A Few Words About A few words about...™ Avatar -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

Do a google search for 'cinematography headroom' and read the section on headroom from the Google Book Cinematography: theory and practice: imagemaking for cinematographers for reasons why excessive headroom is problematic. (page 44).

- Walter.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin

And "headroom" is such a negative why?

Seriously, I'd like to know. It's not the first time that's been mentioned here and I really can't see the problem - assuming there is some kind of problem with the image.

My own personal preference is for quite a bit more head room than many films shoot today. I find most films today to be photographed primary in closeups that go from chin to eyebrows. I don't find that kind of framing particularly compelling nor esthetically pleasing. But then I tend to like older movies where they weren't afraid hang back and show the set, or let the actors actually perform rather than creating the performance by cutting back and forth between two massive close ups.

I haven't seen Avatar so I can't comment specifically on that film.

Doug

 

[Aaron Silverman]

There's no reason to believe that Cameron wasn't paying attention to the composition of both aspect ratios when shooting the film.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

There's no reason to believe that Cameron wasn't paying attention to the composition of both aspect ratios when shooting the film.

You can't really compose for both. You can compose for one, and protect for the other. In this case that means that anything that absolutely had to be seen, needed to be in that 2.35:1 frame.

Doug

 

[FreyTheater]

I'm with Doug on this one, I prefer the cameras to be back a bit more, and yes, it is more reminiscent of older movies. I'm really to the point where I am turned off with such tight closeups in today's movies, especially in action films - "cameras on crack" tend to get old after a very short while. A prime example of this is the new Clash of the Titans movie, too may of the action scenes were shot so close you couln't keep up with the action, and it really detracted from the movie and even took away from the actual story line, too... I want to see more of the surroundings so I get a sense of where the scene is actually taking place. I think some of this close camera work is just a cost cutting measure so the producers don't have to create elaborate background sets that cost more money. Another pet peeve of mine is that jerky, hand-held camera technique that is so common now. A little of that goes a long way.

 

[Vincent_P]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce


... I find most films today to be photographed primary in closeups that go from chin to eyebrows. I don't find that kind of framing particularly compelling nor esthetically pleasing...
Doug

Remember when this type of framing wasn't an overused cliche and was actually used for effect? I'm specifically thinking of Leone's use of tight close-ups juxteposed with expansive landscapes in his Spaghetti Westerns. Now it's just become the way that EVERYBODY seemingly likes to film every close-up in every film.

Vincent

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin

And "headroom" is such a negative why?
Seriously, I'd like to know. It's not the first time that's been mentioned here and I really can't see the problem - assuming there is some kind of problem with the image.

I'm only speaking for myself and am not going to claim any particular knowledge of cinematography, but I find that the "headroom" in this film is mostly empty space, except when it comes to flying action where the sense of diving and movement is enhanced. In other scenes, involving closer shots of character expressions, the focus of attraction (character's faces) is weakened by a person's eye trying to take in and process a bunch of "dead space" that does nothing to pull your eye to the most important information in the frame. With the 2.35: 1 version, a person's eyes were immediately pulled to the most important information: the character's expressions and reactions. To me, the impact of the actors reactions was heightened by the tigher framing. Everything essential to moving the story was in the 2.35:1 version. The 1.78:1 version is more of a "sightseeing trip", showing a bit more flora of the planet but doing nothing to really drive the story.

Cameron did a lot of his work in 2.35:1. This film had to have most of its most important information placed in the middle of the frame to facilitate extracting a 2.35:1 image. Still, I can't help but think that Cameron unconciously composed most of this film for a 2.35:1 frame, because that is what he is used to working in the most and found the most pleasing compositionally: at least up until this film.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Cameron did a lot of his work in 2.35:1.

Assuming Ghosts Of The Abyss and Aliens Of The Deep were 1.85, I think everything he has shot since 1998 has been 1.85:1.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by TravisR





Assuming Ghosts Of The Abyss and Aliens Of The Deep were 1.85, I think everything he has shot since 1998 has been 1.85:1.

Shit. Talk about always shooting myself in the foot. I really thought he worked a lot in 2.35:1, but that actually seems to be his least used framing. According to Imdb, it looks like "True Lies" is his only 2.35:1 film. The others look like they were all shot 2.20:1 or 1.85:1. "Ghosts" and "Aliens of The Deep" were 1.78:1. I should have checked to make sure my assumption was actually correct before posting. Still, a lot of "Avatar" just looks better to me framed at 2.35:1. Other parts of it look a lot better opened up.

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by Walter Kittel /forum/thread/299985/a-few-words-about-avatar-in-blu-ray/30#post_3686465

 

[Vincent_P]

Not counting his two IMAX releases and focusing on his feature film work, here is the breakdown of Cameron aspect ratios:

1.85:1- PIRANHA 2, THE TERMINATOR, ALIENS

2.35:1 or 2.2:1 depending on venue- THE ABYSS, TERMINATOR 2, TRUE LIES, TITANIC

2.35:1 or 1.78:1 depending on venue- AVATAR

The 2.35:1 films were also released as 70mm blow-ups, and those 70mm prints did have a 2.2:1 aspect ratio (achieved by slightly 'opening up' the bottom of the frame), but the intended aspect ratio Cameron composed for was 2.35:1 using the Super-35 format.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Shit. Talk about always shooting myself in the foot. I really thought he worked a lot in 2.35:1, but that actually seems to be his least used framing. According to Imdb, it looks like "True Lies" is his only 2.35:1 film. The others look like they were all shot 2.20:1 or 1.85:1. "Ghosts" and "Aliens of The Deep" were 1.78:1. I should have checked to make sure my assumption was actually correct before posting. Still, a lot of "Avatar" just looks better to me framed at 2.35:1. Other parts of it look a lot better opened up.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by FreyTheater

I'm with Doug on this one, I prefer the cameras to be back a bit more, and yes, it is more reminiscent of older movies. I'm really to the point where I am turned off with such tight closeups in today's movies, especially in action films - "cameras on crack" tend to get old after a very short while. A prime example of this is the new Clash of the Titans movie, too may of the action scenes were shot so close you couln't keep up with the action, and it really detracted from the movie and even took away from the actual story line, too... I want to see more of the surroundings so I get a sense of where the scene is actually taking place. I think some of this close camera work is just a cost cutting measure so the producers don't have to create elaborate background sets that cost more money. Another pet peeve of mine is that jerky, hand-held camera technique that is so common now. A little of that goes a long way.

Exactly. Compare the action in Clash of the Titans, with the airplane fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In that film the camera pulls back often so you can see the geography. You can tell where Indy is, where the Big German is, how the plane is moving....the impending danger! In films today now all I can see is a indefinable blur!

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Vincent_P




Remember when this type of framing wasn't an overused cliche and was actually used for effect? I'm specifically thinking of Leone's use of tight close-ups juxteposed with expansive landscapes in his Spaghetti Westerns. Now it's just become the way that EVERYBODY seemingly likes to film every close-up in every film.

Vincent

I remember when that type of close up was only used for a dramatic effect. It may have been used only once in a whole movie, and had a HUGE impact when the filmmakers used it.

I think this is one of the big problems with films today, EVERYTHING is a climax!

Doug

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




My own personal preference is for quite a bit more head room than many films shoot today. I find most films today to be photographed primary in closeups that go from chin to eyebrows. I don't find that kind of framing particularly compelling nor esthetically pleasing. But then I tend to like older movies where they weren't afraid hang back and show the set, or let the actors actually perform rather than creating the performance by cutting back and forth between two massive close ups.

I haven't seen Avatar so I can't comment specifically on that film.

Doug

I agree on the close ups,. actually. They're definitely used too much. The close ups in Avatar look fine to me, but when they were cutting to a medium shot, you'd suddenly have a lot of scenery above the actor's head. It seemed to me like I was watching a Super 35 movie open matted. I think James Cameron could have given the fans a choice.

 

[Flemming.K]

A few questions for mr. Harris, should he follow the thread.


I understand that Avatar is filmed digital with 2.2K cameras for each picture in RGB. Upon closer expection of images from Avatar it seems as if the level of detail is more outstanding in the animated/digital post processed part, than the "analogue" parts, humans, skin etc, also in the same frames, where people and Avatars interact. I first studied screenshots, but then took a test on a 104" screen, where I and colleages watched different scenes, comparing the digital look with 35mm film.


Comparing to movies like Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report and Into The Wild, I find those sharper and more detailed (skin, textures). The only digital recorded movie I can remember having impressed me, is Zodiac and Finchers use of the Thompson Viper camera. It is stunning and I can see, he is shooting now in 4K for his next movie.

How do you consider the "analogue parts" of Avatar compared to the digital parts?

And I've always be interested in knowing about your techs at home, screen, BD player, projector and also where you keep your 35 and 70mm equipment

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K

To my eye, the difference seems to be a simple as shot on film / scanned to digital vs. pure digital image. The difference is right in front of one's eyes.


I'm currently running a Denon 3800, with image fed directly into a Sony projector (I believe a ruby). Audio runs to a Lexicon MC-12 powered by a Lexicon seven channel amp to B & W speakers. Don't recall the series, seven channels with dual subs. The B&Ws weight in at about 200 pounds each. Love their audio quality. Screen is around 100" at 16:9. About a year ago I moved out my Norelco AAIIs as I was using them less and less, and have access to a local theater that looks kindly upon me if I need to screen.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K

The live action sequences of Avatar were photographed with Sony CineAlta cameras in the HDCAM format. Basically the same cameras that were used to shoot Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. This is a standard HDTV resolution 1920 x 1080, which is slightly less than 2k.


Doug

 

[Flemming.K]

Thanks for your information Robert and Douglas!

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/299985/a-few-words-about-avatar-in-blu-ray/30#post_3689702

 

[QuickKick12]

I don't own a blu-ray copy yet, but I was able to borrow one. Can't compare it with my movie experience, because I watched it in 3D IMAX, nevertheless, it is certainly one movie that I need to have. Very well done.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

If Cameron did use a simple crop to 2.39:1 for conventional theaters, than what's the issue? If you want to restore the 2.35:1 frame, simply put up the mattes you usually use for 2.39:1 films (or run out to Staples and get a piece of black poster board to use).


With a movie that's as constructed as this one is, I personally can't believe that anything in the 16x9 frame is unintentional.