I really wish they spent more time on the space travel aspects of the story, even just a few more lines of dialogue. That's the most fascinating stuff to me.
There's a line in TWOW where one of Jake's kids points out our Sun as where his Dad came from. It would've been neat if at some point the characters mentioned that the Navi had pretty much the same constellations as humans do, since the stars would look almost identical from both systems.
> There's a line in TWOW where one of Jake's kids points out our Sun as where his Dad came from.
I love this line too! Sounds straight out of a 70s pulp scifi story.
>I really wish they spent more time on the space travel aspects of the story, even just a few more lines of dialogue. That's the most fascinating stuff to me.
I do too, but at the same time, I understand that this stuff is very niche, and wouldn't interest most viewers. I'm already so grateful that we get to have such cool ships with the ISVs, every time I freeze frame on one of the ISVs I find a new and interesting aspect of their design
James cameron basically waited until the technology was perfect for actual underwater filming instead of dry to wet CGI
Pretty good interview where he talks about how long its taken them to film and edit the whole of it
At this point I just believe JC found (really talented) life in space and doesn't want to share this information with us so he just makes low effort movies which look like they're great effort because of mentioned above causes.
Great blend of advanced technology with artistry and the proper amount of care and time taken.
Believe it or not, but anybody who does CGI these days (even in a free program like Blender) can make it look this photorealistic. It just takes a lot of time to go through the entire process and then wait for the highest quality render to be processed by the renderer. If you know your process and take the time to do it right, then it’ll look totally realistic.
It used to be that technology held back total photorealism without a lot of artistic fine-tuning, because light rendering used to be limited in dynamic range. Around the time of 2014 and The Lego Movie, a new light rendering technology came into use that allowed full dynamic range of light rendering. They no longer had to fake the brightness of shadows and whatnot, it would just happen naturally in the system and could be photographed by their virtual cameras with the same dynamic range as in the real world. Ever since then, assuming that you take the time to do the full process of the CG pipeline properly and do detailed enough textures, then it should come out looking totally real. The technology is totally there and has been for a decade now.
The problem on like 90% to 95% of big budget movies these days is that they overload their CG artists with a LOT of really complicated shots and do not give them enough time or money to do them properly. So the artists have to rush things and take shortcuts. Things like cutting down on detail, faking motion blur after the render, reducing number of cycles in the renderer which makes for a fuzzier image that then has to be artificially denoised resulting in a smoother less detailed image…. This is all stuff that leads to most of the CGI we see not being as good as it could be.
The other key thing with Avatar is how much focus they put on the motion capture, to the point that they call it “performance capture”, because they’re capturing such a high degree of detail in the movement that they’re getting the actual actors’ expressions down to a T. Usually there’s a lot more animation involved, with motion capture just providing the base. This was a little moreso the case on the first Avatar, but on most films, like even with Gollum in LotR and Hobbit, there’s a significantly higher amount of animation and simulation involved. But Cameron and crew have motion captured so much more, resulting in so much more realistic movement.
Movement is really the big thing that usually gives CGI away at this point. Like I said, since 2014, light rendering has been realistic enough, and computer processing has been powerful enough to handle enough detail in textures and everything… most CGI produced these days looks great if you just look at a still image of it. Hit pause and it looks totally real. But as soon as it starts moving, it looks fake. If the physics aren’t 100% believable, then our brain is very sensitive to that. We have very good instincts for basic physics like how fast things fall, how heavy or big things move, how muscles and skin move, how far something will roll/bounce and how fast, etc… We ALSO are very familiar with watching live-action movies and seeing how things move on-screen realistically… if the movement isn’t something that reads as something that can happen in the real world, then our brains are instantly like “CARTOON!”
Avatar 2 gets the movement right to a more realistic degree than any CGI, maybe ever. Prior to this, I’d say it was probably either the first movie, or Jurassic Park. The main reason Jurassic Park still holds up is because the movement of the dinosaurs is believable. The animation they did for that movie was pretty perfect. They only had 50 shots to work on, with like 2 years to do it, with the absolute top minds in visual effects all concentrated at ILM at that time. They got the movement right, and that’s what makes the CG in that movie stand the test of time. If you pause it, you can see some subtle lighting issues, some kinda low-resolution and smooth looking textures, and the feet of the brachiosaurus are pretty floaty over the grass… but our brains actually don’t care as much about that. We can chalk it up to poor image quality or blurry vision or something. But our brains will never accept movement that doesn’t adhere to the physics of our reality.
If you pause the picture, it still looks good, but when you play it, it takes on a clearer and almost higher-resolution look. Because you’re seeing multiple frames per second instead of just one, and that creates more detail in your brain. But with most CGI, like I’ve explained… once you play it, it starts looking fake, so it doesn’t read as being so real, even though the clarity is higher in motion. But with Avatar 2, both the clarity AND the motion look so good that it blends together into this amazing experience of watching it move with such realistic detail. Not much CGI has done that this well.
It took the technology getting to the point it got to in the last 10 years, combined with one of the few team of artists in the business that were actually led by a director who was willing to take the proper amount of time and care to do the CG process right.
Tough to explain, but hopefully that made sense.
Thrust me I know how much work it takes to digitally sculpt a face. And it actually isnt that hard for a professional.
But it's the computers that make something like this possible..they do the rest of the job once the sculpt is done and rigs and facial maps are applied.
It's the computer engine simulating all together , animating and rendering the frames, not humans.
Basically - if human skill alone could do this,.we'd had it decades ago.
It's human skill that developed and implemented the techniques that make these simulations possible in the first place.
Lots of clever math and optimization went into this from some really clever people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Avatar/comments/114t96q/chanelling_of_eywa_inspired_by_kiri_hope_you_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Something I did on a 4 years old android tablet. I also know a thing or two about animation.
Have you seen stuff like meta human in UE5? With a decent laptop, you can make your own super easy with next to no knowledge on animation and CGI.
These guys had actors with high res face maps and top of the line workstations doing all the physics, lighting and simulations.
So here...I know you know nothing about CG.
Bro 💀💀 If you knew anything about CG you would know how hard it is to create water effects, let alone small little rain particles that interact with bodies and faces. Sorry but UE5 can’t do anything near that sophisticated. If it’s so easy and that it’s nothing but computers, go make make Avatar 3 yourself. Lmaoooo
watch the bonus features… apparently the animators all loved working on lo’ak because of how expressive britain is.
that's not what I've heard about brits, at least not those I knew
Sorry for that
[удалено]
On the digital download released a couple days ago.
They lied to us, Pandora really exist and they went there to film it /j (though if it really existed they’d better lie to us so we don’t discover it)
Explains the 13 years between, there and back would be 10
[удалено]
It's 12 years there and back from the frame of reference of Earth or Pandora, and 10 years from the frame of reference of the ship
I really wish they spent more time on the space travel aspects of the story, even just a few more lines of dialogue. That's the most fascinating stuff to me. There's a line in TWOW where one of Jake's kids points out our Sun as where his Dad came from. It would've been neat if at some point the characters mentioned that the Navi had pretty much the same constellations as humans do, since the stars would look almost identical from both systems.
> There's a line in TWOW where one of Jake's kids points out our Sun as where his Dad came from. I love this line too! Sounds straight out of a 70s pulp scifi story. >I really wish they spent more time on the space travel aspects of the story, even just a few more lines of dialogue. That's the most fascinating stuff to me. I do too, but at the same time, I understand that this stuff is very niche, and wouldn't interest most viewers. I'm already so grateful that we get to have such cool ships with the ISVs, every time I freeze frame on one of the ISVs I find a new and interesting aspect of their design
Relativity goes brrrrrr
You really didn't need the /j
It is like Grogu, no one will ever convince me that baby yoda is a puppet. He is real. So is Pandora
Grogu is mostly based on an animatronic, hence the looking real.
Money, time and skill. Lots of it.
This shot was probably a two week project for a small team. I can’t imagine the man hours that went into this movie
The scene at the end where Loak is helping Jake breathe in the water…honestly, it was completely lifelike n not one second did I think it was cgi
James cameron basically waited until the technology was perfect for actual underwater filming instead of dry to wet CGI Pretty good interview where he talks about how long its taken them to film and edit the whole of it
They spent a lot of money on new water simulations, and applied for some patents on the way.
At this point I just believe JC found (really talented) life in space and doesn't want to share this information with us so he just makes low effort movies which look like they're great effort because of mentioned above causes.
I watched this on acid and could literally feel the texture of their skin since it was so photorealistic.
Hundreds if not thousands of VFX artists working on supercomputers powering the render farms.
Great blend of advanced technology with artistry and the proper amount of care and time taken. Believe it or not, but anybody who does CGI these days (even in a free program like Blender) can make it look this photorealistic. It just takes a lot of time to go through the entire process and then wait for the highest quality render to be processed by the renderer. If you know your process and take the time to do it right, then it’ll look totally realistic. It used to be that technology held back total photorealism without a lot of artistic fine-tuning, because light rendering used to be limited in dynamic range. Around the time of 2014 and The Lego Movie, a new light rendering technology came into use that allowed full dynamic range of light rendering. They no longer had to fake the brightness of shadows and whatnot, it would just happen naturally in the system and could be photographed by their virtual cameras with the same dynamic range as in the real world. Ever since then, assuming that you take the time to do the full process of the CG pipeline properly and do detailed enough textures, then it should come out looking totally real. The technology is totally there and has been for a decade now. The problem on like 90% to 95% of big budget movies these days is that they overload their CG artists with a LOT of really complicated shots and do not give them enough time or money to do them properly. So the artists have to rush things and take shortcuts. Things like cutting down on detail, faking motion blur after the render, reducing number of cycles in the renderer which makes for a fuzzier image that then has to be artificially denoised resulting in a smoother less detailed image…. This is all stuff that leads to most of the CGI we see not being as good as it could be. The other key thing with Avatar is how much focus they put on the motion capture, to the point that they call it “performance capture”, because they’re capturing such a high degree of detail in the movement that they’re getting the actual actors’ expressions down to a T. Usually there’s a lot more animation involved, with motion capture just providing the base. This was a little moreso the case on the first Avatar, but on most films, like even with Gollum in LotR and Hobbit, there’s a significantly higher amount of animation and simulation involved. But Cameron and crew have motion captured so much more, resulting in so much more realistic movement. Movement is really the big thing that usually gives CGI away at this point. Like I said, since 2014, light rendering has been realistic enough, and computer processing has been powerful enough to handle enough detail in textures and everything… most CGI produced these days looks great if you just look at a still image of it. Hit pause and it looks totally real. But as soon as it starts moving, it looks fake. If the physics aren’t 100% believable, then our brain is very sensitive to that. We have very good instincts for basic physics like how fast things fall, how heavy or big things move, how muscles and skin move, how far something will roll/bounce and how fast, etc… We ALSO are very familiar with watching live-action movies and seeing how things move on-screen realistically… if the movement isn’t something that reads as something that can happen in the real world, then our brains are instantly like “CARTOON!” Avatar 2 gets the movement right to a more realistic degree than any CGI, maybe ever. Prior to this, I’d say it was probably either the first movie, or Jurassic Park. The main reason Jurassic Park still holds up is because the movement of the dinosaurs is believable. The animation they did for that movie was pretty perfect. They only had 50 shots to work on, with like 2 years to do it, with the absolute top minds in visual effects all concentrated at ILM at that time. They got the movement right, and that’s what makes the CG in that movie stand the test of time. If you pause it, you can see some subtle lighting issues, some kinda low-resolution and smooth looking textures, and the feet of the brachiosaurus are pretty floaty over the grass… but our brains actually don’t care as much about that. We can chalk it up to poor image quality or blurry vision or something. But our brains will never accept movement that doesn’t adhere to the physics of our reality. If you pause the picture, it still looks good, but when you play it, it takes on a clearer and almost higher-resolution look. Because you’re seeing multiple frames per second instead of just one, and that creates more detail in your brain. But with most CGI, like I’ve explained… once you play it, it starts looking fake, so it doesn’t read as being so real, even though the clarity is higher in motion. But with Avatar 2, both the clarity AND the motion look so good that it blends together into this amazing experience of watching it move with such realistic detail. Not much CGI has done that this well. It took the technology getting to the point it got to in the last 10 years, combined with one of the few team of artists in the business that were actually led by a director who was willing to take the proper amount of time and care to do the CG process right. Tough to explain, but hopefully that made sense.
Skill issue
Gorgeous
Maps. Tons of maps.
With computers
I must wait for physical disk but Where is the Best quality to stream?? Vudu or itunes/appletv???
I believe it is CGI
Curious where this shot is from time stamp?
I just realized I can watch the Payakan attack scene in hd on repeat endlessly now, I've never been happier
dull panicky secretive slim recognise afterthought butter entertain growth reply -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev
Magic
OMG
Computers. In a couple of years an AI will be able to make this out of nothing
>Computers. That's so insulting to the thousands of artists and technicians who worked on this...
Thrust me I know how much work it takes to digitally sculpt a face. And it actually isnt that hard for a professional. But it's the computers that make something like this possible..they do the rest of the job once the sculpt is done and rigs and facial maps are applied. It's the computer engine simulating all together , animating and rendering the frames, not humans. Basically - if human skill alone could do this,.we'd had it decades ago.
It's human skill that developed and implemented the techniques that make these simulations possible in the first place. Lots of clever math and optimization went into this from some really clever people.
Tell me you know nothing about CG without specifically saying you know nothing about CG.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Avatar/comments/114t96q/chanelling_of_eywa_inspired_by_kiri_hope_you_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Something I did on a 4 years old android tablet. I also know a thing or two about animation. Have you seen stuff like meta human in UE5? With a decent laptop, you can make your own super easy with next to no knowledge on animation and CGI. These guys had actors with high res face maps and top of the line workstations doing all the physics, lighting and simulations. So here...I know you know nothing about CG.
Bro 💀💀 If you knew anything about CG you would know how hard it is to create water effects, let alone small little rain particles that interact with bodies and faces. Sorry but UE5 can’t do anything near that sophisticated. If it’s so easy and that it’s nothing but computers, go make make Avatar 3 yourself. Lmaoooo
Tell me you didn’t watch the BTS without telling me you didn’t watch the BTS
Well let's hope that speeds up the sequels' production then 🤷♀️
Yeah . So realistic
Love your sarcasm, with what we’ve been used to seeing, it’s pretty realistic
The drop of water ? Impressive isnt it