Avatar is awesome from the 3d cgi work! Jim's designed a camera with two sets of lens, spaced apart, but using a shared cmos sensors running at high speed! Storage is the struggle at the moment, but not for long.

"do we have the ability (with two matching cameras) to get anywhere near Weta's epic? "

Almost. The biggest challenge is getting the shutters in sync. There maybe a simple enough solution to this problem via a custom made LANC cable.
A friend of mine and fellow Vegas user has already built one mirror rig and is now working on a smaller more practical setup. The reason you really need a mirror rig to get the interaxial closer than the human eys is fairly complex to explain but there's zillions of words written about this on the web. You also need to control "toe in".
There's a host of creative challenges to ponder as well.

I haven't seen Avatar myself as yet but one comment I read from those who know which way is up in this game say much of what you see in this movie comes from the soundtrack.

Bob.

I just saw it today in 3D IMAX. The dialog is a bit weak, but the CGI and story are both terrific. What I got out of this movie is that shooting video of real things (3D or otherwise) is on it's way out. 3D movies will eventually be 100% CGI, with no green screening of real actors at all. I'm sure that there are John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart CGI models out there and we will eventually see either a new movie by The Duke or maybe even The Maltese Falcon 2.

>>>3D movies will eventually be 100% CGI, with no green screening of real actors at all. I'm sure that there are John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart CGI models out there and we will eventually see either a new movie by The Duke or maybe even The Maltese Falcon 2.<<<

I hope not. They will never get facial expressions right ( even most actors can't act beyond their own style ).

More realictic they make them ( CGI humans ) the worse it looks because with movies like Shrek you accept that those are supposed to be fairy tales characters, but a realistic looking CGI human animated in some 3D app will always look like a retard, they will never be able to create realistic facial expressions and do you really want to see Humphrey Bogart with mannerisms and facial expressions of Shrek?

I saw it last night in 3D and the new 3D spec's made me look like Clark Kent. The effects were both terrific and stunning.

If I had to put 2 cams with the same spec on a filming rig with a gap of 10cm between them, would I be able to get a 3D effect using the same specs?

"If I had to put 2 cams with the same spec on a filming rig with a gap of 10cm between them, would I be able to get a 3D effect using the same specs?"

Yes, sort of. I cut some video ages ago shot this way with two PD150s. The footage was then projected using two projectors with polarizing filters and the audience wore matching glasses. To do this I think you need a rather expensive screen that doesn't mess up the polarisation.

Bob.

Ive seen only a few 3D movies (last one was Up) and they all seem to be shot in an aspect ratio thats something a little less wide then most movies, it kinda looks like 16:9 that we're used to on normal consumer widescreen tv's, or not even as wide that. Is this normal for 3D that they dont user the widest aspect ratios?

-EDIT-
Found this: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/3d-avatar-vs-2d-avatar-and-the-importance-of-aspect-ratios/
-/EDIT-
Sami

I happened to recently see a short (8 minute) demo of Panasonic's HD 3D TV in London's Westfield shopping centre (just outside BBC TV Centre in Shepard's Bush)

Looked very impressive on their 103" plasma!! (I want one ... plus a house big enough to put it in! 8o)

From memory I think the screen was running at 120Hz with the even frames for one eye and the odd frames for the other...I don't think there was any polarising involved. The LCD specs were synchronised via an IR signal from a special BlueRay player (which was playing the content).

The footage consisted of several sequences .. a pair of (CGI, I think) Formula 1 racing cars going round a track, part of the opening sequence to Beijing Olympics (that looked great!), a skiing sequence and a part of the Avatar movie (trailer, I think). It was pretty cool!

Anyway, more info here

http://www.panasonic.com/3d/explore-the-technology.aspx#2

Cheers, Scott

"they will never be able to create realistic facial expressions and do you really want to see Humphrey Bogart with mannerisms and facial expressions of Shrek?"

I suggest that you see Avatar and then get back to me. It is a generation ahead of movies like Shrek, in terms of modeling.

Modeling is irrelevant. It's the animation required to get realistic human facial expressions.There was that Final Fantasy movie where they looked almost like real actors. Closer they get ( modeling wise ) to the look of a real human being, worse it looks for exactly the reason I mentioned; then it just looks like a horrible retarded actor, at least with Shrek you know those are obvious animated characters.

I already see in the Avatar trailer those same stupid expressions, but they aren't modeled to look like humans so one could get over it.

That guy in Lord of the rings was OK because he was supposed to be a monster, but if you tried to do a movie with a CG version of let's say Robert De Niro the best you could do is have a version of a lobotomized De Niro with a mild case of Parkinsons or MS ( or both ). He'd look ridiculous and more he looked like the real thing, more disturbing the whole animation would be.

Wired's website has a series of behind the scenes videos that describe the level of sophistication that went into producing Avatar - Watch this to get a better understanding of what occurred to produce this movie - it's pretty damn amazing!

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q6600 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Drive: WD 640 7200RPM Black Series | Vid Card: nVidia GT7200LE

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 7200RPM

There is nothing new here. All these behind the scenes pieces and how we did it are nonsense and one of the reason why movies cost so much. Magazine articles like the Wired one and behind the scenes pieces have been a large chunk of marketing budget for a while now. It's just marketing, nothing else.

I'm not saying that technology is not improving, but this is still all pretty old stuff with some improvements and CG characters look like terrible actors over acting every scene. Lorenzo Lamas could act better. That part of technology is just not there and probably will not be in quite a while ( if ever ). It's one thing to animate/motion capture somebody running and another to capture realistic human expressions. In a generally dumbed down, made for masses movie like this it's OK, but not in a serious movie.

Would you really buy a version of The Assasination of Richard Nixon with a CG Sean Pen?

Just saw it today in 3D with my 9 year old son. Yeah it's cool.

The point is not that CGI avatars are better than real actors. They aren't, but they are getting closer. (Remember when people thought that a computer could never beat a chess grand master?) The point is that CGI gains some advantage over traditional video technology, when doing a movie in 3D. I think that the money will dictate how much of each 3D movie is computer-generated and how much is real life. Why pay Sean Penn $20M, when you can generate a similar actor and call it anything you want?

In any case, the movie Avatar is aptly named, since it may be the first movie with a complete cast of almost lossless (to steal a video term) CGI actors. All this makes me a little down on the prospects of 3D video using digital camcorders. 3D Video will still fulfill a short-term need for both amateurs and low to mid-level pros, but CGI will capture the high end. And eventually, someone will figure out a cost-effective 3D display technology that drops the Yellow Clark Kent glasses.

>>>Why pay Sean Penn $20M, when you can generate a similar actor and call it anything you want?<<<

Because for $20 million you get the real thing and in a serious movie there is no room for "SIMILAR" especially when the CG similar actor would look retarded trying to pull off real acting.

I actually have facial animation technology that cost $100 000 just a year or two ago in my 3D app. Now it comes bundled with Softimage, so that time is already here. Anybody here can have it for less than the price of one EX1 camera and if you have time to learn how, model and animate their own Sean Pen ( or whoever else you want ). I still think it's only good for monsters, aliens or cheezy video game characters. I wouldn't take seriously anybody trying to use it in a real movie that relied on actual acting and decent writing.

We won't need CG anyway, soon we'll just be able to clone Sean Pen or DeNiro and teach their clones to act for minimum wage. Much cheaper than CG. And after the movie is done, sell their organs to pay for production costs.

We won't need CG anyway, soon we'll just be able to clone Sean Pen or DeNiro and teach their clones to act for minimum wage. Much cheaper than CG. And after the movie is done, sell their organs to pay for production costs.

This is really sick humor --- why am I laughing so hard? ..

But seriously, James Cameron clones himself regularly. One of them is a member of ACE. You may find one in the Art Department or Visual effects or at the WGA. Another has a DGA card. A third is a member of SAG (Titanic Steerage Dancer ). One of them hangs with the Governor of California. But there is room for improvement. Five wives so far. Women can usually detect a clone even a brilliant one.

Have you looked at performance capture?
It seems way more capable for faces than motion capture.

I suspect that the nature of the movie going audience is changing. Video games outsell the box office, the next generation seems to prefer movies that look like video games. I'm not a great fan of it personally but if it's what puts bums on seats that's all that counts.

Bob.

" I'm not a great fan of it personally..."

Nor am I. And I don't care what Cameron says, it is animation.

"... but if it's what puts bums on seats that's all that counts."

That is true! However, I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Back in the day, movies were made for adults. Adults were the target audience. Now days, kids are the target audience. "Kids are the one buying movies tickets." No, duh! Maybe that's because the majority of movies being made are geared towards kids.

Let's see... based on the Apple Movie Trailers site...

Legion
Youth in Revolt
D13 U
Furry Vengeance
Knight and Day
Frozen
Daybreakers
The Imaginarium...
Hot Tub Time Machine
Shrek...
Clash of the Titans
Alice in Wonderland
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
Princess and the Frog
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Fading of the Cries

Out of 30 movies listed on the first page, at least 18 appear to be directed at kids. That's not to say adults can't/won't enjoy them, but how many will go see them compared to the youth audience? (I have nothing against such movies. Even at my age, I still enjoy the occasional piece of bubble gum. However, I don't make a steady diet of it.)

I just wish they hadn't "dumbed down" movies they way they have everything else.

No appreciation for dumbed down movies? Now you've limited yourself to films with English sub-titles !!

I saw it on Sunday with my two sons and it was the first 3D movie that I actually forgot for a while that it was 3D. Most of them are either constantly doing stupid 3D tricks or you're distracted because you have to adjust your eyes to see the "effect". That's when the "effect" becomes the movie and the movie no longer matters. Avatar was not like this after the first few effects were shown off.

This was true 3D immersion. Yea, it looked a lot like being inside Halo or Unreal Tournament but for anyone who has spent hours inside one of those games, it becomes very real and you even dream about it sometimes. While watching Avatar, I never thought much about what was real and what wasn't. It was pretty seamless. Perhaps that's because my frame of reference includes an immersive video game experience and I accepted this as one.

I hope this does not become the norm because it gave me a headache. If you Google "avatar headache" you'll see that it gave a lot of other people a headache as well. I believe the problem is that it is not true 3D. It is director focused 3D. If you trick my mind into thinking that it is 3D then I'm going to want to look at places that the director did not intend and therefore are not in focus and the result is just eye strain as I try to focus (ouch!).

My two teenage sons thought it was the most awesome movie they had ever seen and they were very skeptical abut 3D (one of them didn't even want to go because it was 3D). So I would say that Cameron has pulled it off better than anyone else up to this point and it works well for SciFi because anything is possible therefore anything can be forgiven. I'm not so sure that it would work for a real world movie.

~jr