United3dArtists Archive

Did this render of a Pandora like environment with Vue following the Avatar Pandora tutorial in the December 3Dworld magazine. I did end up using most of the settings in the tutorial but had to tweak them to suit my models and terrains. But in the end nothing was used except Vue to create this image. Took about an hour to render. About 4.5 billion poly’s.

Thats realy great Dan ! Very nice render !

Looks awesome. makes me want to go and see the film again.

Stunning! Render time?

pretty pretty very pretty.

alot of polys.

how good are you at UV mapping ???

leonregis : About 65 minutes to render because of the small image size. No need to render a huge image just to look at on my PC or publish on the web. A pc monitor doesn’t need a large print worthy image to view it at its best possible quality.

weedhunter: I am ok at UV mapping. Its not something I like to do although it is necessary for 3D work. And spending the time to make a good UV map reaps great rewards.

Beautiful piece.

I have not seen the movie and really have no desire EXCEPT for the artistic quality. I am dying to see the special effects and most notably the 3D and the textures.

Tahnoak, the history of Avatar is really beautiful and a watershed for many, I will not tell the history and hope you see and then tell me what you think.

cool image. Just wanted to see more details
I think it's the fog but it creates the right mood.
Maybe don't fully cover the rocks with plants.
Mostly the top is heavily covered.
The flanks are set with little plants like small bushes,
so you get some more contour.

Avatar is a great movie. Especially there some aspects
are more science then fiction (the space vessel, the valkyrie copter etc.)
but some makes no sense like the bio-luminescence at a planet where all the time
a huge gas giant is placed at the sky (and reflects sun light).
It would make sense at a pitch black planet.
Also it's hightly doubtable that gas giants can be formed in a double star system
like Alpha Centauri, due to the gravity disturbance.
Even if I would like to know which kind of gas giant it is.
Telling from the Sudarsky list it could be a class 3 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarsky_e ... sification -
but he characteristics don't match exactly
and the only alternative would be a class 0 (methan giant)
but those are too far away from the sun.

...but sill a cool movie

Parva is back

Parva is back

I wasn't away just have more time currently
Need more time to read through all new posts

HEHE I went to see Avatar with my wife and kids the weekend it was open. It was a good show but there were things I didn’t care to much for. The stereographic 3D was a bit much for me. It was cool and all but I would have enjoyed it better with just strait forward, clean graphics. And there were some things that I could have picked apart but that is Hollywood. Most Olympic athletes would never survive some of the most simple stunts you see on the big screen. You kind of have to just watch with an open imagination I guess would be a good way to say it.




here is a fun question for you folks. If stereographic 3d is made by setting up a camera for the left and right eye and blending the images together then would a one eyed man be able to view it in the format intended ? Someone should watch Avatar with one eye shut and post the answer!

The answer is he cant see it stereoscopic because its done with polarisation 90 deg off for each eye.......
thatws what the glasses are polfilters...

DanX wrote: here is a fun question for you folks. If stereographic 3d is made by setting up a camera for the left and right eye and blending the images together then would a one eyed man be able to view it in the format intended ? Someone should watch Avatar with one eye shut and post the answer!

It would certainly depend on how you look at it ...

Interesting thought. I think it would still appear in 3D the same as you and I would see it. Because it is one image and the one good eye should be able to compensate. Next time I go I will have to test my theory so if you see an old guy in the theater with a hand over one of his eyes watching the film it could be me !

Good image.

DanX wrote:here is a fun question for you folks. If stereographic 3d is made by setting up a camera for the left and right eye and blending the images together then would a one eyed man be able to view it in the format intended? Someone should watch Avatar with one eye shut and post the answer!

We see in 3D because each eye is seeing an object from a different angle, each sees a slightly different vew, and our brains use that difference to determine depth. Less difference in angle, or more similar view, means farther away.

3D movies simulate this by showing us 2 movies. One movie for the right eye and one for the left filmed from slightly different angles. The glasses filter one movie from each side so each eye sees a 2D movie.

So if the one eyed man wore the glasses his eye would see one 2D movie.

If he didn't wear the glasses he would see both views just as each eye of a normally sighted person would without the glasses. The one eyed man's brain either never learned depth perception (born with one eye) or learned to interpret one view per eye at different angles as depth as a normally sighted person (used to have both eyes). Normal or one eyed our brains haven't learned to interpret one, or each, eye seeing from two angles so the one eyed man would see a 2D odd looking movie without the glasses just as a normal viewer would.

What if, one eye or two, someone watched 3D movies without glasses for a long time? All the information his brain needs is there. Maybe he could learn to see 3D that way. If so, then the one eyed man could learn that too.

Here's my 3D movie question for polarized movies. I can see how film could have polarized frames. Maybe that's not how it is done but the light is shining through something that could polarize it. The theater here has digital projectors. How do they do polarized 3D?

v3rd3 wrote:It would certainly depend on how you look at it ...

What if a one eyed man drank Three or four 16 ounce Bud light beers out of a glass bottle dropped the bottle caps and bottles into respective recycle bins and then smuggled a bag of Chex Mix with slated peanuts into the theater and viewed the film with the polarized classes on? Would he enjoy the movie?


HEHE Finis it would be cool be able to view a film like that without the need to wear the glasses. And happy new year!

btw. there seams to be two different techniques.
The one with pol filters is REALD (special screen but cheap and light glasses)
and DOLBY 3D (an interference technique where the theaters can use there own screen but have to use special and heavier glasses).

From what I have heard the DOLBY 3D seams to be a bit better in color, sharpness, contrast and no 3D introduction time (which some people have the first minutes with the REALD tecnique - means the eyes/brain needs some time to adapt to the 3Deffect).

Finally all these "techniques" are just doing "tricks" with our eyes
and aren't as our own natural 3D viewing.

I have only one ear and i can't use stereo sound. sound from left or right is the same for me. I use the vibration to know where is the source. it work for hard sound only. I think with one eye you can imagine the distance in the real world when you move (as me with the vibration). with an hologram the image change when you move and the brain can work like when you are on the real world for one or two eye. Avatar 3d on a screen have no interest with one eye because when you move to evaluate the distance, the image is the same. It is just an opinion.
a stereo image is only 2 images to simulate the relief. to do a real natural vision, it lack another dimension: the possibility to change our point of view and modify what we see. if you are at the left of the screen you should not see the same image like if you are at the right. A man with one eye need this dimension to see what he see in the reality and it will be a benefit for 2 eyes because everybody use this capacity, it is not the same thing than the relief. But we need 20 years to resolve the problem...

What's happened to your ear?

right 100% dead! left have only 40%. I see the lips to help me to understand. With a helmet i can listen tv or music and it is not a problem for me. i have an audio prosthesis inside the ear (3000$). I hope nobody going to cut my ear to resell.

I hope nobody going to cut my ear to resell

Which location of Paris you are localized?
But was something natural or something exploded near to it?

I don't know because i don't remember what i did when i was young.

Sorry DanX to speak about that in your thread but sometime it is curious to see how a discuss can change post after post. and we forgot where we are... ( you could think: i post a beautifull "avatar" image and he speak about his ear?!)