Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FlipSwitch

AVATAR

Recommended Posts

What the...

 

I went to see the movie and expected the marines to kick the ET's asses like they did in Aliens.

 

These evil blue aliens didn't want to share their goods with the American people then why are they portrayed as the victims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good news for the world of vfx and gfx.. If this movie bombed.. yikes

 

Agreed. Very glad it did.

 

I think it deserves every penny it gets. Can't say the same for other movies.

 

A lot of work has been done and there is a lot of attention to detail, sans the story line, but it was a great experience film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the...

 

I went to see the movie and expected the marines to kick the ET's asses like they did in Aliens.

 

These evil blue aliens didn't want to share their goods with the American people then why are they portrayed as the victims?

Obvious troll is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saw it again and without being caught up in the first time magic, the writing and papyrus really stood out.

 

totally agree on this being good for the industry. big budget, labor intensive projects that come out revenue positive. was worried video games were going to be all that was left by a certain time. 3D is pretty cool, unless youre tired like i was and your head droops to one side, the glasses stop working unless your head is perfectly upright. 3D also can keep theatrical numbers up until its easy to pirate 3D - that might take some time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D is pretty cool, unless youre tired like i was and your head droops to one side, the glasses stop working unless your head is perfectly upright.

 

Interesting you say that; cause the projector(with the Real3D tech) uses circular polarization that is supposed to alleviate problems like that(I didn't experience such an issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you say that; cause the projector(with the Real3D tech) uses circular polarization that is supposed to alleviate problems like that(I didn't experience such an issue).

I think IMAX-3D is different than Real 3D. Another (negative) thing i noticed was slightly judderier movement at times. that and it became clear there were a couple levels of composites, some shots had a much more pixel based look than others.

 

this is comparing it to the first time i saw it, which was with realD on a rather small screen, sitting further away. the Imax looked much much better most of the time, but like i said, it stood out this time that certain composites looked less perfect than the completely 3d or live action with the overlayed UI stuff.

 

it took me a minute to figure out it was my head tilt, i thought maybe my eyes were tired and not focusing (by this time it was probably 1am)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Up in Real3D at a regular theater and it made the film darker.

 

Saw Avatar in Imax 3D, and the loss of the brightness was less apparent than Real3D.

 

Also IMAX has more resolution so it's going to look much better than real 3D which only runs on 35mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Up in Real3D at a regular theater and it made the film darker.

 

Saw Avatar in Imax 3D, and the loss of the brightness was less apparent than Real3D.

 

Also IMAX has more resolution so it's going to look much better than real 3D which only runs on 35mm.

 

agree on the darkness factor. wonder if there will be a standard for glasses polarization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Up in Real3D at a regular theater and it made the film darker.

 

Saw Avatar in Imax 3D, and the loss of the brightness was less apparent than Real3D.

 

Also IMAX has more resolution so it's going to look much better than real 3D which only runs on 35mm.

 

In this case I think IMAX is just stretching the picture, no? ie. same resolution as regular theatres, just stretched out to fill the larger screen. I swear I remember some of the compositors telling me that, maybe I'm wrong though. I never really had to worry about resolutions since I was just handing my renders off to the compositors to put into the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case I think IMAX is just stretching the picture, no? ie. same resolution as regular theatres, just stretched out to fill the larger screen. I swear I remember some of the compositors telling me that, maybe I'm wrong though. I never really had to worry about resolutions since I was just handing my renders off to the compositors to put into the shot.

 

Yeah, a lot of movies released on IMAX are just uprezzed, but films like The Dark Knight, some of the scenes (where the aspect ratio switches to full screen on the Blu-ray disc) were shot with an IMAX camera.

 

Looking at the Avatar technical specs, none of the scenes seemed to be shot on IMAX or rendered at that resolution.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/technical

 

So it's just a blow up.

 

But a good looking blow up indeed.

 

Looking at the Real 3D glasses and the IMAX 3D one, the Real 3D glasses are much darker and bigger than the IMAX 3D glasses.

Edited by hyp3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found out that the company thats below the company I work for did all of the video screens for avatar. Spypost is their name. I think I need to move spaces.

 

By "did all of the video screens for avatar" do you mean Spypost designed them? Because I was working for Prime Focus when we animated *most* of the screens (ie. almost everything in the military ops center, and a large chunk of the bio-lab stuff). I don't remember ever hearing who did the original designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "did all of the video screens for avatar" do you mean Spypost designed them? Because I was working for Prime Focus when we animated *most* of the screens (ie. almost everything in the military ops center, and a large chunk of the bio-lab stuff). I don't remember ever hearing who did the original designs.

 

well they looked pretty damn good, so congrats to you sir. i had not been a fan of 3d movies until now, completely forgot i was wearing those annoying glasses. Nothing super original in the story line like everyone said it was Pocahontas in space. There were a couple really cheesy moments but overall a great spectacle for the eyes and well paced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting blog by a guy who worked on the development of stereoscopic cinema:

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com

He didn’t work on Avatar but many posts are related to it. Some technical and aesthetic thoughts.

 

I’m trying to gather some technical infos and understand the process of creating Stereoscopic images in a 3D environment. Digital tutors has one dvd on the subject for maya that I haven’t seen. Otherwise it seems there is not so much precise and concise infos on the subject on the net. Googling « Interaxial Separation » doesn’t give much.

I built a stereo rig in 3D, it’s a lot of fun. But i’m not sure it’s physically correct. Is that even necessary? for example the guy i mentioned advise many times to shoot both « eyes » parallel and set the convergence in post. Anyone has experience on the subject?

 

And for the record I thought the move sucked ass but the 3D imagery was stunning (I loved how even the screens inside the movie were also in 3D)

Edited by jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting blog by a guy who worked on the development of stereoscopic cinema:

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com

He didn’t work on Avatar but many posts are related to it. Some technical and aesthetic thoughts.

 

I’m trying to gather some technical infos and understand the process of creating Stereoscopic images in a 3D environment...

I built a stereo rig in 3D, it’s a lot of fun. But i’m not sure it’s physically correct. Is that even necessary? for example the guy i mentioned advise many times to shoot both « eyes » parallel and set the convergence in post. Anyone has experience on the subject?

 

Obviously this may differ between projects, but IMO you shouldn't need to worry about whether your setup is physically correct or not (I guess if you're trying to get a photo-real look it might matter, for general motion graphics don't bother).

 

We were using stereo rigs in Maya, C4D (a little), and After Effects when we did the UI animations for Avatar. I definitely recommend setting the convergence in post (our guys used Fusion for comping). It really isn't as difficult as you might think - your rig just needs to have both eyes parallel to one another, then you simply render out each eye as a separate pass. You really don't need much separation at all between the eyes - The differences between our two cams were hardly noticeable. As long as you have even the tiniest bit of shifted perspective between the two cameras, it will work just fine.

 

It's all pretty simple in 3D apps. Almost all our headaches came from using After Effects actually. Since the "3D" effects in AE are just faked on a flat plane (ie. Bulge etc.), we had to get creative in covering up the sections that simply didn't work since there wasn't time to actually model every element.

 

I can't give too much insight into the Fusion side of things unfortunately, but it seemed pretty simple. After I'd pass off my two passes to the compositors, it usually only took about 15 mins before they were ready to show it to me in stereo. I'm sure there's lots of tuts online for the convergence/compositing side of things.

 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks that was helpful, from what ive red here and there the zero parallax plane must generally be in front of your scene and match the real screen. its like watching inside a box right?

I cant remember if the zero plane was crossed quite often in avatar since the screen was so huge.

 

And speaking of workflow Nuke has one built in from scratch (one tree for both eyes)

Edited by jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting blog by a guy who worked on the development of stereoscopic cinema:

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com

He didn’t work on Avatar but many posts are related to it. Some technical and aesthetic thoughts.

 

I’m trying to gather some technical infos and understand the process of creating Stereoscopic images in a 3D environment. Digital tutors has one dvd on the subject for maya that I haven’t seen. Otherwise it seems there is not so much precise and concise infos on the subject on the net. Googling « Interaxial Separation » doesn’t give much.

I built a stereo rig in 3D, it’s a lot of fun. But i’m not sure it’s physically correct. Is that even necessary? for example the guy i mentioned advise many times to shoot both « eyes » parallel and set the convergence in post. Anyone has experience on the subject?

 

And for the record I thought the move sucked ass but the 3D imagery was stunning (I loved how even the screens inside the movie were also in 3D)

 

I saw the digital tutors AE stereoscopic vid and it was good, had a lot of helpful hints and tricks, so assuming the Maya vid would probably be worth the $ to check out. Agree with your assessment of the film, yes the CG, stereo work, and interfaces, were stunning but all that stuff is meant to support the story not be the whole show (well for this filmgoer at least). I wasn't expecting high art but was hoping the story and characters would draw me in the way Terminator or Aliens did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this may differ between projects, but IMO you shouldn't need to worry about whether your setup is physically correct or not (I guess if you're trying to get a photo-real look it might matter, for general motion graphics don't bother).

 

We were using stereo rigs in Maya, C4D (a little), and After Effects when we did the UI animations for Avatar. I definitely recommend setting the convergence in post (our guys used Fusion for comping). It really isn't as difficult as you might think - your rig just needs to have both eyes parallel to one another, then you simply render out each eye as a separate pass. You really don't need much separation at all between the eyes - The differences between our two cams were hardly noticeable. As long as you have even the tiniest bit of shifted perspective between the two cameras, it will work just fine.

 

It's all pretty simple in 3D apps. Almost all our headaches came from using After Effects actually. Since the "3D" effects in AE are just faked on a flat plane (ie. Bulge etc.), we had to get creative in covering up the sections that simply didn't work since there wasn't time to actually model every element.

 

I can't give too much insight into the Fusion side of things unfortunately, but it seemed pretty simple. After I'd pass off my two passes to the compositors, it usually only took about 15 mins before they were ready to show it to me in stereo. I'm sure there's lots of tuts online for the convergence/compositing side of things.

 

Hope that helps.

 

When you reviewed the composites, I'm assuming you watched them on a polarized screen? Really curious about how that works, we've tinkered with some stuff with anaglyph glasses, but I don't know much about how the polarized stuff works, i.e., you need a special monitor, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you reviewed the composites, I'm assuming you watched them on a polarized screen? Really curious about how that works, we've tinkered with some stuff with anaglyph glasses, but I don't know much about how the polarized stuff works, i.e., you need a special monitor, etc.

 

Yeah we were doing really informal anaglyph tests of every screen at the compositors' workstations to check for major problems. If there were no visible issues we'd review our near-final versions in a big viewing room they had set up. I'm really not sure what type of projector they were using but it was basically a Real-D setup as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UI were ok IMOP but not superb.Minority Report in 3d.

Storyline was a bit weak with some weak moments and weak dialogues.

Great experiment with the technique of the Virtual Camera that was specific used in these film.

Edgard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...