Some scenes not in 3D?

[invertedworld]

Did anyone else notice that some of the early scenes, such as the first shot flying over the jungle and the view of Pandora from space, with the gas giant planet behind, didn't seem to be in 3D?

[davsie]

Did anyone else notice that some of the early scenes, such as the first shot flying over the jungle and the view of Pandora from space, with the gas giant planet behind, didn't seem to be in 3D?

I thought that space scene was not in 3D too.

[Jonas]

You can see the jungle view in 3d, when you take glasses of and put them back.

[Jan_Jurgen]

Yes, I noticed right away and thought something was wrong. Also, the floating mountains scene didn't look very 3D to me.

[kaliko]

I think there have to be some parts that the 3D was very subtle or perhaps not there. I remember taking my glasses off at some parts (sorry but can't remember which exactly) and I could watch it fine for a few moments without them. I actually didn't mind because I don't remember it being important scenes and my eyes could have a rest.

[ISV Venture Star]

The scene of Pandora in front of Polyphemus shouldn't have been in 3D! If you were really there your eyes would need to be spaced a huge distance apart to get depth perception on such far away objects.

[Maximus3D]

Most likely is everything in 3D, just the strength of the effect varies from one shot to another. That's why it's less visible in some scenes. It's not that it's actually missing here and there. You don't need and you don't want that 'far out there' effect in every single shot, it will also make people tired who watch those sequences. They only use that for scenes where it really feels and makes you as a observer feel present in the shot, otherwise it's just extra work for nothing.

/ Magnus

[SnowRider]

That was one of the things I liked about the 3D version of the film.

James Cameron didn't hit you over the head with it and it wasn't "on" 100% of the time, in every frame, being crammed down your eyeballs.

He (very wisely) dialed it back and/or moved it off to the side when he didn't need it or it wasn't important to the story.

He simply treated the 3D effects as they were another tool in his filmmaker's toolbox.

[Pitalla]

the eye view grows accostummed to the 3d view after 30 minutes.
I noticed this kind of thing going on the whole movie , gonna see it again soon and this time Ill try an experiment in order to prove my theory.

[Mike1010]

it made my eyes water for a few minutes when he was coming out of hibernation but that scene right there was amazing. That scene pulled me into the movie

[~ViperSB1~]

Some scenes did appear to be 2D. Seemed to me like it was only scenes where everything was far away though. Which seems correct because you dont really see depth when you are looking at something that is far away.

[Keeper of Na'vi]

I thought a couple scenes weren't but then they really weren't all that integral to a "3D experience", While scenes like Jakes first time in the forest, and at night, were completely 3D encased and were beyond words magnificent and really brought you there, sure it would have been cool to have EVERYTHING in 3D but like someone above stated, its just a waste of production money to throw that spacing effect into everything when it was just a simple dialogue or too, or a scene that wasn't all that relevant

[n0ckturn4l]

I think it was all 3d, just not all in your face 3d, it was very subtle at points.

[xcrunner08]

Maybe they were, maybe not. But overall, it doesn't matter to me. The 3D was not the usual, jump out at you, simplistic 3D. This 3D was integrated very well and I felt the film didn't rely on it but it was yet another aspect that added to the film.

[n0ckturn4l]

Maybe they were, maybe not. But overall, it doesn't matter to me. The 3D was not the usual, jump out at you, simplistic 3D. This 3D was integrated very well and I felt the film didn't rely on it but it was yet another aspect that added to the film.

Exactly, I think that was JC's intention the whole time. Its there but its not using it in a cheesy way that other movies have.

[Kazioo]

Hi, everyone!

IMO Avatar has one of the most realistic stereoscopy ever made in a film...
In animations like "Monsters vs. Aliens" 3D is totally faked - it's "cheating", but most people (including me) really like it.

Big planets seen in 3D from large distance?! Human eyes CANNOT do that... sorry ;(

Human stereopsis ("stereo vision" due to binocular eyesight) is limited to about 100 meters or even less.

James Cameron is a master of stereoscopy - you can trust him. Unfortunately many filmmakers bend the rules and do "better" (more intensive) 3D than human can see. It's a great trick, which people LOVE and... that's why 3D is still a gimmick ;/

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hvmztOoc6jE/Szwb5xopNXI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/tpixJmLJtpk/s1600-h/pandora.JPG

Those planets are MUCH too far to bee seen in "3D".

[Palulukan]

If any scene's were in 2D I really didn't notice.

[spinlock1315]

There clearly is some parts(more than half?) that is NOT 3D.

The point to keep in mind though is, there is MUCH more 3D in this movie than any previous movie and it is MUCH better done.

Others have mentioned cheesy movies, that are less than 1% 3D, where once in a great while, something obvious will appear to be in your face. These movies suck!!!!!!!! In quantity AND DEFINITELY quality!!!!!!!

Avatar had a lot more, and did it almost seamlessly, so, you could float from 2D->3D->2D and barely notice. Apparently, a lot of people didn't notice at all. :)

[Keiser]

I would disagree, considering the entire movie was shot with stereoscopic vision in mind. Instead think upon how if one object's relative distance to you vs its background is much different than another object's distance from you vs to its background. The closer object will *pop* out at you more and perhaps make it seem like everything that doesn't pop out isn't as 3D.

Of course the only way to tell for sure is to have every single frame from both left and right "eyes" of the movie and compare them for exactness.

[Neytiri1]

I did sort of find myself trying to see if the scene was 3D or not but i did notice the 2nd time that all the scenes were 3D its just others were more noticable than others.

[spinlock1315]

I have seen it 3 times in 3D IMAX, once to enjoy, once to take a friend(and look for things I missed the first time), once to analyze.

There were plenty of times when I pulled up the glasses and EVERYTHING was crystal clear.

Also, the fact that it was shot all in 3D means nothing. Final decision are made in post-production and 3D-iness can be changed, or eliminated in post-production.

Caneron and Peter Jackson were being interviewed(at comic-con I think, it was on you tube) and Cameron really be-labored the point that the director must be involved in eduiting and post-production. He said something like "there are a lot of decision points that can make or break the effect" and you must carefully monitor them.

[Keiser]

There were plenty of times when I pulled up the glasses and EVERYTHING was crystal clear.

Also, the fact that it was shot all in 3D means nothing. Final decision are made in post-production and 3D-iness can be changed, or eliminated in post-production.

You mean you took off the glasses and could clearly see the screen? Even if the image were not in 3D the projector would still be projecting two overlapping images, they'd just be exactly the same instead of the left from a slightly different angle.

For example, the credits at the end when viewed without glasses are still a mishmash of blur.

Yes, they can change the 3D-ness in postproduction by simply copying any frame from the right to the left stream, but why would they? Even the photos of Grace's school shown in the movie are 3D.

The stereoscopic imaging is based on the average width of a human head. Since there is a limit to human depth perception, I instead propose that some images have such a distance attributed to their elements that it is indiscernible.

If you look up at the moon, both of your eyes will see the it the same, even though it is still in 3D.

If you can point out a specific part in which relatively close objects are definitely not in 3D, I will look for it when I go next.

[spinlock1315]

> You mean you took off the glasses and could clearly see the screen?

yes

> the projector would still be projecting two overlapping images, they'd just
> be exactly the same instead of the left from a slightly different angle.

That's obvious! The point to consider is what my eyes see and my brain perceives. One frame, or two frames overlapped, are seen and perceived the same.

> Yes, they can change the 3D-ness in postproduction by simply copying any > frame from the right to the left stream, but why would they?

Because they are smart enough to know that just because it is 3D, that doesn't mean it will look good. Like Cameron said: "there are lots of decision points" and what he meant was, when you finally composite the 30 or 40 layers that go into a complex scene, somethings look like crap even if they are technically accurate. It's called the "uncanny valley", google it. The decision to make is, exagerate some 3D, tone some down, eliminate some, eliminate all, etc.

> The stereoscopic imaging is ...

thanks for the lecture, but I am working on a BFA in CG FX, I devour everything on the subject and already know :)

Everyone can download the following white paper from Autodesk(maker of Maya!) and get an EXCELLENT, straight forward presentation of stereoscopic filmmaking.

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/stereoscopic_whitepaper_final08.pdf

> If you can point out a specific part in which relatively close objects
> are definitely not in 3D, I will look for it when I go next.
Easy to find, scenes that are all 2d, or scenes that have some 2D(doesn't have to be all or nothing!).

As I recall, whenever there were floaty things(the seeds from the sacred tree, the DaVinci helicoper insects(they could never fly!)) in the scene that really stood out 3d-wise, some in front of screen plane, some behind, those scenes have a lot of 2D in it, everything but the floaters as I recall.

[Keiser]

Ok I think I misunderstood, when you said "(more than half?) that is NOT 3D" I took that to mean you believed ~50% of the running time of the movie had no 3D in it, which is insane. What I now understand you to mean is that not all objects are correctly 3 dimensional as they would be to a naked human eye in that position and scene, correct? I completely agree with you if so, they definitely use the 3D as a tool to highlight the focus of scene.

[speedfreek]

The use of 3D in this movie is to more give depth perception, or rather recreate depth perception like the human eye does, though there are instances where the background characters are blurred out due to lack of focus which doesn't really work.

Of course this will develop the more its used but for starters, it's worked pretty well.

I want to see a space 3D movie, the opening scene with the huge ship and just deep space in the background gave a huge perception of depth and the nothingness out there.

[Bananas]

Like JC said in an interview, we're used to seeing in 3D in real-life and after some minutes, maybe we get a little used to it on a big screen, but like you guys said earlier James uses the 3D technology in a very subtle way.

[iocaine]

The whole movie is in 3D. Objects that are a great distance away appear flat. This is how we see normally. The closer the object the greater the depth of field. Avatar 3D is exactly how we see in the real world. Next time you look at the moon, it will appear flat. Not as a sphere, because of the distance.

[blueskyandwater]

The scene of Pandora in front of Polyphemus shouldn't have been in 3D! If you were really there your eyes would need to be spaced a huge distance apart to get depth perception on such far away objects.

Last night I saw the film again. The scene where there was a view of the two planets and tiny spaceship unfortunately was NOT in 3D. Of course with such distances, you couldn't perceive the relative depth of the objects, hence it would seem flat. However, the flat image should appear very far behind the screen to create the sense of the size and distance of the planets. Instead, the image seemed to be right at the screen, and I confirmed this by taking of the glasses. There was no offset of the images, and the picture was clear without the glasses as well. So there was no difference whether you had your glasses on or off there. There should have been a small offset, about the distance of your eyes, to make the planets seem far away. You know, as if the screen was a window to space, instead of just a picture of space. I'm surprised that they could make an error like this, especially considering how easy it would have been to fix.

[Pasow]

i've paid a lot of attention to it and the entire thing is indeed 3D, its just that you don't notice it at all in some shots because of the distance form the viewer that the thing takes place at. the human eye can not tell depth at all distances like so man people seem to want.

remember James Cameron wanted to make this a documentary, not a movie. it was shot like one, it was rendered to the depth of detail to be real, and thus the 3D is just like it would be in reality. (not this gimmicky crap that all the movies use)

i see that there was some people here that are actually well versed in this, and after reading it im convinced. it would make a lot of sense to change things to get a desired effect. (the first page was mainly people bashing about not being 3D)

[Tree of Souls]

I think it all depends on where you sit in the theater. On my first viewing, I was sittling on a row near the top, and I didn't feel the 3D effect all that much.

The next time I sat very, very close to the screen (due to arriving late and there being no seating). I could not believe how much better the 3 D effect was that close up! It was like a totally different picture almost.

[MisterKinish]

The trailers and stills really had me looking forward to seeing The Hallelujah Mountains. But when I finally saw them in the film they weren't as breathtaking as I'd expected. As a result I couldn't relate to Jake and Norm's expressions of awe, nor Trudy's comment "You should see your faces". The first time I saw the Rocky Mountains in Colorado my jaw dropped. I wanted to feel like that watching Avatar. Something is not being carried over to the big screen, even in 3D.

[Boondocks]

I found the movie to be tremendously innovative and groundbreaking in several key different ways. One of those was the utilization of 3D technology. Whereas all films released before used it as a childish gimmick to startle, frighten, or amuse filmgoers, James employed it as it always ought to have been -- as a tool to bring out the stark reality of the film, not highlight the unreality. In that regard, it makes much more sense that not every single shot used 3D layering.

I just can't believe how immersive Avatar was. People seeing it actually thought, felt, and believed they were there in the world of Pandora. Leaving it proves to be challenging. It was too real to not exist . . . somewhere. I liked how the 3D brought depth to the environment. Were there more of it, it might have literally become sickening or distracting.

[TheGovernator]

I noticed that only certain things were in 3d. I would take my glasses off and the person standing in the center of the screen would be clear as daylight, and the others standing around the center dude would be foggy. This movie has really interesting 3d, that's for sure.