How come this looked almost perfect 5 years ago and now it looks like shit? I dont get it.
>>68030151
I can't wait till /tv/ looks like 2009 all over again when the sequel comes out.
I miss Abatap
>>68030151
CGI curse.
>>68030184
I remember him. Did all the old tripfags commit suicide or something?
>>68030221
he's hibernating till Avatar 2 comes out
>>68030151
>and now it looks like shit?
does it? I don't think so.
the movie still looks amazing on a big TV with active 3D.
>>68030151
It always looked much better in 3D. The "plastic toy" effect, (which nevertheless does not always come out) is clearer in 2D, where as a 3D screening gives everything a faint blur, making everything just a little more impressionistic to the point of being objectively, 2.8 bn worth visually captivating, however you feel about the rest.
t. person who actually watched Avatar multiple times in the theater, and later in 2D
Its like watching Tom and Jerry as a kid and then you cant stand it as a Adult....
are you autistic?
>>68030151
>>68030804
Compared to CG from other movies circa 2009, this is still mind-blowingly good. The only parts of Avatar that look bad are the ones that looked bad in 2009 (I'm looking at you, obviously-CG giant yellow construction vehicle).
>>68030151
>That's what butthurt haters actually believe.
Cry more.
I feel a bit upset that it was only shot in 2K for the live action parts. I know they could re-render the CG parts ot 4K if they wanted to but cost for a dead project prohibits it. Still. 2K DI upscaled to UHD should still look good when it finally hits UHD media.
I think Avatar still looks good. It doesn't look perfect, but we've reached a point where CG can age noticeably but not look "bad."
I was rewatching some Pixar stuff lately, and while The Incredibles looks clunky and that makes watching it not as great an experience as I'd like, but Ratatouille is almost 10 years old and I can see that without being bothered by it at all.
