What I think actually most impressive is that it DOESN'T look too different. Everything about the changes is subtle enough to not make the original feel dated, and makes certain it feels like the same world.
@@he-ch1559 the faces in the first avatar was incredibly realistic, the best during that time. But yes indeed, it just keeps getting closer to believable
@@he-ch1559 They did that in the new 4K versions of The Lord of The Rings (though Peter Jackson changed the color grading too which I don't think James Cameron will do because he hasn't done it in his other film restorations). It's actually not as difficult as it sounds. Opening the 3D project in the updated version of the software it's not a problem. With Avatar, James Cameron created the textures and materials from scratch which means they don't have a resolution limit baked in. In the end, when opening the project in the updated software, it will get the improvements in shading, glow and all the updated stuff while, at the same time, since the textures have no limit, you'll get the new 4K renders with the improvements of the updated software. The usual process for a 4K restoration of a film is rescanning the celluloid from scratch. It's what's done with most films (we haven't gotten yet to a point where digitally shot films have been restored and rereleased) and, in the case of Avatar, the tech at the time only gave you 1080p. With full CGI created shots you don't want to play with the other possible option, which is an upscale. It doesn't work and it always looks like the 4K version is actually inferior to the original. So if upscaling is that bad, I don't think James Cameron, who takes care of every detail, will use it.
@@he-ch1559 Maybe. It's not like it would be a crazy amount of work. But believe me, just by added features with software improvements, it will look way better. The best example is The Incredibles 1 vs 2. With the same 3D models and textures, by adding all the improvements of the previous decade, the second looks way better (even if the story may have not lived up to the expectations).
@@he-ch1559 I doubt he will change anything. But obviously upscaling almost 100% of a film with how bad upscaling is... I don't think James Cameron is going to let that be how they get a 4K version of the original. I do see them using an updated version of the software of the CGI to get a new render in 4K with the advantages of the updates. But changing stuff to the point George Lucas did? He's never done that. Even Terminator 2 CGI looks the same in the DVD and the 4K. He probably did this exact same process with those shots. And btw, the reason you don't see 3D animated movies from Pixar, DreamWorks or Bluesky on 4K is precisely because they would need to do this process. The only animated films you'll see in 4K for now are the handrawn ones that only need a 4K scan of the film negative they captured the frames with.
I genuinely like the wrinkles on Neytiri in the teaser. It adds to the realism and gives a more motherly vibe, I hope that makes sense. Jake has wrinkles under his eyes too. Idk things like that make me smile. Tiny little details
@@ddss7272 It's just fine CGI improvements. Realistically, they'd have wrinkles in the first movie but the CGI perfection was in its infancy back then.
Yeah it makes me figure that they are like this now, and Neytiri's eyes are more angled down, not because of better cg streamlining and improvements on hand but because it is to show more of there later age. After all, it seems like a lot of people who're not in the business forget that it isn't all about Human realistic skin textures (not just BECAUSE they are not Human so giving them human texture and to many features might in the end be a bad idea) but to make features appear more artistic and in line with the vibe of the setting. The main two characters appear more with a sheen more in the first film when if anything than just seems to make sense when you're living in a 'humid forest'. Just though I'd enough this. When you make a character too close to a real life human (especially when they aren't even human) you start to loose that ability to empathies with them more due to the 'Uncanny Valley' affect where if there isn't enough of a disconnect, unless you 'know' they're real you start to feel more rather than less of a disconnect with the characters. It is something worth reading about actually as us in the gaming and animation visuals sector are coming across this more and more as CGI become ever more photorealistic, when we worry about the artistic elements that could be lost if some things become to easily automated.
Well, Marvel doesnt need the CGI since its a super hero genre. Having the CGI be too perfect would make the movies feel less realistic. But the main focus is the story. Avatar is mainly a rehash of existing stories wrapped in a new coat, the most amazing coat you've seen, but the story is actually quite forgettable. You can ask any marvel fan about the story after first watch and they will be able to fairly accurately describe the movie to you, ask about the looks and they practically forget the shape and detail on things. Ask an avatar fan about the looks after first watch, and shape and detail are recalled fairly accurately, ask about the story, and suddenly half the movie is just gone. I have yet to meet a single person who can recall the story the first movie was conveying relatively accurately on first watch. The only people who have been able to recall it somewhat accurately are people who have seen the movie 3-5 times.
@@marlross1766 With all the respect but infinity war and endgame look bad. Like, REALLY bad in terms of detail. Artists had way too much things to work on and it really shows. Iron Man from fight with Thanos looks worse than his 2008 counterpart suit-up scene.
@@plustico2846 Yeah seriously. People are saying it looks like a video game but that’s literally only because they have clearly never watched the movie and just want to hate on it for no reason.
@@lenoxpI Agreed. And funnily enough mocap technology that's used in most video games nowadays was created by Cameron for Avatar. The camera recording the facial expressions. I've been watching the first avatar the last few days and there really are moments that the Navi looks straight up real and you forget they're CGI. It's extra impressive when you see live action mixed with the CGI. However in the way of water it looks... Wow. It's crazy. In certain shots I feel like I could touch the Navi and know what it would feel like. They just look so real. I think it's a major step up from the first which is incredible.
Cameron's work has always been very raw and real, one of the things I loved about the first avatar. I hoped that remains throughout the sequels and I'm glad
I've two bad news for you: 1. The cinematographer is not that important to James Cameron, because most of times he shots the movie himself. Yes, you read that right, James Cameron operates camera most of times. 2. The cinematographer is not that important for Avatar, because most of the movie are CGI, that is why when Life of Pi won best cinematographer at Oscars, an outcry immediately follow, people think Skyfall should won.
@@AndrewNiccol I'm not surprised James was very much involved with his beloved sequel, but I'm also sure that the cinematographer is important, no matter how effects heavy the CGI is.
@@AndrewNiccol I got some filmmaking lessons for you: 1. The cinematographer is a separate position from the camera operator. The DP can work the camera at times, but these are two separate positions. Camera operators are not responsible for the overall framing and chiaroscuro of the shot, so this first point is moot. 2. The cinematographer would still be responsible (in tandem with working with James Cameron) on picking the lens and focal length, while also designating the lighting, framing, and general aesthetic of the picture. These key decisions aren't made by the VFX artist. This second point is equally silly.
Damn didn't know that. Must also be quite old by now so with the ever increasingly steep learning-curve that comes from this ever expanding technology, it is sure to become a problem for the old guard without bringing in a new person at the helm. But here at least it's looked like it has still worked out.
In the first image of Jake you can even see that his eyes looks tired and that the skin under the eyes has a darker tone to show that he has been threw a lot/has been doing a lot since last time we saw him. It's so detailed that it's almost unbelivable!
Thanks for breakin it down to layers. The depth of field is just brilliant. As a photographer I am awed by the detail & the tech. James has had a dozen years to work on it,and has used the time wisely! His films are always music to my eyes. Symphonic.
As a CG artist I must say many of your points really have nothing to do with either quality or limitation 13 years ago. Layer count (It was easily done 13 years ago as well), or comparing shots that are widely different in composition (Especially your flying scene comparison made me go "Hold on, mate" :D), makes no sense. But your overall point does hold true: It looks better for the most part ;)
Exactly. I appreciate what filmmakers like Cameron do, and I can't even begin to know the immense work involved in making films like these but, in the end, just judging by the teaser I was underwhelmed by it. Maybe watching it in a proper venue will make me feel a sense of awe.
I'm curious to understand more of what you mean by saying the layers have no relevance? I'm an artist with some CG experience but it's not my area of expertise. My understanding of talking about layering is to point out more depth (and ultimately detail) that is being rendered into the scene. Perhaps that's not so much evidence of CG improvement as maybe budget. I know when it comes to CG/VFX there are tricks that can be used to either save time or hide mistakes and limitations. The thickness of the fog in 2009 saves money and time but is it also to hide the limitations of the time? A fully rendered 3d background requires a lot more power than a matte painting for example, right?
If anything, the comparison kind of shows how good Avatar actually was for its time. Still holds up pretty well in my opinion. But sure, the new one looks better. Increased texture quality and fog reduction are clear improvements. But the cinematography "changes" are more of a stretch, even if the new level of quality sometimes invites wider, deeper shots.
Most of what you point out isn't a technical limitation its artistic / directors choices. Ie the Pandora (Avatar 1) environments are just matte painting, there's no real limitation there regarding layers; however using DMPs is addressing a limitation relating to time/cost in itself. The layers that you define in the industrial spider bot shot, really are nothing special or ground breaking, or reflect anything very different from 15 years ago in terms of work flow. Most shots are divided into foreground, midground and background; the BG is usually a matte painting. The Mid ground usually use projected matte painting and the Foreground is likely a 3d full render. ... And you show my shot at 6:04 lol .. so i can talk about that more personally :) Beyond the ramp everything is CG, i recall even the two guys were CG. Jakes glass face protector thing is CG too .. all of them were due to the glass steaming up on set. The scorpion buggy to the right, i painted that; They added that purely as a toy tie in. Everything up to the buildings is a 3d render. Everything beyond that is a matte painting. The things that really improved in the last 10 years are compositing tools and workflows such as Nuke. Lower costs for technology and man power to create more assets, rendering times are faster so artists can iterate faster. Another improvement is simply artistic observation; a lot of what we do is just artistic choices; ie .. does it look right? .. yes .. no .. ? Today a lot of tools remove artistic choice and allow more psychically realistic results with lighting and shaders. One big limitation in the 2000s was the 4k render size plus having to render every frame twice for stereoscopic, that was a big bottle neck. Anyhow definitely limitations and improvements, but not the kind you mention in the video :)
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing really. Including for that of character visuals. It feels like there wasn't a case of technical limitations and more just artistic choice. Like how the characters would have a certain gloss to there skin and it was said that was a CG limit, but it just seems to make sense really if you're living in a rainforest and being an alien as well to have skin that sometimes shines like that. So by that I don't see anything here that can be considered an improvement in the character cg except for more incredible environment shots Cameron didn't get to do before and a truly brilliant looking continuation to the story.
@@danielwhyatt3278 Things like gloss, spec and reflection (raytracing) really are not a technical accomplishment or experienced any kind of significant improvement in the last 20 years or so, they might appear better because we're viewing them on higher resolution displays. So points like; reflections look so much better than 10 years ago (quoting the video) ... that's just artistic choice, not technical improvements unless you consider the output display. The skin shaders on A1 look less great because of a few factors in my opinion; artistic choice and understanding of surface shaders at the time, The shader model / algorithm are arguably more accurate today with respect to how they interact with lighting. One thing that's happened in the last 15 years is the unification of knowledge and workflows creating skin shaders. Back in 2008, everyone was working in a vacuum creating / writing their own version of a skin shader (stone ages) .. again, artistic choice; even during post production at the time; the three studio vendors (Framestore, Weta, ILM) were all using their own shaders .. quite bad lol ... One guy writes a skin shader the way he thinks it should look. Today, we have for lack of a better description; a unified agreed shader model for accurate looking skin, and an established workflow for working with these shader models. So today, everyone's using the same shaders. Interesting things to note these days are techniques involving accurate skin and muscle deformation; we have tools that can more accurately capture skin performance / skin deformation. SSS drivers; ie where blood, fat, bone, tissue etc changes and appears more present in the skin at any given deformation. Motion capture really is the thing to watch these days, that's where all the cool things are happening :)
@@dimthemighty6793 that's part of it, but the real reason it 'took so long' to make is because he literally shot about 3 movies at once. Avatar 2 and 3 are both already completely shot and in post production. Avatar 4 and 5 are filming but many scenes from both have already been filmed. So basically he was filming 4 movies simultaneously
How is this different than a trailer that's rendered by Blizzard? So more processing power for the ray-tracing, particle systems, polygon count, but this isn't ground breaking. Anything that isn't a humanoid that's managed by a skeleton system animation looks #1. Still uncanny valley issues. Not bad at all, but I want to see the valley crossed.
What I like about the first movie is it's a bit photorealistic. The avatar 2 seems to have lots of details, when we see real objects, we can't see every little detail.
As someone who's going to school to be a visual fx, animator, and has always been fascinated and mesmerized by each singular detail. I'm already profoundly mesmerized by this teaser and I'm gonna see this in IMAX 3D when I get the chance!
I like the original facial structures of the 2 main characters. I was hoping they’d keep it. The shiny skin was better. It looked like alien skin unlike humans. They made the skin look different in scenes depending on the light. I loved that in the first film. The Ikrans in the first movie looked awesome. They had great detail. Neytiri’s new eyes look amazingly detailed. Yes. But they should have used the new faces of them for other characters. Jake’s new face looks cartoonish. He was wayy more handsome in the first movie. The facial structure.
they are also older, 1st movie came out 13 years ago and in the movie I think there is even more time that has passed... so they will be different in how they look, Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington are in their mid 40s...
2:56 there's one more detail i noticed in that top down view frame. The sunlight's reflection is seen to be on the right,behind the dragons. 1:08 now the continuation of that frame, we see the sunlight's reflection on Sully's face, and he looking towards the rightside exactly where the sunlight reflection was rendered in the previous frame and then the next frame too, follows the same direction of the position of light. there's always continuity of surroundings in every continuous frame which really dazzles my mind.
James loves this franchise so much, there’s so much passion in these movies. Whether u like the movies or not u can’t deny it. I’m so excited for the next movies.
Is it bad that when you mentioned increased texture on the face my first thought was, "well of course the actors/actresses are older!"? When the first one came out I was so amazed by the graphics and how well the movie immersed the audience - I'm sure Avatar 2 will engage us all the more!
Truly appreciate the video, learned many things I didn't know about cgi. First one was fantastic, my all time favourite movie in fact. It shocked me as a child as no other film with its setting, Pandora as a world and also OST. It had some defects, but cgi wise it was unprecedented, and this one seems even better in that sense We've waited many years for this time to come and it's already there! Cheers from Spain dude
I'm so glad someone made a video talking about this because on the trailer that I watched so many people were talking about how the cgi wasn't better when that's straight up just not true
Watching this in 1080p on a smartphone, I can't tell the difference between the two. However, I know the difference will be massive on an IMAX 3D theater screen.
Several people have already commented about their skills and experience actually working on Avatar, as compositors and CG artists. I didn't work on the show, but also as compositor and CG artist I thought I would add some other thoughts...This discussion is not a new one. The tools and technologies available to create VFX have become democratized to an unbelievable level, and in certain circumstances, we've already crossed the uncanny valley. There are so many instances of people calling out films for using too much CGI and praising other films for not using ANY, not realizing that they have it exactly backwards. They were unaware that the CGI they disliked were actually physical models, and the action they praised were done in the computer. The point is, sometimes we cannot tell the difference. Sometimes it's because of how well the scene was put together, sometimes it's because the technology has improved so much, we don't realize how good it's gotten. Sometimes directors don't know how to utilize the tools and the artists and they produce a poor result. Sometimes a shot is so well photographed that a monkey on crack would be hard pressed to mess it up, other times it's the reverse and even the best vfx artist is telling them to just reshoot it. Did no one notice that all the masks in Avatar were CGI? I didn't, and I knew about it too. How about Jakes legs in A1...CGI? Spit screen? Mirrors? Incense? How about the water in A2? Was it all water sim? I mean...ALLL. OF. IIIITTT???? That's a fuk-ton of water sim. Y'all have no idea. And how about Cameron leading the charge to create a world so rich in technological "stuff" that we can only take it for real, because of all the overabundance of thought that went into the vehicles and technology AND the Navi and their world that we see on screen. The question of "how good" or "how improved" vfx are, is absolutely moot and pointless. Just watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is.
There is a lot that you really nit picked on the first movie, that really wasn’t that bad at all. Yes we have come a long way in CGI, but you mentioned eye reflections not being present in the first movie, when there clearly were, and the difference wasn’t that much. There was only slight differences in some of the other scenes as well. The main difference I saw was the vine climbing. Much better rendition. Anything else would be hard to compare, just because the scenes themselves are different. The first movie has nothing to be ashamed of. We have to remember that not only has CGI improved, but also the format in which we see movies. We are now living in a world where ultra hdtv is almost commonplace. I’m sure they will do a remastered version of Avatar, just to make up for what they didn’t have in 2009.
@@dragonballgoat546 But the question is: are visuals enough to bring people back and get excited for the film. The first worked because 3D was a new and revolutionary tool. Today, not so much. Also, what do you mean by “all other movies are boring in cinema?” Endgame was a event I don’t think we’ll ever have again. Do you know any other movie that took 10 years and 20+ films to build up?
@@dragonballgoat546 Considering the first one had pretty mediocre story that was basically a rehashed of Pocahontas , I’m not so keen that this next one will be either, but I will wait and see.
Close up of Neytiri is amazing. Just amazing. And first shot also. I completly agree. Overall there are many great shots. But the shot of the navi child (Kate Winslet's character daughter, i think) is not great. And i dont know why. It looks like an animated film. Great one, but animated one.
@@jairon_2518 don't say that lmao that was the whole reason James took so long with the series 😂 he wanted hyper-realistic bodies flowing underwater and put all his money into that to where they wouldnt look like the shit show that was aquaman
@dystopian war cry Well I meant more the Avatar (or Na'Vi, Idk) design itself, more like the face and expression from 0:08. Too much "humanized" I think. They're supposed to be different from the water clan, right? I mean, their eyes seem just a little bit off too But for the rest, it's promising for sure hehe
Saw Avatar 2 last night in IMAX 3D and it is visually stunning. It’s an incredible thing to witness. The technology has made for some of the most beautiful eye candy in cinematic history. It’s obviously not reality but I don’t believe it’s meant to be. It’s immersive beyond description. See this in IMAX. PLEASE.
Don’t forget that was in 2009 and steel the best CGI in that moment also it’s better than the marvel movies now wich is mind blowing,and now the 2022 is steel a magical performance, graat CGI as always and even better , no one can beat James in this and he show us what he can do with this technology and his idea (the details in the writing) and we don’t forget the work of actors that was great and emotional, i have cried a lot with the movie 😅 ❤ and thaks for the review
I think its cute how you get excited about layers when talking about a modern cgi movie. Maybe you think of matte painting, where we had actual layers in our 3D scenes with textures on them to make it possible to render detailed backgrounds back in the day, but this is kinda outdated ...today its all just simply 3D and we do not think of layers unless its about composition and cinematography. If you want to emphasise how far we have come in modern CGI you should talk about the insane polycount and the ability to basically use photogrammetry models or handsculpted models without the need of retopology directly in our scenes. Also important are Global illumination, physicly accurate cloth and softbody simulations, dynamic hair strand systems and much more ...but yeah, layers are cool i guess
I am just not as WOWED as when watching the first Avatar. Seen to much CGI from Marvel movies to Jurassic Park that I prefer more practical effects with a pinch of CGI. This just looks like Avatar 1 part 2
The first one is one of my most fav movies, no idea why I connected it with so much back when it was released. and seeing this new teaser sprung joy into my heart!
This is one franchise where I believe the whole series could be as good as the first movie, because he planned out the whole universe from the beginning
2009's Neytiri face, even when 2022's Neytiri is more photorealistic, has more identity and style to it. By being not so photorealistic, it enhances the features on Saldana's face, whereas 2022's is more similar to the actress face, making it a little bit more boring.
this the problem I had with the transformers films every movie it's like they would give them more and more human like features. Like the dude with the beer belly and mustache. Hopefully Cameron keep the Navi alien, that what makes the Navi characters so larger than life is because of the alien aspect. I think he is especially when you see the Metkyina clan how they are more green color with fin like arms and legs and paddle tails.
You can watch this movie over and over again after 10 years and the level of details is amazing. Other movies like MCU only looks good on theaters, but when you watch it later is so painful, the CGI is horrendous.
Yeah but it's taken how long for a sequel?... Marvel pump out films 3/4 a year and give a level of decency to detail that we accept but the thing is the MCU get to play with the technology over and over year in year out and get to refine this for every film they put out down the line so I'd say who's got the upper hand here and ill have you know some of the MCU is perfectly fine to watch but with only 1 in the franchise under your belt and 10 years is not comparable 2 completey different ways of working but both make things that will be remembered for decades to come so who's laughing
@@ugliimugg7899 agreed but what I say is if you watch the last spiderman movie in 3 years or so you will notice the cgi and green screens. I watched dozens of time of Avatar: almos perfect. Another great movie with good cgi is prometheus. Is like 5 years old and still looks amazing. That’s my point
The CGI in Marvel movies is an endless up and down... sometimes its great ( Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers Infinity War ) and sometimes its... horrible. Especially the cars in Spiderman no way home and Dr. Strange Multiverse of madness look straight out of Forza Horizon 3... Compared to Michael Bays Transformers ( 2007! ) or Avatar thats pretty... lame...
As much you're highlighting many good points here - there's also many things said here that have absolutely no correlation to technology, 3D and rendering limitations. Comparing a shot in the mountains vs. a shot above the water makes no sense. It's two different shots! Same for the base with helicopters, it's two different shots! Comparing them and trying to find technical reasons for this or that, is not giving much credit to the cinematography behind each shot. One is an intimate shot about him getting into that base for the first time, the other one is an epic action shot in an environment we all already know. Very different intentions and need behind each shot. Another thing, when you talk about "wow it has so many layers", it's just cinematography, again. It has nothing to do with 3D limitations. The fact that there's shots with heavy parallax , many layers in depth, it's just a direction choice rather than something you couldn't do in the past. Nevertheless, I'm super excited about new Avatar for sure :)
this is what contstructive criticism is! ty and well said i had the same thoughts when it came to compairing shots obv hes limited to the trailer but he did good
> Another thing, when you talk about "wow it has so many layers", it's just cinematography, again. It has nothing to do with 3D limitations. The fact that there's shots with heavy parallax , many layers in depth, it's just a direction choice rather than something you couldn't do in the past. Glad you pointed this out. I wasn't sure if this was just something I wasn't aware of. I was thinking during the video that a lot of what he's talking about is just changes in direction and cinematography, rather than a development in the tech. I hear some new camera tech was developed for this movie due to all of the water shots, so the water scenes will be really interesting to watch. Overall I'm super hyped for this movie as someone who's really into 3D art (despite being a beginner and only ever using Blender lol). I love seeing showcases of what can be done with 3D tech. Really looking forward to seeing this in cinemas
Personally, I have just seen the Avatar: Way of water just recently and except for the water scenes I was very disappointed. I expected a big improvement. Instead, the CGI looked more artificial. There is an obvious lack the depth and you loose the feel of natural scenes. I rewatched the Avatar 1 and I would give Avatar 1 10/10 and Avatar 2 maybe 5.5-7/10.
You didn’t just get a new subscriber, you earned it. Well done, this was very up my alley and its the video I’ve been wanting to see and one I would share with friends for conversation sake. Nice work.
@@rover5058 um.....top gun maverick has entered the chat....like jeez.....atleast give it some credit and acknowledge it. It was only a masterpiece of filmaking no less
The thing is I didn't notice any differences when I actually watched Avatar 2. Maybe because the first version did a very good job so... I know, every nuance adds up making the movies much more realistic and stunning but if you didn't make this video I can't see that. Thank dude!!
Its fascinating to know that how much technology had improved since the last decade that we can now point out the lack of visual details in one of the most impressive visual movie of its time!
Great insight into the teaser. I was thinking the same things when I first saw it. Those added layer depths will also create the most amazing parallax. I can see each layer moving separately at different speeds which will have the most stunning effect on the brain in 3D and that feeling of total emersion. It will be mind blowing. Let's hope the story is too! And yes, I can see Quaritch all over this teaser. That tattoo just picks him out!
Its not easy to jump higher when you are already very close to the ultimatum of cgi tech while back in 2009 they have a better opputinity to showcase it to the world if that makes any sense
03:58 I had the luck of seeing the trailer in 3D and in scenes like this the depth really stood out (literally I guess, lol). This is going to be a feast for the eyes again
I literally feel like crying I'm so excited, I've loved this film since i was a kid and been waiting for so long! I dont even care if the story is rubbish its so beautiful
One detail I found interesting is that it seems (to me atleast) that the Unobtanium in the floating rocks blends together with the stone and gives it a blueish tint.
Cannot wait for the extended edition on bluray of avatar 2. The extended edition of the first one was so much better and fleshed everything out even better.
What blows my mind is how far 3d visuals have come. The level of detail and the realism in motion and just the way it all feels. Avatar felt like a tech demo at the time and this is gonna be even better. One of my favorite movies ever gets a sequel, finally.
I just watched Avatar either last year or this year, and I FELL IN LOVE!!!! I'm literally SO HYPED to see this new movie! I've been wanting one ever since I saw the last one!
i was in absolute AWE when i first watched the teaser. I loved the original, I think that it looked quite nice with the things we could do then, and I knew this movie was going to be so much nicer.... but oh my god. absolute awe. I actually cried
James Cameron is a perfectionist when it comes to filmmaking I mean Terminator 2 and titanics cgi still holds up today and they were made in the 90's people shouldn't really be surprised about AVATAR still looking good Jim's always been ahead of the game :p
Ok so I’ll be honest, I liked the movie but I feel like they changed so many aspects of the characters which I loved. Jake doesn’t even really look like…Jake? I don’t know how to explain it. I ADORED his look in avatar 1, but in avatar 2 they changed it somehow, like his eyes seem smaller, bone structure is off, and so is his head. I get he’s aged, but it’s almost too much? Like they made him look TOO human. Neytiri is beautiful, but they also changed her a lot. The kids look a little wonky to me, like they tried to make them look more human but it looks weird. Overall I prefer avatar 1 over avatar 2. I miss the old cgi tbh. They don’t even really look like na’vi to me
For more Avatar content check out my other videos and please subscribe!
What I think actually most impressive is that it DOESN'T look too different. Everything about the changes is subtle enough to not make the original feel dated, and makes certain it feels like the same world.
@@he-ch1559 the faces in the first avatar was incredibly realistic, the best during that time. But yes indeed, it just keeps getting closer to believable
@@familygonzcartwright no fucking way that’s insane
@@he-ch1559 They did that in the new 4K versions of The Lord of The Rings (though Peter Jackson changed the color grading too which I don't think James Cameron will do because he hasn't done it in his other film restorations). It's actually not as difficult as it sounds. Opening the 3D project in the updated version of the software it's not a problem. With Avatar, James Cameron created the textures and materials from scratch which means they don't have a resolution limit baked in. In the end, when opening the project in the updated software, it will get the improvements in shading, glow and all the updated stuff while, at the same time, since the textures have no limit, you'll get the new 4K renders with the improvements of the updated software.
The usual process for a 4K restoration of a film is rescanning the celluloid from scratch. It's what's done with most films (we haven't gotten yet to a point where digitally shot films have been restored and rereleased) and, in the case of Avatar, the tech at the time only gave you 1080p. With full CGI created shots you don't want to play with the other possible option, which is an upscale. It doesn't work and it always looks like the 4K version is actually inferior to the original. So if upscaling is that bad, I don't think James Cameron, who takes care of every detail, will use it.
@@he-ch1559 Maybe. It's not like it would be a crazy amount of work. But believe me, just by added features with software improvements, it will look way better. The best example is The Incredibles 1 vs 2. With the same 3D models and textures, by adding all the improvements of the previous decade, the second looks way better (even if the story may have not lived up to the expectations).
@@he-ch1559 I doubt he will change anything. But obviously upscaling almost 100% of a film with how bad upscaling is... I don't think James Cameron is going to let that be how they get a 4K version of the original. I do see them using an updated version of the software of the CGI to get a new render in 4K with the advantages of the updates. But changing stuff to the point George Lucas did? He's never done that. Even Terminator 2 CGI looks the same in the DVD and the 4K. He probably did this exact same process with those shots.
And btw, the reason you don't see 3D animated movies from Pixar, DreamWorks or Bluesky on 4K is precisely because they would need to do this process. The only animated films you'll see in 4K for now are the handrawn ones that only need a 4K scan of the film negative they captured the frames with.
Its good to see a movie look like it actually used all of its budget.
Initially my thoughts!
True
Yea
And what a budget!
Looks the Same.
I genuinely like the wrinkles on Neytiri in the teaser. It adds to the realism and gives a more motherly vibe, I hope that makes sense. Jake has wrinkles under his eyes too. Idk things like that make me smile. Tiny little details
Well, yeah, they're much older than in the original film. It would be weird if they didn't have the wrinkles.
@@ddss7272 It's just fine CGI improvements. Realistically, they'd have wrinkles in the first movie but the CGI perfection was in its infancy back then.
those nose to mouth laugh lines.
@@chaxologist2024 yeah looks so so good
Yeah it makes me figure that they are like this now, and Neytiri's eyes are more angled down, not because of better cg streamlining and improvements on hand but because it is to show more of there later age. After all, it seems like a lot of people who're not in the business forget that it isn't all about Human realistic skin textures (not just BECAUSE they are not Human so giving them human texture and to many features might in the end be a bad idea) but to make features appear more artistic and in line with the vibe of the setting. The main two characters appear more with a sheen more in the first film when if anything than just seems to make sense when you're living in a 'humid forest'. Just though I'd enough this. When you make a character too close to a real life human (especially when they aren't even human) you start to loose that ability to empathies with them more due to the 'Uncanny Valley' affect where if there isn't enough of a disconnect, unless you 'know' they're real you start to feel more rather than less of a disconnect with the characters. It is something worth reading about actually as us in the gaming and animation visuals sector are coming across this more and more as CGI become ever more photorealistic, when we worry about the artistic elements that could be lost if some things become to easily automated.
The viewers usually take the details for granted, but they’re actually so important. Thanks for showing the depth of James Cameron’s work.
w comment cant wait for this film
james cameron's team*
@@illidari4406 👍
Most beautiful movie i've ever seen honestly. So happy we live in a time where we can watch something like this on the big screen.
Crazy thing is the original Avatar still has better CGI than most marvel movies..
And Better Than all DC Movies
TRUE
True but there's still some marvel movies that are just soo pretty to look at. Doctor Strange 1, guardians of galaxy, Infinity war, far from home
Well, Marvel doesnt need the CGI since its a super hero genre. Having the CGI be too perfect would make the movies feel less realistic. But the main focus is the story.
Avatar is mainly a rehash of existing stories wrapped in a new coat, the most amazing coat you've seen, but the story is actually quite forgettable.
You can ask any marvel fan about the story after first watch and they will be able to fairly accurately describe the movie to you, ask about the looks and they practically forget the shape and detail on things.
Ask an avatar fan about the looks after first watch, and shape and detail are recalled fairly accurately, ask about the story, and suddenly half the movie is just gone.
I have yet to meet a single person who can recall the story the first movie was conveying relatively accurately on first watch. The only people who have been able to recall it somewhat accurately are people who have seen the movie 3-5 times.
@@marlross1766 With all the respect but infinity war and endgame look bad. Like, REALLY bad in terms of detail. Artists had way too much things to work on and it really shows. Iron Man from fight with Thanos looks worse than his 2008 counterpart suit-up scene.
Amazing visuals, the first one 13 years ago is still mind blowing and even looks leagues better than some newer movies.
I think The Lion King is the only movie that has looked better than the OG Avatar since its release.
@@plustico2846 Yeah seriously. People are saying it looks like a video game but that’s literally only because they have clearly never watched the movie and just want to hate on it for no reason.
@@lenoxpI Agreed. And funnily enough mocap technology that's used in most video games nowadays was created by Cameron for Avatar. The camera recording the facial expressions. I've been watching the first avatar the last few days and there really are moments that the Navi looks straight up real and you forget they're CGI. It's extra impressive when you see live action mixed with the CGI. However in the way of water it looks... Wow. It's crazy. In certain shots I feel like I could touch the Navi and know what it would feel like. They just look so real. I think it's a major step up from the first which is incredible.
The original avatar "looked" way better than the new one , irrespective of the technology that's used.
Even the first Jurassic Park looks better than many movies today.
The more I watch and rewatch the trailer the more I’m getting hyped about it.
Same!!
Indeed.
Same!
Good
Avatar is one if the most overrated films of all time
Cameron's work has always been very raw and real, one of the things I loved about the first avatar. I hoped that remains throughout the sequels and I'm glad
I don't think anybody will make a movie grossing 2 billion AND WINNING ELEVEN oscars for the next 400 years . . . Cameron is the GOAT
The fact that the first film was made back in 2009 and the CGI still surpasses most modern films today is mind-blowing. Very excited the Avatar 2!
I believe the cinematographer for the sequel worked with James on Titanic. And look at how great Titanic looks for a 1997 FILM? Absolutely wild!
I've two bad news for you:
1. The cinematographer is not that important to James Cameron, because most of times he shots the movie himself. Yes, you read that right, James Cameron operates camera most of times.
2. The cinematographer is not that important for Avatar, because most of the movie are CGI, that is why when Life of Pi won best cinematographer at Oscars, an outcry immediately follow, people think Skyfall should won.
@@AndrewNiccol I'm not surprised James was very much involved with his beloved sequel, but I'm also sure that the cinematographer is important, no matter how effects heavy the CGI is.
@@AndrewNiccol
I got some filmmaking lessons for you:
1. The cinematographer is a separate position from the camera operator. The DP can work the camera at times, but these are two separate positions. Camera operators are not responsible for the overall framing and chiaroscuro of the shot, so this first point is moot.
2. The cinematographer would still be responsible (in tandem with working with James Cameron) on picking the lens and focal length, while also designating the lighting, framing, and general aesthetic of the picture. These key decisions aren't made by the VFX artist. This second point is equally silly.
@@derekfeeser4125 but they have 3d world and virtual camera? are they still not big impact?
Damn didn't know that. Must also be quite old by now so with the ever increasingly steep learning-curve that comes from this ever expanding technology, it is sure to become a problem for the old guard without bringing in a new person at the helm. But here at least it's looked like it has still worked out.
In the first image of Jake you can even see that his eyes looks tired and that the skin under the eyes has a darker tone to show that he has been threw a lot/has been doing a lot since last time we saw him. It's so detailed that it's almost unbelivable!
I think it’s because the actors old now. Lol
Through
Thanks for breakin it down to layers. The depth of field is just brilliant. As a photographer I am awed by the detail & the tech. James has had a dozen years to work on it,and has used the time wisely! His films are always music to my eyes. Symphonic.
w cant wait looks amazing
As a CG artist I must say many of your points really have nothing to do with either quality or limitation 13 years ago. Layer count (It was easily done 13 years ago as well), or comparing shots that are widely different in composition (Especially your flying scene comparison made me go "Hold on, mate" :D), makes no sense. But your overall point does hold true: It looks better for the most part ;)
@PopcornOne No... often you would have prerendered background plates, or photos at a given distance, and then composite it all together.
Exactly. I appreciate what filmmakers like Cameron do, and I can't even begin to know the immense work involved in making films like these but, in the end, just judging by the teaser I was underwhelmed by it.
Maybe watching it in a proper venue will make me feel a sense of awe.
I'm curious to understand more of what you mean by saying the layers have no relevance? I'm an artist with some CG experience but it's not my area of expertise. My understanding of talking about layering is to point out more depth (and ultimately detail) that is being rendered into the scene. Perhaps that's not so much evidence of CG improvement as maybe budget. I know when it comes to CG/VFX there are tricks that can be used to either save time or hide mistakes and limitations. The thickness of the fog in 2009 saves money and time but is it also to hide the limitations of the time? A fully rendered 3d background requires a lot more power than a matte painting for example, right?
If anything, the comparison kind of shows how good Avatar actually was for its time. Still holds up pretty well in my opinion. But sure, the new one looks better.
Increased texture quality and fog reduction are clear improvements. But the cinematography "changes" are more of a stretch, even if the new level of quality sometimes invites wider, deeper shots.
i watched it in 3D and its just incredible!!! 3d worked so well i literally forgot i was wearing glasses 😍
I'm just happy we're getting a movie made by a director with his own finances and vision and not a board of directors(the MCU)
I'm happy to see that people are tired of stupid mcu
@@beesmongeese2978 🤓
@@beesmongeese2978 you just shat on the mcu. What a big L.
@@therumtummugger420 respect
@@beesmongeese2978 I've never even liked MCU to begin with lol. I have yet to see any MCU movie.
Most of what you point out isn't a technical limitation its artistic / directors choices. Ie the Pandora (Avatar 1) environments are just matte painting, there's no real limitation there regarding layers; however using DMPs is addressing a limitation relating to time/cost in itself. The layers that you define in the industrial spider bot shot, really are nothing special or ground breaking, or reflect anything very different from 15 years ago in terms of work flow. Most shots are divided into foreground, midground and background; the BG is usually a matte painting. The Mid ground usually use projected matte painting and the Foreground is likely a 3d full render. ... And you show my shot at 6:04 lol .. so i can talk about that more personally :) Beyond the ramp everything is CG, i recall even the two guys were CG. Jakes glass face protector thing is CG too .. all of them were due to the glass steaming up on set. The scorpion buggy to the right, i painted that; They added that purely as a toy tie in. Everything up to the buildings is a 3d render. Everything beyond that is a matte painting. The things that really improved in the last 10 years are compositing tools and workflows such as Nuke. Lower costs for technology and man power to create more assets, rendering times are faster so artists can iterate faster. Another improvement is simply artistic observation; a lot of what we do is just artistic choices; ie .. does it look right? .. yes .. no .. ? Today a lot of tools remove artistic choice and allow more psychically realistic results with lighting and shaders. One big limitation in the 2000s was the 4k render size plus having to render every frame twice for stereoscopic, that was a big bottle neck. Anyhow definitely limitations and improvements, but not the kind you mention in the video :)
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing really. Including for that of character visuals. It feels like there wasn't a case of technical limitations and more just artistic choice. Like how the characters would have a certain gloss to there skin and it was said that was a CG limit, but it just seems to make sense really if you're living in a rainforest and being an alien as well to have skin that sometimes shines like that. So by that I don't see anything here that can be considered an improvement in the character cg except for more incredible environment shots Cameron didn't get to do before and a truly brilliant looking continuation to the story.
@@danielwhyatt3278 Things like gloss, spec and reflection (raytracing) really are not a technical accomplishment or experienced any kind of significant improvement in the last 20 years or so, they might appear better because we're viewing them on higher resolution displays. So points like; reflections look so much better than 10 years ago (quoting the video) ... that's just artistic choice, not technical improvements unless you consider the output display. The skin shaders on A1 look less great because of a few factors in my opinion; artistic choice and understanding of surface shaders at the time, The shader model / algorithm are arguably more accurate today with respect to how they interact with lighting. One thing that's happened in the last 15 years is the unification of knowledge and workflows creating skin shaders. Back in 2008, everyone was working in a vacuum creating / writing their own version of a skin shader (stone ages) .. again, artistic choice; even during post production at the time; the three studio vendors (Framestore, Weta, ILM) were all using their own shaders .. quite bad lol ... One guy writes a skin shader the way he thinks it should look. Today, we have for lack of a better description; a unified agreed shader model for accurate looking skin, and an established workflow for working with these shader models. So today, everyone's using the same shaders. Interesting things to note these days are techniques involving accurate skin and muscle deformation; we have tools that can more accurately capture skin performance / skin deformation. SSS drivers; ie where blood, fat, bone, tissue etc changes and appears more present in the skin at any given deformation. Motion capture really is the thing to watch these days, that's where all the cool things are happening :)
I heard the reason it took so long to make is James wanted to use underwater motion capture something that wasnt really there yet at the time
@@dimthemighty6793 that's part of it, but the real reason it 'took so long' to make is because he literally shot about 3 movies at once. Avatar 2 and 3 are both already completely shot and in post production. Avatar 4 and 5 are filming but many scenes from both have already been filmed. So basically he was filming 4 movies simultaneously
How is this different than a trailer that's rendered by Blizzard? So more processing power for the ray-tracing, particle systems, polygon count, but this isn't ground breaking. Anything that isn't a humanoid that's managed by a skeleton system animation looks #1. Still uncanny valley issues. Not bad at all, but I want to see the valley crossed.
What I like about the first movie is it's a bit photorealistic. The avatar 2 seems to have lots of details, when we see real objects, we can't see every little detail.
As someone who's going to school to be a visual fx, animator, and has always been fascinated and mesmerized by each singular detail. I'm already profoundly mesmerized by this teaser and I'm gonna see this in IMAX 3D when I get the chance!
I still prefer the original ones, they look more expressive.
"Ava'ar The Leg'end of Wo'ah." I love your accent
The detailing in the new Avatar movie is amazing, even every leaf looks perfect and excellently animated.
The fact that 2009 avatar is out animating all new movies is truly sad
I like the original facial structures of the 2 main characters. I was hoping they’d keep it. The shiny skin was better. It looked like alien skin unlike humans. They made the skin look different in scenes depending on the light. I loved that in the first film. The Ikrans in the first movie looked awesome. They had great detail. Neytiri’s new eyes look amazingly detailed. Yes. But they should have used the new faces of them for other characters. Jake’s new face looks cartoonish. He was wayy more handsome in the first movie. The facial structure.
True!
the original is better in many ways. sometimes people overwork cgi because it's a "new" approach.
They older now
they are also older, 1st movie came out 13 years ago and in the movie I think there is even more time that has passed... so they will be different in how they look, Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington are in their mid 40s...
Avatar 2 looks like how I remember Avatar 1 looking
Your analysis has got me much more excited than I was. It really shows how much the modern movies are rushed for a quick buck.
Avatar 2 has a very detailed environment and characters, the original Avatar is still worth watching, even after 14 years.
2:56 there's one more detail i noticed in that top down view frame. The sunlight's reflection is seen to be on the right,behind the dragons.
1:08 now the continuation of that frame, we see the sunlight's reflection on Sully's face, and he looking towards the rightside exactly where the sunlight reflection was rendered in the previous frame
and then the next frame too, follows the same direction of the position of light. there's always continuity of surroundings in every continuous frame which really dazzles my mind.
The detail of the skin textures is insane.
James loves this franchise so much, there’s so much passion in these movies. Whether u like the movies or not u can’t deny it. I’m so excited for the next movies.
Is it bad that when you mentioned increased texture on the face my first thought was, "well of course the actors/actresses are older!"? When the first one came out I was so amazed by the graphics and how well the movie immersed the audience - I'm sure Avatar 2 will engage us all the more!
Truly appreciate the video, learned many things I didn't know about cgi.
First one was fantastic, my all time favourite movie in fact. It shocked me as a child as no other film with its setting, Pandora as a world and also OST. It had some defects, but cgi wise it was unprecedented, and this one seems even better in that sense
We've waited many years for this time to come and it's already there! Cheers from Spain dude
I already im gonna cry in the cinema because of how gorgeous this movie is going to be. I'm very excited to watch it.
I'm so glad someone made a video talking about this because on the trailer that I watched so many people were talking about how the cgi wasn't better when that's straight up just not true
Watching this in 1080p on a smartphone, I can't tell the difference between the two. However, I know the difference will be massive on an IMAX 3D theater screen.
Movies getting close to the 2 billion dollar mark :) cant wait for the next movie.
Several people have already commented about their skills and experience actually working on Avatar, as compositors and CG artists. I didn't work on the show, but also as compositor and CG artist I thought I would add some other thoughts...This discussion is not a new one. The tools and technologies available to create VFX have become democratized to an unbelievable level, and in certain circumstances, we've already crossed the uncanny valley. There are so many instances of people calling out films for using too much CGI and praising other films for not using ANY, not realizing that they have it exactly backwards. They were unaware that the CGI they disliked were actually physical models, and the action they praised were done in the computer. The point is, sometimes we cannot tell the difference. Sometimes it's because of how well the scene was put together, sometimes it's because the technology has improved so much, we don't realize how good it's gotten. Sometimes directors don't know how to utilize the tools and the artists and they produce a poor result. Sometimes a shot is so well photographed that a monkey on crack would be hard pressed to mess it up, other times it's the reverse and even the best vfx artist is telling them to just reshoot it. Did no one notice that all the masks in Avatar were CGI? I didn't, and I knew about it too. How about Jakes legs in A1...CGI? Spit screen? Mirrors? Incense? How about the water in A2? Was it all water sim? I mean...ALLL. OF. IIIITTT???? That's a fuk-ton of water sim. Y'all have no idea. And how about Cameron leading the charge to create a world so rich in technological "stuff" that we can only take it for real, because of all the overabundance of thought that went into the vehicles and technology AND the Navi and their world that we see on screen. The question of "how good" or "how improved" vfx are, is absolutely moot and pointless. Just watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is.
I mean I did prefer the much less use of CGI in Lord of The Rings compared to the heavy use of it in the Hobbit.
There is a lot that you really nit picked on the first movie, that really wasn’t that bad at all. Yes we have come a long way in CGI, but you mentioned eye reflections not being present in the first movie, when there clearly were, and the difference wasn’t that much. There was only slight differences in some of the other scenes as well. The main difference I saw was the vine climbing. Much better rendition. Anything else would be hard to compare, just because the scenes themselves are different. The first movie has nothing to be ashamed of. We have to remember that not only has CGI improved, but also the format in which we see movies. We are now living in a world where ultra hdtv is almost commonplace. I’m sure they will do a remastered version of Avatar, just to make up for what they didn’t have in 2009.
Generally it looks like James Cameron film. Which means film better directed than any DC or Marvel superhero staff.
?
@@dunkirito8308 ?
@@dragonballgoat546 The first one was boring. Only thing great about it was the visuals.
@@dragonballgoat546 But the question is: are visuals enough to bring people back and get excited for the film. The first worked because 3D was a new and revolutionary tool. Today, not so much.
Also, what do you mean by “all other movies are boring in cinema?” Endgame was a event I don’t think we’ll ever have again. Do you know any other movie that took 10 years and 20+ films to build up?
@@dragonballgoat546 Considering the first one had pretty mediocre story that was basically a rehashed of Pocahontas , I’m not so keen that this next one will be either, but I will wait and see.
Close up of Neytiri is amazing. Just amazing. And first shot also. I completly agree. Overall there are many great shots. But the shot of the navi child (Kate Winslet's character daughter, i think) is not great. And i dont know why. It looks like an animated film. Great one, but animated one.
Agree, maybe it cause we saw it thr first time(she is bit different then the other Na Vi's
The one swimming is a little bit off too, I think
Well they probably took Sam Worthington's face and de-aged it and tried to cgi it on the his children so... Yeah still hype asf for this movie
@@jairon_2518 don't say that lmao that was the whole reason James took so long with the series 😂 he wanted hyper-realistic bodies flowing underwater and put all his money into that to where they wouldnt look like the shit show that was aquaman
@dystopian war cry Well I meant more the Avatar (or Na'Vi, Idk) design itself, more like the face and expression from 0:08. Too much "humanized" I think. They're supposed to be different from the water clan, right? I mean, their eyes seem just a little bit off too
But for the rest, it's promising for sure hehe
Saw Avatar 2 last night in IMAX 3D and it is visually stunning. It’s an incredible thing to witness. The technology has made for some of the most beautiful eye candy in cinematic history. It’s obviously not reality but I don’t believe it’s meant to be. It’s immersive beyond description. See this in IMAX.
PLEASE.
Yes. True.
People need to watch your videos. You earned a new subscriber.
Don’t forget that was in 2009 and steel the best CGI in that moment also it’s better than the marvel movies now wich is mind blowing,and now the 2022 is steel a magical performance, graat CGI as always and even better , no one can beat James in this and he show us what he can do with this technology and his idea (the details in the writing) and we don’t forget the work of actors that was great and emotional, i have cried a lot with the movie 😅 ❤ and thaks for the review
I think its cute how you get excited about layers when talking about a modern cgi movie. Maybe you think of matte painting, where we had actual layers in our 3D scenes with textures on them to make it possible to render detailed backgrounds back in the day, but this is kinda outdated ...today its all just simply 3D and we do not think of layers unless its about composition and cinematography. If you want to emphasise how far we have come in modern CGI you should talk about the insane polycount and the ability to basically use photogrammetry models or handsculpted models without the need of retopology directly in our scenes. Also important are Global illumination, physicly accurate cloth and softbody simulations, dynamic hair strand systems and much more ...but yeah, layers are cool i guess
@ 3:00 blurry is from motion blur. Camera is much closer to the mountains compared to the other shot which is way far away from the water.
Comparing James Cameron's 2009 CGI to current Marvel movies made my day 🤣
I am just not as WOWED as when watching the first Avatar. Seen to much CGI from Marvel movies to Jurassic Park that I prefer more practical effects with a pinch of CGI. This just looks like Avatar 1 part 2
The first one is one of my most fav movies, no idea why I connected it with so much back when it was released.
and seeing this new teaser sprung joy into my heart!
You've given a really nice impression on the difference in the detailing! Great job! 💪🏻
I 100% cannot tell the difference between the cgi in the first and the second one
This is one franchise where I believe the whole series could be as good as the first movie, because he planned out the whole universe from the beginning
2009's Neytiri face, even when 2022's Neytiri is more photorealistic, has more identity and style to it. By being not so photorealistic, it enhances the features on Saldana's face, whereas 2022's is more similar to the actress face, making it a little bit more boring.
this the problem I had with the transformers films every movie it's like they would give them more and more human like features. Like the dude with the beer belly and mustache. Hopefully Cameron keep the Navi alien, that what makes the Navi characters so larger than life is because of the alien aspect. I think he is especially when you see the Metkyina clan how they are more green color with fin like arms and legs and paddle tails.
You can watch this movie over and over again after 10 years and the level of details is amazing. Other movies like MCU only looks good on theaters, but when you watch it later is so painful, the CGI is horrendous.
Yeah but it's taken how long for a sequel?... Marvel pump out films 3/4 a year and give a level of decency to detail that we accept but the thing is the MCU get to play with the technology over and over year in year out and get to refine this for every film they put out down the line so I'd say who's got the upper hand here and ill have you know some of the MCU is perfectly fine to watch but with only 1 in the franchise under your belt and 10 years is not comparable 2 completey different ways of working but both make things that will be remembered for decades to come so who's laughing
@@ugliimugg7899 agreed but what I say is if you watch the last spiderman movie in 3 years or so you will notice the cgi and green screens. I watched dozens of time of Avatar: almos perfect. Another great movie with good cgi is prometheus. Is like 5 years old and still looks amazing. That’s my point
The CGI in Marvel movies is an endless up and down... sometimes its great ( Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers Infinity War ) and sometimes its... horrible. Especially the cars in Spiderman no way home and Dr. Strange Multiverse of madness look straight out of Forza Horizon 3...
Compared to Michael Bays Transformers ( 2007! ) or Avatar thats pretty... lame...
As much you're highlighting many good points here - there's also many things said here that have absolutely no correlation to technology, 3D and rendering limitations.
Comparing a shot in the mountains vs. a shot above the water makes no sense. It's two different shots!
Same for the base with helicopters, it's two different shots! Comparing them and trying to find technical reasons for this or that, is not giving much credit to the cinematography behind each shot. One is an intimate shot about him getting into that base for the first time, the other one is an epic action shot in an environment we all already know. Very different intentions and need behind each shot.
Another thing, when you talk about "wow it has so many layers", it's just cinematography, again. It has nothing to do with 3D limitations.
The fact that there's shots with heavy parallax , many layers in depth, it's just a direction choice rather than something you couldn't do in the past.
Nevertheless, I'm super excited about new Avatar for sure :)
this is what contstructive criticism is! ty and well said i had the same thoughts when it came to compairing shots obv hes limited to the trailer but he did good
> Another thing, when you talk about "wow it has so many layers", it's just cinematography, again. It has nothing to do with 3D limitations. The fact that there's shots with heavy parallax , many layers in depth, it's just a direction choice rather than something you couldn't do in the past.
Glad you pointed this out. I wasn't sure if this was just something I wasn't aware of. I was thinking during the video that a lot of what he's talking about is just changes in direction and cinematography, rather than a development in the tech.
I hear some new camera tech was developed for this movie due to all of the water shots, so the water scenes will be really interesting to watch. Overall I'm super hyped for this movie as someone who's really into 3D art (despite being a beginner and only ever using Blender lol). I love seeing showcases of what can be done with 3D tech. Really looking forward to seeing this in cinemas
To this day, I am amazed by the quality of the first film, so this is going to be awesome to see.
listening to this i feel like just taking mental notes as an artist. I also like how you're explaining everything in depth like in an art gallery.
Im so excited for this movie!!!!
I understand your channel all about avatar I love it
Personally, I have just seen the Avatar: Way of water just recently and except for the water scenes I was very disappointed. I expected a big improvement. Instead, the CGI looked more artificial. There is an obvious lack the depth and you loose the feel of natural scenes. I rewatched the Avatar 1 and I would give Avatar 1 10/10 and Avatar 2 maybe 5.5-7/10.
You didn’t just get a new subscriber, you earned it. Well done, this was very up my alley and its the video I’ve been wanting to see and one I would share with friends for conversation sake. Nice work.
Thanks man. For genuinely getting me more excited
It's been 13 years and we finally get to see a real movie!
An actual movie made with passion and not infected by the woke propaganda. This movie has the potential to reverse everything and bring cinema back.
@@rover5058 um.....top gun maverick has entered the chat....like jeez.....atleast give it some credit and acknowledge it. It was only a masterpiece of filmaking no less
@@rover5058 it isn't out yet, we don't fully know it won't be woke
The new one is basically the old one with RTX on
Literally my only complaint is how they changed Neytiri's appearance; I dislike the changes made to her face shape, nose and lips
Fr I thought I was the only one,,, but ig if that's how they gonna roll w it then fine
the first avatar looks more real!
The thing is I didn't notice any differences when I actually watched Avatar 2. Maybe because the first version did a very good job so...
I know, every nuance adds up making the movies much more realistic and stunning but if you didn't make this video I can't see that. Thank dude!!
Anyone like the older ones colour pallet more ?
I liked the darker grey and bleak vibe where the humans camped out yeah
Its fascinating to know that how much technology had improved since the last decade that we can now point out the lack of visual details in one of the most impressive visual movie of its time!
Now we just lack passion and decent writing
Nice work!! Can't wait for the premiere!
Great insight into the teaser. I was thinking the same things when I first saw it. Those added layer depths will also create the most amazing parallax. I can see each layer moving separately at different speeds which will have the most stunning effect on the brain in 3D and that feeling of total emersion. It will be mind blowing. Let's hope the story is too! And yes, I can see Quaritch all over this teaser. That tattoo just picks him out!
I've seen videogames with CGI that impressed me more
Such as?
@@Alhawaii1 Horizon Zero Dawn is about as impressive as this and that’s on the ps4 with real time rendering no ray tracing lol.
yeah because it took like 13 years for an avatar sequel so obviously videogames and their cgi trailers have reached an avatar level
i cant belive they got away with morphing a damn cat(ears, nose, eyes, teeth, hiss, tail) into a blue human body
Avatar 1 Was Already Much Much Ahead Of Its Time.
This One For Me Isn't A Massive Jump When Compared To The Previous Jump
But New Locations😍😍😍
Its not easy to jump higher when you are already very close to the ultimatum of cgi tech while back in 2009 they have a better opputinity to showcase it to the world if that makes any sense
I honestly think the new movie looks worse than the first one. The trailer makes it look like a game trailer.
Every shot can be a wallpaper
You should have more subscribers man!
THE EYES, OMG the difference in the eyes is astounding when you look at them side by side.
03:58 I had the luck of seeing the trailer in 3D and in scenes like this the depth really stood out (literally I guess, lol). This is going to be a feast for the eyes again
I'm impressed how the original still holds up
Makes the 13 years worth the wait!!!!!!!! Can’t wait to see this.
the most important part to me, everything looks so sharp and the colour range seems much wider and accurate
I literally feel like crying I'm so excited, I've loved this film since i was a kid and been waiting for so long! I dont even care if the story is rubbish its so beautiful
The story isn't rubbish, never has been.
One detail I found interesting is that it seems (to me atleast) that the Unobtanium in the floating rocks blends together with the stone and gives it a blueish tint.
Cannot wait for the extended edition on bluray of avatar 2. The extended edition of the first one was so much better and fleshed everything out even better.
What blows my mind is how far 3d visuals have come. The level of detail and the realism in motion and just the way it all feels. Avatar felt like a tech demo at the time and this is gonna be even better. One of my favorite movies ever gets a sequel, finally.
Yea the 1st one looks animated compared to the new one
Man, the wait is almost over! Gonna be another GIANT blockbuster. Cannot wait!
This is the quality you get when you *actually* pay the cgi team
I just came from cinema and yes, some parts are really incredible and breathtaking while others looks like from the first movie.
The water effects stood out to me. Miles above anything I've ever seen. Incredible water simulation going on.
Neytiri's eyes look much more like Zoe Saldana's in the closeup shot...
I just watched Avatar either last year or this year, and I FELL IN LOVE!!!!
I'm literally SO HYPED to see this new movie! I've been wanting one ever since I saw the last one!
i was in absolute AWE when i first watched the teaser. I loved the original, I think that it looked quite nice with the things we could do then, and I knew this movie was going to be so much nicer.... but oh my god. absolute awe. I actually cried
Yeah no. It still looks great, but it's not night and day. It looked amazing in 2009. Not much to improve on.
James Cameron is a perfectionist when it comes to filmmaking I mean Terminator 2 and titanics cgi still holds up today and they were made in the 90's people shouldn't really be surprised about AVATAR still looking good Jim's always been ahead of the game :p
Very cool comparison. I am so excited to watch this in cinemas in December
Ok so I’ll be honest, I liked the movie but I feel like they changed so many aspects of the characters which I loved. Jake doesn’t even really look like…Jake? I don’t know how to explain it. I ADORED his look in avatar 1, but in avatar 2 they changed it somehow, like his eyes seem smaller, bone structure is off, and so is his head. I get he’s aged, but it’s almost too much? Like they made him look TOO human. Neytiri is beautiful, but they also changed her a lot. The kids look a little wonky to me, like they tried to make them look more human but it looks weird. Overall I prefer avatar 1 over avatar 2. I miss the old cgi tbh. They don’t even really look like na’vi to me
They played a scene for the new avatar as a post credit scene, it looks beautiful
the old movie still looks really good compared to the CGI movies nowadays.
Yes, that's true!
Aye, Master Kenway
Fr I seen some shit modern movies w CGI, like they dont have an excuse when AVATAR PAVED THE WAY for all CGI masterpieces after it.
It kinda looks like they have aged as well, pretty cool!