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

[cafink]

Then that would be perfect, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, I don't feel that using 2.35:1 was a poor decision. I actually rather like that aspect ratio and think that Avatar looks beautiful and well-composed in it.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Without reading this thread, pressed for time, I can already guess what is contained in the posts above mine. Let me guess, an argument about aspect ratios has broken out, right?

I have neither the patience or desire to argue this anymore, I've got my scars from discussions of the past suffice it to say that I'm a staunch OAR supporter.

That said, if this is what Cameron wants it is pointless to argue with it, in fact judging from how the IMAX scenes looked on The Dark Knight BD I am EXTREMELY excited to get an eyefull at how this film is going to look!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by cafink



I think this is an excellent, often-missed point. I understand and for the most part agree with the idea that the director should ideally have the final say in the way his films are presented. But oftentimes, this notion gets taken to a ludicrous extreme, and twisted into the farcical idea that every decision he makes is beyond reproach.

I never felt that their decisions are beyond reproach. In fact I often don't agree with them. I would have preferred E.T. to have been shot 2.35:1 anamorphic, but that wasn't my choice. All I'm saying is that it is the director's choice to make and saying he is wrong about the aspect ratio he chooses for the home video version, is the same as saying that he was wrong to choose a particular aspect ratio in the first place.

Now in the case of Storaro where he is clearly lopping off information to get his preferred aspect ratio, I think there is room to argue that the notion is ill conceived. But in this case, where the film was shot with 1.78:1 in mind, and in fact designed for that ratio, I don't really see an problem.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Worth

A scope presentation uses the largest amount of screen real estate for a theatrical presentation (except IMAX, which utilized the narrower ratio), while an HD ratio uses the the largest amount of screen real estate for a home video presentation (constant height projection setups excluded).

This is not always the case for Theatrical presentations. Some theaters are NOT constant height, and mask the top and bottom of the screen rather than the sides to accommodate the the different ratios.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by cafink



But we are putting up the money. The studios don't hand out Blu-ray discs for free, and it is my choice whether or not I want to support a particular product. I'm not saying the director doesn't have the right to release the film in whatever way he pleases; I'm just saying that we don't have to automatically like the decision just because he's the director.

Jurassic Park was framed in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio and released that way in theaters, so that's the version I want to see, because framing and composition are important to me. Altering the aspect ratio is a dumb idea, whether it's being made by "Joe Six-Pack" (who just wants to fill up his television screen) or Speilberg himself.

Just because someone is a director doesn't mean it's impossible for him to make a poor decision.

Again I don't disagree with you at all. I didn't say that I thought it would be smart to release Jurassic Park that way, just that it is Spielberg's choice. And my choice not to buy. Of course you don't have to spend your money on a release you don't like.

Again with Avatar they aren't in fact altering the aspect ratio, because 1.78:1 is the ratio it was shot for, and only cropped later to 2.35:1.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

I have neither the patience or desire to argue this anymore, I've got my scars from discussions of the past suffice it to say that I'm a staunch OAR supporter.

That said, if this is what Cameron wants it is pointless to argue with it, in fact judging from how the IMAX scenes looked on The Dark Knight BD I am EXTREMELY excited to get an eyefull at how this film is going to look!

I guess the real question is what is the OAR for a film that was released with more than one?

Doug

 

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

I guess the real question is what is the OAR for a film that was released with more than one?

That's a question that can only be asked of Avatar if you don't consider the 2D and 3D versions as separate films. If you do, then there's only one 2D aspect ratio. (And definitely an intended 3D aspect ratio, with the scope version only used in certain venues that can't handle the flat version.)

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't consider them separate films.

Doug

 

[Mark-P]

I know of one case where a director composed his movie for 1.37:1 but was forced to modify it to 1.66:1 for theatrical release, but when it was released on DVD he was allowed to use his original framing.
The director: Steven Soderbergh
The film: The Good German

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Mark-P

I know of one case where a director composed his movie for 1.37:1 but was forced to modify it to 1.66:1 for theatrical release, but when it was released on DVD he was allowed to use his original framing.
The director: Steven Soderbergh
The film: The Good German

But that was because movie theaters (the multiplexes anyway) can't project 1.33:1 anymore.
As for Avatar, I've seen it in 3D, and that was in 2.39:1. So was the IMAX version the only one that was in 1.78:1, or was it randomly chosen or something?
Personally I don't have a problem with the movie in 1.78:1, but I am worried about some of the people that will want more movies opened up just to fill the television screens. As if this movie would be less impressive in 2.39:1.

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

But that was because movie theaters (the multiplexes anyway) can't project 1.33:1 anymore.

Not true. Though it is no longer possible for modern theaters to project old 1.37:1 film prints, reduction prints can be made which shrink the 1.37:1 image to fit within the 1.85:1 frame. This was done in the 1990s for the theatrical re-releases of Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Pinocchio, and several other Disney animated features.

The Good German was reframed to 1.66:1 and slightly optically reduced so that the 1.66:1 image fit inside the 1.85:1 frame with small black bands on the sides. They could just as easily have reduced it all the way and presented it 1.37:1 with wide bands on the sides.

I can only speculate the studio opted for a compromise of 1.66:1 because they feared patron complaints against the small picture in the center of the screen. Lord knows there were plenty of patron complaints about GWTW and TWoO because they were pillar-boxed theatrically in 1998.

 

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

As for Avatar, I've seen it in 3D, and that was in 2.39:1. So was the IMAX version the only one that was in 1.78:1, or was it randomly chosen or something?

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

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




But that was because movie theaters (the multiplexes anyway) can't project 1.33:1 anymore.

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.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

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.

 

[PaulDA]

"The video you have requested is not available"

Just thought you should know.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Plays just fine for me.

Doug

 

[TravisR]

^ 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.

 

[Nick Martin]

The King hath spoken,

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

Couldn't resist, sorry.

 

[TonyD]

Can someone summarize what was said in that video?

 

[Vincent_P]

Originally Posted by TonyD

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