What do you all think about the 3D format? DEAD or ALIVE? ============================= 💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu 🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager 📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/ 🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager Join our UA-cam channel 📺 ►ua-cam.com/channels/mXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQ.htmljoin
3D is amazing when done well. In the case of Avatar, it is done very well. And that's not to say that there aren't other films, shot or converted, that haven't done it well. It's all about taking the time to do it right. My 3D TV and I are very happy together. Also, to address 13:07 -- With how much better laser projection has become, the remaster of Avatar looked fantastic in RealD 3D, and especially in Dolby 3D.
The problem with 3D nowadays is that you can't choose where to focus when watching. In VR you can. This will probably only possible with fully CGI movies.
What I just figured out about James Cameron, is he actually isn't putting box office numbers and criticism at the forefront of his endeavours. His intent: To bring his vision to life on the grandest scale possible and change the cinematic world. Probably the most ambitious filmmaker ever. He can take his time for projects and innovate technology as much as he like. I wouldn't even lump him into the Hollywood industry. Dude works on his own volition.
Yes, that's how Hollywood used to work... writers/directors with imaginations, experience and creativity would pursue their passion projects and with some luck would be able to sell them to some Hollywood exec and get their movie made. Unfortunately Hollywood has now followed in the footsteps of pop music where they decide they're going to make a blockbuster and they go find someone to make it for them...someone who usually has limited previous success and probably limited creativity of their own. I just hope this movie has a good story because beyond the eye candy, the first avatar didn't have a good story or characters.
As I understand it, his intent is also to develop innovative new technologies, which he then licenses to other productions and makes a lot of money from. He's just as much a product developer and an entrepreneur as he is a filmmaker. Which I rather admire.
@@stephenshoihet2590 Well whatever Disney and Jurassic had tried to do was done exquisitely by Avatar. A technical masterpiece as a visual specticle and a patient unwrapping of a storyline. Can't really ask for much more than that as a blockbuster with heart. Not everything needs Kubrickian depth to be a good film.
I was shocked at how well the 13 year old graphics held up by todays standards! It looked as good as if not better than anything produced currently. I’m so glad I got to see it in theaters!
I wanted to go see the re-release and IMAX 3D as I've never seen the movie before and I also never saw a movie in IMAX before. Unfortunately that didn't happen as plans that I had to fill through but I could at least get pretty close by going to a VR IMAX theater in NEOS VR and watching the movie there
@@chrisfratz I ended up deciding to see it in Dolby 3D, since I realized that Avatar didn’t use the wider IMAX aspect ratio so I wouldn’t be missing anything in the picture. Plus, Dolby 3D is better than the older IMAX 3D we have locally (we don’t have IMAX Laser). If you can see it in a Dolby theater still, absolutely go!
Almost every time he makes a movie he invents a new camera system or some entirely new way of filming in order to show us what he wants us to see. Really love that this guy does what he does because there are so many forgettable movies being made lately. Cameron is a genius.
Given the gaps between movies and technological advancements he’d be a fool to not take advantage of the clear opportunity. His rigs are definitely an amazing feet of ingenuity.
@@kdawghomie I think the concept about someone entering another body and being a part of another world is absolutely immersive and enticing. The positives far FAR out weight any negatives the movie may have.
More directors need to do their own camera work. I've always admired that about directors like James Cameron, Michael Bay etc. I always SMH when I'm seeing a BTS video & someone is doing all the camera work.
One of the reasons I am look forward to Avatar 2 (despite not being a huge fan of the original) is it will be nice to see a movie that seems to honor it's visual effects artists. Unlike the half-assed VFX that Marvel and Netflix keep vomiting out.
In 2011 I was part of a study done at EPFL in Switzerland. We were shown different formats of glasses-free 3D videos and asked to rank them. Some of them were absolutely flawless. This was 11 years ago. The technology exists, I don't know how scalable it is though, nor how it actually worked. All I can say is that I tried it years ago, and it actually worked. I cannot for the life of me explain why it hasn't yet been commercialized...
The answer to that is simple: money. However good that technology was, it's probably very expensive. Hollywood has had a long history of movies that succesfully incorporated amazing new technologies only to follow up with many other mediocre movies that used a stripped-down but far cheaper tech with less impressive results. It then takes years before the lesser-but-cheaper tech evolves to something that kinda works. Avatar is great example of that: when that movie became such an box-office hit you suddenly saw all kinds of crappy movies (rembember that Titans one?) that weren't filmed in 3D at all, but were simply upconverted. And it looked like crap. It took several years before the conversion tech become so good you often can't see the difference with the real deal. It was the same when Jurassic Park conquered the world and then every B-movie had to have CGI in it, even advertising it had 'amazing CGI' in it. Nowadays many people enjoy it when a film does NOT have CGI in it, like Oppenheimer. Thank god at least high frame rate never took off, otherwise direct after 'The Hobbit' which used it you would have seen all kinds of crappy upconverts too and all of them would have looked like a tv with motion smoothing going on, in other words: a cheesy picture that looks like television, not film.
The difference between passive 3D glasses and active 3D glasses isn't that you get more vibrant visuals. That is actually the difference between an anaglyphic( the old red & blue glasses) and polarized 3d glass. Active 3D glasses need to be electronically connected to the projector or tv while a passive glass don't. They can both give you very vibrant visuals. For instance I watched the remastered re release of Avatar last week in a theatre using a passive glass in hdr, with very good vibrant visuals
Writer here! I have read that the polarized 3D glasses can have an impact on vibrancy, but maybe what I have read was rather referring to movies that have been shot in 2D being remastered into 3D without taking colour in mind. The first Avatar was shot in HDR too from what I remember so the movie shouldn't have had this issue either 🤔 From personal experience with active 3D glasses, I have noticed that depth perception felt more convincing, but that maybe was due to the fact that Dredd 3D was just a really well made movie that was shot with 3D in mind :P Thank you for the correction!
@@Cheecken You are right. They do impact brightness and vibrancy. But these days, 3D masters get compensated for it as they grade fully in 3D as well. But you are right that they have causes these issues in other titles.
I don’t understand why the video shows the old red/blue glasses when talking about passive 3D. It makes viewers think that active 3D is the only modern method, when in fact passive has the most innovation (circular polarization).
@@davidswanson5669 and don’t forget the even newer method which Dolby 3D uses! Rather than polarization, each projector lens uses a different frequency of RGB light, and the glasses have color filters so that only one image reaches each eye. A big benefit of this method is that even if your head is tilted the images to each eye are still clearly separated.
@@mackit wow I’ll have to look into that. I’ll add though that the circular polarization also has the benefit of being able to maintain 3D-ness if you tilt your head.
James Cameron has been making movies before I was even born, and every time he pushes out a project, the world of cinema changes before my very eyes. I would love to see a documentary (or several) on the technicians and engineers who developed the equipment for these projects. They deserve recognition and praise as well.
I love your channel and found all your abandoned camera series pretty accurate and entertaining. I hate to be a stickler for details but this is a tech channel and I am a 3D cinema specialist so... I just have to point out that the 3D rig you show on the set of the new avatar movies with the Sony Venice at 1:08 (and other points in the video) was launched at NAB 2013 by a Munich based company called "SCREENPLANE" this rig in particular is called the "Production RIG". (if you zoom in and take a closer look you will see both words printed on teh side of the Rig.) It is was one the most well built and advanced 3D beamsplitter rigs ever made. In my opinion superior to the Cameron|PACE Fusion beamsplitters. Which is probably why he is using them instead of his own rigs. The videos of Cameron with the rig on his should on G4TV footage is of his old "Fusion" beamsplitter with the SONY P1 (F900 and later F950)HD cameras, then next shot after that 3:27 with the Sony F23 is also a Fusion rig from around the time avatar was made. So in sum there no "NEW CAMERA" that he made for the new avatar movies as we can see in your video title. he didnt build the Venice Rialto nor did he built the Screenplane rig. As far as the underwater, Pace3D had numerous underwater 3D rigs developed (that I even used on more than one feature) additionally there exists a few underwater beamsplitter rigs available for use. So underwater 3D while challenging is 100% possible as there is plenty of gear around to enable that if you choose to do it. If at any time you have any questions regarding steroscopic 3d Cinema tech or techniques feel free to reach out and I can help you. I worked with all the 3D companies from 2007-today, worked with most 3D rigs and just about all the digital cameras because of that......a few more that are missing in your abandoned camera series..... email me if you have any questions m3pedro at hotmail
By the way just as a FYI, James Cameron and Vince Pace became partners in a 3D technology company based in Burbank called "Cameron Pace Group" this is the company that created all the 3D rigs and other misc. tech related to stereoscopic image capture that he shot avatar with and then became a "rental house" that rented out 3D equipment to various Hollywood productions. I was fortunate enough to be a part of a few feature films and 3D broadcasts using the Cameron|Pace equipment. I even shot with their underwater equipment. The company essentially went bankrupt in 2014 and was sold to VER rentals. I'm not sure what happened to the 3D rigs, if Cameron kept that equipment and the rest was sold to VER as I know you cant rent any Pace equipment from VER anymore. This might explain why James Cameron was using the German ScreenPlane rig in your BTS footage. Anyways just some background info for you and your viewers.
@13:19 - That is not entirely accurate. All manner of 3D exhibition technology (passive, active, Dolby) have some effect of luminescence and color. The thing is Color is adjusted and compensated for in post as part of the preparation for making the deliverables. What some theater owners would do, is turn down the brightness of their projector to extend the life of the bulbs. Thus making 3D movies sometimes way too dark and invariably affecting color. If the bulb is new, at full power then passive should reproduce colors as intended.
I remember growing up as a kid my dad would always take me to go and watch the new 3-D movies but he would never be able to actually wash and enjoy them as well as he wanted because he wore glasses and he had to either choose to wear his glasses and watch a blurry movie or wear the 3-D goggles and possibly put his glasses on under it and make the image not nearly as 3-D as intended. I always felt bad that he didn’t get to enjoy the movies as much as I did.
The CG in the new Avatar was really quite good. I think of myself as good at spotting CG, and most of the time I notice little details that are subtly off, but with the new Avatar, almost every bit of it looked perfect, and I was unable to tell the CG from live action. As for 3D movies, I am not a fan. As someone who wears glasses day-to-day, having to wear two pairs of glasses simultaneously to watch a film is very annoying. Secondly, focus shifts in the 3D plane mess with my eyes like nothing else. My brain can deal with the focus moving on a 2D screen, but in 3D I'm focused on one bit, and then it suddenly goes blurry as the focus moves to an object in the foreground or background, and I end up straining my eyes to try and focus on that thing that was perfectly clear just a moment ago, only to consciously realise a moment later that the focus had shifted to something else. I think it would like 3D if everything was in focus all of the time. If James Cameron wants us to feel like we're in this other world, then we should be able to decide what we want to focus on in the 3D landscape, instead of having the focus dictated by the film itself.
Hopefully Cameron's relationship with Sony will get them to release an Avatar 2 special edition TV with passive 3D technology. I would not only upgrade my 12 year old 3D TV for this alone, but the gaming potential is absolutely incredible.
James Cameron is a scientist that is passionate about science fiction stories and will go to any lengths to bring his vision to fruition. Take a bow. Have seen all his movies. T2 and True Lies are my favorites. Avatar franchise is at a totally different level.
This entire franchise has been turned into a CGI straight to video schlock. I was an animator on the first team to start working on these before they put the movie on hold for 8 months. All the movies are filmed. All the lines are read. All that is left is about 10 years worth of CGI that will be crammed into 2-4. Going to be an abomination.
Avatar was the first, and only in my opinion, movie where 3D actually added something. Because he designed every shot to take advantage of the tech without pushing it constantly in our face. I don't go watch movies in 3D but I'll definitely do it for the Avatar sequels
Same with Prometheus and Hugo, Scott's and Scorsese's showcases of their abilities in 3D artistries. If you can ever manage to see these with a 3D TV or projector, it would be worth any amount of money.
My biggest issue with 3d has only been wearing the actual glasses on my face. They're never comfortable and need to be shifted around, which then pull me out of the immersion which is the opposite of their intention.
2009 was the historic year which introduced most of the part of our world with the highest vision of VFX and CGI by one and only Cameron. Now it’s 2022 he shows us the highest level of VFX and CGI how we should utilise it.
Hopefully we will see more and more laser projector cinemas cropping up, as this is what 3D was made for. The most prevalant 'RealD' systems have poor contrast, brightness and colour. But with Dolby Vision lasers (and Imax 3D laser) cinemas, the picture is absolutely mindblowing.
Sadly the take on different 3d viewing styles at the end is quite... Incomplete. While it is true that you can split 3D glasses into two sections, active and passive 3D glasses, that is in no way the full story. Active 3D: Glasses, as described in the video, can block light from entering one eye while the other is open. For the next frame on the TV the open eyeglass is closed and the closed one opened while the next frame displayed on TV is switched to the frame meant for the other eye. Basically this switch is synchronized between the glasses and the tv. Because the frames for the left and right eye are displayed not at the same time but separatly, the projector or TV used will need exactly double the refresh rate of the movie. This eliminates the need to use two different projectors and enables TV's to display 3D, however these 3D glasses can be quite disorienting. Passive 3D: The most common 3D experience in cinemas uses polarization. The projector meant for the left eye will polarize the light vertically and left eyeglass will only let through vertically polarized light. The right projector and eyeglass do the same, just that the light is horizontally polarized. Side note: This technique typically uses two projectors, one left, one right, each with their unique polarizing filter that display the two images into the screen simultaneously, however it is also possible to use one projector with double the refresh rate (as mentioned in the active 3D section) and have the polarizing filter switch between horizontal and vertical for each frame. Again, this means the frames for the left and right eye can't be displayed simultaneously and can cause discomfort to some viewers. The glasses will still be the same, no need for active glasses. I digress; The downside here is that the luminance level is effectively cut in half. Why? Because unpolarized light contains a 50/50 mix of horizontal and vertical waves. Polarizing (cutting out either horizontal or vertical) will therefore cut the luminance level in half. Also, in order to reflect the light back in it's polarized form (to not lose polarization), the screen needs to have a silver layer on it, decreasing contrast of the film slightly (both of these contribute to what was stated in the video as "passive 3D has bad contrast"). One further downside is: if you tilt your head sideways the polarizing filters in your glasses will no longer be in the correct orientation towards the light waves and the screen will turn dark the more you twist your head. I'm sure you've noticed this before in a 3D cinema. There are other existing technologies though. Dolby 3D for example. Dolby 3D also uses two projectors with a filter on them (or one projector with a filter switching in sync with the frames, again the same downsides to that as earlier), but doesn't rely on polarization. How then do the glasses separate the light meant for the left from the light meant for the right eye? Simple, instead of using polarized light, which let's only horizontally or vertically polarized light pass, depending on what eye, these glasses have filters that cut out a certain frequency spectrum of red, green and blue and let the adjacent one pass. So (vastly oversimplified) the left eyeglass for example lets frequencies from the first half of red, green and blue spectrum pass and blocks the second half, while the right eyeglass let's the second half pass and blocks first half. The difference in perceived color rendition in each eye is adjusted by the projectors digitally. They will alter the colors of the video signal in order to make the right and left perceived colors equal. The major advantage of this technology in comparison to polarization: we don't lose nearly as much luminance, the screen doesn't need to have a silver coating (which reduces cost and increases contrast in the image) and tilting your head does not darken the image. The downside is cost, the filters glasses (and projectors) are very expensive and are usually lent to you by the cinema for the duration of the movie, cleaned and then reused. This passive 3D tech cuts most of the downsides many of us associate with a 3D cinema experience. 3D can be an amazing thing, if done correctly.
I am a 3D modeler using VR at work and one thing we notice right away is, there is no zoom. What happens is that you scale yourself toward places, and it makes you feel like an ant, or a giant around the environment
After what occurred on "The Abyss" with James Cameron, I am sure the actors in this film were fearful if they would get out of this production alive.......
If we get over the headsetpart when you are isolated from your surroundings, Virtual Reality definitely shows that 3D is all but dead. I have watched a good 15-20 movies(Pacific Rim, Avatar and Star Wars being the absolut best ones) in full 3D in a virtual cinema in BigScreen VR. And it's AMAZING.
Everyone knows the reason it is illegal to make new 3D TV's (eventhough films are still released in 3D home media (blueray, etc)) is because the studios want people to PAY for the 3D experience in the cinema. You are not allowed to have it at your home. I feel sorry for the people who downplay 3D because they went for 4K TV's (in the brief period of time you had to choose between the two technologies). A year later 4K+3D tv's were available but the amount of people conned by the studios proclaiming 3D "sucked" (because they chose the wrong tv) killed the art. I'm so happy I have a 3D tv and 300inch projector at home. It's an unreal experience everytime I fire up a movie for my friends. I'm elated it's back. Gravity 2013 is almost religious experience in 3D.
Hi. I’m from the future. This is cool and all but in 2045 James Cameron’s construct films Avatar 3 in the Meta Verse. You don’t go “watch” the movie, you are the movie.
I own Avatar on Bluray in both 2D and 3D. And I still have a 3D TV at home to watch it on. Not the same as the theater, but still better than 2D. It's just too bad that 3D was completely dropped from 4K sets. The 3D format for home use is dead, for now. It might still be revived in the future if a compelling new technology comes along.
I have zero interest in watching movies in 3D in the theater-- but as long as Cameron is going to these lengths, I'll make an exception for Avatar and its sequels.
I love 3D for some reason, and still have a LG tv from 2011, which is a 3D tv. Also playing games on 3DS is still amazing, and unique and you cant emulate the games on other systems correct, due the 3D is not there. So watching movies which is made specifik to watch in 3D is just amazing, well atleast for all with two working eye (even if one of my eye wont work that well anymore, but works well enough for 3D). So either you hate 3D, or love it.
😂 well he did say in one interview that he wrote the entire 2nd movie script and then trashed it because it wasn't good enough 🤷♂️ but yeahhhh... I'll reserve judgement until I see it in theaters
the human disability act should be applied to movie theaters as well by allowing humans who wear eye glasses can watch 3d movies comfortably as well as humans who are not disabled by their eye sight - just 2 cents on the subject of movies in 3d -
I think 3d's cool, but for some weird reason this one time I saw avatar a few weeks ago, the 3d could have been a bit better. I was still able to see depth well, but maybe too well, because I'm looking at a screen 70 feet away and it's making my eyes see even farther. I can't focus that far easily so it ends up feeling a bit wacky
Depending on the shot they are showing... they may be expecting the user to focus on something close... and so, the actual 3D depth, is focused on the nearby object or people. If you choose to look past the intended object / actor... deep into the background... you will be trying to focus on something that isnt in the cameras focus... so, it will be blurry, and look / feel odd. Your eyes are capable of variable focus depths... but the film recording doesnt have true "Infinite" Holographic capture. Its only presenting two image perspectives... and so, there is no way for the viewer to variably focus their own eyes, on images at different depths.. that have not been Recorded / Captured. As such, you kind of have to see what is most visually "clear" or "In-Focus", and keep your eyes on that particular area of the screen... to get the best possible depth effects, without experiencing those odd feeling visuals. The only way around this, would be VR Glasses that have Eye Tracking. The trackers would be able to see the users Focal distances, and would have to render the scene in realtime... based on the users current focus depth. Another potential issue with Stereoscopic 3d... is that peoples eyes are different distances apart. Meanwhile, the 3D camera, only captures the film at a certain chosen eye distance apart. If your eye distance does not match the cameras separation distance... then the level of depth may be very different for you... compared to other people. This could mean, that certain films will look more flat to some... and more 3D to others. It might also lead to motion sickness, headaches, and other similar issues.
I'm not an expert on any of this by any means, just curious. Considering the vfx department is going to overlay almost everything with their own 3d model, is it really that necessary to use such a complicated camera system to film basically mocaps? can you just add another virtual camera in vfx for every single scenes?
The problem with 3D nowadays is that you can't choose where to focus when watching. In VR you can. This will probably only possible with fully CGI movies.
3D is dead. James Cameron needs to stop. It's all for money at this point. 3D adds nothing to the cinema experience. The 3D effect stops working after 5-10 minutes cause your brain adupts and you just see a 2D image.
If everyone in the movie industry had treated 3D with the love James Cameron does, it wouldn't have died out. Too many cheap conversions turned people off real quick.
That's not the issue. The issue is the cost and the extra technology, along with the people to make it work. Unless you were making big budget blockbusters that you knew were going to be successful, it would detract from the bottom line. And most movies don't need it anyway. So right off the bat it was going to be niche, the same as VR is for comps.
The studios conned people into hating it (by advertising 4K) because they needed the 3D experience to be exclusive to the cinema (sales). Everyone was conned.
yes once you go, you realize its a once in a lifetime experience. I went to watch it the second time! because imax 3d is the true way to really experience Avatar movie
Likewise. I saw again this past weekend. IMAX 3D & took my daughter to see it. She never saw the original when it came out. She was 2 🤣😂 it totally blew her away. 13 years later & this film still blows me away.
I just saw the first Avatar a week ago, in cinema and in 3d again for the first time since the movie came out, and it was pretty amazing actually. It took me about 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust to the changing perspectives but once I was settled in it was a wild ride, even for someone who has seen it many times.
12:28 Shooting 3D motion capture underwater was prototyped in Alita (probably why the sequence was included in that film). A lot of tech and pipeline stuff was actually tested in that movie.
Ah, that's a good point. Actually did an interview with the guy that helped with some of the underwater optics as well for it. Releasing that video later on
That makes sense why Alita: Battle Angel came out in the middle of the two avatar movies. When I saw that James Cameron directed Alita, I was like “what the crap Jim, who told you to stop working on avatar” lol
Kinda making it seem like Cameron/Sony invented the 2 piece camera for this movie (separate camera body & image sensor), which isn't the case, Silicon Imaging did it like 15 years ago, their camera was used for the alley scenes in Slumdog Millionaire.
Look - there are movies that are made with 3D in mind and there is all the other 99% of movies where 3D is an after thought - or marketing gimmick (pays more per ticket). I do believe Avatar is one of the very few movies perfect for 3D.
Fun fact Gemini Man actual used a tethered camera 3-d rig first. In that case it was a pair of Arri Alexa Ms. however they did not utilize a backpack carrier, so for handheld scenes they actually built out a wire rig above the camera op to help carry the load.
James Cameron: "The camera is amazing. You get incredible dynamic range and perfect colours" Both of which are very important than 99% of your movie CG
@@FrameVoyager I will give James some credit. I remember when I saw iRobot for the first time and I immediately had this horrible feeling in my stomach. iRobot is one of the ugliest movies I have ever seen. Nothing looking real. Everything looked like Will Smith walking in front of a green screen. It felt so synthetic. I was thinking "how did we go from movies like Alien where the sets are so beautiful and organic that just looking at Harry Dean Stanton sweating made me feel hot myself. To Will Smith walking in front of a PS2 pre-rendered cutscene. I hope this isn't the future." And that fear unfortunately came true and 99% of big budget movies today look atrocious to me in a way that people seem to not notice. Even big budget Marvel films don't look real. I recently saw a shot of the set for NOPE and was astonished to find out that they filmed the house on a Soundstage. Absolutely incredible. I honestly thought it was filmed on a ranch. That's what I want. I want to be tricked. Green screen isn't a trick, it's never tricked me. However, as much as I find the plot; writing and characters painfully weak in Avatar. I can say that it looks amazing. James comes a background where he made miniatures look real (cannot believe the truck in T2 is not a real truck...) and he uses this in Avatar. He doesn't allow things look synthetic. People sweat, skin looks porous and has texture. In Marvel everything is so polished that it may as well be a HD porn movie with the lighting turned up to 100.
At the very least you get a really good reference with these Sony cameras that the CGI people have to live up to. And the bits with actual sets and humans likewise gets to look as good as whatever the CGI wizardry can conjure up. What mostly kills the stuff that Marvel and similar studios does is lack of storytelling and direction... But also... Time. Those guys have time schedules and indecisive leaderships that reduces their output to whatever their overworked brains can eek out in a constant last minute render. Avatar 2 and onward has had 13 years of research and development of both rendering pipelines and how looks should be built, with enormous resources including time and money plowed into each shot. And this is adding to the almost decade of work that went into the first Avatar film. So there's 20 years or so of time spent on this one franchise with so far only one released movie. And say what you want about Cameron... He is not known to be an indescisive director. I am expecting quite a visual marvel from this new entry. Even if the story is on par with the first one, the visuals will probably be more photoreal than actual photography. :D
What do you all think about the 3D format? DEAD or ALIVE?
=============================
💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu
🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager
📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/
🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager
Join our UA-cam channel 📺 ►ua-cam.com/channels/mXGDFnFh95WlZjhwmA5aeQ.htmljoin
dead as a dodo
3D never went away, we just call it VR now 😄
3D is amazing when done well. In the case of Avatar, it is done very well. And that's not to say that there aren't other films, shot or converted, that haven't done it well. It's all about taking the time to do it right. My 3D TV and I are very happy together. Also, to address 13:07 -- With how much better laser projection has become, the remaster of Avatar looked fantastic in RealD 3D, and especially in Dolby 3D.
The problem with 3D nowadays is that you can't choose where to focus when watching. In VR you can. This will probably only possible with fully CGI movies.
@@eSKAone- I feel like that shouldn’t change. That’s the director’s job.
What I just figured out about James Cameron, is he actually isn't putting box office numbers and criticism at the forefront of his endeavours. His intent: To bring his vision to life on the grandest scale possible and change the cinematic world. Probably the most ambitious filmmaker ever. He can take his time for projects and innovate technology as much as he like. I wouldn't even lump him into the Hollywood industry. Dude works on his own volition.
Yes, that's how Hollywood used to work... writers/directors with imaginations, experience and creativity would pursue their passion projects and with some luck would be able to sell them to some Hollywood exec and get their movie made. Unfortunately Hollywood has now followed in the footsteps of pop music where they decide they're going to make a blockbuster and they go find someone to make it for them...someone who usually has limited previous success and probably limited creativity of their own. I just hope this movie has a good story because beyond the eye candy, the first avatar didn't have a good story or characters.
As I understand it, his intent is also to develop innovative new technologies, which he then licenses to other productions and makes a lot of money from. He's just as much a product developer and an entrepreneur as he is a filmmaker. Which I rather admire.
@@iAmTheSquidThing As Robert Rodriguez said on the digital revolution: "Technology pushes art, and art pushes technology"
@@stephenshoihet2590 Well whatever Disney and Jurassic had tried to do was done exquisitely by Avatar.
A technical masterpiece as a visual specticle and a patient unwrapping of a storyline. Can't really ask for much more than that as a blockbuster with heart. Not everything needs Kubrickian depth to be a good film.
Can't wait for a Cameron / Cruise collaboration. Can't top that!!
Having just seen the re-release in IMAX 3D i can confirm that it’s still incredible.
Can't wait to see the new one in theaters and compare!
I was shocked at how well the 13 year old graphics held up by todays standards! It looked as good as if not better than anything produced currently. I’m so glad I got to see it in theaters!
@@mackit it looks way better. The camera movement is unbelievably good.
I wanted to go see the re-release and IMAX 3D as I've never seen the movie before and I also never saw a movie in IMAX before. Unfortunately that didn't happen as plans that I had to fill through but I could at least get pretty close by going to a VR IMAX theater in NEOS VR and watching the movie there
@@chrisfratz I ended up deciding to see it in Dolby 3D, since I realized that Avatar didn’t use the wider IMAX aspect ratio so I wouldn’t be missing anything in the picture. Plus, Dolby 3D is better than the older IMAX 3D we have locally (we don’t have IMAX Laser). If you can see it in a Dolby theater still, absolutely go!
Almost every time he makes a movie he invents a new camera system or some entirely new way of filming in order to show us what he wants us to see. Really love that this guy does what he does because there are so many forgettable movies being made lately. Cameron is a genius.
if only he knew how to invent a new story
Given the gaps between movies and technological advancements he’d be a fool to not take advantage of the clear opportunity. His rigs are definitely an amazing feet of ingenuity.
Except Avatar is forgettable in every way except visuals...
@@kdawghomie I think the concept about someone entering another body and being a part of another world is absolutely immersive and enticing. The positives far FAR out weight any negatives the movie may have.
@Hesh Hesherson Says very, very few people.
"Doesn't your camera guy hate you?"
Cameron: "I was the camera guy! I did all the hand held shots."
Funniest line from that interview 😅
"James CAMERON"
Name checks out
@@googlelord1678 No? lol
@@googlelord1678 oh, it's just a trending topic and it's a sick looking camera. I like to cover interesting camera topics when I can
More directors need to do their own camera work. I've always admired that about directors like James Cameron, Michael Bay etc. I always SMH when I'm seeing a BTS video & someone is doing all the camera work.
One of the reasons I am look forward to Avatar 2 (despite not being a huge fan of the original) is it will be nice to see a movie that seems to honor it's visual effects artists. Unlike the half-assed VFX that Marvel and Netflix keep vomiting out.
Actual VFX artists are pretty vocal about how terrible James Cameron is to them.
@@opx4real source?
@@JT-cx2ev he referring to one, and I mean one individual who tweeted about it a few weeks ago.
@@opx4real One tweet does not represent millions of VFX artists. Can we stop pretending the internet represents the whole world?
Its. Not “it’s.”
Cameron is a goddamn genius. People always bet against him and lose.
Here we go again…
In 2011 I was part of a study done at EPFL in Switzerland. We were shown different formats of glasses-free 3D videos and asked to rank them. Some of them were absolutely flawless. This was 11 years ago. The technology exists, I don't know how scalable it is though, nor how it actually worked. All I can say is that I tried it years ago, and it actually worked. I cannot for the life of me explain why it hasn't yet been commercialized...
deception. the reason is always deception.
Lazy studios
The answer to that is simple: money. However good that technology was, it's probably very expensive. Hollywood has had a long history of movies that succesfully incorporated amazing new technologies only to follow up with many other mediocre movies that used a stripped-down but far cheaper tech with less impressive results. It then takes years before the lesser-but-cheaper tech evolves to something that kinda works. Avatar is great example of that: when that movie became such an box-office hit you suddenly saw all kinds of crappy movies (rembember that Titans one?) that weren't filmed in 3D at all, but were simply upconverted. And it looked like crap.
It took several years before the conversion tech become so good you often can't see the difference with the real deal. It was the same when Jurassic Park conquered the world and then every B-movie had to have CGI in it, even advertising it had 'amazing CGI' in it. Nowadays many people enjoy it when a film does NOT have CGI in it, like Oppenheimer.
Thank god at least high frame rate never took off, otherwise direct after 'The Hobbit' which used it you would have seen all kinds of crappy upconverts too and all of them would have looked like a tv with motion smoothing going on, in other words: a cheesy picture that looks like television, not film.
The difference between passive 3D glasses and active 3D glasses isn't that you get more vibrant visuals. That is actually the difference between an anaglyphic( the old red & blue glasses) and polarized 3d glass. Active 3D glasses need to be electronically connected to the projector or tv while a passive glass don't. They can both give you very vibrant visuals. For instance I watched the remastered re release of Avatar last week in a theatre using a passive glass in hdr, with very good vibrant visuals
Writer here! I have read that the polarized 3D glasses can have an impact on vibrancy, but maybe what I have read was rather referring to movies that have been shot in 2D being remastered into 3D without taking colour in mind. The first Avatar was shot in HDR too from what I remember so the movie shouldn't have had this issue either 🤔
From personal experience with active 3D glasses, I have noticed that depth perception felt more convincing, but that maybe was due to the fact that Dredd 3D was just a really well made movie that was shot with 3D in mind :P
Thank you for the correction!
@@Cheecken You are right. They do impact brightness and vibrancy. But these days, 3D masters get compensated for it as they grade fully in 3D as well.
But you are right that they have causes these issues in other titles.
I don’t understand why the video shows the old red/blue glasses when talking about passive 3D. It makes viewers think that active 3D is the only modern method, when in fact passive has the most innovation (circular polarization).
@@davidswanson5669 and don’t forget the even newer method which Dolby 3D uses! Rather than polarization, each projector lens uses a different frequency of RGB light, and the glasses have color filters so that only one image reaches each eye. A big benefit of this method is that even if your head is tilted the images to each eye are still clearly separated.
@@mackit wow I’ll have to look into that. I’ll add though that the circular polarization also has the benefit of being able to maintain 3D-ness if you tilt your head.
James Cameron has been making movies before I was even born, and every time he pushes out a project, the world of cinema changes before my very eyes. I would love to see a documentary (or several) on the technicians and engineers who developed the equipment for these projects. They deserve recognition and praise as well.
I love your channel and found all your abandoned camera series pretty accurate and entertaining. I hate to be a stickler for details but this is a tech channel and I am a 3D cinema specialist so... I just have to point out that the 3D rig you show on the set of the new avatar movies with the Sony Venice at 1:08 (and other points in the video) was launched at NAB 2013 by a Munich based company called "SCREENPLANE" this rig in particular is called the "Production RIG". (if you zoom in and take a closer look you will see both words printed on teh side of the Rig.) It is was one the most well built and advanced 3D beamsplitter rigs ever made. In my opinion superior to the Cameron|PACE Fusion beamsplitters. Which is probably why he is using them instead of his own rigs. The videos of Cameron with the rig on his should on G4TV footage is of his old "Fusion" beamsplitter with the SONY P1 (F900 and later F950)HD cameras, then next shot after that 3:27 with the Sony F23 is also a Fusion rig from around the time avatar was made. So in sum there no "NEW CAMERA" that he made for the new avatar movies as we can see in your video title. he didnt build the Venice Rialto nor did he built the Screenplane rig. As far as the underwater, Pace3D had numerous underwater 3D rigs developed (that I even used on more than one feature) additionally there exists a few underwater beamsplitter rigs available for use. So underwater 3D while challenging is 100% possible as there is plenty of gear around to enable that if you choose to do it. If at any time you have any questions regarding steroscopic 3d Cinema tech or techniques feel free to reach out and I can help you. I worked with all the 3D companies from 2007-today, worked with most 3D rigs and just about all the digital cameras because of that......a few more that are missing in your abandoned camera series..... email me if you have any questions m3pedro at hotmail
By the way just as a FYI, James Cameron and Vince Pace became partners in a 3D technology company based in Burbank called "Cameron Pace Group" this is the company that created all the 3D rigs and other misc. tech related to stereoscopic image capture that he shot avatar with and then became a "rental house" that rented out 3D equipment to various Hollywood productions. I was fortunate enough to be a part of a few feature films and 3D broadcasts using the Cameron|Pace equipment. I even shot with their underwater equipment. The company essentially went bankrupt in 2014 and was sold to VER rentals. I'm not sure what happened to the 3D rigs, if Cameron kept that equipment and the rest was sold to VER as I know you cant rent any Pace equipment from VER anymore. This might explain why James Cameron was using the German ScreenPlane rig in your BTS footage. Anyways just some background info for you and your viewers.
@13:19 - That is not entirely accurate. All manner of 3D exhibition technology (passive, active, Dolby) have some effect of luminescence and color. The thing is Color is adjusted and compensated for in post as part of the preparation for making the deliverables. What some theater owners would do, is turn down the brightness of their projector to extend the life of the bulbs. Thus making 3D movies sometimes way too dark and invariably affecting color. If the bulb is new, at full power then passive should reproduce colors as intended.
Friends 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 thug of war the beginning 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 short film watch once pls 🥺🥺
If you like it share 👏👏
3D never went away we just call it VR now 😄
They're different. VR is a whole different dimension minus touch, and scents. Maybe 4D or 5D you could call it.
I remember growing up as a kid my dad would always take me to go and watch the new 3-D movies but he would never be able to actually wash and enjoy them as well as he wanted because he wore glasses and he had to either choose to wear his glasses and watch a blurry movie or wear the 3-D goggles and possibly put his glasses on under it and make the image not nearly as 3-D as intended. I always felt bad that he didn’t get to enjoy the movies as much as I did.
Same reason i stopped watching 3D movies , gonna get contacts so i can enjoy this fully.
Just went to watch the re-release in 3D with my glasses and it wasn’t that bad.
Pushing technology forward should be part of the filmmaking evolution.
The CG in the new Avatar was really quite good. I think of myself as good at spotting CG, and most of the time I notice little details that are subtly off, but with the new Avatar, almost every bit of it looked perfect, and I was unable to tell the CG from live action. As for 3D movies, I am not a fan. As someone who wears glasses day-to-day, having to wear two pairs of glasses simultaneously to watch a film is very annoying. Secondly, focus shifts in the 3D plane mess with my eyes like nothing else. My brain can deal with the focus moving on a 2D screen, but in 3D I'm focused on one bit, and then it suddenly goes blurry as the focus moves to an object in the foreground or background, and I end up straining my eyes to try and focus on that thing that was perfectly clear just a moment ago, only to consciously realise a moment later that the focus had shifted to something else. I think it would like 3D if everything was in focus all of the time. If James Cameron wants us to feel like we're in this other world, then we should be able to decide what we want to focus on in the 3D landscape, instead of having the focus dictated by the film itself.
Hopefully Cameron's relationship with Sony will get them to release an Avatar 2 special edition TV with passive 3D technology. I would not only upgrade my 12 year old 3D TV for this alone, but the gaming potential is absolutely incredible.
This is a very cool video!!! Nice!
Appreciate it! We are slowly branching out into some other series beyond the ABANDONED series so always good to hear people enjoying the new content
the "you have two eyes" is the only 'this is made for your body' argument that actually makes sense
Have been waiting for this movie forever. So happy I am around to see it!
Wow, I didn’t know it was this complicated to shoot in 3D
3D movies should be appreciated much more
James Cameron is a scientist that is passionate about science fiction stories and will go to any lengths to bring his vision to fruition. Take a bow. Have seen all his movies. T2 and True Lies are my favorites. Avatar franchise is at a totally different level.
Incredible staff, equipment , movie. James Cameron
That is so incredibly insane how we know how to make and understand the functions in the 3d Imax Camera
I can't wait for Avatar 2. We're going on space cake and a little bit of MDMA this time. Visual spectacle and a blast. 3 hours too. Can't wait
This entire franchise has been turned into a CGI straight to video schlock. I was an animator on the first team to start working on these before they put the movie on hold for 8 months. All the movies are filmed. All the lines are read. All that is left is about 10 years worth of CGI that will be crammed into 2-4. Going to be an abomination.
Avatar was the first, and only in my opinion, movie where 3D actually added something. Because he designed every shot to take advantage of the tech without pushing it constantly in our face. I don't go watch movies in 3D but I'll definitely do it for the Avatar sequels
Same with Prometheus and Hugo, Scott's and Scorsese's showcases of their abilities in 3D artistries. If you can ever manage to see these with a 3D TV or projector, it would be worth any amount of money.
My biggest issue with 3d has only been wearing the actual glasses on my face. They're never comfortable and need to be shifted around, which then pull me out of the immersion which is the opposite of their intention.
that realtime previz is what people call now virtual production without the led screens truly a pioneer
I wish they would put that much effort into plots and storylines.
There are filmmakers who make movies with the best technology, and there is James Cameron who invents the technology to make a movie.
James cameron: builds million dollar custom cinema cameras
Also james cameron: uses papyrus as the font for his film
2009 was the historic year which introduced most of the part of our world with the highest vision of VFX and CGI by one and only Cameron. Now it’s 2022 he shows us the highest level of VFX and CGI how we should utilise it.
Hopefully we will see more and more laser projector cinemas cropping up, as this is what 3D was made for. The most prevalant 'RealD' systems have poor contrast, brightness and colour. But with Dolby Vision lasers (and Imax 3D laser) cinemas, the picture is absolutely mindblowing.
Avatar 2 s set to conquer both hearts n box office💓💓💓excitement n craze for avatar 2 s earthshaking👌👌👌
This is the best free software Ive seen. Respect.
Sadly the take on different 3d viewing styles at the end is quite... Incomplete. While it is true that you can split 3D glasses into two sections, active and passive 3D glasses, that is in no way the full story.
Active 3D:
Glasses, as described in the video, can block light from entering one eye while the other is open. For the next frame on the TV the open eyeglass is closed and the closed one opened while the next frame displayed on TV is switched to the frame meant for the other eye. Basically this switch is synchronized between the glasses and the tv. Because the frames for the left and right eye are displayed not at the same time but separatly, the projector or TV used will need exactly double the refresh rate of the movie. This eliminates the need to use two different projectors and enables TV's to display 3D, however these 3D glasses can be quite disorienting.
Passive 3D:
The most common 3D experience in cinemas uses polarization. The projector meant for the left eye will polarize the light vertically and left eyeglass will only let through vertically polarized light. The right projector and eyeglass do the same, just that the light is horizontally polarized. Side note: This technique typically uses two projectors, one left, one right, each with their unique polarizing filter that display the two images into the screen simultaneously, however it is also possible to use one projector with double the refresh rate (as mentioned in the active 3D section) and have the polarizing filter switch between horizontal and vertical for each frame. Again, this means the frames for the left and right eye can't be displayed simultaneously and can cause discomfort to some viewers. The glasses will still be the same, no need for active glasses.
I digress; The downside here is that the luminance level is effectively cut in half. Why? Because unpolarized light contains a 50/50 mix of horizontal and vertical waves. Polarizing (cutting out either horizontal or vertical) will therefore cut the luminance level in half. Also, in order to reflect the light back in it's polarized form (to not lose polarization), the screen needs to have a silver layer on it, decreasing contrast of the film slightly (both of these contribute to what was stated in the video as "passive 3D has bad contrast"). One further downside is: if you tilt your head sideways the polarizing filters in your glasses will no longer be in the correct orientation towards the light waves and the screen will turn dark the more you twist your head. I'm sure you've noticed this before in a 3D cinema.
There are other existing technologies though. Dolby 3D for example. Dolby 3D also uses two projectors with a filter on them (or one projector with a filter switching in sync with the frames, again the same downsides to that as earlier), but doesn't rely on polarization. How then do the glasses separate the light meant for the left from the light meant for the right eye? Simple, instead of using polarized light, which let's only horizontally or vertically polarized light pass, depending on what eye, these glasses have filters that cut out a certain frequency spectrum of red, green and blue and let the adjacent one pass. So (vastly oversimplified) the left eyeglass for example lets frequencies from the first half of red, green and blue spectrum pass and blocks the second half, while the right eyeglass let's the second half pass and blocks first half. The difference in perceived color rendition in each eye is adjusted by the projectors digitally. They will alter the colors of the video signal in order to make the right and left perceived colors equal. The major advantage of this technology in comparison to polarization: we don't lose nearly as much luminance, the screen doesn't need to have a silver coating (which reduces cost and increases contrast in the image) and tilting your head does not darken the image. The downside is cost, the filters glasses (and projectors) are very expensive and are usually lent to you by the cinema for the duration of the movie, cleaned and then reused.
This passive 3D tech cuts most of the downsides many of us associate with a 3D cinema experience. 3D can be an amazing thing, if done correctly.
so cool
Right?
The video didn't explain what a beam splitter does or how it can make a 3d image. If it is split it will just make a copy of itself.
I am a 3D modeler using VR at work and one thing we notice right away is, there is no zoom. What happens is that you scale yourself toward places, and it makes you feel like an ant, or a giant around the environment
He must like Motocross wearing the Fox & Thor shirts. Lol
After what occurred on "The Abyss" with James Cameron, I am sure the actors in this film were fearful if they would get out of this production alive.......
I do hope that 3D movies don't become a thing again. As many of us do not have stereoscopic eyesight.
God damn right, Jim! Help me remind the world that 3D is the ONLY WAY TO GO ! ! !
I've lost my ineterest for Avatar years ago.
If we get over the headsetpart when you are isolated from your surroundings, Virtual Reality definitely shows that 3D is all but dead.
I have watched a good 15-20 movies(Pacific Rim, Avatar and Star Wars being the absolut best ones) in full 3D in a virtual cinema in BigScreen VR. And it's AMAZING.
Everyone knows the reason it is illegal to make new 3D TV's (eventhough films are still released in 3D home media (blueray, etc)) is because the studios want people to PAY for the 3D experience in the cinema. You are not allowed to have it at your home. I feel sorry for the people who downplay 3D because they went for 4K TV's (in the brief period of time you had to choose between the two technologies). A year later 4K+3D tv's were available but the amount of people conned by the studios proclaiming 3D "sucked" (because they chose the wrong tv) killed the art. I'm so happy I have a 3D tv and 300inch projector at home. It's an unreal experience everytime I fire up a movie for my friends. I'm elated it's back. Gravity 2013 is almost religious experience in 3D.
3:18 - Hey ! That's James Cameraman
Hi. I’m from the future. This is cool and all but in 2045 James Cameron’s construct films Avatar 3 in the Meta Verse. You don’t go “watch” the movie, you are the movie.
I own Avatar on Bluray in both 2D and 3D. And I still have a 3D TV at home to watch it on. Not the same as the theater, but still better than 2D. It's just too bad that 3D was completely dropped from 4K sets. The 3D format for home use is dead, for now. It might still be revived in the future if a compelling new technology comes along.
Forget Avatar 2, when would we able to see The Abyss on screen once again?
Nobody wants these movies in 3d... I don't know a single person who even knew the terminator was in 3d, no one ever talks about it.
I have zero interest in watching movies in 3D in the theater-- but as long as Cameron is going to these lengths, I'll make an exception for Avatar and its sequels.
I love 3D for some reason, and still have a LG tv from 2011, which is a 3D tv. Also playing games on 3DS is still amazing, and unique and you cant emulate the games on other systems correct, due the 3D is not there. So watching movies which is made specifik to watch in 3D is just amazing, well atleast for all with two working eye (even if one of my eye wont work that well anymore, but works well enough for 3D).
So either you hate 3D, or love it.
The skin still looks like plastic. Another CGI movie 3D movie... Notice they dont even talk about the story.
😂 well he did say in one interview that he wrote the entire 2nd movie script and then trashed it because it wasn't good enough 🤷♂️ but yeahhhh... I'll reserve judgement until I see it in theaters
Remake every single movie in 3D and I would rewatch it
You’re missing the 2 tiny reference cameras mounted at the front of the camera rig! Min 9:23
the human disability act should be applied to movie theaters as well by allowing humans who wear eye glasses can watch 3d movies comfortably as well as humans who are not disabled by their eye sight - just 2 cents on the subject of movies in 3d -
Focus on content also ,not only technology ,much awaited series
I think 3d's cool, but for some weird reason this one time I saw avatar a few weeks ago, the 3d could have been a bit better. I was still able to see depth well, but maybe too well, because I'm looking at a screen 70 feet away and it's making my eyes see even farther. I can't focus that far easily so it ends up feeling a bit wacky
Depending on the shot they are showing... they may be expecting the user to focus on something close... and so, the actual 3D depth, is focused on the nearby object or people. If you choose to look past the intended object / actor... deep into the background... you will be trying to focus on something that isnt in the cameras focus... so, it will be blurry, and look / feel odd.
Your eyes are capable of variable focus depths... but the film recording doesnt have true "Infinite" Holographic capture. Its only presenting two image perspectives... and so, there is no way for the viewer to variably focus their own eyes, on images at different depths.. that have not been Recorded / Captured.
As such, you kind of have to see what is most visually "clear" or "In-Focus", and keep your eyes on that particular area of the screen... to get the best possible depth effects, without experiencing those odd feeling visuals.
The only way around this, would be VR Glasses that have Eye Tracking. The trackers would be able to see the users Focal distances, and would have to render the scene in realtime... based on the users current focus depth.
Another potential issue with Stereoscopic 3d... is that peoples eyes are different distances apart. Meanwhile, the 3D camera, only captures the film at a certain chosen eye distance apart. If your eye distance does not match the cameras separation distance... then the level of depth may be very different for you... compared to other people. This could mean, that certain films will look more flat to some... and more 3D to others. It might also lead to motion sickness, headaches, and other similar issues.
He had enough time to completely reinvent film making, all the way back to the Lumiere brothers. 😂
The avatar 2 is going to break several records.
I don’t like 3D… gives me Headaches… Just make the picture Clear and vibrate and the Story good and I’m all in!👍
I'm not an expert on any of this by any means, just curious. Considering the vfx department is going to overlay almost everything with their own 3d model, is it really that necessary to use such a complicated camera system to film basically mocaps? can you just add another virtual camera in vfx for every single scenes?
Well for vfx work you do still really want high quality footage to be able to reference. Because they will try and combine both at times too!
Id love to see James Cameron do one last Alien movie. In 3D!
He used everything he learned filming T2 the Abyss and Avatar to make these films.
Please also do throw some thoughts on what can be achieved with This + Disney's dome .
I see stereo in one eye at a time, my eyes are not "linked"
The problem with 3D nowadays is that you can't choose where to focus when watching. In VR you can. This will probably only possible with fully CGI movies.
When I heard there was a new avatar movie, I imagined one of the best cinematic failures
It’s weird though that he goes through all this trouble to make new cameras and avatar is 99.99% just CGI
3D is dead. James Cameron needs to stop. It's all for money at this point. 3D adds nothing to the cinema experience. The 3D effect stops working after 5-10 minutes cause your brain adupts and you just see a 2D image.
Avatar 2 s set to gross $5 billion dollars now💓💓💓💓💓💓💓
The CG in both films sits in the uncanny Valley so regardless of how much money they spend its super obviously CG and it is not a pleasant experience.
please dont say that christie is working on a 3D LED projection technology that doesn't require glasses. some people might think its true or possible.
Just flicker the images really fast left and right alternating on one screen .. boom 3D with no glasses.
Cameron is truly a legend
I love watching 3d movies on my quest 2 vr headset
One issue with 3d you didnt meantion is that it gives some people headaches.
What a great creation hat's off James Cameron ❤🇧🇩❤
Cameron is the modern world Davinci..
The first Avatar looked like a Pixar movie. The new one promises to look even more Pixarish.
please tell us we can watch this movie in VR
Avatar for me was one of the most tedious movie experiences.
I love stereo 3d movies.
Wasn’t this movie supposed to be 3D without the need for glasses?
4:07
Yess i waana go to PANDORA.
Just need the smells and haptic feedback in the seats.
James Cameron, one of the last true filmmakers..
forgot about the 3rd way 3d movies are projected. polarized light with corresponding glasses. passive and full color gamut .
love or hate avatar, you can't deny the level of mastery behind it.. it's truly breathtaking
I love it. Esp these days now that everything follows the marvel formula.
Avatar was insanely formulaic feeling, insanely predictable and boring
@@tommj4365 you are insanely insane.
@@tommj4365 Wow what are you on?
@@tommj4365 just breathe and let it go. May be there was no more pop corn when you saw it.
If everyone in the movie industry had treated 3D with the love James Cameron does, it wouldn't have died out. Too many cheap conversions turned people off real quick.
the screen looks half as big and twice as dim, and it strains your eyes due to divergent focus and convergence. 3d only ruins films
I agree Kurt. I did not like the cheap 3D conversions.
That's not the issue. The issue is the cost and the extra technology, along with the people to make it work. Unless you were making big budget blockbusters that you knew were going to be successful, it would detract from the bottom line. And most movies don't need it anyway. So right off the bat it was going to be niche, the same as VR is for comps.
Friends 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 thug of war the beginning 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 short film watch once pls 🥺🥺
If you like it share 👏👏
The studios conned people into hating it (by advertising 4K) because they needed the 3D experience to be exclusive to the cinema (sales). Everyone was conned.
I used to work for James Cameron engineering the 3D cameras. I loved that job, Jim was always such a great person. Miss him very much!
Saw this masterpiece yesterday in IMAX in 3d , my god still breathtaking
The way of the water isint out yet, did you watch the fist avatar re-release?
@@maximman102n7 yea first part, last time it released, I didn’t have money to watch it lol.
yes once you go, you realize its a once in a lifetime experience. I went to watch it the second time! because imax 3d is the true way to really experience Avatar movie
Likewise. I saw again this past weekend. IMAX 3D & took my daughter to see it. She never saw the original when it came out. She was 2 🤣😂 it totally blew her away. 13 years later & this film still blows me away.
agreed ! the only way to watch part 2 is going to be imax 3d , you’re settling if you watching it in standard
I just saw the first Avatar a week ago, in cinema and in 3d again for the first time since the movie came out, and it was pretty amazing actually. It took me about 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust to the changing perspectives but once I was settled in it was a wild ride, even for someone who has seen it many times.
It will never get old,I have 4 versions on Blu-ray including 2 of those in 3D.
12:28 Shooting 3D motion capture underwater was prototyped in Alita (probably why the sequence was included in that film). A lot of tech and pipeline stuff was actually tested in that movie.
Ah, that's a good point. Actually did an interview with the guy that helped with some of the underwater optics as well for it. Releasing that video later on
That makes sense why Alita: Battle Angel came out in the middle of the two avatar movies.
When I saw that James Cameron directed Alita, I was like “what the crap Jim, who told you to stop working on avatar” lol
@@marshall3n Robert Rodriguez directed Alita. James Cameron was planning to direct but only contributed as producer in that film.
Friends 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 thug of war the beginning 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 short film watch once pls 🥺🥺
If you like it share 👏👏
Kinda making it seem like Cameron/Sony invented the 2 piece camera for this movie (separate camera body & image sensor), which isn't the case, Silicon Imaging did it like 15 years ago, their camera was used for the alley scenes in Slumdog Millionaire.
Probably would have been better to say they partnered with Sony to build the entire system. A lot of different people worked on the entire rig
Look - there are movies that are made with 3D in mind and there is all the other 99% of movies where 3D is an after thought - or marketing gimmick (pays more per ticket).
I do believe Avatar is one of the very few movies perfect for 3D.
Fun fact Gemini Man actual used a tethered camera 3-d rig first. In that case it was a pair of Arri Alexa Ms. however they did not utilize a backpack carrier, so for handheld scenes they actually built out a wire rig above the camera op to help carry the load.
👀👀👀
The number one filmmaker of the world💓the visionary 🙏
James Cameron: "The camera is amazing. You get incredible dynamic range and perfect colours"
Both of which are very important than 99% of your movie CG
😅😅😅 It is kind of funny considering how little practical is filmed with it
@@FrameVoyager I will give James some credit. I remember when I saw iRobot for the first time and I immediately had this horrible feeling in my stomach.
iRobot is one of the ugliest movies I have ever seen. Nothing looking real. Everything looked like Will Smith walking in front of a green screen. It felt so synthetic. I was thinking "how did we go from movies like Alien where the sets are so beautiful and organic that just looking at Harry Dean Stanton sweating made me feel hot myself. To Will Smith walking in front of a PS2 pre-rendered cutscene. I hope this isn't the future."
And that fear unfortunately came true and 99% of big budget movies today look atrocious to me in a way that people seem to not notice. Even big budget Marvel films don't look real.
I recently saw a shot of the set for NOPE and was astonished to find out that they filmed the house on a Soundstage. Absolutely incredible. I honestly thought it was filmed on a ranch. That's what I want. I want to be tricked. Green screen isn't a trick, it's never tricked me.
However, as much as I find the plot; writing and characters painfully weak in Avatar. I can say that it looks amazing. James comes a background where he made miniatures look real (cannot believe the truck in T2 is not a real truck...) and he uses this in Avatar. He doesn't allow things look synthetic. People sweat, skin looks porous and has texture.
In Marvel everything is so polished that it may as well be a HD porn movie with the lighting turned up to 100.
At the very least you get a really good reference with these Sony cameras that the CGI people have to live up to. And the bits with actual sets and humans likewise gets to look as good as whatever the CGI wizardry can conjure up.
What mostly kills the stuff that Marvel and similar studios does is lack of storytelling and direction... But also... Time. Those guys have time schedules and indecisive leaderships that reduces their output to whatever their overworked brains can eek out in a constant last minute render.
Avatar 2 and onward has had 13 years of research and development of both rendering pipelines and how looks should be built, with enormous resources including time and money plowed into each shot. And this is adding to the almost decade of work that went into the first Avatar film. So there's 20 years or so of time spent on this one franchise with so far only one released movie.
And say what you want about Cameron... He is not known to be an indescisive director.
I am expecting quite a visual marvel from this new entry. Even if the story is on par with the first one, the visuals will probably be more photoreal than actual photography. :D
True!
The camera wasn't just developed for Avatar 2...