Avatar not entirely shot in 3D ?

[SalvorHardin]

An interview with Lorenzo di Bonaventura suggests some of it was converted.
I hadn't heard of this before and I thought it was interesting.

MTV: So there's been talk about shooting "Transformers 3" in 3-D or converting it after the fact. Where are you at in terms of that discussion with Bay and Paramount?


Lorenzo di Bonaventura: We're literally in the middle of that. There's no definitive answer. I think the answer is that as James Cameron, who had plenty and plenty of time to do it, even he converted some of it [edit: first we're hearing that "Avatar" had 3-D converted elements!]. So I think the answer is that, as with most movies, you're going to do some kind of combination if you end up doing it. I'm sure 3-D cameras are going to get lighter and more manageable and all the things that get in the way right now. Over time, that may change. But I think in the near and medium term, most movies will do a combination when and if they do it.

Full Article

 

[FalTorPan]

How much of the movie was filmed... period? Most of it was CGI.

 

[SalvorHardin]

How much of the movie was filmed... period? Most of it was CGI.

Probably a lot more than one might think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abtJ_Mb0_v0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw-a6pqfXRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_REQ5EiLRBs

 

[T'Baio]

I'd take Cameron's word over Lorenzo's any day. He's probably either misinformed or intentionally trying to disseminate misinformation so that the already growing negative vibe about post-conversion 3D is stemmed a bit.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I'd take Cameron's word over Lorenzo's any day. He's probably either misinformed or intentionally trying to disseminate misinformation

roughly 60% CG, including characters that were animated using new performance capture techniques; and 40% live action with a substantial amount of visual effects elements.

http://www.filmcontact.com/united-states/avatar-introduces-new-technologies-3d-production

It's possible that a couple of live-action shots needed to show a certain depth and when they added CGI visual effects to the green screen background of some they controlled the Z-axis of the images chroma-keyed in.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, I'm sure it's due to a few difficulties combining live action with CGI in 3D. Some things are going to stick out a lot more in 3D than they are in 2D. Also, I'm guessing some CGI shots are harder to do in 3D, so they might end up processing them in 2D and then converting them to 3D. Stuff like when Sigourney Weaver's character's face is clearly shown and wearing that helmet when she's hurt near the end and she's brought before the chief, ie the first time they see her real face. I'd think that shot would be a bit more difficult to do in 3D.

 

[Mark Boeder]

Notice that Lorenzo di Bonaventura doesn't actually say "Avatar" -- instead it's an inserted piece of editorial speculation. I know Cameron has been doing some experimenting with a 3-D conversion of TITANIC, and I'd be willing to bet that this is what di Bonaventura was referring to.

And for what it's worth, it's easier to produce CGI in 3-D than it is to convert flat photography. The necessary information is already in the computer -- all that is required is to output the slightly different perspectives for each "eye."

- Mark

EDIT: Re-reading the quote, it does seem that he was talking about AVATAR, so I guess it is possible. I might have to look into it a bit more.

 

[23skidoo]

During one of my frequent needs to take the glasses off to rest my eyes, I noticed there's actually quite a bit of the image in some scenes that is not 3-D. There were several shots at the HQ where it was obvious the background was CG and the foreground was CG, and blurred out accordingly, but the actors were perfectly clear. So it was rather fake 3-D.

Incidentally I had the opportunity to watch a few minutes of Avatar 2-D on an HDTV over the weekend (I'm holding off on buying the Blu-Ray till the special edition) and it looks so much better than the 3-D version. Cameron himself said this in an interview with Sun Media in Canada a few weeks ago. People who've only watched the film through "amber-colored glasses" are really not getting the full picture.

Alex

 

[SalvorHardin]

Incidentally I had the opportunity to watch a few minutes of Avatar 2-D on an HDTV over the weekend (I'm holding off on buying the Blu-Ray till the special edition) and it looks so much better than the 3-D version. Cameron himself said this in an interview with Sun Media in Canada a few weeks ago. People who've only watched the film through "amber-colored glasses" are really not getting the full picture.

Alex

I've seen both 3D and 2D. Both look beautiful.
If I had to choose though I'd definitely choose the 3D for this particular film.

 

[bigdaddy]

I don't care it looked amazing in 3D.