Press Release BVHE Press Release: Guardians of the Galaxy (2023) (4k UHD Combo) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Preorders are now live. See top post

 

[jayembee]

Seems very light on extras, and should have included the Holiday Special.

Yes, it should've. Especially given the reference to it in one of the tag scenes.

But it seems clear that Disney wants to restrict anything made for Disney+ to remain only on Disney+.

 

[JoshZ]

With the IMAX multi-aspect ratios, it's about completely filling the field of view for the audience.

This is only true for one-eyed viewers. The majority of human beings have two eyes arranged laterally on our faces, providing a field of view much wider than tall.

CinemaScope fills your human field of view. IMAX should exceed your vertical field of view, but that effect can only work in a theater with a screen large enough that you can't see the whole thing without craning your neck up and down. It does not, and cannot, work in a home environment, especially not on a 16:9 screen that only adds small slivers more picture to the top and bottom compared to 2.35:1.

The only thing Variable Aspect Ratio achieves on home video is to add needless extra headroom above the characters, drawing attention to how slack it makes the composition. That's less of a problem in an IMAX theater, because you rarely see all the way to the top of the screen there. But in the home, shots where the characters are suddenly centered low in the frame look awkward and weird.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

This is only true for one-eyed viewers. The majority of human beings have two eyes arranged laterally on our faces, providing a field of view much wider than tall.

CinemaScope fills your human field of view. IMAX should exceed your vertical field of view, but that effect can only work in a theater with a screen large enough that you can't see the whole thing without craning your neck up and down. It does not, and cannot, work in a home environment, especially not on a 16:9 screen that only adds small slivers more picture to the top and bottom compared to 2.35:1.

The only thing Variable Aspect Ratio achieves on home video is to add needless extra headroom above the characters, drawing attention to how slack it makes the composition. That's less of a problem in an IMAX theater, because you rarely see all the way to the top of the screen there. But in the home, shots where the characters are suddenly centered low in the frame look awkward and weird.

Your post reminds me of this, courtesy of Marty Hart at AWSM [RIP]:

 

[Alex...]

.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That’s exactly what I wrote earlier.

 

[Indy Guy]

Here's the thing: with pre-IMAX shifting aspect ratios [think Brainstorm, Brother Bear, The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course, and several others], the idea was to increase the width and increase the scope [pun fully intended]; this still happens in films like Life of Pi and Wes Anderson films post-Grand Budapest Hotel. It is possible to replicate this type of presentation at home with a CIH setup, but at the expense of resolution. With the IMAX multi-aspect ratios, it's about completely filling the field of view for the audience. I saw Dunkirk in film IMAX, and IMAX presentations only increase height; they never increase width. These are necessarily limited at home by the 1.78:1 screen, as there is no consumer 1.44:1 display, and you would need a massive one to replicate the film IMAX experience. The IMAX enhanced versions that appear on Disney+ replicate the digital IMAX experience, but on a much smaller scale.

This is so true for the experience of IMAX at home, and the reverse is also true for more common 2.35 widescreen films viewed at home on standard panels.
Director intent to increase grandure in both cases is compromised by being viewed within a 16×9 frame. Josh made the point that 16x9 is the spec decided on for normal HD viewing, but it does require over 30% of the screen to be left unused when viewing scope imagery. Likewise, when viewing a true IMAX frame, over 25% of the panel is also not in use. A not true IMAX frame in 16x9 looks the same as all 16x9 content, so no true sense of immersion is added to a home screen.
My point was to make sure vertical (or horizontal) cropping in variable aspect ratios doesn't reduce the original image, because as Steven points out, immersion is really the hallmark of purpose built IMAX venues, and can't be duplicated in most normal home environments.
On the other hand, the grandure gained from a scope image is possible with home projectors and several 2.35 panels and gaming monitors. I have a 2.35 Vizio 55" TV in my bedroom. While it is certainly "non standard," it's purpose built to deliver a more immersive 2 35 film as its largest image. It adds over 1K pixels to make up the wider panel which adds perceived resolution to 2.35 content encoded within the standard 16x9 media format.

 

[davy2]

I don’t want to sound like “that guy” or derail this thread, but since I own the first two in 3d it would have be nice to have that option on the third one.

If I recall, enough fuss was made about part 2 potentially not being released in 3D that James Gunn assured us that there would be a 3D release and sure enough the Best Buy limited steel book 4k/3D combo was announced.

I’m not holding my breath, but again it would be nice.

I was thinking same as I started to read this thread. Watched the first two in 3D at theater, own the 2 3D blurays...Thanks for nothing Disney, I won't be picking this up. We'll see what the Japanese one costs, or maybe we will get lucky and Random Space will release the 3D.

 

[Lasermanfan]

I would love it, but something tells me that Disney is still gritting their teeth that they were forced to release Avatar 2 in 3D after essentially being the frontrunner in killing the format a few years back.

I too have the first two in blu ray 3D. Part 2 I had to get the region free 3D disc from the U.K. I've read that the Japan 4K/3D combo pack is very expensive. Around $80.00 U.S. I'm in Canada so after the exchange rate, it would be $110.00 Canadian. Way too expensive for a blu ray movie.

 

[Malcolm R]

I don't think Random Space Media is likely for any 3D of a Disney Marvel release. The only Marvel films they've released have been those through Sony (the Spider-Mans and the first Venom). They've never released the second Venom film, and for reasons unknown, Sony apparently restricted them to releasing the 3D of No Way Home locked to Region B (though the included flat blu-ray was all-region).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Random Space Media has a presence on the other Blu-ray forum and has been open about difficulties in licensing new release 3D titles.

Sony hasn’t allowed them to release the second Venom film in 3D, or any other recent Sony 3D title you might think of - if it’s not out, it’s not for lack of trying. Same for Universal. They’ve tried to get No Time To Die, the later movies in the Fast & Furious series that were released in 3D internationally, and others, and the studio said no. Disney apparently won’t even entertain a conversation about 3D disc licenses with them, it’s a non-starter.

None of this is for lack of trying on Random Space Media’s part. Were it up to them, I’m sure they’d be happy to put out more 3D titles.

 

[Malcolm R]

Which I don't really understand. If the studios have no interest in putting out home 3D, why are they so dead set against another company licensing the format? Is there some sort of cost involved for the studio to get a 3D master to a boutique label? Seems like it would just be a file transfer if the film was already converted for theaters, and just free money for the studio with minimal effort.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it’s just become a matter that it’s a home video format that isn’t widely patronized and they’ve decided that the cost of doing any work towards it (even if it’s just providing an existing digital master to a boutique label) just isn’t justified by the limited number of people who purchase it. They may also see value in standardizing their worldwide output by making sure that each territory receives the same offerings as each other one.

To be brutal about it, no new television set that supports 3D has been manufactured since 2016. New models of projectors have been eliminating 3D support as well. I just don’t think they see any value in supporting software for hardware that basically doesn’t exist anymore. It doesn’t bring me any joy to say that.

Big business isn’t good at supporting niche markets.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But for those who remain 3D capable and wish to purchase this title in 3D, the Japanese 4K/3D combo pack is now available for preorder:

Amazon.co.jp

As the movie did not feature any forced subtitles/subtitle translations of non-English dialogue, this disc will be acceptable to American audiences.

 

[OliverK]

This is only true for one-eyed viewers. The majority of human beings have two eyes arranged laterally on our faces, providing a field of view much wider than tall.

CinemaScope fills your human field of view. IMAX should exceed your vertical field of view, but that effect can only work in a theater with a screen large enough that you can't see the whole thing without craning your neck up and down. It does not, and cannot, work in a home environment, especially not on a 16:9 screen that only adds small slivers more picture to the top and bottom compared to 2.35:1.

The only thing Variable Aspect Ratio achieves on home video is to add needless extra headroom above the characters, drawing attention to how slack it makes the composition. That's less of a problem in an IMAX theater, because you rarely see all the way to the top of the screen there. But in the home, shots where the characters are suddenly centered low in the frame look awkward and weird.

I wonder how many of the people who claim that the Imax presentation should be the preferred home presentation also care to sit as close as they would in an Imax theater, even in the last row.

As Denis Villeneuve has rightfully pointed out people just do not sit that close in front of their TVs which is why for Dune he only wanted Imax style shifting aspect ratios in Imax theaters and nowhere else.

I would still prefer to have both a standard widescreen and variable aspect ratio version for all these movies so that people can choose what they want to watch, there are valid arguments for both versions.