Originally Posted by coolscan
The main difference beside the much higher resolution is Live filming 3D vs. Postconversion 3D + CGI (Hugo) and Very little Live Filmed 3D + CGI (Avatar).
Prometheus has very little CGI compared to those movies, and very little CGI/Greenscreen compared to most Sci-Fi movies.
Filmed live on set. Prometheus has just slightly more Effects shot than The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo. And much of the VFX are mixed film elements and plates.
I saw Prometheus in 3D on my 17" laptop screen at standard 30% 3D depth (standard settings). Tried it later at between 45-50% depth, which showed the 3D in a much more impressive way.
Hugo was featured in one of my issues of HD VideoPro – which is what originated my notice of the film. I never made it to the theater to see it; probably had one of my fave leading ladies featured in the timeframe of its showing.
I recently revisited the article and it was shot on Arri Alexa I believe which were fairly new at the time I think the article stated and I believe they used the same 3D mounts as developed by James Cameron (I’m just sort of reaching for the details here, but something like that).
Anyway, it may very well be a matter of CGI being more prominent in Hugo and Avatar as you stated (seemed pretty heavy to me in all of them), but my understanding was that Hugo was very masterfully shot in 3D with intent for it to be shown in 3D and that’s why I was a little let down to see the ‘crosstalk’ effect, but there may be issues in my setup.
I hate to see so many others chime in with the same complaints. They are probably still best viewed at the theater. Oh well, 3D at home wasn’t a priority for me anyway and it’s still super cool. I wish more were like Prometheus though – very enjoyable to not have the distractions of the ‘crosstalk.’
Cool info on Prometheus about it being shot in 5K – I’ll have to Google that. I must have overlooked it if it was in one of my digital video magazines.