Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Which Avatar projection format did you see?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 of 18 Jon Lidolt

Jon Lidolt

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 176 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2004

Posted December 14 2009 - 09:39 AM

A first: James Cameron's Avatar is being released in a wide array of formats. For digital cinemas that have top movable masking Fox will be sending a 1.85 version to maximize the size of the picture. Digital cinemas with side movable masking will receive a 2.35 copy. Imax classic cinemas will have a picture in an approximate 1.66 ratio, whereas the smaller Imax digital theatres will probably be around 2:1. For Imax, the ratio information I was given is only approximate. The 35mm cinemas, both 3-D and flat versions will be in 2.35.

I'm very curious to get everyone's reaction to this new type of multi-purpose theatrical release. Trust James Cameron to have figured out a way to get his audience the biggest possible image during the picture's first-run digital and Imax engagements. No matter how the screen or projection system is configured. 



#2 of 18 Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter

  • 1,451 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted December 14 2009 - 10:40 AM

Interesting.  I wonder what happens for theaters that have some auditoriums with top movable masking and some with side.  Eventually, they'll have to move the movie around to different auditoriums; will they get both 1.85 and 2.35?


"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#3 of 18 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,398 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted December 14 2009 - 12:37 PM

There will be 35mm 3D versions? What kind of glasses will that use as it's not digital?

How does a filmmaker even begin to frame shots to accomodate multiple ratios like this? Or is Cameron borrowing a page from Pixar, and recomposing the entire movie, as was done with "A Bug's Life"?


#4 of 18 Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter

  • 1,451 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted December 14 2009 - 12:48 PM

Maybe a little of both.  Cameron was involved pretty heavily with the 4:3 transfer of The Abyss and probably his other 2.35:1 films.  I imagine they kept the multiple ratios in mind while filming, and throughout post-production.

"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#5 of 18 Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,959 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer

Posted December 14 2009 - 01:39 PM

Even though I have several legit IMAX screens within 30 minutes, they are either showing Star Trek or Night at the Museum 2 for the foreseeable future (seriously, wtf).  So I will be at a fauMAX theater seeing this in 3D.  I'll try and catch an IMAX show at some point.  If it doesn't come here, there is an IMAX 2 hours away, which I might hit in January.  Assuming I like the film enough.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#6 of 18 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,398 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted December 14 2009 - 04:45 PM

Star Trek is still playing near you? I'm envious!


#7 of 18 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted December 14 2009 - 05:15 PM

I can't wait to see people whine about the blu-ray!!! (I'm guessing it will probably be fullscreen)

"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#8 of 18 Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted December 15 2009 - 07:21 AM

Dating back to his essay included with the special edition "The Abyss" laserdisc, Jim has always been mindful that his films would be more widely seen at home than in the theater, so he shot with multiple aspect ratios in mind to preserve each viewing experience. That's what it sounds like he's doing here, tailoring the aspect ratio to the theater's projection so that everyone who sees it gets the biggest screen experience he can provide. It's an interesting concept.


#9 of 18 Jon Lidolt

Jon Lidolt

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 176 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2004

Posted December 15 2009 - 09:17 AM

 35mm 3-D prints will be in the over and under system. The squarish film frame is split in half with the top part containing the image for one eye and the bottom of the frame the image for the other eye. The film is projected through a special prism which superimposes the left and right eye images onto a silver screen. Polaroid glasses are used to view the 2.35 aspect ratio image in 3-D. It's a system that's been around since the mid 60's but was recently updated by Technicolor to permit small town and independent cinemas, that can't afford expensive digital projectors, to exhibit feature films in 3-Dimensions.


#10 of 18 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,398 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted December 15 2009 - 10:36 AM

I hope it's not the same system that gave me eyestrain and headaches in the '80's.


#11 of 18 Jim_E

Jim_E

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 62 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2000

Posted December 16 2009 - 11:23 AM

Just back from seeing a digital version of Avatar here in the UK - I hadn't seen this thread and was expecting a 1.85 3D version and was surprised to get a 2.35 3D version. From reading here it makes sense as the screen was a 2.35 ratio screen so that format maximized the picture. The 3D worked very well to immerse you in the film rather than bombard you with gimmicky effects - and the film was pretty great too.


#12 of 18 Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted December 18 2009 - 06:12 AM

I think I've decided to see this in digital 3D. I have the option to see it in Imax, but I'm just worried about queasiness at that size. I'm still worried about some discomfort with the 3D (I attribute it to my acute sensitivity to motion sickness not modern 3D processes), but that is Cameron's intended version so I need to respect that the best I can.


#13 of 18 Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor

  • 727 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted December 19 2009 - 02:09 PM

 I saw it in a Digital 3D theater with side masking so,it was 2.35:1.  Loved every minute of it, amazing movie IMO.  Will be interesting to see what AR the BD will use.  My money is on fullscreen 16:9, especially if the BD includes a 3D version since there maybe some new 3D compatible BD players out by then.  Doesn't matter what AR is used as long as Cameron is the one making the decision.

#14 of 18 LynxFX

LynxFX

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 193 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 2008

Posted December 19 2009 - 09:05 PM

Saw it in (true)Imax 3D. I was sitting dead center, about 6 rows from the back, which is pretty close to perfect center heightwise. Once you put the glasses on, the screen actually felt small. This was my first feature film watched in 3D. It took a bit to get used to and there were a few brief moments of motion sickness, or the feeling of being on one of those amusement rides. It was mostly at the beginning, so probably just my body adjusting to the 3D.  Anyway I want to see it again, but I'm not sure I want to go to a regular digital 3D presentation. Plus the sound in Imax is just so....well Imax. :D


#15 of 18 Sean Laughter

Sean Laughter

    Screenwriter

  • 1,385 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 1999

Posted December 20 2009 - 09:07 AM

 I have the choice of pretty much every format available to choose from in my area.

One theatre, five minutes away is showing it in RealD and in Digital IMAX 3D.  There is a true IMAX theater about ten minutes away showing it in real IMAX 3D, but honestly I didn't really like the presentation I saw of Star Trek there, it seemed way too bright, so I don't know what they do to their lamps at that IMAX theater (I used to work in one so I'm somewhat used to how it's "supposed" to look).

Then, there's another theater showing it in Dolby 3D about twenty minutes away.

I'm thinking of seeing it in the first theater tomorrow, and debating between RealD and Digital IMAX.  I'm leaning toward the IMAX because I heard it's a somewhat brighter presentation than RealD (I found the showing of UP I saw in 3D rather dim and I think that was RealD - may be wrong though), and I'd imagine it has a better sound system spec (this is a new installation, so I can't imagine they've screwed it up that badly yet!).

Later in the week I think I might go see it in the theater that has Dolby just to compare.  Does anyone have a suggestion between RealD and Digital IMAX?


#16 of 18 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,541 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted December 20 2009 - 09:33 AM

I saw it in 2D, framed at the standard ratio of 2.35:1. There are no "3D" theatres available in my area. Frankly, I'm not sure I want to see films in "3D" as it would just result in me wanting to go through another costly round of upgrading when "3D" home systems become available. The film looked just fine to me in 2D.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#17 of 18 Todd H

Todd H

    Go Dawgs!

  • 2,038 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 1999
  • Real Name:Todd
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted December 20 2009 - 10:37 AM

I saw it in RealD at a non-Imax theater and it looked to be 1.85:1. Gave me a splitting headache afterward.


#18 of 18 Brett_M

Brett_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,304 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2004
  • Real Name:Brett Meyer
  • LocationMos Eisley Spaceport

Posted December 20 2009 - 10:43 AM

I saw it in IMAX 3-D.  Second row from the back.  Dead center.  OMFG
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it meant to roast in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users