James Cameron's Avatar

  Fred McGriff said:

  catsonearth said:

bill paxton is classic in that movie.

 

cameron brings out the absolute best in paxton

her husband? ...DICKLESS!

  catsonearth said:

  zaphod said:

all the hype about this is so incredibly vague...i'm really looking forward to it but i have no clue what makes it "game changing" or whatever. we'll see...

 

from what i've heard what makes it so "game changing" is the fact that it's a completely new kind of 3D. not your standard "stuff pops out of the screen at you" gimmicky 3D, but more like the film screen is a window through which you're looking into a 3D world where you can perceive depth, perspective and volume. sounds pretty badass to me, but i think james cameron is pretty much a genius anyway, so i'm predisposed.

i'm going to get flamed for this but i'd argue that the 'game changing' stuff Cameron is talking about has already been done partially by Robert Zemeckes in Polar Express 3d. Beowulf for some reason didn't take advantage of the 3d depth of field in the same way and was more of a character driven story but Polar Express in 3d felt like a theme park ride, i don't remember a single thing 'popping' out of the screen but instead you felt as if you were actually moving forward like a rollercoaster when the train was going all crazy. If the 3d immersive experience is AT LEAST as good as it was in Polar Express i will be a very happy man , because well lets face it amazing 3d mixed with a children's book about christmas isn't the best use of this 3d technology.

  Awepittance said:

  catsonearth said:

  zaphod said:

all the hype about this is so incredibly vague...i'm really looking forward to it but i have no clue what makes it "game changing" or whatever. we'll see...

 

from what i've heard what makes it so "game changing" is the fact that it's a completely new kind of 3D. not your standard "stuff pops out of the screen at you" gimmicky 3D, but more like the film screen is a window through which you're looking into a 3D world where you can perceive depth, perspective and volume. sounds pretty badass to me, but i think james cameron is pretty much a genius anyway, so i'm predisposed.

 

i'm going to get flamed for this but i'd argue that the 'game changing' stuff Cameron is talking about has already been done partially by Robert Zemeckes in Polar Express 3d. Beowulf for some reason didn't take advantage of the 3d depth of field in the same way and was more of a character driven story but Polar Express in 3d felt like a theme park ride, i don't remember a single thing 'popping' out of the screen but instead you felt as if you were actually moving forward like a rollercoaster when the train was going all crazy. If the 3d immersive experience is AT LEAST as good as it was in Polar Express i will be a very happy man , because well lets face it amazing 3d mixed with a children's book about christmas isn't the best use of this 3d technology.

Camerons 3d is something different than that.

  blackdust said:

  Awepittance said:

  catsonearth said:

  zaphod said:

all the hype about this is so incredibly vague...i'm really looking forward to it but i have no clue what makes it "game changing" or whatever. we'll see...

 

from what i've heard what makes it so "game changing" is the fact that it's a completely new kind of 3D. not your standard "stuff pops out of the screen at you" gimmicky 3D, but more like the film screen is a window through which you're looking into a 3D world where you can perceive depth, perspective and volume. sounds pretty badass to me, but i think james cameron is pretty much a genius anyway, so i'm predisposed.

 

i'm going to get flamed for this but i'd argue that the 'game changing' stuff Cameron is talking about has already been done partially by Robert Zemeckes in Polar Express 3d. Beowulf for some reason didn't take advantage of the 3d depth of field in the same way and was more of a character driven story but Polar Express in 3d felt like a theme park ride, i don't remember a single thing 'popping' out of the screen but instead you felt as if you were actually moving forward like a rollercoaster when the train was going all crazy. If the 3d immersive experience is AT LEAST as good as it was in Polar Express i will be a very happy man , because well lets face it amazing 3d mixed with a children's book about christmas isn't the best use of this 3d technology.

 

Camerons 3d is something different than that.

 

well yeah the live action shots will be different, but apparently only 25% of the movie will be shot on these type of cameras, the rest is being artificially 3dized on a computer from purely CGI creations. and unless they turn pure CGI into 3d using a drastically different technique than Robert Zemeckis it's going to look pretty similar (i think). Although 'Aliens of the deep' did have the best real 3d photography i've ever seen, Coraline came close but since that was stop motion it didn't have quite the same impact.

No idea why you guys think Camerons 3d will be different.

All those 3d movies have things "jump" at you but most of them just allow you to be in that space, and thats what makes them so fun to watch. They DO give you a sense of actually being there.

  Mr Salads said:

They DO give you a sense of actually being there.

only like 1-2 3d movies i've seen actually do this, the rest are kind of half baked efforts (chicken little, monsters VS aliens, etc)

  Awepittance said:

well yeah the live action shots will be different, but apparently only 25% of the movie will be shot on these type of cameras, the rest is being artificially 3dized on a computer from purely CGI creations. and unless they turn pure CGI into 3d using a drastically different technique than Robert Zemeckis it's going to look pretty similar (i think). Although 'Aliens of the deep' did have the best real 3d photography i've ever seen, Coraline came close but since that was stop motion it didn't have quite the same impact.

Have you seen the image metrics video being used on the film?

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/amaz...goodbye-to.html

  blackdust said:

  Awepittance said:

well yeah the live action shots will be different, but apparently only 25% of the movie will be shot on these type of cameras, the rest is being artificially 3dized on a computer from purely CGI creations. and unless they turn pure CGI into 3d using a drastically different technique than Robert Zemeckis it's going to look pretty similar (i think). Although 'Aliens of the deep' did have the best real 3d photography i've ever seen, Coraline came close but since that was stop motion it didn't have quite the same impact.

 

 

Have you seen the image metrics video being used on the film?

 

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/amaz...goodbye-to.html

wow didn't know image metrics was involved, they are clearly on the tip of the spear with photorealistic human CGI , a collaboration between their technology and WETA's skills will probably look pretty damn good.

I like this image metrics thing because it's basically an automatic version of the technique they used in Two Towers where they manually matched Gollum's facial movements to Andy Serkis doing the vocal performance

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

 

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

yeah i forgot about him, he was pretty fucking amazing. a friend of mine who does CGI work thinks a lot of that is practical effects/animatronic work but i beg to differ

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

 

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

 

yeah i forgot about him, he was pretty fucking amazing. a friend of mine who does CGI work thinks a lot of that is practical effects/animatronic work but i beg to differ

They swear it was 100% CGI, no reason why they'd lie I don't think. See here:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

 

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

 

yeah i forgot about him, he was pretty fucking amazing. a friend of mine who does CGI work thinks a lot of that is practical effects/animatronic work but i beg to differ

 

 

 

They swear it was 100% CGI, no reason why they'd lie I don't think. See here:

 

that's awesome, thanks for finding that photo

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

 

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

 

yeah i forgot about him, he was pretty fucking amazing. a friend of mine who does CGI work thinks a lot of that is practical effects/animatronic work but i beg to differ

 

 

 

They swear it was 100% CGI, no reason why they'd lie I don't think. See here:

 

 

 

that's awesome, thanks for finding that photo

Yeah man, I was so impressed by the realism when I saw the film the first thing I did was read up how the fuck they managed it. Crazy.

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Obel said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

 

i'll admit it did but it also had some of the best to date in a motion picture. especially the model of king kong himself which often times looked exactly like a real silver back gorilla

 

I think the most impressed with CGI I've been recently is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Carribean, that blew my mind. It would have to as well as CGI can really make or break a film for me unfortunately.

 

yeah i forgot about him, he was pretty fucking amazing. a friend of mine who does CGI work thinks a lot of that is practical effects/animatronic work but i beg to differ

 

 

 

They swear it was 100% CGI, no reason why they'd lie I don't think. See here:

 

 

 

that's awesome, thanks for finding that photo

 

Yeah man, I was so impressed by the realism when I saw the film the first thing I did was read up how the fuck they managed it. Crazy.

would be surreal to see some side by side video of the before and after of this actor. Seeing a similar thing with Andy Serkis was really entertaining to watch. There should be a mode in Pirates 2 DVD where you can flip the CGI on and off or something

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

They DO give you a sense of actually being there.

 

only like 1-2 3d movies i've seen actually do this, the rest are kind of half baked efforts (chicken little, monsters VS aliens, etc)

Every 3d movie I have seen has done this. Dont bullshit me.

  Mr Salads said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

They DO give you a sense of actually being there.

 

only like 1-2 3d movies i've seen actually do this, the rest are kind of half baked efforts (chicken little, monsters VS aliens, etc)

 

Every 3d movie I have seen has done this. Dont bullshit me.

haha im not bullshitting you , most 3d movies may try to do what you describe i just don't think most of them succeed except for a few. Are you really susceptible to the 3d glasses than the average person? I don't think most people here could say 'Chicken Little' made them feel like they were inside the film. there are varying degrees of this 'pull you in' sensation and i think some movies fail miserably at it and some are like being on LSD while sober (the latter is much rarer).

here's an embed of that ImageMetrics video

^ this is a cgi face superimposed onto the body of a real actress (more info)

looks soooo fake!

*parody of 90% of watmm the last time this was posted

me horny

Some concept art from the development stage of the movie

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/want...suit-might.html

also

james cameron talks technical about face modelling and uncanny valley at E3

that concept art to be perfectly honest looks really cheesy and not very exciting but it *is* just concept art and probably not a representation of the final movie. Those videogame screenshots from the Ubisoft Avatar game on the other hand look pretty damn luscious. thanks for posting that vid.

its nice to see Cameron working with mech-suits again though

that video of Cameron is part 3 of a set, the full set is here:

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/06/mult...views-from.html

here's some early concept art of the na'vi aliens, although apparently it has changed a lot since these were done.

edit: ok, those images above might be fake, its hard to tell

  zazen said:

here's an embed of that ImageMetrics video

 

 

^ this is a cgi face superimposed onto the body of a real actress (more info)

Looks terrible.

  zazen said:

here's some early concept art of the na'vi aliens, although apparently it has changed a lot since these were done.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

http://www.flixster.com/news/2008/11/21/james-camerons-avatar-navi-concept-art-revealed

 

 

 

they're definately still blue though, because Cameron talks about blue creatures a lot in the interviews

Those are fake.

  Mr Salads said:

Looks terrible.

Mr Salads what happened to you man