So close to 5 years after Avatar was released....

[Plain Old Tele]

Cameron deliberately didn't push extreme stereo because he was aware for most people it'd be their first major feature-length experience in 3D, and he didn't want to overwhelm or tire them out too much.

 

In terms of the CG, like every movie there's occasionally a shot or two where a careful eye can catch certain issues... but AVATAR is more noticeably "CG" because it's showing us creatures and characters that are emphatically NOT real here on Earth: no matter how photoreal the image, your eye is going to tell you that the 10 foot tall Thundersmurf is a visual effect.

[vc2002]

Cameron deliberately didn't push extreme stereo because he was aware for most people it'd be their first major feature-length experience in 3D, and he didn't want to overwhelm or tire them out too much.

 

In terms of the CG, like every movie there's occasionally a shot or two where a careful eye can catch certain issues... but AVATAR is more noticeably "CG" because it's showing us creatures and characters that are emphatically NOT real here on Earth: no matter how photoreal the image, your eye is going to tell you that the 10 foot tall Thundersmurf is a visual effect.

 

That's the beauty of it. The mo-cap and CGI of the Navis were so perfectly done that when I was watching the movie, my brain was telling me that this was just CGI but my feeling told me they were real. This kind of weird feeling drove me hungry for more of it, and I bet it also did to a lot of other viewers. That weird feeling definitely played a big part in the 10x legs.

[dashrendar44]

That's the beauty of it. The mo-cap and CGI of the Navis were so perfectly done that when I was watching the movie, my brain was telling me that this was just CGI but my feeling told me they were real. This kind of weird feeling drove me hungry for more of it, and I bet it also did to a lot of other viewers. That weird feeling definitely played a big part in the 10x legs.

 

What amazed me is that the Navi CG looked more realistic in broad daylight than in nightime setting when all the shiny colors made it more like animation.

 

 

The skin, paint effects, the hair simulation, the objects colliding on her and that spark of life in the eyes overcoming the "dead eye" effect are amazing (I was wondering how they did that rendering effect when she's painting Jake's avatar face, the effects of putting CG fluid on a CG body and the realistic reaction ensuing, that was neat)

 

 

It's the total opposite of every other movie in which CG look better in the dark than in broad daylight (except maybe King Kong's character but once again it's the same company behind the magic, Weta Digital)

 

I think Cameron's bet was to rely on this character, he pushed Weta Digital to put most of their CG ressources into developing and nailing that Neytiri's character in terms of credibility. If audience bought her as a lively and believable creature, they could go along with all the rest.

Edited November 6, 2014 by dashrendar44

[The Futurist]

Cameron really pushed Weta and ILM ( they did a lot on Avatar, the whole final battle was done by them)'s limits.

The movie was a big leap in photorealism in CGI.

[DAR]

It was a great theatrical experience, but the movie itself becomes more forgettable to me as time passes

[teardropmina]

Has any movie eclipsed it in terms of visual effects yet? Despite my gripes with it from a plot perspective, it really is a stunning looking and immersive film.

 

in 3D, no. 

 

 no matter how photoreal the image, your eye is going to tell you that the 10 foot tall Thundersmurf is a visual effect.

 

I think the magic of VFX is that we do know it's fake and so we can marble that how can it be done so well. the trick is life like, but not indiscernible from real life. 

 

there's a distinct difference in the degree "life like" between Avatar 3D and 2D (the blue is too bright and thick, the CG tone is more pronounced). 

[Lordmandeep]

It is literally Dance of Wolves on a Alien planet however the visual were quite a novelty at release. 

 

 

Also the true God is not Bay or Nolan or Whedon, its Cameron.

 

Two, two billion dollar films lol 

[The Panda]

As a whole, I'll agree there hasn't been a movie since Avatar that has been able to best all of the visual accomplishments it boasted.  However it's been beaten in MoCap and Visual Effects, however I don't think any film except Avatar 2 will really be able to beat its 3D.  It's not because only Avatar 2 can beat Avatar in 3D, it's because no other filmmaker has really had the interest in really making a true 3D experience like Cameron did with Avatar, 3D has been more of an afterthought.

[DAR]

I do hope that once Cameron finishes up with Avatar, he does become a little more active making films and not just his documentaries

[Empire]

I do hope that once Cameron finishes up with Avatar, he does become a little more active making films and not just his documentaries

To bad it will probably be 10-15 years or more till he is done with Avatar.

[lilmac]

Nothing has eclipsed Avatar 3D wise.

[lilmac]

To bad it will probably be 10-15 years or more till he is done with Avatar.

 

 

They're supposed to be shooting all 3 in 2015.  Wait.... it's almost 2015 now.  

[Plain Old Tele]

They're supposed to be shooting all 3 in 2015.  Wait.... it's almost 2015 now.  

 

Production and post-production tend to lose meaning with heavily-intensive mo-cap movies.

[lilmac]

Production and post-production tend to lose meaning with heavily-intensive mo-cap movies.

 

 

I dunno man.  Avatar took 7 months to film.  (scroll to bottom)

 

 

Edit:  Nevermind, live-action photography only took a month.

 

 

But wait, don't you still need actors for those 7 months?  It still took 7 months, regardless.  Say 15 months for all 3 and even 2016 is in question.

Edited November 10, 2014 by lilmac

[lilmac]

Yep

 

Avatar terrible screenplay took me out of the movie.  I got bored while watching it. 

 

I'm so glad my taste in movies is less refined than yours.  

[Plain Old Tele]

I dunno man.  Avatar took 7 months to film.  (scroll to bottom)

 

Edit:  Nevermind, live-action photography only took a month.

 

But wait, don't you still need actors for those 7 months?  It still took 7 months, regardless.  Say 15 months for all 3 and even 2016 is in question.

 

No, the post process and production get all blurred together. You complete your initial round of mo-cap (several weeks or so). You string together a radio-cut of the movie, based on takes using the extreme-close-up face-cam mounted on their heads. So at this point, you basically have a few hours consistently of nothing but ECU face shots all lined up and timed out based on line delivery and guesstimation.

 

Now you go back to your mo-cap data and you start creating shots, by essentially "replaying" the data like a DVR but moving your "camera" (really, just another set of data points) around to create the shot you want. You then start overcutting in these shots (well, rough animatics) to replace the old face-only ones while sending the data off to the VFX guys. If a scene gets added, or new lines, or whatever, then you "reshoot" the new stuff with your actors but for the most part they're done very quickly and the rest is a huge extended period of post-production.

 

Of course, since you're designing your animation tools, character and creature designs, and building all the worlds/props/creatures/weapons/ships/etc that you need, all that starts before your mo-cap shoot anyway. So it's a fluid process back and forth.

[lilmac]

No, the post process and production get all blurred together. You complete your initial round of mo-cap (several weeks or so). You string together a radio-cut of the movie, based on takes using the extreme-close-up face-cam mounted on their heads. So at this point, you basically have a few hours consistently of nothing but ECU face shots all lined up and timed out based on line delivery and guesstimation.

 

Now you go back to your mo-cap data and you start creating shots, by essentially "replaying" the data like a DVR but moving your "camera" (really, just another set of data points) around to create the shot you want. You then start overcutting in these shots (well, rough animatics) to replace the old face-only ones while sending the data off to the VFX guys. If a scene gets added, or new lines, or whatever, then you "reshoot" the new stuff with your actors but for the most part they're done very quickly and the rest is a huge extended period of post-production.

 

Of course, since you're designing your animation tools, character and creature designs, and building all the worlds/props/creatures/weapons/ships/etc that you need, all that starts before your mo-cap shoot anyway. So it's a fluid process back and forth.

 

 

Fascinating.

[Avatree]

I think there are a few separate issues here, but they kind of get merged all together. There's art style, CGI/effects technology, and 3D immersion.

 

In terms of creating an immersive 3D experience, Avatar wins it hands down for me. It's been too long for me to really remember it properly (so I don't remember the effectiveness of some of the shots posted earlier in the thread) but I do remember being completely absorbed into Pandora. It was a wonderful experience.

Gravity was not as immersive for me. I don't feel its effects really held up as well as they should have, and it felt too fake. The awful script didn't help but that aside, I really wasn't blown away by the film as so many others were. Maybe my cinema screen was too small or something, but I remember being a bit bored by it at multiple points. Effects-wise I feel it's pretty average, which is fine usually - except with Gravity, that's all there was to the visual experience.

 

As for art style, the aforementioned Life of Pi looked stunning in 3D, but that's really just down to the colour palette and the vast, open waters. The 3D itself was not particularly special, nor was the CGI (though the tiger was, admittedly, fairly convincing), but the visual design elevated it to another level. I also personally feel that Avatar looked gorgeous thanks to its design - I love the contrast of the colourful, lush natural forests against the grey, mechanical human technology.

 

Finally, the CGI. Avatar might have been groundbreaking at the time, and the quality of the effects certainly aided the immersion factor, but looking back on it, it's not incredible. The level of detail is impressive in creating such a sense of scale, but at the end of the day, the effects are definitely 5 years old!

The best film in terms of visual effects technology is, without a doubt, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The apes are utterly convincing and real, and to put such a focus on them, and have so many apes moving at one time, without making it feel cheesy, is one of the most impressive feats I've ever seen in the cinema.

 

So, no, Avatar has not been matched in its use of 3D; but there have been better looking, and more impressive, films since.

[Plain Old Tele]

It's worth pointing, though, that one of AVATAR's incredible CG achievements wasn't just the mocap/Na'vi animation, but the entire invented world created from scratch, close-to-photorealistic-enough that it fooled many people into thinking they just filmed in a jungle somewhere and added fake creatures.

[Avatree]

It's worth pointing, though, that one of AVATAR's incredible CG achievements wasn't just the mocap/Na'vi animation, but the entire invented world created from scratch, close-to-photorealistic-enough that it fooled many people into thinking they just filmed in a jungle somewhere and added fake creatures.

Agreed. The world is what impressed me about the film, not the performance capture.