James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

[ghop]

Cinema + 3D all the way. IMAX doesn't really make much difference though.

Seen it in imax in Florida and normal 3d over here, and imax was better in every way. It's simply a much better experience.

 

[NeilF]

Seen it in imax in Florida and normal 3d over here, and imax was better in every way. It's simply a much better experience.

Apart from being bigger, does IMax have a higher refresh rate for the image?

 

[footman]

I enjoyed most of the visual and sound aspects but the violent ending and the plot surrounding it I found frankly embarrassing.
Some of the animation was a bit weird, I found it rather like those odd bits in MOHAA when bodies and rifles were left suspended in mid-air and sticking out of a wall.

 

[Chandler_90]

IMAX film allows a higher resolution than regular film.. well thats what they say on the extras on "The Dark knight"

 

[NeilF]

IMAX film allows a higher resolution than regular film.. well thats what they say on the extras on "The Dark knight"

But not a higher refresh speed/rate?

Because, if I understand, if I were to close an eye in a 3D cineme, in effect I'm seeing the film at half the frame rate that I would in a 2D showing.

And I'm wondering if this is why is sometimes appears 'laggy' etc in some of the fast moving scenes?

 

[Lashout_UK]

But not a higher refresh speed/rate?

Because, if I understand, if I were to close an eye in a 3D cineme, in effect I'm seeing the film at half the frame rate that I would in a 2D showing.

And I'm wondering if this is why is sometimes appears 'laggy' etc in some of the fast moving scenes?

That's not how it works Neil, in the case of stereoscopic 3D films like Avatar

The 'full' 3D image you see (at 24fps, the same as the 2D version) through the glasses is composed of two distinct sets of images, both of which are projected (and synchronised) at full rate (24fps) - so if you close one eye, you're simply seeing one of the two images projected at you at full rate

If you look over your glasses during the presentation you can see the two separate images

I'm not quite sure how DLP projectors work these days - with old film projectors each frame would be exposed twice to give 48fps, which is fast enough to give a flicker-free image, but with DLP projectors there is no flicker, so presumably 24fps is enough to display smooth motion. Few things are actually filmed, and displayed, at 48fps - and it requires specific hardware to do so.

I don't know about the lag aspect - but I guess it depends on what you see it on. Some hardware could be doing some up or downscaling, or working hard, that creates the effect you see - I'm not sure. Can't say I noticed myself!

 

[Ross1234]

Seen it in imax in Florida and normal 3d over here, and imax was better in every way. It's simply a much better experience.

Maybe they have a better imax there but some of the digital imax's here are barely better or even worse.

 

[NeilF]

That's not how it works Neil, in the case of stereoscopic 3D films like Avatar

The 'full' 3D image you see (at 24fps, the same as the 2D version) through the glasses is composed of two distinct sets of images, both of which are projected (and synchronised) at full rate (24fps) - so if you close one eye, you're simply seeing one of the two images projected at you at full rate

If you look over your glasses during the presentation you can see the two separate images

I'm not quite sure how DLP projectors work these days - with old film projectors each frame would be exposed twice to give 48fps, which is fast enough to give a flicker-free image, but with DLP projectors there is no flicker, so presumably 24fps is enough to display smooth motion. Few things are actually filmed, and displayed, at 48fps - and it requires specific hardware to do so.

I don't know about the lag aspect - but I guess it depends on what you see it on. Some hardware could be doing some up or downscaling, or working hard, that creates the effect you see - I'm not sure. Can't say I noticed myself!

No, I'm fairly sure the 3D process displays each image alternately?

 

[Tummy]

No, I'm fairly sure the 3D process displays each image alternately?

3D - shows two images slightly different to each eye.

There are just two sets of each thing you see. If thats what you mean

 

[NeilF]

3D - shows two images slightly different to each eye.

There are just two sets of each thing you see. If thats what you mean

No, it flicks between the left image and the right image (I believe). It doesn't show both images at the same moment I believe.

My piont is, if we assume sa for example, a cinema shows 24FPS. Then in a traditional cinema if you watched with just one eye, you'd see 24FPS. However, with a 3D film, I suspect you'd only see (with one eye) 12FPS.

 

[Lashout_UK]

Certain cinemas will project with only one projector (usually a 'RealD' type):

The projector alternately projects right-eye frames and left-eye frames 144 times per second. In RealD cinema each frame is projected three times to reduce flicker, a system called triple flash. The source video is usually produced at 24 frames per second per eye (total 48 frames/s), which may result in subtle ghosting and stuttering on horizontal camera movements. A silver screen is used to maintain the light polarization upon reflection and to reduce reflection loss to counter the inherent losses by the polarization filters. The result is a 3D picture that seems to extend behind and in front of the screen itself.

.....so (negating the fact each frame is shown multiple times to reduce flicker and keep things in sync, like I said in my original post) you're still getting 24 frames, each eye, regardless - and looking through the glasses, 24 frames in total.

 

[Cosimo]

A little news update.

Viewers are reporting feelings of depression and despondency some are even contemplating suicide:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/mental_health/article6992862.ece

Anyone else had this type of reaction?

 

[Curunen]

A little news update.

Viewers are reporting feelings of depression and despondency some are even contemplating suicide:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/mental_health/article6992862.ece

Anyone else had this type of reaction?

Woah!

I appreciate where they're coming from though.

Paul Shimmen wrote:
I believe the reason these people are depressed is that Avatar resonates with the reality that, mankind is lost.

Yeah that makes sense.

But to those people that want to be absorbed in Pandora - it's a film, that one man has been inspired to create. And there are how many people in the world? So to find something created by one individual to be more appealing than the entire real world of which that is a subset is a little surprising. Not saying I don't enjoy other people's creations, but the world we live in is far more beautiful.

 

[Cosimo]

Another news snippet.

Reports from China claim that the film will be removed from screens for being subversive:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6992685.ece

I hope this isn’t true but with the Chinese government who knows.

 

[Rich_L]

Even better

http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/man-dies-from-avatar-over-excitement/018502

Ever felt too much anticipation over something that you feel you’re gonna die from over-excitement? Well, you might wanna avoid that feeling because in Taiwan, a 42-year-old man just died watching “Avatar.”

 

[Cosimo]

Even better

http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/man-dies-from-avatar-over-excitement/018502

They will find it very difficult to prove that brain hemorrhages are caused by watching Avatar.

 

[sean]

My piont is, if we assume sa for example, a cinema shows 24FPS. Then in a traditional cinema if you watched with just one eye, you'd see 24FPS. However, with a 3D film, I suspect you'd only see (with one eye) 12FPS.

That's not how it works though and you'd really notice if the film was effectively 12fps 'per eye'. The most common 3D tech, RealD, uses two 24fps streams and while it does project each frame alternately it does so at 144Hz, exposing each frame three times.

edit: Didn't see lashout's post above

 

[Sankari]

A little news update.

Viewers are reporting feelings of depression and despondency some are even contemplating suicide:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/mental_health/article6992862.ece

Anyone else had this type of reaction?

Good grief, how lame are these people? Looks like we've just discovered a hithero-unknown stratum of epic fail.

 

[Fenris]

Anyone else had this type of reaction?

Certainly no one I know...however ask me in 2 years when I finish reading the last WoT book, I may well wamt to kill someone, myself, the author, droves of innocent by standers, who knows.

 

[NeilF]

Certain cinemas will project with only one projector (usually a 'RealD' type):



.....so (negating the fact each frame is shown multiple times to reduce flicker and keep things in sync, like I said in my original post) you're still getting 24 frames, each eye, regardless - and looking through the glasses, 24 frames in total.

Are there you go... So you are getting alternate images...

Maybe this is why - at least it appeared to me - that with some of the fast moving scenes seemed a little unsynced/jarring. Almost a little like not having vsync enabled Maybe my imagination, maybe not!?