 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pretty but cliche.
The next paragraph might have tiny bits of spoiler in it...
I can pretty much guarantee to nut-jobs complaining about the main character
wanting his legs back didn't actually watch the movie. For example, he
takes the job several years before he gets offered to have his legs fixed,
and he aggressively resists help from those around him. Indeed, I didn't
really see anything in the movie that made the state of his legs the least
bit important - they could have had him with working legs and there wouldn't
have been a bit of change to the movie.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Pretty but cliche.
Yet, somehow, awesome.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4b4eb5ac$1@news.povray.org...
> Pretty but cliche.
There's no question that I loved the CG in the movie. I don't just enjoy
watching movies, I'm interested in how they're made, and the editing, shot
set up, and execution of the CG was incredible, but that's not what really
got me wound up about it.
Not the story, either. I think the story had to be simple, because it would
have competed too much with the visual imagery. The writing was good, in
that the characters all had some dimension, they weren't flat and monotone,
and they developed over the course of the film. Not spectacular, but good.
What really, really got me about this movie is that the pacing is darn near
perfect. It's incredibly difficult to make even a short movie where the
audience doesn't get disconnected from the movie at points. With thousands
of people involved and countless piles of cash on the line, most filmmakers
just can't quite do it. Most movies I go to, there's a point where I think,
"Oh, the third act is starting now," or, "We're about 25 minutes into the
film, because the disparate plot points are about to be connected." But not
with this film.
When the credits began to roll, I looked at my watch, and was simply stunned
that almost three hours had passed. I never once came out of the moment in
the film. Everything builds at exactly the right pace, and every moment in
the film has me wanting to know what happens next, not what time it is or
whether there's any popcorn left in the bag.
This is one of the few movies that I will never get tired of watching. Not
because it's beautiful (which it is) or because it's deep (which it isn't)
but because it's one of the most amazingly brilliant examples of the art of
making a film that I've ever seen.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> Not the story, either. I think the story had to be simple,
I don't mind simple, but cliche got to me. I'm sure you can think of several
other well-known stories with essentially identical plots. :-)
> What really, really got me about this movie is that the pacing is darn near
> perfect.
Agreed. I almost never see a long movie without looking at my watch, but
I'll admit there have been a handful like that. Indeed, I think that might
be one of the reasons Transformers2 was so enjoyable while still being
utterly stupid at the same time. :-)
> This is one of the few movies that I will never get tired of watching.
It's definitely a keeper. I'm hoping they actually filmed the scenes they
cut[1] and plan to include them in the DVDs. I also expect this will be one
of the first 3D movies available on 3D disk players when such are invented.
[1]
http://io9.com/5446538/everything-that-was-cut-from-avatar-sex-drugs-and-suicide
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*** Spoiler warning. ***
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Pretty but cliche.
> The next paragraph might have tiny bits of spoiler in it...
> I can pretty much guarantee to nut-jobs complaining about the main character
> wanting his legs back didn't actually watch the movie. For example, he
> takes the job several years before he gets offered to have his legs fixed,
> and he aggressively resists help from those around him. Indeed, I didn't
> really see anything in the movie that made the state of his legs the least
> bit important - they could have had him with working legs and there wouldn't
> have been a bit of change to the movie.
I haven't seen any trailer of the movie (never watch those), but I could
imagine that a certain type of trailer which cherry-picks certain events
of the movie *could* give a rather false impression of the overal story.
Just pick certain scenes in the movie of the type "hey marine, if you go
to their village, spy on them and bring back intel which will help us defeat
them, you will get your legs back", and then choose some scenes where he is
giving the intel, one could get the impression that he is doing it just for
the legs.
Btw, did you watch it in 3D? It was the first 3D movie (of the modern type)
I watched, and it worked surprisingly well. Better than I expected.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, did you watch it in 3D? It was the first 3D movie (of the modern type)
> I watched, and it worked surprisingly well. Better than I expected.
Yes, we did. We got to the theater at 6:30 hoping to see the 8:30 imax
film, but it had sold out while we were asleep, so we settled for the 9:00
regular digital 3D movie. Pretty good 3D, yes. They've finally mostly
gotten over 3D-just-for-3D's-sake kind of scenes. (Every movie seems to
still throw in one or two gratuitous such scenes, tho, like the arrows in
this one.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b4f5ac8$1@news.povray.org...
> I don't mind simple, but cliche got to me. I'm sure you can think of
> several other well-known stories with essentially identical plots. :-)
Well.. one or two, yeah. :-)
> Agreed. I almost never see a long movie without looking at my watch, but
> I'll admit there have been a handful like that. Indeed, I think that might
> be one of the reasons Transformers2 was so enjoyable while still being
> utterly stupid at the same time. :-)
I really liked Transformers 2, although most of the time I couldn't tell
whether it was the good guys or the bad guys getting blown up. The juvenile
humor was a nice touch, too; as though they were saying, "Yes, we know
exactly what kind of movie we are."
> It's definitely a keeper. I'm hoping they actually filmed the scenes they
> cut[1] and plan to include them in the DVDs. I also expect this will be
> one of the first 3D movies available on 3D disk players when such are
> invented.
I know a guy who is already planning to get a 3D TV as soon as he gets a
chance, in the hopes that he'll be able to get a Blu-Ray (or some
equivalent) of this movie whenever it becomes available.
I don't know if the current spate of 3D in cinema is going to be a fad or
not, but I think this movie did a really good job of showing how it can add
to the performance without being an in-your-face gimmick (well, mostly...).
I do wish there was some way to create a screen made up of semi-transparent
layers (or something) so that 3D films could be done without the glasses,
though.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b4f7553@news.povray.org...
> Btw, did you watch it in 3D? It was the first 3D movie (of the modern
> type)
> I watched, and it worked surprisingly well. Better than I expected.
We saw it in 3D, once on a regular screen and once on I-MAX. I think the 3D
really added to the picture.
Gotta be careful, though... my girlfriend and I loved it, but her mom and
sister (who went with us to the I-MAX) are both subject to motion sickness,
and some of the aerial sequences made them have to take off the glasses. Her
sister even got physically ill, unfortunately. To be fair, though, this was
on January 1 and we had all partied quite a bit the night before, so that
may have been involved.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> Gotta be careful, though... my girlfriend and I loved it, but her mom and
> sister (who went with us to the I-MAX) are both subject to motion sickness,
> and some of the aerial sequences made them have to take off the glasses. Her
> sister even got physically ill, unfortunately. To be fair, though, this was
> on January 1 and we had all partied quite a bit the night before, so that
> may have been involved.
I suppose having played first-person shooters for quite many years
accustomes oneself to fake 3D (even though in the movie's case it's a
lot closer to real three-dimensionality as perceived by the brain).
I think that it's the conflict between something looking like it's
closer or farther than the screen, even though the image really is on
the screen, and thus the eyes focus closer or farther, while still
noticing at some level that the object is not *really* at that distance
because it's just an image projected onto the flat screen. Each eye
getting a different image, creating a very credible 3D effect, helps
fool the brain quite a lot, but I think that still at some level the
brain sees the conflict, which might be what causes the motion sickness
in some people.
I didn't feel any such thing, though. At certain points it was a bit
difficult to focus properly because it wasn't immediately clear where
to focus, but for the vast majority the 3D effect looked very good and
very real.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
NO SPOILERS IN THIS MESSAGE
Captain Jack wrote:
> I don't know if the current spate of 3D in cinema is going to be a fad
Only after 3D blu-ray is available. Right now, it's big because it's the
only way to see a 3D movie.
> I do wish there was some way to create a screen made up of semi-transparent
> layers (or something) so that 3D films could be done without the glasses,
> though.
There is. You just have to hold your head really still. It's more a monitor
than a TV, in that sense.
There's also apparently work on a 3D TV using jitter-3D like
(link has a naked butt in one of the images, so NSFW maybe)
http://www.well.com/~jimg/stereo/stereo_list.html
to make for 3D you can view from wide angles. Apparently if you do it at
just the right speed, you can't see the wiggle.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> Gotta be careful, though... my girlfriend and I loved it, but her mom and
> sister (who went with us to the I-MAX) are both subject to motion sickness,
I'm told that much of that has to do with the fact that altho it's stereo,
it's not actually 3D, so there's still only one plane that's in focus no
matter how you try to focus your eyes. If it bothers you, you have to look
at mostly the areas that are in focus and try not to watch the scenery.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:09:18 -0500, Captain Jack wrote:
> I don't know if the current spate of 3D in cinema is going to be a fad
> or not, but I think this movie did a really good job of showing how it
> can add to the performance without being an in-your-face gimmick (well,
> mostly...). I do wish there was some way to create a screen made up of
> semi-transparent layers (or something) so that 3D films could be done
> without the glasses, though.
One thing that I'm wondering about this film in 3D - do they get the
focus right? One of the problems I've read about current 3D technologies
(well, most of them going back in cinemas to the point it was introduced)
is that the focus is constant - things near and far are in focus, and
that can induce eye strain because your eyes tend to want to focus on
specific things, not everything (as I recall).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b4faf1a$1@news.povray.org...
> One thing that I'm wondering about this film in 3D - do they get the
> focus right? One of the problems I've read about current 3D technologies
> (well, most of them going back in cinemas to the point it was introduced)
> is that the focus is constant - things near and far are in focus, and
> that can induce eye strain because your eyes tend to want to focus on
> specific things, not everything (as I recall).
IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar would
win it. You really need to see it, it's really so well done that it's hard
to describe, because I can't think of another film to compare it to. The
film looks like it was shot with real lenses (which it sort of was... the
built a special "camera" that let the Cameron walk through the CG set,
"seeing" the plants and setting up his shots using simulated lenses).
There's some great "making of" articles at www.cgsociety.org that show some
of the work that went into it.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b4fa1b4$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I'm told that much of that has to do with the fact that altho it's stereo,
> it's not actually 3D, so there's still only one plane that's in focus no
> matter how you try to focus your eyes. If it bothers you, you have to look
> at mostly the areas that are in focus and try not to watch the scenery.
I was in Disney World about a year ago, and I went to an attraction called
"Soarin'" at Epcot. It involves an I-MAX type of screen, but the seats are
moved out into the air above the floor and close to the screen to make it a
more immersive experience. Most of the film involves flying shots that seem
quite real. I found myself a bit dizzy at times, and would occasionally look
to my left or right at the other audience members to remind myself that I
wasn't actually aloft. :-)
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm glad other people can enjoy it.
Personally, I didn't. The writing was so offensively bad that I almost
walked out in the middle.
I've long ago passed the point where I can enjoy a movie just because it
looks good. I think the Final Fantasy movie finished that off for me...
that was the last time that I forgave a movie it's faults just because
it looked cool.
In all, I shouldn't be surprised at the poor quality. Cameron's two
best movies came out more than 20 years ago, and it's been more than ten
years since his last feature film. I think he just fell out of practice.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I don't know if the current spate of 3D in cinema is going to be a fad or
> not, but I think this movie did a really good job of showing how it can add
> to the performance without being an in-your-face gimmick (well, mostly...).
> I do wish there was some way to create a screen made up of semi-transparent
> layers (or something) so that 3D films could be done without the glasses,
> though.
I predict that every movie will eventually be 3D, whether we want them
to or not.
Personally, Avatar was the first 3D film I saw since Disneyland, and I
wasn't impressed by the technology. It wasn't any better for showing
movies than watching them on a 2D screen.
Now, if you could walk around inside a 3D movie, /that/ would be cool -
though it would defeat the point of /watching/ a movie :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There's also apparently work on a 3D TV using jitter-3D like
> (link has a naked butt in one of the images, so NSFW maybe)
> http://www.well.com/~jimg/stereo/stereo_list.html
> to make for 3D you can view from wide angles. Apparently if you do it at
> just the right speed, you can't see the wiggle.
Hey, that's pretty cool - I wonder what would happen if they upped the
jitter rate to something like 120fps?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Personally, I didn't. The writing was so offensively bad that I almost
> walked out in the middle.
Maybe it was not a masterpiece of scriptwriting, but I didn't find it
so absolutely horrendous.
> Cameron's two best movies came out more than 20 years ago
It has only been 19 years since Terminator 2.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:27:03 -0500, Captain Jack wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b4faf1a$1@news.povray.org...
>> One thing that I'm wondering about this film in 3D - do they get the
>> focus right? One of the problems I've read about current 3D
>> technologies (well, most of them going back in cinemas to the point it
>> was introduced) is that the focus is constant - things near and far are
>> in focus, and that can induce eye strain because your eyes tend to want
>> to focus on specific things, not everything (as I recall).
>
> IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar
> would win it. You really need to see it, it's really so well done that
> it's hard to describe, because I can't think of another film to compare
> it to. The film looks like it was shot with real lenses (which it sort
> of was... the built a special "camera" that let the Cameron walk through
> the CG set, "seeing" the plants and setting up his shots using simulated
> lenses).
>
> There's some great "making of" articles at www.cgsociety.org that show
> some of the work that went into it.
Interesting, I may just have to go see it in 3D in the cinema if that's
the case; I've heard rumour that projectors using DLP may be able to
handle some 3D projection (and I've got one), but this is starting to
intrigue me now.... :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Hey, that's pretty cool - I wonder what would happen if they upped the
> jitter rate to something like 120fps?
From what I've read, there's a maximum speed you can jitter at, because
your brain has to process the picture and break it down into objects (which
happens about a third of the way along the visual path) before the scene
changes, or the effect goes away.
I.e., your eyes pipeline processing tremendously, with whole lots of stuff
being computed right in your retina (like outlines), and if you overwrite
that before it gets to the infront/behind processing, the effect vanishes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Personally, I didn't. The writing was so offensively bad that I almost
>> walked out in the middle.
>
> Maybe it was not a masterpiece of scriptwriting, but I didn't find it
> so absolutely horrendous.
>
>> Cameron's two best movies came out more than 20 years ago
>
> It has only been 19 years since Terminator 2.
>
Yes, that would be his 3rd best :)
(I realize that such a ranking is, by it's very nature, contentious...
but for me, Aliens was the best, with Terminator being second, followed
by T2 and Titanic, and then The Abyss. I have yet to see either True
Lies or Piranha 2, so I can't judge those).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar
> would win it.
There were many points during the movie where objects in the foreground were
blurry because of DoF, and if you tried to focus your eyes on them they
would look like a blurry object.
I don't consider this to be a serious flaw; it's more of an artistic
decision. Non-3D movies have exactly the same problem (focusing your eyes on
an object do not bring it into focus), and I don't think it matters much
more when viewed stereoscopically.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> a écrit dans le message de news:
4b51939e$1@news.povray.org...
>> IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar
>> would win it.
>
> There were many points during the movie where objects in the foreground
> were blurry because of DoF, and if you tried to focus your eyes on them
> they would look like a blurry object.
>
> I don't consider this to be a serious flaw; it's more of an artistic
> decision. Non-3D movies have exactly the same problem (focusing your eyes
> on an object do not bring it into focus), and I don't think it matters
> much more when viewed stereoscopically.
>
I mostly agree... though when you get cross eyed to look at a close object,
your eyes are used to get focus closer.
Here they are not able to...I got some trouble with that before accepting
it.
At other moments I enjoyed having (as IRL) small things as 'mosquitoes' or
seeds flying at the edge of my awareness between me and captivating action.
I thing it is a gimmick though, when got used to, it loses most of it
interest.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> and I don't think it matters much more when viewed stereoscopically.
I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the same
way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the character
isn't using lenses).
I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and is
more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
YMMV of course.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b51f88d@news.povray.org...
> I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the
> same way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the
> character isn't using lenses).
>
> I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and
> is more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image sequence
of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue that a narrow
depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're looking at
something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as well as color
saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based on our
acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a pretty
good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of abstraction
now...) in Poser of all things.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b51f88d@news.povray.org...
>> I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the
>> same way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the
>> character isn't using lenses).
>>
>> I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and
>> is more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
>
> That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
> the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image sequence
> of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue that a narrow
> depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're looking at
> something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as well as color
> saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based on our
> acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a pretty
> good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of abstraction
> now...) in Poser of all things.
>
> --
> Jack
>
>
The narrow depth of field is not the only cue, and may not be the most
powerful. What a tilt-shift lens also does is chance the way parallel
lines appear. You can see the effect more dramatically when looking at
pictures of architecture where, were you are the ground looking up, the
sides of a building would appear to converge, a tilt-shift lens allows
you to force them to be closer to parallel. When you are up close to a
small cube, the lines you see appear parallel. The larger the object,
the more the lines appear to converge.
Another is the strange way the brain expects parallax to work at long
distances, and the way it does when viewed through high magnification
lenses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
> the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image
> sequence of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue
> that a narrow depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're
> looking at something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as
> well as color saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based
> on our acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a
> pretty good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of
> abstraction now...) in Poser of all things.
It's surprising how easily you can get this effect by just blurring a couple
of areas in photoshop by hand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b562a8a@news.povray.org...
> The narrow depth of field is not the only cue, and may not be the most
> powerful. What a tilt-shift lens also does is chance the way parallel
> lines appear. You can see the effect more dramatically when looking at
> pictures of architecture where, were you are the ground looking up, the
> sides of a building would appear to converge, a tilt-shift lens allows
> you to force them to be closer to parallel. When you are up close to a
> small cube, the lines you see appear parallel. The larger the object,
> the more the lines appear to converge.
>
> Another is the strange way the brain expects parallax to work at long
> distances, and the way it does when viewed through high magnification
> lenses.
Oh, I know tilt-shift is more complicated than that... I was really
stretching an analogy too far, I guess. :-)
I was looking through a book the other night that was showing optical
illusions, some very old and some very new. Some of the newer ones were done
with computers and were modified by moving the shadows around. The article
in the book was talking about how we're accustomed to mentally converting 2D
images to 3D representations, and how the brain can be fooled. It got me to
thinking about how much of visual art (in particular CG and film) is based
on what the mass audience is trained to expect, rather than what is "real".
I had a discussion with someone a while back about "realism" in CG. She was
trying to create a realistic looking puddle of blood for some horror image
or other. She was unhappy with her results, and cast a net to try to get
other ideas. A lot of people chimed in with simulating the viscosity of the
fluid, it's reflectiveness, the way it changes color, and the way it, well,
spatters. My suggestion was to put some red food coloring in some clear corn
syrup, pour it on a cutting board or plate, and use that as a model. She
thought that was wierd, but I pointed out that that's one of the most common
sorts of "movie blood" (it's called Kensington Gore, IIRC) and that what she
probably wanted was not "real" blood, but blood that looked like what they
do in a movie, because that's the only kind (I hope) that most of us ever
see. People who don't have to see large amounts of real blood mostly don't
know what it really looks like (it's thinner than in the movies, and turns a
boring brownish-red that has no sheen and looks awful [read: boring] on
color film). She later said that that was exactly the look that she was
trying to achieve, and she felt like it helped her image.
As with most of life, "realism" in CG seems to be about managing
expectations. :-D
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:4b56be24@news.povray.org...
>
> It's surprising how easily you can get this effect by just blurring a
> couple of areas in photoshop by hand.
I did that a few years ago for an image I did... the rendering software I
was using didn't support depth of field, so after rendering the image, I
made a series of increasingly larger and feathered masks around the main
subject, inverted each one, and applied a succession of small (but
cumulative) Gaussian blurs to the image. I'm sure it didn't look anything
like a real macro lens or what 3D DOF could be with a better program, but it
was a nice effect.
I saw a great process for doing this with After Effects, too. If you render
a depth map (a B&W image of the scene where surfaces further from the camera
are darker and ones closer are lighter), there's a way to attach the depth
map to the DOF filter in AE, and have DOF without the tremendous rendering
overhead it usually seems to take.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> sorts of "movie blood"
And in Psycho, they used chocolate syrup, because the blood didn't look
bloody enough in black and white.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b572913$1@news.povray.org...
> Captain Jack wrote:
>> sorts of "movie blood"
>
> And in Psycho, they used chocolate syrup, because the blood didn't look
> bloody enough in black and white.
>
There's an amazing number of recipes as well as commercial products for it.
Candy glass is another interesting subject for the home brewer.
A fun place to look at the (very) low end of all of that is "Backyard F/X",
a segment of web videos at IndyMogul.com. It's all about how very young,
very amateur people can put together physical effects for cheap. It's pretty
silly, but the guy who runs it seems to have a lot of fun with it, and I
enjoy going there from time to time and checking out what they do. I'm sure
they've got some ideas for aping parts of Avatar by now. You never know...
the next James Cameron may be ten years old at this very moment, making
effects movies and tearing up the neighborhood with his mom's old Hi-8 video
camera. :-D
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/13/10 22:11, Darren New wrote:
> Pretty but cliche.
Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
--
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any
difference. - Steven Wright
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/14/10 08:17, Captain Jack wrote:
> When the credits began to roll, I looked at my watch, and was simply stunned
> that almost three hours had passed. I never once came out of the moment in
Not for me. I was probably wondering when the movie would end a whole
full hour before it ended.
Not that your points aren't valid - the pacing probably is good. But
the story was so cliched, and the characters so unrefined and
stereotyped, that it was a pain to stomach.
Still, a colorful movie.
--
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any
difference. - Steven Wright
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> But the story was so cliched
Avatar has been compared to Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Ferngully,
The Last Samurai and even Atlantis: The Lost Empire, but In Space. So yeah,
it's not like it's the most original and innovative story in existence.
One would think that a director as talented as James Cameron would read
his own script and say "hmm, this needs a bit more of originality rather
than reusing the same ideas as already used in countless other flicks".
Just because you move the plot to Space doesn't make it original.
(Of course there's nothing wrong in rehashing old ideas. It's not like
eg. Terminator 2 would be the most original movie ever created (being a
sequel and all), but its execution was so stunningly superb, that it doesn't
matter. Avatar was visually stunning but had little else going.)
I have seen much worse movies in terms of scripting, though. Much, much
worse.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/21/10 17:09, Warp wrote:
> I have seen much worse movies in terms of scripting, though. Much, much
> worse.
Sure - it wasn't a crappy movie. It's just not particularly good.
--
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/21/10 17:12, Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
I consider those as irrelevant in terms of originality. It didn't
really add much to the basic plot. The idea of living through an
external body - including for handicapped folks - isn't original.
--
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
>
> I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't
original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> > another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> > genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
> No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't
> original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
truly original and innovative.
It's the execution that counts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b58ecf0@news.povray.org...
> On 01/13/10 22:11, Darren New wrote:
>> Pretty but cliche.
>
> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
>
I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
circles, but I think the concept has merit.
Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
important. This one has the classic
"boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.
A film is, or should be, a kind of art that is a balancing act. Art is a
communication method; it communicates emotions the way that words
communicate ideas. The balancing act comes in unifying the emotional message
from the hundreds (in this case, close to 3,000 according to the best
estimates I could find) people.
To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
with this film.
As an aside, I must say that I'm enjoying the fact that, in a space occupied
by so many technical people as in this group, that so much of the discussion
of this film has been focused on the story and the visual look of the film.
There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
"who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
> I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
> even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
> "who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)
Cameron is good at that. Aliens (and to a lesser degree, Terminator) also manage
to get enough detail right, in a well-paced story, that you don't mind (or
indeed notice) the potential problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 01:33, Warp wrote:
> Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
> truly original and innovative.
>
> It's the execution that counts.
And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
have liked the movie more.
I actually like unoriginal movies that were made really well (e.g. A
Simple Plan). This won points on the effects front, but little else.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 06:39, Captain Jack wrote:
> Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
> important. This one has the classic
> "boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
> which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.
Oh, I don't mind it either. I just wish it was a bit different in
execution, though. Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
> To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
> wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
> know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
> with this film.
Not for me. Some of the (human) characters were so heavily stereotyped
that there was little left to wonder about them after you'd seen each of
them for a few minutes.
I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better characters
- even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original,
I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something *really*
original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would have been a
pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I don't think you'll
find too many people spending $200million on a completely new and untested
story.
Books? Lots of books with genuinely original stories out there.
> Every story is always based on what was before.
It's easy (so to speak) to do completely original short stories, for
example. That's one of the hallmarks of science fiction.
Of course, you can always generalize a story to the point where it's no
longer original. You can take something like Jumper and say "there are lots
of stories where someone with something special is fleeing from those who
fear him" or dismiss Total Recall with "it's a boy-meets-girl romantic
comedy". There's some level of detail you have to retain for a story to be
unique, as every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
> record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
> circles, but I think the concept has merit.
You should note that the original formulation was that there were only seven
basic plots that work well in a theater play.
Movies? Books? Lots more than seven. Stories you can tell with live actors
on a stage? OK, maybe 7 counts, if you lump all of comedy as one plot and
all of tragedy as another.
To some extent, there's only so much you can do in a movie, too, as movies
are very expensive to make and you still can't learn stuff except by seeing
it happen. Altho "flashbacks" and voice-over narration can help, you still
can't get as much of that in as you can in a novel.
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie.
It wasn't really a science fiction movie, unlike Armaggedon was. Hence,
since the science wasn't really driving the movie per se, the fact that the
science was bogus didn't hurt the story.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
I suspect he comes up in the part of the story that was cut from shooting
because the movie was already too long. :-)
> It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
Indeed. There's *always* a rejected and hence jealous boyfriend, even when
completely unnecessary.
> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the marines,
marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember), etc etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
That's kinda like asking:
When's the last time you counted to 10 and didn't use odd numbers? Oh,
and you can't use even numbers, because they don't count.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:23, Darren New wrote:
> I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something
> *really* original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would
> have been a pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I
> don't think you'll find too many people spending $200million on a
> completely new and untested story.
Timely. I was just watching the Fawlty Towers DVD's, and in the
interview section, John Cleese said that a marketing person told him the
most difficult thing to sell is something original. People are too
worried it will fail. Cleese's perspective was that original material
takes time to become popular (Fawlty Towers wasn't a great hit until its
reruns), so it's better for TV series than movies.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:30, Darren New wrote:
>> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
>> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
>
> I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
> motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the
> marines, marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember),
> etc etc.
Sigh. Guess I'll suspend judgment till the director's cut comes out.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
> have liked the movie more.
Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
character". I assume it's something related to character development,
but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
"non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
considered such) could help understanding better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
