3D What aspect ratio will Avatar be when released on Blu-Ray 3D? (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bolus

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.

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.

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

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. I see that Cameron is involved innTerminator 5 (what happened to 4?), & the remake of Forbidden Planet. Brad

 

[Kyle_D]

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:

For Avatar, we're shooting at a 16:9 ratio. We're extracting from that a Cinemascope ratio for 2D theatrical exhibition, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will, in the theaters that can, be in the 16:9 format and the theaters that can't will be in the scope format because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I'm actually going back on years of eschewing the 1.85:1 format. Now I'm saying the 1.85:1, or rather 1.78:1 format actually works really well in 3D, but only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by Kyle_D

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:

Maybe this has changed but, Blu-ray.com says "Regarding compatibility, the specification supports playback of 2-D discs in forthcoming 3-D players and can enable 2-D playback of Blu-ray 3D discs on the installed base of Blu-ray Disc players currently in homes around the world." So, I'm wondering if 3-D movies will be released on Blu-ray on just one disc where you can play it in 3-D or not if you player doesn't support 3-D.

 

[cafink]

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."

 

[Kyle_D]

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/

"Probably the initial Blu-ray release of Avatar won't be in 3-D and then a subsequent release will be in 3-D. That's my guess right now. So we will probably put out a disk, you know, in six or eight months, let's call it six months, and then after that we will have a 3-D disc when there are enough sets available."

 

[Adam Gregorich]

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

Pushed further on details about the DVD plans for "Avatar," Murdoch said it will be released during his company's current fiscal year, which ends June 30. But he also highlighted that it won't be a 3D DVD release as that technology isn't developed enough yet. But Carey added there could be a 3D "Avatar" DVD release further "down the road" when the technology is ready.

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

 

[Adam Gregorich]

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

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

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

As it should be.

 

[cafink]

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.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yet for home video he's clearly in favor of 1.78:1.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

At one point, a version of The Abyss on laserdisc was released in a letterbox format that was not 2.35:1 :


http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/00878/1561-85/Abyss-The-%281989%29


Perhaps an experiment by Cameron due to flexibility of the Super35 format.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Yet for home video he's clearly in favor of 1.78:1.

Which is why I'm disappointed. I was hoping the Blu-ray would include the version that the director believes to be the best-composed, not the one the he thinks people might like better on their televisions or that fills up the screen or whatever his justification for the aspect ratio change is.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Jeff Robertson

At one point, a version of The Abyss on laserdisc was released in a letterbox format that was not 2.35:1 :


http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/00878/1561-85/Abyss-The-%281989%29


Perhaps an experiment by Cameron due to flexibility of the Super35 format.

Is that LDDB entry accurate? I know there was a Cameron-approved full-screen laserdisc, but this is the first of heard of any release that's neither 2.39:1 nor 1.33:1. Interesting.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

I'm not sure if the quoted aspect ratio is correct, but it is true that something other than 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 of The Abyss has been released on laserdisc. I used to own it before I got the Special Edition w/AC-3 audio.

Originally Posted by cafink


Is that LDDB entry accurate? I know there was a Cameron-approved full-screen laserdisc, but this is the first of heard of any release that's neither 2.39:1 nor 1.33:1. Interesting.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

Digital Bits is reporting that 1.78:1 is official.

But something has occurred to me.

Couldn't they use some of that fancy Blu Ray video overlay technology to lay some black bars over the top and bottom of the film? And then if you want to watch it 2.35:1, you select that and BAM, you're all set. It's not like you'd lose any resolution. A couple of featureless black rectangles wouldn't put much of a load on the player processor.

Then you add a WHOLE DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE FILM on to the list of features the back of the DVD case. For FREE! WHAT A BARGAIN! Or drop it in as an easter egg if you're trying to avoid upsetting Joe 6p or worried about player compatibility or if your corporate overlords have spoken and the possibility of a scope presentation is right out. But for basically free you're shutting up us film snobs who are all 'Cameron says he prefers 2.35:1 for 2D presentation so I'm boycotting this, harumph rabble rabble rabble!'

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pierce

Couldn't they use some of that fancy Blu Ray video overlay technology to lay some black bars over the top and bottom of the film? And then if you want to watch it 2.35:1, you select that and BAM, you're all set. It's not like you'd lose any resolution. A couple of featureless black rectangles wouldn't put much of a load on the player processor.

The composition from 1.78:1 to 2.39:1 isn't a matter of masking the same amount from the top and bottom all the way through. Some scenes he may want to crop off all from the bottom, others from the top, etc. Novel idea, but that would be more akin to a "vertical pan and scan" than anything else.

Regardless, I think it's silly for anyone but Cameron to presume what the best AR for this film is. So he said early on that he prefers the composition of the 2.39:1 version. Who's to say he hasn't changed his mind? Perhaps he was offering "lip service" for 2D theaters who were fearing folks would avoid their screens in favor of the cool, 3D ones.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by cafink

Which is why I'm disappointed. I was hoping the Blu-ray would include the version that the director believes to be the best-composed, not the one the he thinks people might like better on their televisions or that fills up the screen or whatever his justification for the aspect ratio change is.

How can you presume to know why he made the decision to release it in 1.78:1 on home video? You're getting EXACTLY what the director of the film in question feels is the best framing for the application. Sheesh.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by dpippel



How can you presume to know why he made the decision to release it in 1.78:1 on home video? You're getting EXACTLY what the director of the film in question feels is the best framing for the application. Sheesh.

I don't presume to know. That's why I listed a couple of different possible reasons why he might have made that decision.

I don't care "what the director of the film in question feels is the best framing for the application." I care about what the director of the film in question feels is the best framing for the film itself, without regard to the application. I respect the artistic right of the director to frame his movie in whatever way he likes, but not to tell me what's the best way for me to watch it in my own home. If Cameron thinks that the 2.39:1 framing is the best (and he has said that he does), then that's the version I'd like to purchase on Blu-ray. If he thinks that the 1.78:1 version is a better compromise for home viewing (for example--he hasn't said that about Avatar as far as I know but that's the gist of what he said about the full-screen version of The Abyss), then I respectfully disagree, and would still prefer to watch the better-framed version.

 

[dpippel]

Oh boy. Call him and complain then Carl. I'll say it again - you're getting exactly what James Cameron feels is the best way to present HIS film on Blu-ray. If the "issue" is that important to you I suppose you can mask your display.