Jurassic Park 3D (1 Viewer)

[SamT]

I'm sure (almost) when I saw Avatar in theater the 3D was in 2.35:1.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think "Avatar" played in both ratios in both formats - Cameron wanted theaters to show it in whichever ratio resulted in the largest screen size for each auditorium. (Or at least that's what I read.)When I saw it in RealD, it was 2:35:1. When I saw it in IMAX 3D it was about 1.77:1.

 

[Jason Charlton]

I'm sure (almost) when I saw Avatar in theater the 3D was in 2.35:1.

I think "Avatar" played in both ratios in both formats - Cameron wanted theaters to show it in whichever ratio resulted in the largest screen size for each auditorium. (Or at least that's what I read.)When I saw it in RealD, it was 2:35:1. When I saw it in IMAX 3D it was about 1.77:1.

Yeah, I think Josh is correct - if 3D AND IMAX it was the narrower aspect ratio - but I can't be 100% certain that was the rule at all theaters. There was quite the Internet kerfuffle over which presentation was "correct". Then the Interwebs really went thermonuclear when the DVD and Blu-rays were announced... you just can't please all the people all the time!

 

[Malcolm R]

... you just can't please all the people all the time!

Or on the Internet...anybody, ever.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Yeah, I think Josh is correct - if 3D AND IMAX it was the narrower aspect ratio - but I can't be 100% certain that was the rule at all theaters. There was quite the Internet kerfuffle over which presentation was "correct". Then the Interwebs really went thermonuclear when the DVD and Blu-rays were announced... you just can't please all the people all the time!

In this case you could please everyone, just release the 3D version in both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 editions, bingo everyone is pleased.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Is the 2:35:1 version just a crop of the 1.77:1? The other way around? A re-composited version the way Pixar used to do for full screen DVDs? I don't trust my memory entirely here since I saw the 1.77:1 in theaters more than the 2.35:1 but I think the 1.77:1 contains the most overall picture information. My complaint about the Blu-ray isn't the aspect ratio - it's that I like the extended version better and that's only on disc in 2D. But I wouldn't be shocked to get a 3D version of that when the sequels come.

 

[TravisR]

^ To the best of my understanding, Cameron basically took the 1.78 frame and cropped it to 2.35. Basically, he did the same thing as when he was shooting Super 35 (from The Abyss to Titanic) and would matte the tops and bottoms off to get a 2.35 image.

 

[Greg.K]

Avatar was shot in 16:9 and cropped for 2:35 presentation. Cameron preferred the wider ratio for 2D but felt that the 1.78 was more immersive for 3D.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Is the 2:35:1 version just a crop of the 1.77:1? The other way around? A re-composited version the way Pixar used to do for full screen DVDs? I don't trust my memory entirely here since I saw the 1.77:1 in theaters more than the 2.35:1 but I think the 1.77:1 contains the most overall picture information.

The movie was shot natively in the 1.77:1 (or 1.78:1) aspect ratio. The scope (2.35:1) presentation was the result of cropping the 1.78 image. The narrower aspect ratio therefore contains the most picture information.

Now I want to see Avatar again... (and I prefer the extended cut, too).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks Travis, Greg, Jason - was pretty sure that was the case but nice to have confirmation.

 

[FoxyMulder]

^ To the best of my understanding, Cameron basically took the 1.78 frame and cropped it to 2.35. Basically, he did the same thing as when he was shooting Super 35 (from The Abyss to Titanic) and would matte the tops and bottoms off to get a 2.35 image.

The problem with Titanic is that the effects work was done at 2:1 and the 3D blu ray crops this so we miss information, they have minimized the damage but i still prefer to watch Titanic in 2.35:1, i do tend to prefer the native format a film was shot in.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

wise words

Jason, you more or less typed the words right out of my keyboard, only so much more well formulated than I could ever hope to. I agree completely.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Avatar was shot in 16:9 and cropped for 2:35 presentation. Cameron preferred the wider ratio for 2D but felt that the 1.78 was more immersive for 3D.

Surely it was the other way around, no? I saw it theatrically in 3D, in scope, but the DVD and blu are both 1,78 and 2D, don't know about the 3D blu.
No, it wasn't: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4302
but I can't say I understand him, saying he prefers the wider ratio for 2D and then releases the 2D version in 1,78?

 

[Wayne_j]

Cameron wanted Avatar displayed in whichever format was biggest at that particular theater. 2.40 for CIH setups and 1.85 for CIW.

 

[Malcolm R]

Returning to theaters in 3D on August 25, for the 30th Anniversary:

Jurassic Park will hit theaters again on Aug. 25 in celebration of the Steven Spielberg pic’s 30th anniversary. The movie will be re-released in RealD 3D-equipped theaters across North America. (Deadline)

 

[Jake Lipson]

Coming out in 3D is great for those who can use it.

Coming out exclusively in 3D is a shame. I don't see why they can't offer both formats. Oh well.