E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSee the Simul-cam system and other "Avatar" technologies at work.
Two years ago, "Avatar" defined the state of the art in 3-D moviemaking, becoming history's top-grossing film and winning a visual-effects Oscar in the process — so how is the "Avatar" team going to top that for "Avatar 2," "Avatar 3" and beyond?
"I'm overhearing some things that are really exciting," actor Giovanni Ribisi, who played the corporate bad guy in the sci-fi blockbuster, told me last week during the opening of an "Avatar" exhibit at Seattle's EMP Museum.
For example, part of the action in one of the sequels will take place underwater, which poses big challenges for live-action filming as well as computer-generated graphics. Film director James Cameron, who pioneered the use of 3-D cameras for underwater documentaries, is reportedly having a high-tech submersible built for doing the sequels. And special-effects wizards are already working with Cameron to flesh out the underwater habitats of Pandora, the fictional alien moon where the action in "Avatar" takes place.
"He wants to see what's under the water, so we're going underwater," said Richie Baneham, animation supervisor for "Avatar."
Beyond that, the special-effects team has pretty much kept mum about what shape the sequels might take. But during a panel presentation held in conjuction with the Seattle exhibit opening, they made clear that they plan to keep pushing the wave of technological innovation that made "Avatar" possible.
Among those innovations is the Simul-cam camera viewer, which combines computer-generated graphics and live action in real time to show filmmakers more precisely what they'll see in the finished footage. (The technology is demonstrated in the video clip above.) Cameron also used a motion-capture technique that created detailed 3-D renderings of the actors while they were being filmed — a process that "Avatar" actor Laz Alonso said he appreciated greatly.
"As an actor, you usually have to save energy for the close-up," he told me. "With this technology, you can go 100 percent, all in, every single take, because you're being covered 360 degrees on every take."
Nolan Murtha, the digital-effects supervisor for the virtual production unit on "Avatar," predicted that 3-D movies eventually will be made using holographic technology — although it might take a while. "It'll probably be eight years before you'll see really credible results with holograms," he said.
"And I have no doubt Jim will be the first to make a movie with them," quipped Yuri Bartoli, supervising virtual art director for "Avatar."
A behind-the-scenes look at the digital-capture process that was used to make "Avatar."
In the shorter term, Cameron and the "Avatar" special-effects team are concentrating on ways to make the 3-D moviemaking process more like, well, regular old 2-D moviemaking. I asked Murtha about the technological path between "Avatar" and the age of holograms, and here's what he had to say:
Nolan Murtha: "With 3-D being an emerging technology right now, it's really starting to find its way into the consumer market and into the home. I think it will be our task for the next four or five years to develop that technology, and then to also evolve more interactive displays and more volumetric displays. The holographic stuff will be another revolution that I'm really looking forward to."
Q: Do you feel as if you have the tool set for that 3-D era, or do you think more tools have yet to be developed?
A: "We want to allow photographers and production designers to work with digital environments and digital tool sets, but using traditional filmmaking tools. So we want to re-create realistic lights, for example, and give filmmakers the same tools that they would have on a live-action set — in a virtual environment, in a virtual world.
"We're employing a lot of technology, but it's really to get back to a traditional filmmaking experience for the people who are doing the work. We're removing the computer nerd in the corner in the darkened lab, working on the content and then having the director look at it. Well, now the directors and the designers can start to do it themselves. They're directors. They want to do it themselves."
Q: How far are you on that road? Are there things that really need to be developed yet in order to do what needs to be done for the sequels and for other projects?
A: "Yeah, we are always working, we're always looking at new technologies. I'm going to China to look at some brand-new stuff that they're doing over there. We want to employ whatever technology we can, and we want to be constantly evolving and making ourselves better.
"Three weeks after 'Avatar' came out and it was breaking all these records, we were actually sitting at a table with Jim and Richie and all, and we were talking about what we screwed up, what are we going to do differently, what did we do wrong. We pointed out all of our flaws even as the movie was breaking all these records. So we're constantly re-evaluating what we did, how we did it, and the mistakes that we made. That's important. To stay on the bleeding edge, you have to recognize that you are making mistakes and then adjust."
Q: Can you talk about what you're looking at in China?
A: "No, I can't."
Q: But does it have to do with this sort of filmmaking?
A: "Yeah, real-time graphic technology and some holographic stuff ... but I can't really talk too much about it yet."
Q: This is something we might see sooner rather than later?
A: "Oh, yeah. We hope so."
More about 'Avatar' and the future of film:
- 'Avatar' director targets spaceflight
- 'Avatar' gets top billing at Seattle museum
- The future of the movies is wearing 3-D glasses
- Virtual actor takes over in 'Tron: Legacy'
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Big deal and yet some how Mr. Cameron you neglect to realize that a huge population of people are made physically ill by your gimmicks. Please we want to be entertained not vomit up our popcorn. Also, please don't make another awful Avatar movie poor story telling that is as see through as the 3-D gimmicks doesn't make for a good movie. I am all for pushing the graphics/CGI boundary as it can make for interesting story telling but please no more crap story lines entwined with barf inducing 3-D. Get, got it, good now go out produce something without the gimmicks and that has a compelling or entertaining storyline.
Avatar grossed almost 3 BILLION dollars. How much did your last movie make?
Complain all you want about 3D movies. If you can't handle them cause they make you sick, then don't go see them. Find it on a 2D screen, or wait for it to come out on disk. There is no credible reason to complain about a form of entertainment cause a select few can't view it. It would be like saying people should not make those magic eye posters anymore out of respect for the blind or people missing an eye.
As for the storyline, I do agree, it was not that strong. It was a carbon copy of Pocahontas back in the day, only set in space. But it was entertaining. Additionally, it isn't the first film to redo an old movie. There is nothing wrong with that. People like to hear old stories retold, especially in a new way.
Overall, the movie was a great success. It showed off new technology, and it entertained millions. I look forward to the next movie. I will see it in 3D cause I can. I'm sorry you can't Jimmy, but don't try and ruin the experience for me and the millions of other people who will enjoy it.
So watch it in 2D. Or don't watch it at all. I don't see what the big deal is. Thanks for pissing in my cheerios though.
I work in graphics and even do some work in Maya, but 3-D is and always will be a visual gimmick. As much as I enjoyed Avatar, any good movie has to have a good story and a cast and crew who can tell that story. And the motion capture technology devised for Avatar is infinitely more interesting than the 3-D aspect -- in fact, I have never seen the 3-D version nor do I need to.
Did The King's Speech need 3-D? Nope.
Jurassic Park? Nope.
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 ? Nope, and I did see the 3-D version of it and the 3-D added nothing to the movie -- except cost.
It still comes down to storytelling and special effects won't save a bad movie -- or maybe you should watch Event Horizon or the "SyFy" Channel to remind you of this.
In case there is any confusion, I was addressing my comment to James Cameron and any like-minded directors out there.
I completely agree. A good story is more important than anything else. The story of Avatar wasn't great, but it got the job done. I do hope the story of the next movie is better, even if it means not being able to do certain 3D things. If only Plan 9 from Outer Space was in 3D.
BTW, you can add Contact to the horrible movies list too. :)
Did The King's Speech need computer graphics? Did Snow White lose something not having photorealistic animation? Did Gone with the Wind need Dolby 5.1? Did 12 Angry Men need color? Did Nosferatu need sound? Should Bernini's David move like those robot statues in Caesar's Palace? Did Picasso's Guernica need to be a sculpture? Should T.S. Eliot poems come with pictures?
It is interesting that you allow computer graphics and motion capture--both of which I do enjoy and agree were astounding in Avatar--the status of a valid tool for cinema and yet can't see ever doing the same for 3D imagery. You really can't imagine a scene where objects flood the field of vision or the increased illusion of depth heightens a character's view over the edge of a cliff? The same complaints were voiced early on in CG stating that computer animation could never ever take the place of physical makeup or settings. I assume your use of the word gimmick came with an implied negative connotation, but should that be the case? The color in the Wizard of Oz was most certainly a gimmick by definition, should we shun it as well?
The argument that 3D can't help a crappy movie seems entirely beside the point. Uwe Boll's Postal wouldn't have been helped by 3D, nor larger physical effects, nor with the edition of a sweeping score, nor even by the inclusion of Nic Cage (well maybe). Nothing could help that film, and yet we do not disdain the entirety of cinema simply because it is unable to right such a heinous wrong. There was a time when the novel was looked down upon, because if you couldn't tell the story in less than a hundred pages then it wasn't worth telling. And yet novels increased and ______— came out (insert your own despised example) but it didn't shed a negative light on the form, but only was a negative example of the form.
Speaking of novels, I'll just end it here.
What film "needs" 3D? How can you say whether one does or doesn't, to be honest? Jurassic Park isn't a good example as that film heralded in DTS. Did the movie need DTS? Would Dolby stereo or the newly introduced Dolby Digital have sufficed? Sure, but they decided to anyway and I'm glad they did. You can probably say it's a safe bet though that if the 3D tech today had existed back in '93 Spielberg would have embraced it if not for the simple wow factor for the dinos.
The rest of your comment is just conjecture based on personal bias against 3D. Of course it's not needed, you've already made your mind up that it's pointless.
3D is OVERRATED. I will never go to the movies for 3D and the novelty will wear off very soon. 3D adds nothing to the movie and adds nothing to the home watching experience either. wearing the equivalent of sunglasses in a darkened room for 2 hours is annoying at best. just make a good movie, make it digitally for a crystal clear picture in ultra high def and you have a compelling reason for me to fork over $10. 3D is completely worthless
When stereo sound first came out in the 60's, many recording artists used it as a gimmick and it took a few years before they figured out how to mix stereo sound so it sounded "natural". Similar thing happened when CD's and surround sound first came out. Avatar was the first movie that really used 3D properly, to give depth and dimension to the visual image instead of using it as a gimmick. The new generation of 3D movies since Avatar have mostly been very good - it truely enhances the movie experience. Watching the 2D version of these movies just looks .... flat. I agree with James Cameron - all movies will be done in 3D in the future. If not, it will be like going back to mono sound and Black and White.
First, I love sci-fi movies. My bro-in-law gave me Avatar for Christmas. I tried to watch it. After only 15 or 20 minutes I couldn't stomach any more of the crappy story-telling and had to turn it off before I fell asleep. I swear to God I almost fell asleep, that's how boring it was. To be fair, I thought maybe I was just too tired to begin with, so I tried again several days later ... same result. OMG, this is THE most boring, over-hyped piece of sci-fi trash ever produced. Yet, the sheep ate up this swill. As far as 3D goes ... yawn. What a waste of $$. I went to see the 3D version of Thor. What a huge disappointment. At times, I peered over the top of my 3D glasses to check for differences in viewing, because I could see no 'special 3D effects' with them on. I have 20-20 vision with no depth perception problems either ... perfect vision. Later, my 18-yr-old son commented "What a rip-off". I was relieved that it wasn't just me. He said all his friends had already advised him to see the 'regular' non 3D version, but he wanted to find out if it was as bad as was reported. Neither of us will ever waste $$ on 3D again. Leave it for the suckers ... and there's one born every minute, right ?
Capt, though a long shot I thought I'd mention that it is the processing of the two images into the 3D image in the brain that can effect a person's ability to see the depth of the 3D effect. On a secondary note if you had no problems with Thor other than the 3D but found Avatar boring...I could take a shot at your cinematic taste but that would really just be as subjective a response as yours was. At a higher critic consensus and a box office response several orders of magnitude larger--it's about as close as you can get to objective fact that Avatar was a better film.
3D Rocks, I saw Avatar in 3D and in 2D, it was like a completely different movie. Blah to all you Nay Sayers, I cant wait for Halo 3D.
The current generation of 3D movies are great, it's a whole different experience and much more enjoyable to watch in 3D. I don't have kids, and most of the 3D movies in the past year have been animations, so I haven't seen very many - but I did go to see Toy Story 3, which was EXCELLENT in 3D. I don't know if it's just easier to get a good 3D effect with animation rather than live action, but it was very impressive. I can't even imagine watching it in 2D, it just wouldn't be the same. Avatar, of course, was brilliant - I didn't care for the story all that much, but it was so much fun to watch.
Nothing competes with what Ubisoft is doing. See the trailer for Assassin's Creed Video Games. They are heads above everyone else. I became addicted to Splinter Cell when it first came out a few years back. They are supposedly making their games into motion pictures and the trailer is completely off the chain. It appears more realistic than Avatar. It's completely cutting edge tech they are using. I'm looking forward to their productions. I haven't gone to a movie in a while and spending 15.00 or so dollars on a 3D movie better be worth it.
I wouldn't mind it so much if the story was not a rip-off. If I want to see Dances with Wolves, or, re-watch Disney's Pocahontas I will rent those movies instead of being forced to pay to watch them again.
http://someguycalledjon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/poca2uresized.jpg
None the less 3D gives me a headache.
At this point can't you rent Avatar much in the same way you can rent either of those other movies? Not that it matters I guess. I do agree it's a shame though that Avatar had to be the first movie to use a common narrative previously seen in another work. I guess that will be the albatross around Cameron's neck "first not completely original film ever". I hope he is able to sleep at night.
I'm in the business of selling high end audio and home theater systems. I personally dislike most 3D. It's yet another diversion from the art of making a good movie. However, if that's what my customers want, that's what I will provide to them. So far I view it as a failure. 3 out of 4 consider it annoying and say that if they want to see one of the few good 3D movies they'll go to the theater. However some have even expressed a preference for the regular version of Avatar. I thought the movie was silly but Cameron is a brilliant devotee of the technology although I've still never seen a movie by him that I liked.
So don't feel like you're in the minority if you can't get yourself excited about 3D. You're in the majority. The studios are trying desperately to ram in down our throats to get us to spend more money and duplicate libraries, yet again. One of the things I tell people is that there are two types of people who shouldn't buy 3D; those who like it and those who don't. The don'ts are obvious, the fans of it are going to be disappointed when they shell out their money for stuff that is very soon outdated, which is the case.
3D NEEDS TO DIE. It sucked in the 80's and it still sucks today. Enough already.
The arguments here remind me of the arguments among Beatles fans of which is better to listen to the Beatles music in, mono or stereo. Listening back in the sixties to Beatles music off of a single speaker mini cube radio, I didn’t think it could get any better, but I didn’t know any better. Now having some of the songs in 5.1 surround – it is amazing what I had been missing. I cannot imagine listening to anything in mono, or just a mono version of a song. I understand now they can even take a mono song, and, via frequencies, separate out the parts and the vocals and the instruments, then remix for 5.1. Not sure how far along this process is – perhaps someone will comment. But I digress. I actually just now received the blu-ray 3D version of Avatar – I have yet to see it so I cannot comment on that particular movie. And I agree that a good story, good acting, good directing can make a good movie – and just shooting it with dual cameras or post converting it to 3D may not add to the quality necessarily. But there are types of movies where, the use of 3D and the difference in direction and production that 3D requires, this format would improve the quality of the movie immensely. I love 3D (well, movies and video deliberately filmed in 3D). I hate being chained to glasses around my skull, though. But I do have a couple 3D devices that have a glasses free display and the video I have recorded in 3D looks spectacular. The other day I watched that DRIVE ANGRY in 3D, and I agree that just adding 3D and Nicholas Cage may not make it an academy award winner, but there were times when I thought stuff was coming out of the TV and landing on my lap – even making me take off my glasses to check. WOW !