James Cameron wants the Avatar sequels to look even more like reality

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

With the exception of the tails and ears, there is no animation. Just shows that random hipsters are not a good source, particularly since he makes numerous demonstrable factual errors.

It's probably useful to know who you're talking about.

He is known for his tendency to deal with complex technical material, like inventive new physics and epistemology, in an unapologetically thorough manner. He is a Hugo Award winner (with eight other works shortlisted for the Hugos), and has also won the John W Campbell Memorial Award for Best Novel

(Greg Egan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

That's hardly a random hipster. He knows what he's talking about, and that's quite obvious from his books.

[Human No More]

It's not at all obvious from that page, which, as I said, is full of factual errors.

Also, as you have failed to acknowledge, there is no animation, with a specific exception.

[Tymian]

JC: Pics or it didn't happen ! srs needs some

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Human No More

there is no animation, with a specific exception.

What is your definition of animation? I definitely consider Avatar to be a combination of animation and live action.

[Human No More]

Personally, I would say that animation, in the sense it is normally referred to, generally tends to be referring to synthetic motion - that has not actually been acted out - it could be individually hand drawn frames, hand drawn and computer assisted to avoid having to redraw every single frame, fully computer generated but with no reference to real motion, other than perhaps video reference for how things move, but not actually used to generate the end product (these two are how most modern ones are created), stop motion, or probably any number of other ways. Motion capture is a real actor, and the 'visual upgrade' applied to them is more like traditional makeup/prosthetics.

[CyanRachel]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Personally, I would say that animation, in the sense it is normally referred to, generally tends to be referring to synthetic motion - that has not actually been acted out - it could be individually hand drawn frames, hand drawn and computer assisted to avoid having to redraw every single frame, fully computer generated but with no reference to real motion, other than perhaps video reference for how things move, but not actually used to generate the end product (these two are how most modern ones are created), stop motion, or probably any number of other ways. Motion capture is a real actor, and the 'visual upgrade' applied to them is more like traditional makeup/prosthetics.

Well said, HNM!
Those are all the definitions that I agree with re: animation vs. motion capture/performance capture.

[Cyvaris]

So what is The Adventures of Tintin then?

Its currently classified as "Animation" (and will probably win the Oscar for it) BUT its all motion capture acting, not to the level of Avatar true, but its still actor's "acting". They aren't face scanning but they are using actor's to lay out the basis, just like Polar Express. Avatar is a blend of live action and motion capture animation. Yes there was a human base, but they still had to animate over it for the finished product.

I for one must say I love all these random little arguments, its like a real family...no one can stand anyone else!

Now on topic, it will certainly be interesting to see how well they pull this off. The Hobbit has had all sorts of issues with shooting higher frames a second. They had to re-colorize all the live action shots because it doesn't look right when filmed. They essentially painted the actors different colors so they would look right on film. I wonder if this will effect the computer effects in anyway. But if it makes Avatar look better I'm all for it.

[Human No More]

I'd say that to truly be the actor, it needs to capture their face, but something that's motion capture with a face manually animated is getting close to something 'real' compared to most.

[Niri Te]

I know EXACTLY where that would end up. It would end up in the Matrix.
(Now THERE was a visionary movie).

Originally Posted by Icu

I remember an interview with him where he talked about virtual reality becoming so much more fantastic than real life that people got totally absorbed in it.

As in, will virtual reality stuff become so incredible/immersive and so easily attainable that people start to chose to live outside of the "real world" as much as they can? I guess some do that already but it's bound to start happening on a much larger scale.

Personally I'm not exactly upset about the sequels looking more real (and maybe this is only somewhat related to the actual topic) But I'm at least somewhat worried about where this could end up a few decades from now.

[Human No More]

In the case of the matrix, it was essentially required for survival as real Earth was all but destroyed, and humans never chose between the two as they were never actually aware of it for the most part. Actively choosing between known Earth and something else seems different to me (although actually, closer to leaving the Matrix, only in reverse)