I had to wear special glasses to watch the movie in *3D*.
________________________________ From: off_world_beings <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 8:18:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Warning- Avatar --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@ ...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: > > > > I saw it last night at the 12:01 AM showing. It's a wonderful movie but > > very predictable. Kind of a *Star Wars/ Dances With Wolves* kind of movie. > > 3D is excellent and worth seeing. > > > > > Mike: > > How does it compare to IMAX 3-D? Is it even better than that? > > I've seen 3 or 4 IMAX's in 3-D the past couple of years and I must say I was > very impressed. Prior to that, I was only familiar with the 3-D technology > from the '60s and I wasn't very impressed (I was more impressed with John > Waters' Smellovision or Odorama, whatever it was he called it!). > > So if this is, as touted, a 3-D technology that is a quantum leap over even > the IMAX 3-D, it must be incredible. > > By the way, I have already resigned myself to the expectation that the movie > itself will not be so great. I wasn't a fan of Titanic at all, although > impressed with what Cameron achieved with it (a great Cinderella story). So > I'll go see Avatar just for the historical aspect of it.>> It is not 3d. That is a misnomer. They call it 3d because the graphic artist can spin an object around and add color, textures, shading like a sculptor, and then animate it (make it move around.) The effects are applied to a "wireframe" such as you see me spinning a simple version of the concept here, -- http://screencast. com/t/ZWE2ZmIzO -- but this is all that "3d" means here. You do not get the impression that there are 3 dimensions such as in a IMAX movie where you wear special glasses that allow the eyes to see 2 very slightly different views of the same image just like in real life, which is what gives us our sense of 3d in real life. These movies are no less 3d than a painting by Carravagio 400 years ago, and if traditional animation artists were given as much time and money as these movies are given to create a "3d" animation using only paint to create the shading and textures, the results would far exceed these highly expensive animations that are given the misnoer 3d. These movies take 3-4 years and 4 times as much as a traditional Disney animation such as Beauty and the Beast to make (which take about a year to make.) All I can say is the results are not worth it visually. If a director such as Cameron spent as much money and as much time on a traditional animation he would go down in history as one of the greatest visionary in animated cinema of the era, since tradtional artists given that amount of time and money would create something no-one has seen before, and would far surpass the visuals of these so-called "3d" movies. There is no 3d in these movies. It is a flat screen and there is no 3d. no more 3d than any movie. It is all 2d. The only 3d is when you wear those special glasses, or there is a hologram. A hologram is somewhat 3d. An animated hologram would be the unltimate 3d animation. Everything else is pure 2d dimensional OffWorld
