What aspect ratio will Avatar be when released on Blu-Ray 3D?

From what I understand, the prints shipped to theaters matched the screen in the auditorium it would be playing to get the most massive picture. If the auditorium is constant width, it got a 1.85 print, if it is constant height then it got a 2.35 print.

Cameron has always been about variable aspect ratios since he knew his movies had a life beyond the theater, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Blu-ray is 1.78. But that's just my guess.

IMDb indicates that all 3D versions are 1.78:1 and flat versions are 2.35:1. IMDb, of course, has been known to be wrong on more than one occasion. Using the term "print" is debatable in this context, as the only theatres that would get prints are IMAX theatres and those showing the film flat. 3D threatres other than IMAX would get this as digital files. My best guess is that Cameron will release the 2D version in 2.35:1 for home media and the 3D in 1.78:1 in order to fully immerse the viewer in the 3D experience as much as possible.

Can you just imagine what the release would look like had this been a Universal film?

DVD/Blu-Ray/IMAX/3-D Mega Super Combo Flipper pack!

Disc 1 - DVD with bonus features.
Disc 2 - Digital Copy/Coaster
Disc 3 - 2D Blu-Ray Flipper (side 1: 2.35 aspect ratio, side 2: 1.85 aspect ratio)
Disc 4 - 3D Blu-Ray Flipper (side 1: IMAX 1.67 aspect ratio, side 2: (Lie)MAX 1.78 aspect ratio)
Disc 5 - Extra, super, special Blu-Ray features that wouldn't fit on the other discs...

All at NO EXTRA CHARGE!!!! 

I read the first release of avatar would not be in 3D. that the 3D release would come later. it would be the regular 2D version. I am curious if they will have a dvd/bluray pack. some people have not gotten into bluray yet. I remember the wolverine had a walmart 3 disc set that included both the bluray and dvd.

Jacob

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will there even be separate 3D/2D releases?

A 3D release is all but guaranteed to be released full frame. If there are seperate releases I can see them making the 2D 2.35 to help distinguish it from the 3D release (since anyone can play that in 2D).

And then there's the new issue of the 3D compression, which is going to make this one of the most heavily scrutinized Blurays of all time.

When I saw Avatar in 3D, it was 2.35x1.

- Steve

I was using "print" as a catch-all term to keep it simple.

So it was when I saw here here in Sydney

I hope they release a 3D version on regular Blu-ray before they do a Blu-Ray 3D version. I'm not ready to buy the first gen Blu-Ray 3D players but I'd love to see it again in 3D.

I saw the IMAX 3D version and it was absolutely incredible.

3D Blu-rays are backwards compatible.  You can stick them into a legacy Blu-ray player and watch the 2D version.  (Or a 3D capable player hooked up to a 2D display.)


That 50% compression overhead is the reasons I might prefer a separate 2D release.  Maybe it will be the first to make use of the 35.4GB/layer discs. :)

I have another question. I remember clearly James Cameron saying that editing in 3D is different than editing in 2D. For 3D you have to cut scenes in a way that doesn't cause eye strain.

So, is the 3D cut of Avatar different than the 2D cut?

No, the 2D and the 3D cuts are identical. I think what you're thinking about is that with 3D directors have to be a little more cautious with how they move the camera and how quickly they cut scenes -- overdoing either could lead to motion sickness due to the added 3D effect.

Yes that's what he said. That you can do things with a 2D cut that can't do with a 3D cut. That's why I was wondering if he made 2 cuts.

Yet another reason I have so much respect for Cameron - he takes into consideration so much more than most directors out there - especially when it comes to editing his movies.

I heard an interview with Cameron on XMRadio (Cinemagic) in which he talks about his approach to editing fast-moving, kinetic action sequences.  He realizes that as a director, seeing the sequence dozens if not hundreds of times during the editing process that he subconsiously knows how the onscreen action is going to shift from shot to shot and his eyes are able to learn where to go so as not to miss anything critical - an advantage that is lost to first-time movie viewers.

His solution: while doing the editing, he works with the clips reversed horizontally - assembling what he calls the "flop cut".  Once the scene is assembled and cut together, he flips it back the right way so that when he watches the end result, he's effectively placing himself at the level of the first-time viewer.  If he gets lost following the action, he goes back and starts over again.

The man is a machine.  No wonder it takes him so many years to complete a film.

I remember that. Don't know where I saw it.

Those of us which have just acquired our Blu-ray players don't like to hear that they are now being referred to as "legacy" 

I know what you mean. But honestly, I have little interest in 3D at home (and really not that much in the theater). It's all fine and good, but after about 20 minutes my mind adjusted to the effect and "Avatar" didn't look any different than a 2D film. Every now and then something would "stick out" to remind me, but then my brain would compensate again a few minutes later.

I think it will end up being like Surround. All of my friends and relatives have HDTVs and BLu-rays now, but I'm the only one with a full surround system. Everyone else is fine with the TV speakers.

Chad,

I don't think you can equate "surround sound" with 3D!  I agree with you that 3D is still pretty much a gimmick;  but without a good "surround sound system" (which includes a good center channel speaker and powered subwoofer) I just don't feel like I'm getting the full movie-in-the-home experience.  The surround sound, to me, is at least 50% of the enjoyment that I derive from viewing a movie at home.

BTW, I currently have my new Blu-ray player feeding a native 720p front projector system, so I'm deriving more satisfaction from the much improved audio than the video right now.  This is not to say that the video doesn't look better than upscaled DVD on my system: It does.  Heck, just being able to view my favorite movies without all that horrid edge enhancement (mostly due to the improved codecs combined with the higher bandwidth) makes the investment in Blu-ray worth my while.  But the biggest improvement right now is in the area of audio!

Getting back to the topic:  I'm probably going to want to read some reviews of Avatar on the new 3D equipment before investing any money in it.  And while I'm sure it will change, right now Avatar is probably the only movie I'd be interested in viewing in 3D at home. For example, I'm perfectly content with the 2D Blu-ray of Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.  

I loves me some surround sound, particularly more "aggressive" surround mixes where there's a whole series of atmospheric elements going on in addition to the more forceful explosions and passing vehicles.

I've seen Avatar in both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 and as good as both presentations were, I'd prefer the 1.78:1 AR just because it's a bit more immersive on a TV screen than 2.35:1 is, but because both are legitimate ARs, I'm sure I'll be happy with what we get on the eventual disc. That being said, 3D TV isn't something I'd be able to take advantage of any time soon (or later for that matter) but since the discs are supposed to be fully compatible with 2D, if the first Blu-ray release is 2.35:1 and the second 3D release is 1.78:1, I'll double dip without any hesitation or eye-rolling.

That very well may be. But I still predict that 3D will not be widely accepted because most people don't need it to enjoy a movie, just like a lot of people don't need surround sound to enjoy a movie. I have  surround, I have a lot of fun with it. But I know a lot of people who live with out it. And that fuels my prediction that 3D won't take off at home.

 I saw Avatar this weekend and while the story/plot was stupid & dated, I marveled at the technology used for the special effects. While this movie will surely be released on BD someday I truly hope that Cameron will take some time to oversee the BD releases of some of his earlier movies such as True Lies, The Abyss, Aliens, and The Terminator. We've been waiting a long time for these.
Edited by Brad Vautrinot - 1/24/10 at 4:49pm

 3D Blu-ray will be 1.78:1. 2D Blu-ray will be 2.39:1.

Here's a link to a 43-minute Q&A in which Cameron discusses the aspect ratios:

marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/james-cameron-q-podcast-from-aliens.html

The money quote comes at the 13:20 mark:
 

I haven't yet had the chance to listen to the Q&A, but from the description on the site, it sounds like Cameron's talking about the aspect ratios of the 2D and 3D theatricalreleases, not of the eventual Blu-ray release(s).

It's my understanding that 3D Blu-rays will play in 2D just fine on existing Blu-ray players, so there wouldn't be any reason to release separate 2D and 3D versions.  Then again, I wouldn't put it past the studio to initially release only a 2D version and save the 3D for a later "double-dip."

 Cameron has already stated that they're probably going to release a 2D version first and a 3D version at a later date.

www.blu-ray.com/news/

Rupert Murdoch was had this to say this AM about the 3D release in the Hollywood Reporter:


Its safe to say that he meant Blu-ray not DVD since there is no pending 3D DVD standard.

1.78:1 is going to be the aspect ratio for the Blu-ray.

As it should be.

Actually, James Cameron has said (the exact quote is in the other Avatar thread) that while he likes the height of the 1.85:1/1.78:1 frame for 3D, he likes the composition of the 2.39:1 ratio, and prefers that ratio for 2D exhibition.  He apparently made a point of releasing Avatar in 2D theaters at 2.39:1, even though they'd have been perfectly capable of exhibiting the film at 1.85:1 if that's what Cameron wanted, so I'm a bit disappointed that the 2.39:1 version isn't included.