AVATAR: Blu-ray takes the "Superbit" approach

I'm going to be purchasing it. This is mainly due to the fact that I've just *got* to have this movie in my collection as soon as I can. The next release of the movie to BD will not only have slews of supplements, but will also be in 3D. (With compatible 2D playback).

I'll double-dip, but I won't triple-dip.

I'm buying the barebones release in April, then the 3D version whenever it comes out. I'm assuming that the 3D release will also include bonus features similar to the Special Edition later this year. I can wait.

If it's priced appropriately, I will just pick up the bare bones addition. Extra features are not a big deal for me, so there will be no need to double dip on an "ultimate edition". Since I do not plan on upgrading to a 3D system anytime soon, I can pass on that version, too, whenever it comes out.

I'll probably buy the first release and enjoy it until an extended version is released.

Well that's just ducky! ... And typical of the studio's shortsightedness.

The only title which will drive the common consumer to upgrade his display, receiver, and BD player to "3D" is "Avatar".   Do they really expect people to upgrade all of that equipment in order to view "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" in 3D??

"Avatar" released to Blu-ray 3D in November would:
* Spur immediate interest in the fledgling 3D format.
* Solidify Blu-ray as a "Next Generation" home video format in the minds of the mass consumer.  DVD will *never* be able to provide this kind of 3D in the home.  Telling people that the only way they can get "Avatar-style" 3D at home is with a properly-equipped Blu-ray player is something that can be easily understood by "Joe Six Pack".  It is a much harder sell, though, when Avatar itself is not available on the format!
* Not impact sales of the Avatar "Special Features" Edition disc in November.  Re-purchasing a 3D/2D-compatible "Avatar" in November with tons of supplements is a no-brainer.  Knowing that the 3D version will only be available at some nebulous time in the future will serve to fragment purchasing decisions (as has already been evidenced by replies in this thread)!

This is typical "cut-our-own-throats" studio stupidity!!

Edited by Joseph Bolus - 3/16/10 at 5:24am

Totally disagree.  While I think any film would spur interest in the 3d format, the reality is that it's not a studio's job to lose money/push a disc with a super limited audience.  It may be 3D gaming or something that helps, but the biggest thing that will spark consumer interest is when 3D set options are not at a $1,000 premium over their current 2D cousins.  The price gap is simply too significant right now to cause  consumers to really pay it any heed.

I'll be happy to add the 2-D version to my collection as I deliberately avoided the 3-D version at the cinema (I LOATHE wearing those glasses--even for a 90 min. kiddie movie, so 3 hours was out of the question).

I will buy the Barebones version. If it's been done to maximize video and quality, then it's worth it.

At the end of the day it is the film that is important, not all the extras, as nice as they are.

It was not done to maximize video and quality. It they wanted that they could've put the special features on disc
. They didn't because they want to milk the cow.

Sold!

I won't even bother re-purchasing this in November. I'm not a fan of extras, special features and all that other waste of space so a Superbit style Blu-ray is perfectly fine.

Please explain to me how a 3D release of Avatar in November will lose money for Fox??  The disc will be backward-compatible with all current, extant, Blu-ray players *and* will provide extra content and desired supplements to boot!  The fact that the 3D Avatar experience is locked-in that disc somewhere (just waiting for the proper equipment to release it) will actually *enhance* its sales while at the same time driving additional hardware sales *and* solidifying Blu-ray's status as the "best way to view a movie at home".    And it certainly doesn't mean that Fox can't release another "3D Ultimate Collector's Edition" of Avatar a few years down the road when the format is more firmly established. It's actually a "win-win" for everybody involved!


  

actually i'm wondering will i got 3D capable technology or not when the Avatar 3D Blu-ray is released (Fox still not confirmed). I watched it on theatre and loved it so much especially for the first half of the movie. There are a lot of options for viewing 3D within my knowledge i got from online sources. PS3, Nvidia solution for PC's, AMD solution (on the way), BD Player solution. will all of them have the same visual quality of 3D?

In recent years, I've come to care less and less about special features, too.  When DVD was new and novel, I would listen to every commentary and watch every feature.  Now, sadly, it seems that the quality of many of these extras isn't what I seem to remember them being, and I simply don't have the time to watch them all.  Having a large front projection system, I also have an appreciation for films that have the absolute best picture quality.

However, Avatar may be the one exception for me.  I am completely fascinated with the few behind-the-scenes featurettes I've seen online already, and would probably make the time to see how Avatar was made.

I've seen Avatar twice in theaters, and can certainly wait until November (actually, would probably put it on my Christmas list - so make it December) to see it again.  I just hope that the November release includes the same high-quality transfer as the first release and that picture quality isn't sacrificed for inclusion of the commentary track(s).

I have confidence that Cameron will take an active role in ensuring the highest quality for his movies on any home video format.

Same here. I can deal with $20 or maybe I'll even wait about 6 weeks (which seems to be the magic number for Fox titles to go on sale) and grab it for $15.

I wouldn't say that they're taking the Superbit approach. The movie isn't even 3 hours so they could easily put a few featurettes, deleted scenes, etc. on the disc without comprising the AV quality. Either the special features aren't completed yet or, more likely, Fox is just holding them all back for the SE in November. That being said, I'm not really complaining since I know that the SE is coming soon.

I know that alot of people are excited about this title. its a no win sitatuion with no extras or extras. some people like them and some do not. I am sure the se will be great.
I preordered the avatar april 22 release for 19 bucks at blockbuster. I am glad that they are releasing a dvd with it. not everyone has a blu ray player, much less the dvd player.

Jacob

It sounds to me like they're taking the Superbit approach exactly.  Yeah, they surely could fit at least a few supplements on the disc without compromising the AV quality, but the whole point of the Superbit line was to omit supplements altogether so that every last bit (except for a small but necessary amount reserved for minimal menus) could be used for the movie itself, even if it meant only a miniscule improvement in AV quality.  And that's exactly how Fox is approaching the initial Blu-ray release of Avatar, it seems.

They're even advertising the lack of supplements as an effort to maximize AV quality, exactly as was done with the Superbit line.  From The LA Times:

"According to sources at Fox, Avatar will make history as the first Blu-ray new release from a major studio to hit stores without a single trailer or promotional content of any kind"

"Everything that is put on a disc takes up room--the menus, the extras, the trailers and studio promotions--we got rid of all that so we could give this movie the best picture and sound possible."

It's a lose-lose, actually.  While there is a Bluray standard, as manufacturers have pointed out there are different ways to render, and now 3 different types of glasses.  Panasonic is pushing one, Samsung another, and Nvidia also has a different option.

Within a market push or really a second generation with a lot of adopters, you're wasting a lot of resources mastering for a "version 1" of a content type.  This seems like a bad deal for a studio, and a guarantee that you'd force people to double/triple dip.

My impression of Avatar, after seeing it under optimal conditions and then at the Imax, is that it James Cameron's proprietary digital 3-D technology is dim and soft compared to 35mm, like a film that had been duped and projected too much. Perhaps it needs all the help it can get. Since it originates in the digital realm I expect it will look better on Blu-ray and the luminosity of a TV display than it did in the theaters.

I would be surprised if James Cameron didn't put hours of supplements in a 2-disc set.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the studio wouldn't be "mastering for a 'version 1' of a content type."  As you said, there is a 3D standard for Blu-ray.  The type of 3D implemented by the hardware (Blu-ray players and displays) will have no effect on the software, which will use the existing Blu-ray 3D standard, and continue to be compatible with future hardware no matter which type of 3D they implement.

Can you clarify your comment "there are different ways to render".

My understanding was that the Blu-Ray authoring process was not in question.  No matter which hardware system you go with - Samsung, Panasonic, etc. the Blu-Ray itself would be no different.

The glasses are "married" to the display, so to speak.  No matter what, the 3D effect is achieved by displaying alternating fields at higher refresh rates and having active shutter glasses in sync with the display to control which eye sees which field.

A 3D Blu-ray disc will playback on any 3D system in 3D, and should play on any 2D player in 2D.  The only proprietary link is the glasses to the display as Jason mentioned.  As to the disc, I know there was a lot of material left on the cutting room floor (or the recycle bin since its digital ) that I imagine will eventually make it to the additional release.  My guess is Fox wanted it our and James Cameron hasn't had the time to really work on it yet, thus the reason for the multiple releases.  Will I double dip?  yes.

 There is an approved 3D standard for BD.  This is true.  But several vendors have openly said that there shutter systems (lenses/glasses/whatever) will be different, and some even use different rendering methods.  So, you're designing something for version1 of the content type.  And, I hate the call of "Well, there is a standard" .... yes, and VC1 was originally the main (and for awhile, when HD-DVD was around, supposedly the "BIG" standard) but others found homes, the standards were revised and updated.. 

Those not expecting the same from a 3D format are, I think, not looking at the track record of how this has went so far.

They could still accomplish this and not force the people who lack patience or discipline to double-dip by simply including the supplements on a 2nd disc. It's still an attempt to get people to buy the same film twice within a seven month span, no matter what marketing spin Fox attempts to put on it.  And the $40 MSRP is certainly priced like a special edition. Hopefully this will be a big enough draw that retailers will be severely discounting the title. If it ends up being a standard 30% discount, I will be passing until the price drops.

For those of us who do not really care about the extra features, the double-dip marketing strategy is a non-issue, though.

You're confusing two different things, Matt.

The Blu-ray 3D standard specifies a way of encoding a stereoscopic image on an optical disc.  This specification has been finalized, officially accepted by the Blu-ray Disc Association.  Although no commercial products are available yet, the HTF's own Adam Gregorich has gotten his hands on a copy of Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D on Blu-ray.

What's you're talking about is a way of displaying a stereoscopic image in 3D.  There is currently no precisely "standard" way of doing it (though I understand that most home solutions involve "active shutter" glasses), but that's a completely separate issue from the above.  Just because there's no standard way of displaying a 3D image stored on a Blu-ray disc doesn't mean there can't be a standard way of storing that 3D image on the Blu-ray disc in the first place.  

Yes.  I understand that the two are different.  Again, though, I use VC-1 CODEC as an example of how a "standard" of how it's done can also be revised to better match the hardware that it's being displayed on.  You're seeing fewer and fewer discs in VC1, which was the encoding "standard" Sony pushed when the format war was on.

But since the display (output) is still not refined, we may see minor changes in how that develops as well.  See: HDMI 1.2, 1.3, 1.4... minor changes.  It doesn't mean the 3D disc that you buy now won't still work in 3D, or that the concept isn't the same (1920x1080, progressive) but it means the changes in how to get there, the "process" will always be refined.

I don't have a problem with the so-called "triple-dip."  At least they are being upfront about it, so one can plan accordingly.  No need to buy one version if you prefer the version coming later.  (But to be honest, I'll probably end up with all three. )

As far as utilizing all of the space on the disc for the feature in order to maintain maximum video and audio quality, I would guess that is more of a consideration for the DVD than the Blu-ray.

I also understand their decision to wait on the 3-D version.  I doubt Cameron and Fox want to be the guinea pig for a new and relatively untested format.  Plus, you can make a much bigger bang once 3-D playback systems have saturated the market.

- Mark

I have serious doubts about 3D catching on as a main stream product at home. When blu-ray and HD DVD were first released, there was much talk about how the install base of HDTVs was somewhere around 15 to 20%. meaning that 15 to 20% of American homes had an HDTV. I read recently that figure it now around 65%. That means that more than half of American households spent $1000 or more on a new HDTV in the last 3 or 4 years. I just don't see most of those people, in this economy, going out and spending another $1500 to $1800 on another HDTV just to have 3D.

I do however see 3D being the thing that finally pushes theater owners to install digital projectors, which will benefit 2D films as well as 3D.

Doug