• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you feel punished by Avatar's 3D? I didn't, so I guess he did it right. There may be more methods but I wouldn't call this one a punishment at all. ;D
 
maharg said:
Ugh. Are you sure he said that? That's really disappointing. There are a lot of ways to draw a viewer's eyes to a part of a scene, but this method is pure brute force as far as I'm concerned. It's distracting, it's physically uncomfortable, and it is not natural. As far as I can tell, it's literally punishment.

It's something they do in 2d films (as well as still photography) because your eyes accept that they are looking at a plane and so keep the same focal length even when faced with something blurry.
Click to expand...


I don't recall the exact quote, but yes he said something along those lines. If there's anyone who knows how to film in 3D correctly, it's Cameron. He filmed T2-3D in 1996, and then did two 3D documentaries in the 2000s. Not only that, but he co-developed the 3D Fusion camera. The point is, I'm sure he has a very good reason for filming Avatar the way he did, and I guarantee there is no better way to do it.
 
GhaleonEB said:
121639-avatar_globes_backstage_490.jpg


Glad Weaver was there.
Click to expand...

That arm looks inhuman. Just look at it!
 
DieNgamers said:
Did you feel punished by Avatar's 3D? I didn't, so I guess he did it right. There may be more methods but I wouldn't call this one a punishment at all. ;D
Click to expand...

Whenever a little fluff went across the screen, drew my eye away, and my eye tried to focus on it and failed: yes, I felt punished.

As for the idea that Cameron can do no wrong... well, there's really just no arguing with that, is there? Clearly, the man is god himself, sent from on high (or maybe he's a robot from the future where EVERYTHING is 3d, even our living rooms!). All his opinions are correct, everything he does is perfect. Why, the man has done 4 3d movies! One of them some people actually saw!

Look, let me put it this way: I've never seen a 3d film (and I've seen more than Cameron has made, so that makes me an expert) where the problem I had with it was that something unimportant wasn't fuzzy enough. In fact, my eyes have this uncanny ability to render depth of field effects by the very nature of their optics. What is the point of showing me a 3d image and then NOT letting my eyes do what they're supposed to do?
 
DieNgamers said:
Did you feel punished by Avatar's 3D? I didn't, so I guess he did it right. There may be more methods but I wouldn't call this one a punishment at all. ;D
Click to expand...
It didn't feel like punishment(:p), but it did feel forced that you couldn't look at some stuff in certain scenes because the focal point was in focus.
Though, I too thought it was because I had to get use to the 3D effect, with this knowledge, it doesn't seem very natural to me.
 
Truant said:
That arm looks inhuman. Just look at it!
Click to expand...
2cn9k45.jpg


As for the 3D, I'm guessing it's down to whether your eyes were able to adjust to it. I find that the first 10 minutes or so of Avatar are challenging for me because of the 3D. Cameron helps early on by using the shot of the floating moisture inside the pod as a kind of training on how to focus on different levels. But after 10 minutes or so - with each viewing - I almost stopped noticing the 3D entirely and my eyes adjusted on their own. Only rare moments when stuff is pushed way into the audience - such as the falling ashes - was I really conscious of it.

If you couldn't adjust for some reason, I can see it being a difficult watch.
 
maharg said:
Whenever a little fluff went across the screen, drew my eye away, and my eye tried to focus on it and failed: yes, I felt punished.

As for the idea that Cameron can do no wrong... well, there's really just no arguing with that, is there? Clearly, the man is god himself, sent from on high (or maybe he's a robot from the future where EVERYTHING is 3d, even our living rooms!). All his opinions are correct, everything he does is perfect. Why, the man has done 4 3d movies! One of them some people actually saw!

Look, let me put it this way: I've never seen a 3d film (and I've seen more than Cameron has made, so that makes me an expert) where the problem I had with it was that something unimportant wasn't fuzzy enough. In fact, my eyes have this uncanny ability to render depth of field effects by the very nature of their optics. What is the point of showing me a 3d image and then NOT letting my eyes do what they're supposed to do?
Click to expand...


I never said he can do no wrong. He's not a great writer of dialogue, for instance. But clearly he is one of the leading authorities on filming in 3D. In fact, there's probably no one in the world who knows more about filming in 3D than Cameron. I'm sorry, but to question his judgment in this area is pretty stupid.
 
I just don't buy it being necessary. 3D by its nature is allowing the audience's eyes to do more of the work of viewing the scene, and forcing depth of field imo detracts from that. It's an attempt to reign in that control the viewer should be getting that allows them to feel more involved in the scene.

I'm sure it didn't bother me in every scene it happened, and it obviously doesn't bother some people for any scene. But boy, when it bothered me it bothered me a lot. Took me right out. And I doubt I was alone. And that's just antithetical to why people enjoy 3d.

It's supposed to make you feel like you're there, and I tell you if I couldn't glance at the plate on my desk without it looking just as blurry as it is when I'm looking at my screen, I'd think something was wrong.

ArachosiA 78 said:
I never said he can do no wrong. He's not a great writer of dialogue, for instance. But clearly he is one of the leading authorities on filming in 3D. In fact, there's probably no one in the world who knows more about filming in 3D than Cameron. I'm sorry, but to question his judgment in this area is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, but if I were complaining about some esoteric area of the technology involved -- the resolution of his cameras, how the software that stitches things together works, the theoretical limits of what he can and can't do with it, etc. -- you might have a point.

But as a viewer of the film, I am an expert in my own response to it. I can question whatever artistic or visual decisions a film maker makes, and I have every right to it. An argument appealing to Cameron's authority on this point doesn't change my reaction to the technique, and I haven't been the only one in this thread to express it. And I will express it as much as I can where I have an outlet, because I sincerely hope to not see it repeated and used gaudily like the oft-complained about OMG-IT'S-FLYING-AT-ME technique. I think they're part and parcel with each other: distractions, something to get used to unnecessarily.

I'm no newb to watching 3d films. This isn't adjustment to 3d itself. It was a decision they made that I disagree with and hope to never see repeated. Frankly, I find it ridiculous to think that people would have a negative reaction to a lack of depth of field effect applied to small unimportant objects, because I've never heard anyone express one. And that speaks more to me than words from on high.
 
maharg said:
I just don't buy it being necessary. 3D by its nature is allowing the audience's eyes to do more of the work of viewing the scene, and forcing depth of field imo detracts from that. It's an attempt to reign in that control the viewer should be getting that allows them to feel more involved in the scene.

I'm sure it didn't bother me in every scene it happened, and it obviously doesn't bother some people for any scene. But boy, when it bothered me it bothered me a lot. Took me right out. And I doubt I was alone. And that's just antithetical to why people enjoy 3d.

It's supposed to make you feel like you're there, and I tell you if I couldn't glance at the plate on my desk without it looking just as blurry as it is when I'm looking at my screen, I'd think something was wrong.



Sorry dude, but if I were complaining about some esoteric area of the technology involved -- the resolution of his cameras, how the software that stitches things together works, the theoretical limits of what he can and can't do with it, etc. -- you might have a point.

But as a viewer of the film, I am an expert in my own response to it. I can question whatever artistic or visual decisions a film maker makes, and I have every right to it. An argument appealing to Cameron's authority on this point doesn't change my reaction to the technique, and I haven't been the only one in this thread to express it. And I will express it as much as I can where I have an outlet, because I sincerely hope to not see it repeated and used gaudily like the oft-complained about OMG-IT'S-FLYING-AT-ME technique. I think they're part and parcel with each other: distractions, something to get used to unnecessarily.

I'm no newb to watching 3d films. This isn't adjustment to 3d itself. It was a decision they made that I disagree with and hope to never see repeated. Frankly, I find it ridiculous to think that people would have a negative reaction to a lack of depth of field effect applied to small unimportant objects, because I've never heard anyone express one. And that speaks more to me than words from on high.
Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I had no problem with the 3D other than the fact that during fast action sequences things got a bit blurry and hard to follow (but that's due to the 24fps limitation). You might want to stear clear of Cameron's future films, because I'm pretty sure he's not going to be changing his way of doing things. He is utterly convinced that the old way of shooting in 3D is completely backwards. If I ever find the interview where he explains his philosophy, I'll put a link up here.
 
I know exactly what maharg is talking about and I agree completely. Luckily it was only in two or three shots that it happened. But I also hope that it is avoided in the future. Focus should be drawn to the intended focal point without using focus itself.

Speaking of, I'm just reminded how surreal that scene is where you get Jake's POV when he's waking up in his Avatar body for the first time and the meds shine a light in our eyes. It felt so real (surreal lulz).
 
Meus Renaissance said:
Avatar's script in original form leaked



:lol

I love the movie but seriously...wtf
Click to expand...


This joke is old and silly. Avatar is closer to something like Dances With Wolves then Pocahontas. It is very hard to have a film that is not derivative these days, and while Avatar is derivative of several films it does not follow any story to the point of plagiarism. And lets not pretend that the Disney version of Pocahontas is in anyway accurate to the actual story nor is it original and fresh on its own.
 
That picture of Cameron and all the oscars gets me everytime. :lol
 
maharg said:
I just don't buy it being necessary. 3D by its nature is allowing the audience's eyes to do more of the work of viewing the scene, and forcing depth of field imo detracts from that. It's an attempt to reign in that control the viewer should be getting that allows them to feel more involved in the scene.

I'm sure it didn't bother me in every scene it happened, and it obviously doesn't bother some people for any scene. But boy, when it bothered me it bothered me a lot. Took me right out. And I doubt I was alone. And that's just antithetical to why people enjoy 3d.

It's supposed to make you feel like you're there, and I tell you if I couldn't glance at the plate on my desk without it looking just as blurry as it is when I'm looking at my screen, I'd think something was wrong.



Sorry dude, but if I were complaining about some esoteric area of the technology involved -- the resolution of his cameras, how the software that stitches things together works, the theoretical limits of what he can and can't do with it, etc. -- you might have a point.

But as a viewer of the film, I am an expert in my own response to it. I can question whatever artistic or visual decisions a film maker makes, and I have every right to it. An argument appealing to Cameron's authority on this point doesn't change my reaction to the technique, and I haven't been the only one in this thread to express it. And I will express it as much as I can where I have an outlet, because I sincerely hope to not see it repeated and used gaudily like the oft-complained about OMG-IT'S-FLYING-AT-ME technique. I think they're part and parcel with each other: distractions, something to get used to unnecessarily.

I'm no newb to watching 3d films. This isn't adjustment to 3d itself. It was a decision they made that I disagree with and hope to never see repeated. Frankly, I find it ridiculous to think that people would have a negative reaction to a lack of depth of field effect applied to small unimportant objects, because I've never heard anyone express one. And that speaks more to me than words from on high.
Click to expand...

you're complaining about a problem with photography on any level. the camera is the only arbiter of focus. this applies in still photography, normal film or video and 3D.

I'm watching a replay of a EPL game atm, sometimes the crowd on the other side of the ground are out of focus. does that cause you problems?


the only scenes i noticed it in were the ones when the home tree was burning and the ash was falling. but he has to make a decision, probably an artistic one to focus on the Na'vi fleeing and the emotion there rather than the truly inconsequential ash in the foreground. He probably felt you should be focussing there as well.

If you can come up with a system, where everything is in focus all the time, irrespective of where it is compared to the subject of the shot. You'll make a fortune.
 
duckroll said:
But pretty much everything in the shot mentioned is CGI. Why would it be a camera issue at all. :P
Click to expand...

like i said, its probably an artistic decision to force you to focus on the subject of the scene and also as a analog for an actual camera.

who knows, it may have been more disconcerting with the foreground ash in focus. most people watching are used to photography where the objects not the subject of the shot are out of focus whether they be extreme foreground or background.

then again maybe he didn't give shit.
 
Saw it yesterday. Definitely the most amazing and technically impressive movie I've seen. What a spectacle.

And once your head accepts that Cameron chose a simple story with one-dimensional characters (basically a re-telling of Pocahontas and other similar stories), it becomes a really enjoyable experience.

maharg said:
Ugh. Are you sure he said that? That's really disappointing. There are a lot of ways to draw a viewer's eyes to a part of a scene, but this method is pure brute force as far as I'm concerned. It's distracting, it's physically uncomfortable, and it is not natural. As far as I can tell, it's literally punishment.

It's something they do in 2d films (as well as still photography) because your eyes accept that they are looking at a plane and so keep the same focal length even when faced with something blurry.
Click to expand...
That is definitely something I noticed as well. I tried looking up the info whether that's just a downside of the 3D technology or was a conscious decision on Cameron's part. Glad it's the latter.


edit: it should definitely win every CG/effects award ever for the depiction of the Indians. Stunningly real behaviour and mimics there.
 
Haunted said:
Saw it yesterday. Definitely the most amazing and technically impressive movie I've seen. What a spectacle.

And once your head accepts that Cameron chose a simple story with one-dimensional characters (basically a re-telling of Pocahontas and other similar stories), it becomes a really enjoyable experience.


That is definitely something I noticed as well. I tried looking up the info whether that's just a downside of the 3D technology or was a conscious decision on Cameron's part. Glad it's the latter.


edit: it should definitely win every CG/effects award ever for the depiction of the Indians. Stunningly real behaviour and mimics there.
Click to expand...
i had no problems focusing on the images but my eyes did hurt a little by the end of the movie.
 
smurfx said:
i had no problems focusing on the images but my eyes did hurt a little by the end of the movie.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't say hurt, but mine were certainly tired. I mean, that's not too uncommon for visually intense movies (especially considering Avatar's length + no break) but I think the 3D helped making it taxing on the eyes.
 
JB1981 said:
Did not seem like people liked Cameron much in the audience last night. Leo didn't even clap for him lol
Click to expand...

Well, Cameron recently praised Winslet while downplaying Leo's abilities, so....
 
There is no rivalry. Reitman just fancies himself to be the next great American* filmmaker and is just bitter that Cameron won. The end.


*Canadian
 
I'm thinking of seeing this tonight, weather permitting. Has anyone seen Avatar in the Boston area? If so, what are the best theaters?
 
Kurashima said:
I saw it over the weekend, and it was my first 3D movie (reald 3d at a regular cinema place). I enjoyed it for sure - my brother, whom I saw it with, was kinda shaking his head during it, saying it was really hamfisted, so that may have skewed some of my impression of the movie. Anyway, I want to see it again. The world was breathtaking. The plot and all I'll hold off from commenting until I see again.

About the 3D, I wore the 3D glasses overtop of my correction glasses. It took me a while to get used to the effects. I'm not sure if this is how it is or if it was just a matter of getting used to things being in / out of focus in another dimension, but it seemed like it was a lot blurrier than I expected. I think got better as I got used to it later on. The beginning, when the guy's floating around outside his pod, didn't seem like I could focus on things all that clearly and the scene as a whole seemed a bit off. Quick cuts (like chase scenes) were also kind of hard for me to make out the details in. Things that were way in the foreground always seemed blurry. Regardless, the 3D gives everything a much more realistic feeling that what I saw later on at home via trailers / featurettes, even though they were much sharper looking.

Anyway, I wonder, is this inherent in 3D movies to this date or could me having my glasses underneath the 3D ones have contributed to this? I don't have any contacts left, unfortunately, to see the movie with, but I wonder if that would help. Does anyone with glasses want to share their opinion?
Click to expand...
Same here. I think it's because it's telling our eyes to cross strongly as if something's floating 2 feet in front of your face, while at the same time the reality is the projected image is more like 40-50 feet away.
 
Jason Reitman A.k.A I'm butthurt said:
"I'm the biggest [James] Cameron fan. I love every one of his films"
Click to expand...

Yeah.....right.
That's why you u mad after Cameron takes best picture?

haaaha u mad.
 
With the success in the us and over seas I'm pretty sure they will top titanic in sales
with the increase of ticket prices this was bound to happen eventually, but I am surprised Cameron was able to top his own movie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RIP Cora (my avatar)
46
738
gamingforum1 replied
Funk musician Sly Stone, 82, has passed away
11
577
GeekyDad replied
What's the deal with your avatar.
2 3
131
1K
Sand Dan Glokta replied
Brian Wilson Legendary founder of the Beach boys dies at 82
28
890
LiquidMetal14 replied
Avatar Error?
7
491
Nocty replied
Top Bottom