Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

I wonder if the BTS footage will include Jim and Mauro running around the production office holding foam-core Ikrans going FWOOOSH! FWEEEE! to demonstrate the flights paths they're after...
 
Didn't they end up actually mo-capping those demos and using them to actually create the flight paths into the system?

- Mikko
 
Batutta said:
Interesting comment way at the end of this article. Cameron says he intends to shoot the next two at a higher frame rate -- 48, 60 or 72 fps.

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/james-c...-but-it-requires-better-tech-and-content/8059
Click to expand...

No idea where I'd track down the source, but wasn't Avatar supposed to be shot in 60 fps, no mind the sequels? I remember reading that a year or two before it came out and thought abut how strange it would look.

Though I suppose the look can be emulated on many HD tvs now. Not a fan personally...
 
Batutta said:
It will at some point. It's inevitable. The technology will improve, as it always does. Remember where we were 15 years ago with video cameras, and look where we are now.
Click to expand...
This is different I think. It feels like a gimmick, always has. I know plenty of people who already avoid 3D films like the plague. They go out of their way to see it in a normal theatre. Can't think of many other recent advances that caused that reaction.

Maybe for gaming to some degree but I don't see a 3D TV in everyone's living room. Even without the glasses.

MAH
 
Yeah, I bought into 3D at first, but after seeing several theatrical 3D films... we decided it didn't really make a big difference (yes, even in Avatar) and started only seeing 2D films.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
This is different I think. It feels like a gimmick, always has. I know plenty of people who already avoid 3D films like the plague. They go out of their way to see it in a normal theatre. Can't think of many other recent advances that caused that reaction.

Maybe for gaming to some degree but I don't see a 3D TV in everyone's living room. Even without the glasses.

MAH
Click to expand...

A 3DTV will be in every living room, because at some point, every TV will have 3D capability...It's only a question of when, and that when may be 15-30 years away.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I disagree. But if you feel so strongly invest in the technology and let it ride. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not investing in the technology, because it isn't there yet. It's in its infancy...People make the mistake of thinking technology is static, that if it sucks now it must suck later. I guarantee you 15 years ago people were saying nobody will ever pay to see movies shot on video. And yet it happened. People didn't think anyone would ever want a personal computer...I'm not a booster for 3D technology as I have some of the same issues many have with its current incarnations, but they are failures of execution. Someone will make it better, and irresistible.
 
Batutta said:
I'm not investing in the technology, because it isn't there yet. It's in its infancy...People make the mistake of thinking technology is static, that if it sucks now it must suck later. I guarantee you 15 years ago people were saying nobody will ever pay to see movies shot on video. And yet it happened. People didn't think anyone would ever want a personal computer...I'm not a booster for 3D technology as I have some of the same issues many have with its current incarnations, but they are failures of execution. Someone will make it better, and irresistible.
Click to expand...
I really disagree. The technology is here, you don't even need glasses for some setups now. Doesn't matter.
It's a gimmick. Looks cool, but that's it.

Computers were more than a gimmick. As for your 'nobody thought people would pay to watch video' comment. The general public would never say that and can't tell the difference anyway. Maybe a filmmaker might say that? I don't get that one at all.

The paying public doesn't really care what it's shot on. As long as it looks decent.

Anyway, I'll agree to disagree on this one.

Now, if you are talking interactive holograms you may be on to something. But this discussion is about 3D TV.

Cheers,

MAH
 
But, in the end I like a traditional 2D image given depth with lighting and framing.... 3D is silly, and even if I had a 3D TV I didn't need glasses for, I would still only purchase 2D movies. 3D is silly, and eventually the public will be tired of it.

Also, Batutta, in contrast, there have been so many technologies like this that have failed as well... Giving one example (movies shot on video) where I could give a myriad of examples of the opposite happening... what about laserdisc? Or Music DVD's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top