2 technologies i anticipate for Avatar 2

[TheANIMAL]

Firstly and easiest imo, would be the modification of JC's virtual camera he used for shooting in The Volume.

Those of you familiar with this piece of kit may not have considered the fact that that although Avatar was made to be 3D the display output of the virtual camera is in 2D.

Surely it would be quite easy to make the real time output from the virtual camera 3D, this would make the camera man and the director's jobs easier in regard to reducing camera shots which cause headache's for people sensitive to 3D movies.

---------------

Secondly and much more difficultly, it would be useful if the 3d editing and compositing software could automatically remove digital assets and discrepancies which could cause the 3D effects to look odd. More specifically in redard to procedurally animated effects which get too close to the virtual camera adn loom in the foreground.

Such problems occurred in production during the simulation of insects. Many of the people who worked on the film (I’ve spoken with some of them over on a well known CGI community forum) described instances when entire shots were sabotaged when an insect or particle came so close to the camera that it became the only thing you could make out.

Also in the finished film there were instances when wood sprites were in the foreground and it looked odd in 3D.

Personally I preferred it in 2D, but that’s just me.

[Arthur]

> Something that would be interesting to see is a more "real" 3d. On real life, it is your eye that sets the focus on what you want to see. So if you look at something far, it focuses on the infinite; if you look at something close, it focuses on that close object. However, on the movie 3d, the focus is set by the camera, no matter what is closer or farther. Resulting on some odd effects. Like, when there are lots of ayatokirina flying between the camera focused object (let's say Jake), the ayatokirina get blurry. And even if you shift the focusing plane to the ayatokirina instead of Jake, it's still blurry.

> What I'm saying is maybe a 3D system that someway records everything in focus and allows the viewer to set the focus as he sees fit. Did anyone get what I mean?

[TheANIMAL]

Hmm waht you are describing is reactive 3D, where you focus in on what you want. That would be amazing but that technology lies with Cinemas not so much with the film.

The problem there would be you have several hundred people in the theatre each with different eyesight, each focussing on something slightly different. My mind boggles trying to figure out how something like that could possibly work.

It would be incredible to watch but unfortunately there is nothing like that which exists currently in cinemas.

[Arthur]

> Well, with a 100% CGI movie, they could render everything on focus, but it'd also look weird (like the game, everything is on focus, but when you play it with 3D glasses, you kinda get a sensorial overwhelm, as you eye don't know where you're focusing on).

> But hey, it'd rock wouldn't it?

[TheANIMAL]

It is currently impossible. (not the 100% cgi part, but the picture reacting to the viewers eyes).

[Wameyn]

> Well, with a 100% CGI movie, they could render everything on focus, but it'd also look weird (like the game, everything is on focus, but when you play it with 3D glasses, you kinda get a sensorial overwhelm, as you eye don't know where you're focusing on).

> But hey, it'd rock wouldn't it?

Like mention it is currently impossible but yes that would rock man!

[Friend of Pandora]

> Something that would be interesting to see is a more "real" 3d. On real life, it is your eye that sets the focus on what you want to see. So if you look at something far, it focuses on the infinite; if you look at something close, it focuses on that close object. However, on the movie 3d, the focus is set by the camera, no matter what is closer or farther. Resulting on some odd effects. Like, when there are lots of ayatokirina flying between the camera focused object (let's say Jake), the ayatokirina get blurry. And even if you shift the focusing plane to the ayatokirina instead of Jake, it's still blurry.

> What I'm saying is maybe a 3D system that someway records everything in focus and allows the viewer to set the focus as he sees fit. Did anyone get what I mean?

This +1. As I go back and watch the movie again and again I want to focus on different things, but I can't because they're designed to be out of focus.

[TheANIMAL]

This +1. As I go back and watch the movie again and again I want to focus on different things, but I can't because they're designed to be out of focus.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose the argument in favour of the director is that you are supposed to focus in on the things that James Cameron wants you to focus in on, it's his vision after all.

[Friend of Pandora]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose the argument in favour of the director is that you are supposed to focus in on the things that James Cameron wants you to focus in on, it's his vision after all.

Yeah well James Cameron needs to think about us nuts who see the film 3,4,5,10,20 times... I want to look at the atokirina.

I guess he's created too perfect a world - instead of focusing on the action, we want to explore the backdrop.

[TheANIMAL]

Yeah well James Cameron needs to think about us nuts who see the film 3,4,5,10,20 times... I want to look at the atokirina.

I guess he's created too perfect a world - instead of focusing on the action, we want to explore the backdrop.

Perhaps you are right, but you can't please everyone all of the time.

I certainly would have loved it if the film spent another hour exploring the environment but then the projectors at Imax and super HD cinemas would quite literally have run out of space for the film reel. LoL.

Also for every person who really digs the special effects and is interested in the environment there are probably 15 kids who just want to see some action and nipple.