AVATAR WAS AWESOME!!!

From the Asset Store
40 Seamless textures for tile backgrounds. High resolution 1024x1024!
  • Yeah, unless you're a gamer then you probably can't tell the difference between 60 and 24 fps. That's something you train your eyes for.

  • Is that sarcastic, about the 60 fps?

    I think especially N64 owners have trained their fps-eyes, because F-zero was aimed for: high fps (60?) and low details.

    Turok 2 had trouble running smoothly, on N64 and Perfect Dark had trouble running at... 24 fps, I believe.

    So N64 owners could experience the difference.

    This console generation has: Modern Warfare 2 (360) = 60 fps? Runs smoothly.

    Operation Flashpoint 2 (360) and Killzone 2 both seem non-60-fps-games, I believe.

    Just making small talk...

  • No, I wasn't being sarcastic, for most people 24fps is too fast for the eye to see. You can't really tell the difference unless you see two things with different frame rates played side by side.

    Gamers are different, especially hardcore gamers. They're used to seeing things at high fps rates. It's like a baseball player... they can see the stitching on a ball that's coming at them at 85mph and tell which way it's spinning because thier eyes are trained for it. Or competition players for fighting games... they can tell what move the other person is doing and react to it just by seeing the first frame of the attack animation. Your average joe can't do that kind of stuff because they haven't spent hours upon hours training their eyes for that sort of thing.

  • That's true. Also true is that when "normal" people see 60fps footage, they think it's 3D. I happened to walk in a showfloor where a 3D TV demo stand was a few meters away from a 60fps bluray demo stand. People would stop and ask if the bluray thingie was 3D too.

    So while they may not be able to call out the fps on any footage like some of us do, they perceive it as more "real".

  • I guess a new generation wouldn't mind

    but since I grew up on 24

    I really hate the look of 60 fps video

    it looks unprofessional, like it's not a real movie

    wonderful for games

    but in movies, I like the 24 fps movie "look"

    when I was helping a friend with his indie film

    I slowed the footage from it's original 60 fps down to 24

    it looks like a soap opera instead of a movie otherwise

    shifting to 60 fps might make sense anyway, since 24 is probably based on old camera tech, and now it's just a legacy thing everyone's accustomed to, but I really don't see the correlation with 3d, to be honest. it's not like most theatres have LCD shutter glasses, or anything

    there's no flicker. it's just like a normal movie, but 3d

  • I don't see it either. They did.

    remember, untrained eyes.

    And the reason why 60fps looks "amateur" is also because your mind is trained to associate 24-fps with "professional", so that'll go away too in time, just like the digital-clean versus film grain stigma is fading away.

  • theres less moblur is why it looks unproffesional.

    i know what lucids talking about, its hard to explain . also, i know this sounds odd, but it looks too "real" esp with hd added on. i mean, the cameras that take it are better at focusing and finding a clear image than our eyes are even capable of, and the image comes off as if were seeing what an eagle would see, because were just seeing an awesome image that we wouldn't even be able to focus on with our eyes. i dunno its a weird sensation, not to say its the wrong way to go, but movie makers have to find all the tricks the new formats need to look better, its a renaissance, and you cant expect everything to look the greatest it will at its infancy i guess.

  • this focus thing you mention is not an issue in photographs, and if our eyes are capable of perceiving the sharpness of HD sets, they can certainly perceive the sharpness in life.

    I'm absolutely convinced it's just a people thing. We're used to 24fps = high budget, higher = Made for TV.

    It's like that guy that used to narrate trailers: "In a world...."

    you heard his voice, you knew it was high budget.

  • this focus thing you mention is not an issue in photographs, and if our eyes are capable of perceiving the sharpness of HD sets, they can certainly perceive the sharpness in life.

    I'm absolutely convinced it's just a people thing. We're used to 24fps = high budget, higher = Made for TV.

    It's like that guy that used to narrate trailers: "In a world...."

    you heard his voice, you knew it was high budget.

    I don't know...I think it is the lack of motion blur. it reminds me of Pal tv (no offense )

    When I render out animations with motion blur, it becomes more "real" than without motion blur.

    60 fps really takes away some of the blur, thus the realism. I have heard that games started doing 60 fps because it was near impossible to process motion blur in real-time 3D games.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Okay, I just saw this movie and yes, it is awesome.

    About the plot:

    It's everything people say it is, which is to say it's cliched and predictable. But what nobody has said so far is that it's not insultingly so, and I think that is what people who haven't seen the movie might be expecting. It doesn't try to trick you into thinking that it's something more than it is... it just is.

    It's kind of like Die Hard. Yeah, the Bruce Willis movie where John McClane runs around Nakatomi Plaza in his bare feet shooting bad guys and pissing off Severus Snape. Uh, I mean Hans Gruber. It's totally cliched from beginning to end... but it's not pretentious. It doesn't claim to be anything more than a kick-ass popcorn action movie. You can just sit back and enjoy it for what it is and not have to worry about it.

    Avatar was pretty much the same sort of thing. It's just a cool action adventure movie, and since you already know what's going to happen then you can just kick back and go along for the ride.

    About the visuals:

    Way better than I expected. People keep saying that they're really, really good, but I couldn't imagine exactly how good without seeing it for myself. A friend of mine told me something that I think puts it best... he said it wasn't like you were watching CG, but rather that these were real blue people. The uncanny valley is gone. It was utterly convincing in a way that I can't describe. And the actors playing these blue people are actually pretty good, so bonus.

    Unfortunately, I saw it in 3D. I haven't seen a 3D movie since the days of red and blue glasses, so I didn't know what to expect. I'd heard the new 3D was way more improved over the old style, so I figured what the hell. Honestly, it was just distracting and I wish I'd seen it in 2D. Also, the indoor scenes with actual human actors gave me a bit of a headache because the 3D wasn't as on point as it should have been and was kind of a blurry mess. But the outdoor, fully CG scenes were fine. They looked a lot better and didn't hurt my eyes. I guess maybe full 3D render translates better to 3D glasses or something. Anyway, while they were relatively pain-free that doesn't mean that the 3D was mind-blowing or anything. In fact, there were only a few scenes where the 3D was really impressive. The rest of the time it was either hardly noticeable or distracting on the verge of being annoying.

    Anyway, it's good so go see it. But see it in 2D, because the 3D thing is overrated.

  • I haven't (and most of my friends) seen the movie. Since the premiere on 17th of December, it's been sold out in all cinemas close to my home and until yesterday even 2D version!!! WTF? There are always few seats left, but who wants to sit by toilets. I hope it won't disappoint me because I'm overhyped right now

  • "Avatar" was Mr. Cameron's first film since 1997's "Titanic," the biggest modern blockbuster, bringing in $1.8 billion world-wide. He is the only filmmaker to direct two movies that have topped $1 billion. Along with "Titanic," the other movies to hit that mark are "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" at $1.13 billion, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" at $1.06 billion and "The Dark Knight" at a fraction over $1 billion, according to box-office tracker Hollywood.com."

  • Also, the indoor scenes with actual human actors gave me a bit of a headache because the 3D wasn't as on point as it should have been and was kind of a blurry mess. But the outdoor, fully CG scenes were fine.

    [....] because the 3D thing is overrated.

    Did you see it in IMAX 3D or real D? I think IMAX looks better and is less blurry. than again, I could have imagined it...

    [ps:]

    My brother pointed out to me that the story is the same as The Last Samurai. haha it's more accurate than Pocahontas I think...

  • I saw it in Real D. IMAX is expensive, man . It could very well be better though, I have no idea how good the IMAX 3D is.

  • IMAX is the oldest and lowest quality 3d

    real-d is better

    dolby 3d is the best

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)