What aspect ratio will Avatar be when released on Blu-Ray 3D? - Page 4

My understanding is that constant image height got 2.39:1, while constant image width and IMAX got the designed 1.78:1.

Casablanca was masked to 1.33:1 with in the 1.85:1 aperture plate for its 1992 re-release. Its very possible to project a 1.33:1 image.

Doug

Edit: Sorry I'm repeating what Mark said.

Here is what James Cameron had to say about Avatar's aspect ratio both on Blu-ray and in the theater.  This was taken by HTF at a press event earlier today in LA.

"The video you have requested is not available"

Just thought you should know.

Plays just fine for me.

Doug

^ It didn't work for me earlier tonight either but it plays fine now.

Thanks for posting that video... even if it probably won't end the debate.

The King hath spoken,

His Words may give Hope to Constant Image display users throughout His Kingdom....

Couldn't resist, sorry.

Can someone summarize what was said in that video?

Although he supervised and approved both versions for different screening venues, filmmaker James Cameron favors the full 16:9/1.78:1 image composition for his movie AVATAR vs. the matted 2.4:1 'Scope version.

Vincent

In addition to that, he said that when making the scope version he just took it straight out of the 1.78 frame, which likely means that anyone with a constant height setup can see it in 2.35 and not miss anything that would have been shown theatrically in 2D or some 3D theaters.

Not necessarily, because he could have adjusted the frame up-or-down from shot-to-shot to get the 2.4:1 'Scope ratio, as opposed to doing a straight center crop from the original 1.78:1 frame.

Vincent

I'm only going by what Cameron said in the video: 

"what we basically did was we finished the picture in 16:9 then we extracted vertically, we took out the CinemaScope extraction - this is when we were mastering the film for theatrical release. So it was very easy, we didn't have to do any pan and scan or any blow-up or anything we just went straight to our 16:9 master. "

In any event, I'd suggest that when people get a hold of the disc, they simply test this to see if it really is a simple crop or not.

It doesn't take any effort to find out.

I asked him later on if other upcoming versions will be 16x9 to and he confirmed that all future home video versions (including 3D) will be 16x9.

How?  For one thing, there won't be any 2.39:1 version to compare it against.  Even if a centered crop of the 1.78:1 frame looks okay, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the framing that was used in the actual 2.39:1 version.

And even if we could do that, I don't think I'd consider comparing two versions of every single shot of a nearly three-hour movie as "not taking any effort."  It's not like you could just check one or two scenes and be confident that the rest of the movie is framed the same.  It wouldn't be unheard of for only a single scene or two to be framed differently from the rest...remember how the Chasing Amy DVD included exactly one scene that was framed differently from the rest of the movie?

Actually I'm pretty sure the entire DVD transfer was matted more at the top vs. the LaserDisc, it was just that it was only really noticeable/objectionable in that one shot where the top of Affleck's head was chopped off.

Vincent

Thanks for the correction.

Well when you're watching AVATAR and notice for example, subtitles are always in the right place and people's heads and whatnot are within the self-created scope frame, it wouldn't take much to know that things are where they should be.

If not, and elements are cut off or out of frame entirely, then you'll know that as well. These things can be pretty obvious.

Relax. It doesn't have to be remotely as difficult as you're trying to make it sound.

You can compare it with the trailers, which were 2.35.  Trust me, it will only take a few shots to find one that doesn't match.

Subtitles are a poor example to use - since they were added to a film after the cropping had been done.

Also, not every shot has people's heads in them.  Some shots could appear equally well-composed with image center above the 50% line as with image center below the 50% line.

Understand, it's not as remotely simplistic as you're trying to make it sound.

If the subtitles were added after the fact, they placed them too high in the 1.78 frame, judging by what I saw in theaters.

If you look at the image and it appears well-composed to your eyes, and things such as people's heads and whatnot are not cropped off to any extreme, then it would appear that the scope version was indeed taken right out without tilting or panning or anything other than a straight crop. When watching the film you'll see if that's the case or not, and if not and things are obviously skewed in some way, then I'm wrong and misinterpreted Jim Cameron's words.

However, we won't know that until we're playing the disc in our homes and simply give it a try.
If you're on the fence about owning it because of the AR issue, well that's what video store rentals are for.

There's no need to assume I'm automatically wrong when all I've done is base my guess on what Cameron said and I'm willing to try it out. There's no need to assume you're right either. We don't know any of that yet. It's not some serious earth-shattering issue. I'm looking at this to be something that's kind of fun to do.

Fair enough, and for the record, it doesn't matter to me what aspect ratio the movie is released in...

My response (as well as Carl's, I believe) had more to do with the fact that if it's possible that the cropping wasn't uniform throughout, then there's no way you can compare a handful of shots and know with any degree of certainty that it's the same case for all shots in the film.

Cameron has gone to great lengths in previous films to re-compose on an almost shot-by-shot basis when cropping for 4:3, so it stands to reason that it's possible he's taken the same level of care with creating the two different aspect ratios for Avatar.

In the end, yes, it's all much ado about nothing, IMO.  I'll enjoy watching it again and won't think twice about whether it's the same as what I saw in the theater.

I'm hoping it's a straight crop because if it makes users of constant height setups happy to know they can enjoy the film in 2.35 and know they aren't negatively affecting the film's image to do it, than all the better. That's also the reason I'm so convinced it works with The Dark Knight as well. I don't have such a setup, I just have a 42" TV but I'm interested in these things because it's fun. It may be deadly-serious given the debates around here but I just find it a lot of fun to experiment with these things.

Just to resurrect a long dead horse for some more beating...

Here's an interesting report from a reviewer at HighDefDigest.com and his observations on how the 2.35:1 image was extracted from the 16:9 source as well as his experience with the new Blu-Ray on a CIH setup.

Scroll down to the video portion of his review - he's included some screengrabs of varying ARs that shed some light on the subject.

In all honesty, I don't particularly trust that reviewer when it comes to Aspect ratio issues.

I'm not inclined to believe him when he makes claims that the on-screen graphics were repositioned, not unless someone else can verify it. Of course that's a little hard to do without a hard copy of the film in scope, unless someone official has gone on record as saying so. Reason why I don't trust him is because he's not the most reasonable reviewer out there with regards to Aspect Ratio choices and the like.... It's a Buffy thing. Too biased, too skewed.

As I've said before, I urge everyone who has a CIH setup to try it out before dismissing it outright.

Sorry - should have clarified.  His review offers some firsthand experience with using the actual Blu-Ray in a CIH setup.  No other reviews that I have read have mentioned trying this out, so I figured it might be worthwhile to some.

I saw it in 2.35:1 in the theater, and all of the graphics that were visible weren't near the edges at all as those screenshots show.

I'd be surprised if they really went in and repositioned the graphics for the home version. I'd be less surprised if the graphics were in exact same the same spot on the 2.35:1 theatrical prints and there was a tiny bit bit more picture on either side. So it would have looked more or less like the 2.2:1 screenshot plus some 'missing' image filling it out to the 2.35:1 width. But of course I only saw the 16x9 IMAX version.

Why would anyone assume the graphics were repositioned "for home viewing"? That doesn't make sense. The overlays were in different places depending on what AR you saw in the theater. The home versions use the 16x9 print... its going to have the 16x9 overlays.

Here's what they looked like in 2:35;