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

Gustov · 13 Dec 2009 at 20:42

22B said:
They made a billion from Titanic I believe.

Cant wait to see this, looks great.

11 Billion actually.

rp2000 · 13 Dec 2009 at 20:44

Kanifee said:
proberbly the wrong place to ask this. whats the the main thing imax offers that a "normal" cinema does not?

dont think we have an imax in newcastle.

For this film, nothing as it is just a normal non IMAX filmed/optimised movie, blown up to IMAX format. AFAIK Cinemas with the appropriate screen will be showing this in 1:78 format, which is the same as what IMAX will show it in (think the LARGE bits in the Dark Knight, for the whole film).

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/30/cameron-says-avatar-wont-be-shown-the-same-size-everywhere/

A "Proper" IMax film is in the larger screen format and has special sound recorded for it (I think), and might be in IMAX 3D (Like normal 3D but takes up teh whole screen. Most "normal" films shown in IMAX screens are just shown with borders, but it still feels more intense as you sit much closer to the screen than normal cinemas, and the screen is curved.

rp2000

NeilF · 13 Dec 2009 at 21:20

Kanifee said:
proberbly the wrong place to ask this. whats the the main thing imax offers that a "normal" cinema does not?

dont think we have an imax in newcastle.

Now, pre-digital, the negative used to be bigger than traditional film, so the image quality was bigger/better.

Not sure now with digital projectors... Anyone? Apart from being bigger? Is the clarity still better?

Sirrel Squirrel · 13 Dec 2009 at 21:33

22B said:
They made a billion from Titanic I believe.

Cant wait to see this, looks great.

Close to 2 billion :eek:

Hen_Dawg · 13 Dec 2009 at 21:47

Absolutely massive screen, higher resolution image, very powerful sound

NeilF · 13 Dec 2009 at 21:53

Hen_Dawg said:
Absolutely massive screen, higher resolution image, very powerful sound

But what's the bet, the digital source used at IMax (for 3D) is the same as for regular cinemas?

Sirrel Squirrel · 13 Dec 2009 at 22:01

Avatar wasn't shot in Imax so it'll just be upscaled (Imax have their own upscaled prints)

NeilF · 13 Dec 2009 at 22:08

Sirrel Squirrel said:
Avatar wasn't shot in Imax so it'll just be upscaled (Imax have their own upscaled prints)

Downscaled don't you mean? Surely Cameron's new system is recording at 200x IMax resolution or something crazy

Marky · 13 Dec 2009 at 22:13

Really looking forward to seeing this

Sirrel Squirrel · 13 Dec 2009 at 22:48

NeilFawcett said:
Downscaled don't you mean? Surely Cameron's new system is recording at 200x IMax resolution or something crazy

Pretty sure the fusion system uses two cameras shooting at HD 1920x1080, Imax digital is 8k (7680x4320) and Imax film is 70mm.

Chimerical · 13 Dec 2009 at 22:50

NeilFawcett said:
But what's the bet, the digital source used at IMax (for 3D) is the same as for regular cinemas?

Taken off imdb:

IMAX 3D (film projected) - 70mm image projected on an approx SEVEN STORY screen. Picture is ENORMOUS and VERY BRIGHT, the sound is nothing short of FANTASTIC in my experience. As for the 3D - the theater uses a 2-projector, polarization system which involves lightly tinted glasses. PROS: Mind-rapingly enormous screen, great sound, it's like a freakin' sports event. CONS: tinted glasses leads to loss of brightness, audiences have reported lots of 3D artifacts such as "ghosting" and "stuttering".

IMAX DIGITAL (digitally projected) a.k.a. "LieMAX" - Regular digitally-projected theater owned as part of the IMAX franchise, made to their own standards. Very similar to other digital projection systems, 3D projection uses a polarization system, similar to RealD and IMAX 3D. PROS: less ghosting than IMAX 3D and crystal clear and sharp digital projection. CONS: tinted glasses lead to significant loss of brightness.

RealD (digitally projected) - currently the most widely installed 3D system in the USA, this is a regular digitally-projected theater using a 2K projector and a polarized 3D system. PROS: less ghosting than IMAX 3D and crystal clear and sharp digital projection. Glasses are brand new and you can take them home with you. You can buy your own RealD compatible 3D glasses in designer brands on the net. CONS: tinted glasses lead to significant loss of brightness.

DOLBY3D (digitally projected) - currently the lead competitor to RealD, this system uses a Color-Wheel 3D system off a single 2K digital projector. Glasses are slightly tinted red-green. Dolby3D is the new kid on the block, but has had a lot of positive responses to its technology. PROS: Glasses are transparent and screen brightness is not affected. Crystal clear and sharp digital projection. Glasses are reported to be very comfortable. Audience members have reported that this system has LESS "ghosting" than RealD and it has a significant INCREASE in the "3D-effect" of movies. CONS: Slight color-aberrations can occur in certain scenes across the red-green spectrum. Glasses are recycled.

atpbx · 14 Dec 2009 at 04:51

Evangelion said:
I've just read a review, and the first thing that leapt out at me was the phrase "cheesy in many places." Which does not surprise me in the slightest, considering the weak, stereotypical and utterly predictable plot.

Mabye you should read all the other reviews.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/dec/11/avatar-review-james-cameron

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article6952668.ece

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133552

I could go on, but there is only so many times that someone needs to slapped to snap out of their teenage rebellion against popular culture. (it applies no matter how old you actually are)

Shock horror, man with track record of delivering good films, delivers another good film shocker!

kylew · 14 Dec 2009 at 05:50

Hen_Dawg said:
I've now watched the trailer a couple of times. Want to dissect it frame by frame but won't.
Looks incredible to me. I think it is extremely promising. There will always be people who what to belittle it but it is just a teaser with very small shots of images and scenes.

Just to imagine 3 hours of it on a screen 20mx26m in three dimensions

I didn't realise cinemas still did 4:3 screens!

arknor · 14 Dec 2009 at 07:44

Kanifee said:
proberbly the wrong place to ask this. whats the the main thing imax offers that a "normal" cinema does not?

dont think we have an imax in newcastle.

odeon in the metrocentre has imax 3d

Sankari · 14 Dec 2009 at 08:49

atpbx said:
I could go on, but there is only so many times that someone needs to slapped to snap out of their teenage rebellion against popular culture. (it applies no matter how old you actually are)

It has nothing to do with teenage rebellion and everything to do with believing that a good movie consists of good visuals AND a good plot. It's not my fault if the average punter is happy to take one out of two. That just goes to show how far people's expectations have been lowered by the industry.

The visuals look stunning; no argument there. I just don't know if I can stand to have my intelligence insulted for 161 minutes.

Shock horror, man with track record of delivering good films, delivers another good film shocker!

You can stop fapping now. No really, please stop.

Ziggy · 14 Dec 2009 at 09:22

I expect this will go straight into the IMDB top 100 like Dark Knight, WALL-E and Up.

Sirrel Squirrel · 14 Dec 2009 at 09:25

kylew said:
I didn't realise cinemas still did 4:3 screens!

Imax is close to 4:3

Sankari · 14 Dec 2009 at 09:39

atpbx said:
Mabye you should read all the other reviews.

Maybe you should too. Did you read all of these? I doubt you read them properly.

Take this one, for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/dec/11/avatar-review-james-cameron

This is not a review. It is - as the title clearly states - a review of the reviews. Some of those reviews contain criticisms such as:

"It's unashamedly populist. Just like Titanic."

"At times it verges on the tacky, like a futuristic air freshener advertisement with the colour contrast turned up to the max."

Also this brilliant example of damning with faint praise:

"Actually rather good."

Cameron's movie is called Avatar, but this seems to be shorthand for Blue Space Monkeys Dance with Wolves on an Alien Planet while Re-Enacting the Vietnam & Iraq Wars in Fern Gully.

I am not going to like this movie just because everyone's telling me I have to like it. I'll watch it with my wife (who wants to see it) and hopefully it won't be as bad as I think. But when a movie lowers itself to using the phrase "shock and awe" and the plot has enough cheese for a plate of nachos...

AGD · 14 Dec 2009 at 10:28

Evangelion said:
Maybe you should too. Did you read all of these? I doubt you read them properly.

Take this one, for example:

"It's unashamedly populist. Just like Titanic."

"Actually rather good."

Cameron's movie is called Avatar, but this seems to be shorthand for Blue Space Monkeys Dance with Wolves on an Alien Planet while Re-Enacting the Vietnam & Iraq Wars in Fern Gully.

I am not going to like this movie just because everyone's telling me I have to like it. I'll watch it with my wife (who wants to see it) and hopefully it won't be as bad as I think. But when a movie lowers itself to using the phrase "shock and awe" and the plot has enough cheese for a plate of nachos...

Being unashamdely populist in neither a negative or positive, it's just a fact. "Actually rather good" is not damning with faint praise - it is praise.

You say "I'm not going to like this movie just because everyone's telling me I have to like it" but I haven't seen anyone saying you have to like it. What they are saying is you shouldn't hate it before you've even seen it. Especially when the reviews seem overall to be positive. Why is referencing/criticising modern (american) conflicts/taactics with the phrase "shock and awe" bad? Criticisms about lack of intellectual stimulation from the film and the plot being obvious apply to all major blockbusters and are not necessarily negatives for the genre.

Sankari · 14 Dec 2009 at 10:42

"Shock and awe" is bad because it's unashamedly cheesy and a poor way to reference the subtext. In fact, there is no need to mention the subtext because it's so blatantly on show that it's no longer subtext.

Cameron has lost the subtlety he displayed to such great effect in The Abyss and Aliens.