished at 4K. I simply think he's wrong. To make that statement precludes 4K or greater resolution from emerging at ANY time in the future -- which, again, is a totally indefensible position. Does anyone believe that screen resolutions will not increase beyond 1080p in the future???
Click to expand...

In terms of NET PROFIT (compared to the cost of making the same film in a 4K workflow right now) Avatar will not lose one penny, over it's lifetime. I totally agree with that assessment.

I also agree that resolutions will increase beyond 1080P in the future.

The two aren't mutually exclusive - assuming you are talking net return.
 
I very carefully said "All things being equal" (ie, production budgets being the same, etc) that some sales will indeed be eventually lost to lack of 4K. To say that no sales will ever be lost because a movie wasn't mastered in 4K is not a defensible position. How could it be? This is a general statement that has nothing to do with Avatar itself. It's simply an observation that movies filmed at 1080p or 2K, for example, are not future-proofed against 4K.

Jim Jannard and the entire team at Red, for example, believe that 4K display is the way of the future. I agree with that. Do you disagree?
 
M Most said:
The state of the technology is another. Avatar was in production and post production for over 3 years. Not to mention that Jim wanted a 3D camera rig he could hand hold, as well as the ability to see live composites involving complex CG animation. This requires small, light camera heads on the rig, and live video coming from them that can work with other equipment in a high def environment. And post production required enormous amounts of storage just to work at HD and 2K resolutions. It would have required 4 times as much, and much more processing power, to be turned around at 4K resolution in anywhere near the same time frame - which was ridiculously long to begin with.

Everyone would like to think they can do anything their imagination demands. But there are practical limitations at any point in time, both budgetary and technical. Avatar is a great achievement by all involved. But I guess that just isn't enough for some people here.
Click to expand...
Guys, try to keep this from getting personal. It's not worth it. Avatar is making plenty of money and will make some more down the line, regardless of formats. I think they achieved what they wanted. Push the technology (at least at the time) and come out ahead, i.e. don't lose their shirts. All things have to be considered and sometimes it comes down to practical issues. When a project begins, what's available at the time is assessed and then implemented based on workflow, budget, etc. I'm sure they went with what they thought best suited them at the time. 4K deliverables will have their time. Certainly theaters will go that way eventually, and home systems will probably slowly but surely get there as well.

I know we have talked about this before, but what people are sometimes surprised to see when they walk into big studio machine rooms is that they are not always as current with technology as smaller shops. I use the example of DA88's. I don't know what the status is right now but I know two years ago they were still widely in use and when we would have to deliver things on that format, the younger people were asking why. It seemed like an antiquated way to them. The reason is because it's a workflow that was in place at many facilities, people knew it, and it was universal. Even if there's better technology or easier ways to do things, doesn't mean it gets quickly implemented. That could change. As more and more shows are farmed out to various shops, perhaps those shops will push the technology faster.

So, getting back to the issue of doing everything in the highest possible resolution, yes it only applies if there is the budget to do it, and it fits into the overall needs of the production. Lots of things to be considered, and workflow, ease of multiple shops working in conjunction, and all kinds of practical stuff being right there at the top of the list.
 
Tom L said:
I very carefully said "All things being equal" (ie, production budgets being the same, etc) that some sales will indeed be eventually lost to lack of 4K. To say that no sales will ever be lost because a movie wasn't mastered in 4K is not a defensible position. How could it be? This is a general statement that has nothing to do with Avatar itself. It's simply an observation that movies filmed at 1080p or 2K, for example, are not future-proofed against 4K.

Jim Jannard and the entire team at Red, for example, believe that 4K display is the way of the future. I agree with that. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

If people could magically shoot in 4K for any project, and master to 4K for any project, without any increase in time, cost or effort would they?

Of course, but that's not reality - and unless we are talking about Avatar's script, I think most people would rather stick to reality rather than fixate on a throw away comment.

It's a pity they couldn't shoot it in 4K and display it in 4K. It's also a pity they couldn't shoot the moon landings in 4K and display them in 4K. It doesn't make either achievement any less impressive or somehow short sighted.
 
This is a forum that has a whole lot of people who believe that 4K display is the way of the future. A great deal of time and effort have been spent talking about the future of display resolution, what exactly it takes to shoot in 5K+ and master at 4K, in order to "future-proof" upcoming projects. So when someone shows up here and states flatly that a new film will "not lose one penny" if it is mastered at 2K instead of 4K, that warrants a response, since these are issues that are in fact taken seriously by many of us here.

It has nothing to do with Avatar itself.

This has more to do with future-proofing projects or not future proofing them. And it's not personal in any way.
 
Emery Wells said:
So I just saw Avatar for the 2nd time. First time was IMAX 3D and I walked out utterly blown away. 2nd time was a smaller RealD screen and while the 3D experience was still good, the overall experience paled in comparison to IMAX.

Even though this was my 2nd viewing, I could feel a different vibe in the theatre. The IMAX audience gave an eruptive applause at the end while the RealD audience just a few smatterings. A good seat position is key in either screen but both are significantly more important for a 3D film over a non 3D film.

In IMAX the edges of the screen seemed to fade away and I was just living in Pandora, while in the RealD screen I was clearly watching everything unfold inside of a rectangular box. I was often removed from the movie when I noticed a character that was very close in z space suddenly get cut off by the edge of the screen. This breaks the 3D experience.

I can also say, there was a great deal of detail in the IMAX screening that just wasn't visible when watching on a smaller screen.

From now on it's IMAX only for me.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Your RealD experience is exactly mine. It was fun, but wasnt a triple orgasm ya know? It was opening weekend with a jam packed audience with no applause at the end. They were just sort of 'huh, cool'. Now I wonder what IMAX is like on this. Was this real IMAX or one of the smaller lIeMax?
 
Tom L said:
Oh, Shawn, you're in luck. My Myths to Live By was right here on my bookshelf, and lo and behold, one of the passages dealing with this is actually on page 9.

Campbell:

Click to expand...

Thanks! That was cool to read. It's also fascinating that the New Testament talks about Hades (wait, isn't that the GREEK underworld???), but I'll stop there because then that turns into an interesting religious discussion and we want peace and happiness :emote_hippie:

But yeah, common shared story and underlying themes is an awesome area of research
 
Tom L said:
This is a forum that has a whole lot of people who believe that 4K display is the way of the future. A great deal of time and effort have been spent talking about the future of display resolution, what exactly it takes to shoot in 5K+ and master at 4K, in order to "future-proof" upcoming projects. So when someone shows up here and states flatly that a new film will "not lose one penny" if it is mastered at 2K instead of 4K, that warrants a response, since these are issues that are in fact taken seriously by many of us here.

This has more to do with future-proofing projects or not future proofing them. And it's not personal in any way.
Click to expand...

My feeling is that 4K is very likely - almost inevitable - in theaters. I believe that because theatrical screens are large enough to present a clear enough difference to viewers from lesser systems, and because there is a standard for its distribution (the DCP) and display, not to mention some momentum coming from studios and manufacturers. It is not likely in homes because there is no standard for it in either the broadcast world or the home video world, and the screen is not large enough in most cases to present the kind of clear difference (from 1080 HD) that would make it so compelling as to be a "must have," which would be largely necessary for consumer acceptance.

I repeat - this is MY feeling. It doesn't make me right, and it doesn't obviate other opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top