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 TH-cam channel 📺 ►th-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.
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.
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.
This kind of technical jargon has done more for my willingness to go see a movie than any trailer in the last decade has. Bravo sir, bravo. Avatar 2 will be the first movie I see in theaters in something like 5-6 years.
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.
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.
@@gold333 Yes it was weird, 3D on home TV's came and suddenly went. I thought it was cool. My TV is 3D and it looks great. And on 4K: every single article and video on 4K says for home TV's, it isn't worth it, you can't see the difference (unless you have a wall sized TV). Yet the manufacturers plow on, now coming out with ridiculous 8K TV's. Pretty soon we will all need petabit Internet connections just to be able to stream the ridiculous 8K, or 32K or whatever screens.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There was a system developed in Russia that projected images from left and right onto a screen made of thousands of micro-cones. The left eye sees the left projector and the right eye sees the right projector. It helps to sit near the center of the theater.
Kinopanorama? The only films ever shot with it were Russian. Somebody bought a camera but it would only take the Russian Svema stock. Something to do with a different pitch of the perforations. Svemacolour was basically a very,very old love-child of 1940's Agfacolour.
14:20 i still remember when i first watched a 3d video without 3d glasses and it was unreal man, i hope that we can experience it in theaters as well 😫😫
3D is the way to go. I was skeptical when the first film came out, too, but it worked wonders. Cameron's got a proven track record so we're good. Can't wait to be mesmerized.
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
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.
Christie isn’t a “laser projector manufacturer”, they’re a digital projector manufacturer, some of which are laser-illuminated. (I don’t think anyone is currently making direct laser projectors.)
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.
Went to the Avatar Re-release two days ago.... It was Insane for a 2009 movie! If I had to guess when it was made I'd have said something along the lines of 2019!
Underwater you have no problem with weight, as everything can be neutrally buoyant, also you have less issues with heat, so cooling is more compact - you have essentially an water cooled camera (so maybe Camera was before Linus).
Well sort of. I actually scuba dive as well and have some underwater camera rigs. The only issue sometimes depending on the casing is it can no be ventilated well and their is nowhere for the hot air to go. The nicer ones do have fixes for that though
@@FrameVoyager yes, dont think air. The whole housing (alu block) on this cameras are metal and thought to be part of the heatsink. While I am not aware of how this camera actually built, I worked with large format underwater film cameras about 25 years ago. Today one would take a heat pipe and attach it to the outer shell of the camera housing, while the other end goes on the 'hot' components. This bigger problem is the beamsplitter and port design, each lens needs to be diopter corrected to the dome material and curvature - while both 'beams' are in parallel this would be straight forward, but when you start shifting the angles things got get tricky.
@@MeetupvideoUK yep i would say so... if we had the budget for this adventures 25 years ago... it would be nearly cheaper today, as back then we where dealing with light and moisture sensitive film... todays problems are at least from y viewpoint 'a walk in the park' or 'swim across a coral reef'.
@13:19 - That is very incorrect. Passive 3D does not affect color vibrancy like you describe because it is circular polarization, not Anaglyph red/blue glasses which no one has used in decades. The only thing that is affected is brightness.
G4: “I bet your camera guys hated you…” Cameron: “I was the camera guy…” ^This is why James Cameron is the GOAT. Directors who sit behind video villages are hacks. Be a real filmmaker like James Cameron.
I still remember when Avatar was released and I was just a kid and never knew about the vfx/cgi and use to think that those floating islands does exist in real life😂and as I am a 3D artist now still getting amazed by the beauty of VFX/CGI used in Avatar series.
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.
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.
Been crushing these videos. Everyone ive seen on your channel has been entertaining and more importantly informative. Great job and im looking forward to more. Salute
My local cinema just rereleased Avatar in 4DX and it was absolutely incredible… the 3D, wind, water, smells. Sadly with my eyesight I will never see true 3D but enjoyed it nevertheless.
Great video. I really think 3D movies should be rated and tell us how they were made. If just CGI was added or an actual camera like this movie. I really enjoyed Avatar because of the 3D, but then you go see other 3D movies and they are all let downs as they were not done the same way.
The Christie Mirage SST-6P (which stands for 6 Primary) uses two projector heads that each has a set of discrete RGB lasers, one for the right eye and one for the left. The wavelengths of each head are slightly offset and only need passive 3D glasses to filter the frequencies properly to each eye (glasses information can be provided by a Christie representative). The two-head system effectively removes the chance of crosstalk and eliminates ghosting and other visual anomalies common to typical 3D projection.
@@FrameVoyager Enjoyed this video but Red blue anaglyph glasses have nothing to do with polarization. Also in the next shot where you refer to active shutter glasses you mistakenly show passive Dolby (Infitec) glasses. Yeah I am a 3D nerd. Appreciate the coverage though.
Mistake at 13:13 Passive 3D doesnt require Red and Blue glasses anymore.. Most movies youll see in the theaters are modern passive 3D which darken the image but do not flicker like active 3D. If they allow you to keep your 3D glasses its passive 3D! Active 3D glasses cost roughly $40-$100 each to buy so if they let you keep them when leaving your 3D movie they would be losing more than they made. Some IMAX theaters provide active 3D glasses for certain films fitted with an anti theft device which will sound an alarm if you leave the cinema with it. Technically the resolution is better with active 3D but many people dislike the flickering effect which occurs with it. Personally I feel with the growing advancements with 6K-8K projectors the loss in resolution is no longer important since the human eye cant distinguish more detail past 4K from a normal viewing distance. This is why I feel 6-8K will be the standard at the cinema and 4K is here to stay at home!
I absolutely love 3D film. I want so bad for it to come back and stay, both at the cinema and home. If there is anyone who can make possible, that person can almost only be James Cameron. I watched the re-release in IMAX 3D, and it is marvelous!
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.
You *showed* the people sitting in the cinemas with circularly polarised 3D glasses, and then only mentioned "passive" glasses which are the red and green glasses (which do cause greyed-out colours) or active glasses which work great. Circularly polarised 3D glasses are also "passive" but they don't cause the greyed-out colours. Having used all three of these, I've gotta say the circularly polarised glasses give the best image. AFAIK only cinema projectors are capable of working with these, but you specified "viewing 3D content" not whether it specifically has to be at home. For home use however, only the red-green and active glasses systems are available.
It would be nice to see if 3D improved a bit in the last 10 years. I would actually be very happy if the 3D in Avatar 2 is as good as the last 3D movie I have seen (Gravity, 2013). I still think sound is more important that 3D (but maybe James Cameron may change my view on this). "The Entity" was the first movie shown in a local movie theater using Dolby surround and somehow this is still my reference frame for a movie with good 3D sound effects. At one point, Barbara Hershey stands in the middle of a room when she suddenly hears a door slam. At that moment both the complete audience in front of me and Barbara all turned their heads towards the back entrance of the theater. For me this shows the difference between "watching a movie" and "experiencing a movie". I have just seen a glimpse of what 3D laser projection can do and I can't wait to see something like the laser projector from Christie Digital being installed in my part of the world. A sh.. "The Entity" was of course the original one from 1982 - now you all know I am an old fart who will never adopt all these new tech ... 🤣
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.
James Cameron is truly inspirational and a filmmaking pioneer. He's one of those people that will push his craft beyond its limits and more. What makes this even better is that he's hugely successful director so he's able to achieve his vision entirely on his own merits with his own money. This is a HUGE difference. ON . YOUR. OWN. I'm incredibly inspired by him and will be watching this movie DAY ONE.
The detachable sensors is not a new thing... We used to do it in 2007 with the SI2K cameras. It was a great feature that I´m really glad that at last is introduced in the Sony Venice and will be present in the mucho more affordable Ronin 4D
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.
A lot of people are unaware that James Cameron who we know today as a master of filmmaking never went to film school. He is just “self taught and well reached in his craft.” One of those one in a billion brilliant minds in the world 🗺️
He saw StarWars and that was it. On the drive home, before he even put the keys in the door he knew he was quitting his job tomorrow and becoming a film maker
better than the actual video was the SEAMLESS transition into your video sponsor, Squarespace, who was very pertinent to the topic at hand (yet if they weren't, who would know considering how well you nailed the transition).
Kinda thought the same thing to be honest. Even if we could have 3D theatres without glasses... Would we still want to see that over a traditional setting? To me, if it can truly immerse us more into the story then it's worth exploring, but I don't know haha
@@FrameVoyager film and VR together could really make 3D movies a thing to behold - but I think costs for head mounted displays or AR glasses would need to come down considerably
@@FrameVoyager It really depends. For some movies, 3D is just better. For some, it makes no sense (well, for most really). Can't treat it like an all or nothing. Cameron is shooting movies for 3D, and with Avatar he mostly avoided the gimmicks (things coming towards the camera for no reason). The problem is all of the 3D conversions, which are an afterthought. They're not good enough and most people don't really want that. This is just another option for the big budget movies, just like IMAX is. Do you need to shoot all movies in IMAX? no. A lot of movies will get no benefit from it, but for some movies IMAX is the way to go
He creates experiences...3D is what creates that illusion.Anybody who watched Avatar in 2D,then complained about it,never experienced the illusion that Cameron's 3D creates.
Having watched the re release in 3D all I can say it was fantastic in 3D and avatar the way of water looks fantastic in 3D avatar the way of water needs to be seen in 3D filming in 3D is a lot better than post converted to be in 3D.
This just makes me wana watch avatar 2 even more lol. 3D it is :D I thought the first Avatar was one of the few movies that did 3D right and was actually better in 3D.
3D is the reason i loved the first one so much, im not joking when i say i walked out the theater and instantly bought another ticket because it really was like nothing else. I cant wait for ths movie.
So, for the first Avatar, I went 3 hours early to wait for the first IMAX 3D showing. All that sitting and laying on the flat smooth floor did it's damage on my bad back so when it came time to go in, I stood up and ... my back went out. I couldn't walk. Normally when that happens I have to call the ambulance to get me up, but I was SO DETERMINED that I grabbed onto the wall and literally cripple-stumbled to my seat (which was with at least a thickly padded cushion). I made it thru and then drove myself to the ER afterwards. :)
It's funny how you always have to denounce whether you liked Avatar or not when talking about it 😄😄.. I didn't like it but damn Cameron really raised the bar just like they showed in south park.
Most people I have seen looking at a selfie taken by a 3D camera in VR reacts quite similar to wild animals staring at a mirror for the first time. The contract eyes establish with 3D media is like Cameron describes. But the camera placement imported from standard cinema manuals is awkward for 3D, *unless* you are a bird. Feels like “a trip to the moon” by Méliès, a period transitioning between theater and cinema.
@@Ansonandco Hey, writer here! James Cameron detailed the story of Avatars creation in this Q&A: th-cam.com/video/xRg9hYStHm0/w-d-xo.html From what I remember from this Q&A, Cameron woke up from a dream once which was about bioluminescent woods or jungles. For years he wanted to make this idea that eventually became Avatar happen and after spending about 10 million dollars to test motion capture technology and the 3D workflow, he was confident enough to make the film.
Not the biggest Cameron fan lol...the man will be a huge loss to innovative movie production when he has gone one day.Better to appreciate him while he is still around.Oh...and he doesn't support insane cruelty to innocent animals by not eating them...whats not to like?
@@spandel100 Personally, I just don't care for the plots of his films or his directing style. But, like I said, his technical innovations are creative and impressive. Sorry that exposure to an opinion that doesn't exactly match yours seems to upset your delicate emotional balance so badly. Try not to take it so hard. Maybe just don't read the comments if they're that upsetting for you.🤷♂️
@@taylorlibby7642 No need for sarcasm Taylor...just tired of seeing so much entitlement and negativity on social media,thats all.Felt the need to say something.The world is falling apart and people are in general just being petty when there are far bigger things to look at.Whatever its worth,take care.
@@spandel100🙄 You come on like a snide twit and tell me there's no need for sarcasm? You're not worth talking to if you're going to be that intellectually dishonest. Bye.🙄
Thanks for putting this together... Really cool video, As somebody who uses prosumer Sony cameras it is so cool to see what the pros do with the top of the line Venice systems, have you done anything on the Maverick camera rig? It looks insane and I'd love to learn more about it.
No problem! It's pretty interesting how they used the cameras for sure. I haven't yet! I'll have to look into that one! Planning on doing a lot in this vein
A camera doesnt make the shot or money by itself therefore, are neither pro, or amateur. Words such as, prosumer, professional, and beginner used to describe cameras is only an advertising term to entice people into upgrading.
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.
The 3D without glasses thing is intriguing and I would like to know more, indeed. There are tech like the Nintendo 3DS that pulls that trick off remarkably well. But. That works with a lenticular screen. And only works in a narrow viewing region. I'm guessing they arent going to put a lenticular reflective layer on the projection screen and limit viewers to a narrow area in the theatre. That would be a giant cost outside the upgrade of the very expensive projectors. And theatre owners would have no chance to recoup the costs with a 4th of the available seats or whatever it would end up be. But outside the lenticular system, I'm not sure how one would selectively direct the light to each eye for viewers you can't predict the POV of. I would love to read the research that Christie is doing. Because if the aren't just bending the truth like how Cinemascope and other wide screen systems was once marketed as the 3D you can watch without glasses. Similarly, by both engaging with the periphery view of spectators, and the ability to deepen the contrast into absolute black you gain very 3D like responses. But that gives no real 3D depth perception like actual stereography provides. If that's not it. Then there's something really groundbreaking going on. And I am intrigued, to say the least.
Glasses-free 3D projection doesn't exist. All the stories about it seem to be based on an poorly-written Inquisitr article that was misquoting an InsideTheMagic (a notorious clickbait site) article that was pure speculation.
I saw Avatar as a kid ind 3d and it was incredible. Which then led me to play the Avatar computer game with active 3d glasses and that experience was amazing. Probably the best 3d technology I have ever seen and it was right at home. The Character you played was literally just floating in front of the screen and it felt like it was just an action figure you could touch. I belive in 3d, but I also think that most movies dont benefit from 3d nowadays. The reason for this is not 3d itself though, but laziness during production. Even huge budget blockbusters like Avengers do not use proper 3d cameras and instead just Layer the shot in edeting to creat some sort of 3d effect. And this lack of proper 3d is everywhere ruining the repetition of a technology that is great when done right. I will watch Avatar 2 in 3d once it comes out and I can not wairt for it.
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.
@@jmalmsten its cool if he's into motocross... But he's wearing a competition jersey as clothes, and literally the cheapest most basic... Its always a random Thor jersey. . Thats not like wearing a Lakers jersey or something similar. Its just odd is all and makes you wonder. Im not at all gatekeeping.
😂 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
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 TH-cam channel 📺 ►th-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.
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.
"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.
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!
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.
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.”
This kind of technical jargon has done more for my willingness to go see a movie than any trailer in the last decade has. Bravo sir, bravo. Avatar 2 will be the first movie I see in theaters in something like 5-6 years.
Thoughts?
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.
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.
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.
@@gold333 Yes it was weird, 3D on home TV's came and suddenly went. I thought it was cool. My TV is 3D and it looks great. And on 4K: every single article and video on 4K says for home TV's, it isn't worth it, you can't see the difference (unless you have a wall sized TV). Yet the manufacturers plow on, now coming out with ridiculous 8K TV's. Pretty soon we will all need petabit Internet connections just to be able to stream the ridiculous 8K, or 32K or whatever screens.
Cameron is a goddamn genius. People always bet against him and lose.
Here we go again…
Genius. I agree. Very inspiring filmmaker.
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
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.
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.
Cameron is on another level than almost any other film maker. With all due respect to all the amazing people out there.
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.
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.
👀👀👀
There was a system developed in Russia that projected images from left and right onto a screen made of thousands of micro-cones. The left eye sees the left projector and the right eye sees the right projector. It helps to sit near the center of the theater.
Is it safe to assume that contrast ratio was poor?
Kinopanorama? The only films ever shot with it were Russian. Somebody bought a camera but it would only take the Russian Svema stock. Something to do with a different pitch of the perforations. Svemacolour was basically a very,very old love-child of 1940's Agfacolour.
In the US, 3D has accounted for 94% of the Avatar rerelease grosses.
EUROPE (76%)
ASIA (78% +4D)
LATIN AMERICA (71%)
14:20 i still remember when i first watched a 3d video without 3d glasses and it was unreal man, i hope that we can experience it in theaters as well 😫😫
The number one filmmaker of the world💓the visionary 🙏
3D is the way to go. I was skeptical when the first film came out, too, but it worked wonders. Cameron's got a proven track record so we're good. Can't wait to be mesmerized.
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...
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
Christie isn’t a “laser projector manufacturer”, they’re a digital projector manufacturer, some of which are laser-illuminated. (I don’t think anyone is currently making direct laser projectors.)
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.
This is a much-needed movie right now to let everyone remember what vfx is supposed to do.
is it even a avatar movie if it doesnt give the vfx industry a kick up the but
Went to the Avatar Re-release two days ago.... It was Insane for a 2009 movie! If I had to guess when it was made I'd have said something along the lines of 2019!
I'm not a big 3d movie fan. I just saw today in 3d and was blow away. This movie is a must to watch in 3d.
Underwater you have no problem with weight, as everything can be neutrally buoyant, also you have less issues with heat, so cooling is more compact - you have essentially an water cooled camera (so maybe Camera was before Linus).
Well sort of. I actually scuba dive as well and have some underwater camera rigs. The only issue sometimes depending on the casing is it can no be ventilated well and their is nowhere for the hot air to go. The nicer ones do have fixes for that though
@@FrameVoyager yes, dont think air. The whole housing (alu block) on this cameras are metal and thought to be part of the heatsink. While I am not aware of how this camera actually built, I worked with large format underwater film cameras about 25 years ago. Today one would take a heat pipe and attach it to the outer shell of the camera housing, while the other end goes on the 'hot' components.
This bigger problem is the beamsplitter and port design, each lens needs to be diopter corrected to the dome material and curvature - while both 'beams' are in parallel this would be straight forward, but when you start shifting the angles things got get tricky.
If they have enough money to produce Avatar2 then probably develop or modify an existing underwater housing won’t be a big problem.
@@MeetupvideoUK yep i would say so... if we had the budget for this adventures 25 years ago... it would be nearly cheaper today, as back then we where dealing with light and moisture sensitive film... todays problems are at least from y viewpoint 'a walk in the park' or 'swim across a coral reef'.
Exactly, this is why up until 1970, all movies were shot underwater.
@13:19 - That is very incorrect. Passive 3D does not affect color vibrancy like you describe because it is circular polarization, not Anaglyph red/blue glasses which no one has used in decades. The only thing that is affected is brightness.
G4: “I bet your camera guys hated you…”
Cameron: “I was the camera guy…”
^This is why James Cameron is the GOAT. Directors who sit behind video villages are hacks. Be a real filmmaker like James Cameron.
Depends on the style of the filmmaker, but I get you.
Exactly 🤣 get off your ass & work that damn camera 😭
the transition you made to your ad was smooth I didnt even realize I was in it till halfway through.
😅😅😅 good to hear! Some people hate it some people like it 😂
I still remember when Avatar was released and I was just a kid and never knew about the vfx/cgi and use to think that those floating islands does exist in real life😂and as I am a 3D artist now still getting amazed by the beauty of VFX/CGI used in Avatar series.
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.
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.
Been crushing these videos. Everyone ive seen on your channel has been entertaining and more importantly informative. Great job and im looking forward to more. Salute
My local cinema just rereleased Avatar in 4DX and it was absolutely incredible… the 3D, wind, water, smells. Sadly with my eyesight I will never see true 3D but enjoyed it nevertheless.
I’ve been waiting 13 years for this movie
Ommmmmggg cannot wait to rewatch it at least 7 times 😭😭😭❤️❤️❤️
Great video. I really think 3D movies should be rated and tell us how they were made. If just CGI was added or an actual camera like this movie. I really enjoyed Avatar because of the 3D, but then you go see other 3D movies and they are all let downs as they were not done the same way.
Wow, another underwater movie adventure! First the Amazing Aquaman and now this!
He’s a very respectable film maker. Avatar inspired me when I was younger. I’m excited to see this new film
The Christie Mirage SST-6P (which stands for 6 Primary) uses two projector heads that each has a set of discrete RGB lasers, one for the right eye and one for the left. The wavelengths of each head are slightly offset and only need passive 3D glasses to filter the frequencies properly to each eye (glasses information can be provided by a Christie representative). The two-head system effectively removes the chance of crosstalk and eliminates ghosting and other visual anomalies common to typical 3D projection.
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.
13:15 There’s a big difference in quality between modern polarised 3D glasses and old Red and Blue glasses. It seemed like you combined them.
💯 I think we just missed how we said it 😂 sorry about that!
@@FrameVoyager Enjoyed this video but Red blue anaglyph glasses have nothing to do with polarization. Also in the next shot where you refer to active shutter glasses you mistakenly show passive Dolby (Infitec) glasses. Yeah I am a 3D nerd. Appreciate the coverage though.
@@WhiskyMystery yep! Mixed this up a bit 😩 sorry about that
I saw avatar when it came back to theaters and it still looks better than todays movie’s
Mistake at 13:13 Passive 3D doesnt require Red and Blue glasses anymore.. Most movies youll see in the theaters are modern passive 3D which darken the image but do not flicker like active 3D. If they allow you to keep your 3D glasses its passive 3D! Active 3D glasses cost roughly $40-$100 each to buy so if they let you keep them when leaving your 3D movie they would be losing more than they made. Some IMAX theaters provide active 3D glasses for certain films fitted with an anti theft device which will sound an alarm if you leave the cinema with it. Technically the resolution is better with active 3D but many people dislike the flickering effect which occurs with it. Personally I feel with the growing advancements with 6K-8K projectors the loss in resolution is no longer important since the human eye cant distinguish more detail past 4K from a normal viewing distance. This is why I feel 6-8K will be the standard at the cinema and 4K is here to stay at home!
James Cameron is the savior of cinema
Have been waiting for this movie forever. So happy I am around to see it!
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
Wowow, I got not thing to say..just blown away by the digital imagining technolology shown here - which is already history. 🤯
I absolutely love 3D film. I want so bad for it to come back and stay, both at the cinema and home. If there is anyone who can make possible, that person can almost only be James Cameron.
I watched the re-release in IMAX 3D, and it is marvelous!
I still have my plasma that does 3D.Too many people bitching about the hassle of using it caused its demise.
@@spandel100 it's too bad people can be so impatient.
@@kubrickenigma7977 Yes...
the "you have two eyes" is the only 'this is made for your body' argument that actually makes sense
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.
You *showed* the people sitting in the cinemas with circularly polarised 3D glasses, and then only mentioned "passive" glasses which are the red and green glasses (which do cause greyed-out colours) or active glasses which work great. Circularly polarised 3D glasses are also "passive" but they don't cause the greyed-out colours. Having used all three of these, I've gotta say the circularly polarised glasses give the best image.
AFAIK only cinema projectors are capable of working with these, but you specified "viewing 3D content" not whether it specifically has to be at home. For home use however, only the red-green and active glasses systems are available.
Marvel only wishes they had a director just as passionate as Cameron
that realtime previz is what people call now virtual production without the led screens truly a pioneer
It would be nice to see if 3D improved a bit in the last 10 years. I would actually be very happy if the 3D in Avatar 2 is as good as the last 3D movie I have seen (Gravity, 2013).
I still think sound is more important that 3D (but maybe James Cameron may change my view on this). "The Entity" was the first movie shown in a local movie theater using Dolby surround and somehow this is still my reference frame for a movie with good 3D sound effects. At one point, Barbara Hershey stands in the middle of a room when she suddenly hears a door slam. At that moment both the complete audience in front of me and Barbara all turned their heads towards the back entrance of the theater. For me this shows the difference between "watching a movie" and "experiencing a movie". I have just seen a glimpse of what 3D laser projection can do and I can't wait to see something like the laser projector from Christie Digital being installed in my part of the world.
A sh.. "The Entity" was of course the original one from 1982 - now you all know I am an old fart who will never adopt all these new tech ... 🤣
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.
At 2:48 aren’t we just seeing the upward facing camera reflected in a 45 degree mirror?
hahaha yeah, I realized how that sounded after I posted the video. The other one is behind that mirror
James Cameron is truly inspirational and a filmmaking pioneer. He's one of those people that will push his craft beyond its limits and more. What makes this even better is that he's hugely successful director so he's able to achieve his vision entirely on his own merits with his own money. This is a HUGE difference. ON . YOUR. OWN. I'm incredibly inspired by him and will be watching this movie DAY ONE.
You can tell he has a true passion for making films
Really looking forward to this movie. Been a looooong time coming.
13 years holy crap
There are filmmakers who make movies with the best technology, and there is James Cameron who invents the technology to make a movie.
Incredible staff, equipment , movie. James Cameron
Avatar 2 gonna b unstoppable at box office💓💓💓n gonna change the cinematic experience to a completely new next level💓💓💓
The detachable sensors is not a new thing... We used to do it in 2007 with the SI2K cameras. It was a great feature that I´m really glad that at last is introduced in the Sony Venice and will be present in the mucho more affordable Ronin 4D
I wish they would put that much effort into plots and storylines.
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.
Love everything this guy does. Much respect for pushing the envelope. Waiting for Alita 2.
A lot of people are unaware that James Cameron who we know today as a master of filmmaking never went to film school.
He is just “self taught and well reached in his craft.”
One of those one in a billion brilliant minds in the world 🗺️
He saw StarWars and that was it. On the drive home, before he even put the keys in the door he knew he was quitting his job tomorrow and becoming a film maker
better than the actual video was the SEAMLESS transition into your video sponsor, Squarespace, who was very pertinent to the topic at hand (yet if they weren't, who would know considering how well you nailed the transition).
😂😂😂
I appreciate that he stays by his vision of 3d but it seem like to much hassle to me. I liked 3d movies as a kid tho
Kinda thought the same thing to be honest. Even if we could have 3D theatres without glasses... Would we still want to see that over a traditional setting? To me, if it can truly immerse us more into the story then it's worth exploring, but I don't know haha
@@FrameVoyager film and VR together could really make 3D movies a thing to behold - but I think costs for head mounted displays or AR glasses would need to come down considerably
Agreed. Or some other way of doing it that's less cumbersome
@@FrameVoyager It really depends. For some movies, 3D is just better. For some, it makes no sense (well, for most really). Can't treat it like an all or nothing. Cameron is shooting movies for 3D, and with Avatar he mostly avoided the gimmicks (things coming towards the camera for no reason). The problem is all of the 3D conversions, which are an afterthought. They're not good enough and most people don't really want that.
This is just another option for the big budget movies, just like IMAX is. Do you need to shoot all movies in IMAX? no. A lot of movies will get no benefit from it, but for some movies IMAX is the way to go
He creates experiences...3D is what creates that illusion.Anybody who watched Avatar in 2D,then complained about it,never experienced the illusion that Cameron's 3D creates.
Greatly detailed! Appreciated your Hard work ❤
Appreciate it!
Having watched the re release in 3D all I can say it was fantastic in 3D and avatar the way of water looks fantastic in 3D avatar the way of water needs to be seen in 3D filming in 3D is a lot better than post converted to be in 3D.
,..
^ hero you go, you dropped these.
@@ryanpmcguire 😂😂😂
Spectacular ending to this video.
No wasted time and I wanted more
Appreciate it! Try to do the best I can at that haha.
This just makes me wana watch avatar 2 even more lol. 3D it is :D I thought the first Avatar was one of the few movies that did 3D right and was actually better in 3D.
Thrilled that you used a still photo of my personal Busch Verascope stereo camera :)
He will revolutionize 3D once again.
3D is the reason i loved the first one so much, im not joking when i say i walked out the theater and instantly bought another ticket because it really was like nothing else. I cant wait for ths movie.
So, for the first Avatar, I went 3 hours early to wait for the first IMAX 3D showing. All that sitting and laying on the flat smooth floor did it's damage on my bad back so when it came time to go in, I stood up and ... my back went out. I couldn't walk. Normally when that happens I have to call the ambulance to get me up, but I was SO DETERMINED that I grabbed onto the wall and literally cripple-stumbled to my seat (which was with at least a thickly padded cushion). I made it thru and then drove myself to the ER afterwards. :)
It's funny how you always have to denounce whether you liked Avatar or not when talking about it 😄😄.. I didn't like it but damn Cameron really raised the bar just like they showed in south park.
Pushing technology forward should be part of the filmmaking evolution.
Most people I have seen looking at a selfie taken by a 3D camera in VR reacts quite similar to wild animals staring at a mirror for the first time. The contract eyes establish with 3D media is like Cameron describes. But the camera placement imported from standard cinema manuals is awkward for 3D, *unless* you are a bird. Feels like “a trip to the moon” by Méliès, a period transitioning between theater and cinema.
Instead of saying “except if” just say “unless” instead.
Great to see Mauro in this video. He's a great guy.
This is wild!
I would LOVVVVEEE to have the budget Cameron does to just be able to take 13 years to develop all of this stuff lol
@@FrameVoyager wasn’t it longer for the original avatar? Like didn’t he start that project before titanic?
@@Ansonandco Probably! Tbh, it seems like he's always been working on this technology.
@@Ansonandco Hey, writer here! James Cameron detailed the story of Avatars creation in this Q&A:
th-cam.com/video/xRg9hYStHm0/w-d-xo.html
From what I remember from this Q&A, Cameron woke up from a dream once which was about bioluminescent woods or jungles. For years he wanted to make this idea that eventually became Avatar happen and after spending about 10 million dollars to test motion capture technology and the 3D workflow, he was confident enough to make the film.
Honestly not the biggest Cameron fan, but I find his technical innovations very creative and impressive.
Not the biggest Cameron fan lol...the man will be a huge loss to innovative movie production when he has gone one day.Better to appreciate him while he is still around.Oh...and he doesn't support insane cruelty to innocent animals by not eating them...whats not to like?
@@spandel100 Personally, I just don't care for the plots of his films or his directing style. But, like I said, his technical innovations are creative and impressive. Sorry that exposure to an opinion that doesn't exactly match yours seems to upset your delicate emotional balance so badly. Try not to take it so hard. Maybe just don't read the comments if they're that upsetting for you.🤷♂️
@@taylorlibby7642 No need for sarcasm Taylor...just tired of seeing so much entitlement and negativity on social media,thats all.Felt the need to say something.The world is falling apart and people are in general just being petty when there are far bigger things to look at.Whatever its worth,take care.
@@spandel100🙄 You come on like a snide twit and tell me there's no need for sarcasm? You're not worth talking to if you're going to be that intellectually dishonest. Bye.🙄
@@taylorlibby7642 you are out of your mind...
Thanks for putting this together... Really cool video, As somebody who uses prosumer Sony cameras it is so cool to see what the pros do with the top of the line Venice systems, have you done anything on the Maverick camera rig? It looks insane and I'd love to learn more about it.
No problem! It's pretty interesting how they used the cameras for sure.
I haven't yet! I'll have to look into that one! Planning on doing a lot in this vein
A camera doesnt make the shot or money by itself therefore, are neither pro, or amateur. Words such as, prosumer, professional, and beginner used to describe cameras is only an advertising term to entice people into upgrading.
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.
The 3D without glasses thing is intriguing and I would like to know more, indeed.
There are tech like the Nintendo 3DS that pulls that trick off remarkably well. But. That works with a lenticular screen. And only works in a narrow viewing region. I'm guessing they arent going to put a lenticular reflective layer on the projection screen and limit viewers to a narrow area in the theatre. That would be a giant cost outside the upgrade of the very expensive projectors. And theatre owners would have no chance to recoup the costs with a 4th of the available seats or whatever it would end up be.
But outside the lenticular system, I'm not sure how one would selectively direct the light to each eye for viewers you can't predict the POV of.
I would love to read the research that Christie is doing. Because if the aren't just bending the truth like how Cinemascope and other wide screen systems was once marketed as the 3D you can watch without glasses. Similarly, by both engaging with the periphery view of spectators, and the ability to deepen the contrast into absolute black you gain very 3D like responses. But that gives no real 3D depth perception like actual stereography provides. If that's not it. Then there's something really groundbreaking going on. And I am intrigued, to say the least.
Glasses-free 3D projection doesn't exist. All the stories about it seem to be based on an poorly-written Inquisitr article that was misquoting an InsideTheMagic (a notorious clickbait site) article that was pure speculation.
I’ve been watching for a few months now but immediately subbed after seeing you call yourself out for Papyrus. 😂
Fantastic and thank you!
😂😂😂😂😂 Kinda felt wrong not to use Papyrus in this video haha
so cool
Right?
Avatar 2 s set to conquer both hearts n box office💓💓💓excitement n craze for avatar 2 s earthshaking👌👌👌
I saw Avatar as a kid ind 3d and it was incredible.
Which then led me to play the Avatar computer game with active 3d glasses and that experience was amazing. Probably the best 3d technology I have ever seen and it was right at home. The Character you played was literally just floating in front of the screen and it felt like it was just an action figure you could touch.
I belive in 3d, but I also think that most movies dont benefit from 3d nowadays. The reason for this is not 3d itself though, but laziness during production.
Even huge budget blockbusters like Avengers do not use proper 3d cameras and instead just Layer the shot in edeting to creat some sort of 3d effect. And this lack of proper 3d is everywhere ruining the repetition of a technology that is great when done right.
I will watch Avatar 2 in 3d once it comes out and I can not wairt for it.
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.
Why does he wear so many motocross jerseys!? People in the moto community laugh at folks who do this.
😅😅😅
Could it really be that incredible to think that he is actually really into motocross?
Gatekeeping in any fandom is the least fun bit of fandoms.
@@jmalmsten its cool if he's into motocross... But he's wearing a competition jersey as clothes, and literally the cheapest most basic... Its always a random Thor jersey. . Thats not like wearing a Lakers jersey or something similar.
Its just odd is all and makes you wonder. Im not at all gatekeeping.
@@BobbyGeneric145 fans gave it to him
I love watching 3D movies in VR. And Bigscreen VR is a fantastic movie theater replacement!
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