General Chat Thread, Avatar 3D - Anyone else seen it? in General; Can see what you're saying Matt. I hate the bits in your peripheral vision that never focus. The opening shot ...
6th January 2010, 11:56 PM #16
Can see what you're saying Matt. I hate the bits in your peripheral vision that never focus. The opening shot of them waking up from stasis in that huge chamber with medics floating around them was very impressive I thought. I loved the CGI mostly except for the humanoids - the leg movements were very unnatural. It was, as Paul McCartney used to say a sore bum movie for me... not very engaging.. tho' it was 3hrs long so I guess that's understandable. I got hooked in the last half hour with the action going on.. It was that dull.
7th January 2010, 11:27 AM #17
IMAX has a screen that is HUGE!
Originally Posted by dhicks
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX]IMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I'm still tempted to have another go as its on in Birmingham til the end of the month at least.
I'm colour blind too - and the 3D was fine for me - irritatingly colour blindness is only passed down through the female line, but as you say - affects mostly men - harumph!
Thanks to SpuffMonkey from:
dhicks (7th January 2010)
7th January 2010, 11:52 AM #18
the new 3d tech is perspective based rather then colour based like the old method.
theres a breakdown of the techs here Giz Explains 3D Technologies - Home Entertainment - Gizmodo
so you shouldn't be affected by colour blindness.
I found avatar okay in a "fern gully in space" kind of way. I liked the depth provided by the 3D tech, but its all gimicky stuff really - I hardly think it's the revolution its hyped up to be
Thanks to Domino from:
dhicks (7th January 2010)
7th January 2010, 02:56 PM #19
Cant beleive i had forgot all about Fern gully until just then when i read this post . I loved all the disney stuff as a kid but a few non disney films were great and this was one of them.
Originally Posted by Domino
Nice to see the pixar man has made Disney go back to do drawing animation in the new move
The princess and the frog
maybe CGI and 3D are not the furture, we are just being told it is by people wanting to sell us new TV`s after we have just got HD.
7th January 2010, 03:33 PM #20
- Rep Power
God I used to love fern gully.
Originally Posted by Domino
7th January 2010, 04:10 PM #21
Story wasn't anything new (and in some places, very dumb), some have said it could have been called "Dances with Na'vi". Sci-fi ideas were obviously ripped from various sources. Liked the look of the film though, but didn't think the 3D did anything for it. The RealD tech was only used for a subtle effect, and most of the time I couldn't tell the difference between 2D and 3D where this film was concerned. I'll still buy the blu-ray though.
Motion capture of limb movement has been around for years now, but facial capture is relatively new. Saw a demonstration a while back of a system that rendered using the Unreal Engine. It could apply facial movements in real-time to a character model, but after post processing, result was even more awesome. The problem still exists though that the human brain isn't fooled by a CG human face - I read somewhere that it needs to be at least 99% accurate to fool us. Also, if it's between something like 80-99% accurate, it just looks creepy/wierd.
I think most of the $500 million reputedly spent on the film went on the details, not on the actual tech, and the fact that rendering in 1080p (possibly higher for future-proofing) took more time and money than previous CGI films.
As for Fern Gully... I still find myself saying "Gravity works!" sometimes
8th January 2010, 11:09 AM #22
Agreed - the story was nothing great - "A Man Called Horse" or "Little Big Man" in space on a Roger Dean designed Yes album cover - but it was very pretty, and the (nigh on) 3 hours just flew by.
8th January 2010, 11:37 AM #23
- Rep Power
Matt, don't mean to sound rude but I think you might be missing the point with the 3D with this film. It was filmed to give perspective. The object in 3D displayed in front of other objects was not neccessarily what you needed to look at. Its to resemble human sight rather than looking at a flat image. I personally loved the tech and thought that it is certainly the future of film!
Originally Posted by mattx
8th January 2010, 11:59 AM #24
Be as rude as you like !! For me the 3D element did nothing - but like I already stated I prefer films to be just films without the high tech razzmatazz that's needed to sell it.
Originally Posted by james14100
I like Cameron's work [ apart from that big ship one ] - for me he got it right with The Abyss - no 3D needed - just a ton of water.....
With a good book I can't put it down, and with a good film I like to lose myself in it - when I have things popping out the screen that are out of focus and generally not really adding anything to the story line it just puts me off !!
I must watch around 5 films a week [ mostly at home ] - this one and other 3D ones I feel [ IMHO ] are just a passing phase and unless something can be done without having to put on the daft glasses it's not worth the effort or price.
12th January 2010, 01:48 PM #25
Bossman and I saw this at the new digital 3D IMAX at the Metro Centre in Gateshead. We both thought the story and technology was fantastic. We ended up having rubbish seats at the front and to the side, but that couldn't be helped.
For me, sometimes the edges of people/things were slightly fuzzy which was a small annoyance.
But an interesting story in The Register reveals some people are taking it a little too seriously, and feel depress because Pandora is only fictional
Avatar renders this earthly life meaningless ? The Register
12th January 2010, 02:01 PM #26
I saw it last week, and enjoyed it, was a bit long though... A couple of days after I saw it I heard someone talking about it on the radio, he said:
"oh my god, avatar is so great, and the 3d is amazing. Someone came back from the toilet half way through the film and I thought he was in the movie, seriously!"
I thought the 3D was good, but not as good as the hype imo...
19th January 2010, 12:29 AM #27
Just got back after seeing it.. think I sa a bot too close but some of the 3d was awesome.. the story was lame though and its too long by about 45 mins.
Won the tickets on the radio so was well worth it
19th January 2010, 05:46 AM #28
The film was too preachy for my liking! Typical yank offering! (Yes I know Cameron is Canadian.....)
The 3D was good, I enjoyed it, but to me the HUD's were the star, and the 3D made them come to life!
19th January 2010, 08:58 AM #29
Well i thought the movie was awesome and the 3d and cgi were outstanding, i didnt have any of this non focusing melarky people are complaining about!
30th January 2010, 01:02 AM #30
Just got back - thought some of the "real" scenes weren't very good in 3D but some (but not all) of the CGI looked great.
I was pretty impressed with an advert with a head that came out of the screen before the film though
Last edited by SimpleSi; 30th January 2010 at 09:23 AM.
By Hightower in forum Web Development
Last Post: 22nd August 2008, 06:46 PM
By SimpleSi in forum General Chat
Last Post: 2nd March 2008, 03:45 PM
By StewartKnight in forum General Chat
Last Post: 29th May 2007, 11:30 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Tags for this Thread