James Cameron's new movie Avatar CGI usage.

what i wonder is, why, with the advances in technology, they are unable to make it look real. it worked with jurassic park, so why not now?

It’s unfinished, just an advance trailer, finished product will look better.

@ragingloli check out something called the uncanny vally. Jurassic Park looked real because they used a lot of animatronics. Stan Winston is like a legend in that field. or he was (RIP). they used CGI in JP but it was supplimented with actual animatronics.

Avatar is using new techniques. The fact that you can’t tell what’s real and what’s not in intentional . I don’t recall the specifics but think about something like rotoscoping which was used in Waking Life and… that Dick novel staring Keanu Reeves. I think Avatar uses something like that but on steroids.

it was A Scanner Darkly which is a great movie.

The whole thing, I believe, is CGI, though some of it is motion captured humans. Like Sin City, everything that is on the screen at any point in the movie has gone through, at minimum, a digital filter, and at maximum, was never “real” in the first place.

Even people’s faces that are clearly real actors are digital, as they need to be re-lit to fit in with the rest of the scene (IE, a big blue explosion will shine blue light not only on the digital background, but on the real people’s faces as well, and so someone has gone in and actually mapped the real face onto a digital mock-up in order to be able to color it correctly for the virtual lighting, though the expressions and everything are, in some sense, “real”)

The super-advance reviews are along the lines of “This is better than any digital movie anyone has ever made. To watch it after watching previous CG is as revolutionary as the switch from Black and White into Color (like in The Wizard of Oz).

@aphilotus says: To watch it after watching previous CG is as revolutionary as the switch from Black and White into Color (like in The Wizard of Oz).

Is that where the song “Money” starts?
Welcome to Fluther. Lurve.

@filmfann i vehemently disagree with that assessment. I’ll wait until I see it in theatres to be sure, but while it is very impressive it’s not paradigm shifting. B&W to Color like VHS to DVD is lightning in a bottle in the sense that you can’t possibly reach that level of amazement again. Everyone thinks 3D would do it and maybe if they get holographic it might but until you don’t need glasses for the viewer it won’t matter. It looks like a good movie and I enjoyed it last year when it was called Delgo, but there’s no way it will rock your world like Oz did. Not unless you can actually and literally small the jungle settings in the theatre.

It’s like when people say Blu-Ray will revolutionize like DVD did. If you think that you’re insane. VHS had no chapters, was slow to rewind. took up 3–4 times the space, If the quality was the same those three reasons alone changed EVERYTHING those are HUGE features. Far as I’ve seen Blu-Ray’s biggest feature is the picture looks a little better.

@rrmkdynuupye First off, you’re addressing me? Have you had a recent head injury? I haven’t said anything of note, other than a reference to playing Dark Side of the Moon to Wizard of Oz.
Second (see, I said first earlier), Blu-Ray’s biggest selling point is improved sound. It is real surround sound, as opposed to DVD, which isn’t. But this is far off topic.
Regarding Avatar, I saw the preview today, and was unimpressed, but I trust James Cameron enough not to dismiss it yet.