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

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by cafink



Really? I wish you'd have said something about this before (or did I just miss it?), because that makes a big difference. I have not checked myself, but I most definitely recall, back when The Dark Knight was first released on Blu-ray, people reporting that this was not the case. The 2.39:1 version of the Imax scenes, they said, were not created by simply cropping an equal amount from the top and bottom of the 1.78:1 frame.

But if they are created that way, then it shouldn't present a problem for constant-height displays, right? The top and bottom portions of the image will be cropped off during the 1.78:1 Imax scenes (leaving the proper 2.39:1 framing), just as they would be during the rest of the movie when that area contains the black letterbox bars.

Since the only way I could prove it was to just use screenshots taken by others off of various websites, my suggestion for people (especially if they have the DVD to use as a comparison) was to just try it out once for themselves. I mean if it worked for me, I don't see how it wouldn't work for anyone else, because it's not like we're talking about different versions floating around.

All I did was measure my TV screen when viewing the letterboxed portion of the Blu-ray so I could mark off where the borders would be when an IMAX scene came up, then popped the DVD on and looked at that. One particularly easy tell occurs late in the film, when Batman sets up that "string of sausages" trick of dangling the SWAT team officers over the side of the building. In the IMAX scene Batman's head is visible, but on the standard theatrical DVD his head is almost completely cropped, and I remember it looking that way at the movie theater as well. The focus is on the sliding officers on the floor, not Batman so it was easy to see why his head was cropped in that one brief shot. Masking out the scene on the Blu-ray showed the same thing the DVD did.

It didn't require anything fancy because I wasn't sitting down to watch it that way, I just wanted to measure it and compare.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

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.

Do you know this for a fact or are you speculating? I was assuming that it was framed so that the scope area was the focal point and the 16x9 area was 'protected', in which case it is a simple was a matter of trimming the excess. Certainly what you say, that the wider version is composed from different areas on a shot by shot basis, could be true. Sounds like a pain to do it that way though.

 

[Nick Martin]

It's what they do for TV shows, and it would make the most sense to do it for a film.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pierce


Do you know this for a fact or are you speculating? I was assuming that it was framed so that the scope area was the focal point and the 16x9 area was 'protected', in which case it is a simple was a matter of trimming the excess. Certainly what you say, that the wider version is composed from different areas on a shot by shot basis, could be true. Sounds like a pain to do it that way though.

If you watch the special feature on one of the versions of T2 on framing, you find that with his super 35 films, Cameron rarely just extracts the image from the center of the frame. Not only does he sometimes use the top or bottom of the frame, but he also will enlarge a portion of the frame, sometimes even zooming or tilting in the middle of the shot, creating a camera move that wasn't in the original photography. I have to assume that he is doing the same thing with his digitally photographed films.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by cafink

I don't think 1.78:1 is ideal for Avatar, but if Cameron gives it the thumbs up then I can live with it. I look forward to re-visiting Avatar in my living room, something on which I imagine we can all agree!

Maybe you'll change your mind once you see it.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Forget it. You're wasting bandwidfh trying to convince people, otherwise, that think a director's decree on aspect ratio is somehow sacrosanct and not to be questioned. It doesn't matter to them that the same director had no problem stating that 2.35:1 was the most pleasing composition for flat projection of this film and actually even had it released in theatres that way. Now that the "King" has decided that 1.78:1 is the crowning aspect ratio for a home release, anybody who doesn't agree and wants to see it in the original theatrical ratio for flat projection is just supposed tug their forelock and say, "As you will it, Mr. The King". Like someone said here it is TDK all over again. Like that one, this one will be just another one to leave on the shelf.

Well in that case why don't we just forget what the director has to say about the aspect ratio in any case? David Lean says that Lawrence of Arabia should be screened at 2.20:1, but what does he know he's just the director. Casablanca should be seen at 1.33:1 but what do they know, I like a different ratio better.

Its Cameron's film and if he thinks it should be presented at 1.78:1 for home theater, thats what it should be presented at.

Personally I've seen 3D films in 70mm, 35mm, 1.33:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1.....I think the whole notion that 3D works better at 1.78:1 is pretty much nonsense, but again its not my film.

Doug

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Forget it. You're wasting bandwidfh trying to convince people, otherwise, that think a director's decree on aspect ratio is somehow sacrosanct and not to be questioned. It doesn't matter to them that the same director had no problem stating that 2.35:1 was the most pleasing composition for flat projection of this film and actually even had it released in theatres that way. Now that the "King" has decided that 1.78:1 is the crowning aspect ratio for a home release, anybody who doesn't agree and wants to see it in the original theatrical ratio for flat projection is just supposed tug their forelock and say, "As you will it, Mr. The King". Like someone said here it is TDK all over again. Like that one, this one will be just another one to leave on the shelf.

So if you're not bothering to get it, why waste bandwidth reminding everyone that because YOU don't agree with a choice of AR, the director, excuse me, "The King", is wrong and/or not to be taken seriously because he came to a different decision for home viewing? Is it because people like myself are too stupid NOT to question the director's choices in AR so you must beat it into us until we get it? Or maybe we just don't care enough and you care too much so we aren't up to that level?

If you're not going to buy it, fine. End of story there. No need to beat the same dead horse reminding everyone why you aren't getting it just like you did with the TDK aspect ratio issue, because that was made clear the first time before having some need to rehash it every minute. This isn't even the same thing because Avatar is NOT being altered in any way, unlike how the Blu-ray of TDK was but of course the director was just plain wrong to do such a thing.

This is my stop. I'll try not to let the door hit my ass on the way out of this thread. Or maybe I should let it hit me - knock some sense into me so I will start questioning the director's choices of AR for these things and seeing how wrong they are.

 

[TravisR]

This thread sucks.

 

[Kevin Lamb]

So was Avatar cropped at the top and bottom for 2D theatrical screens or on the sides for IMAX release?

 

[Vincent_P]

The T2 special feature has to do with the creation of the pan-and-scan/full-frame version of that film, not the 2.35:1 theatrical version. In fact, said special feature clearly shows that the theatrical 'Scope framing was set in stone. It didn't change at all*. Cameron used a "common topline" approach for his Super-35 films, wherein more is cropped from the bottom vs. the top in creation of the 2.35:1 version from the full-frame Super-35 original. The full-width of the frame was always used for the 2.35:1 framing.

I'm not sure if Cameron used "common top" for AVATAR since he was originating in 1.78:1 as opposed to 1.33:1 like Super-35. He may have cropped equally top-and-bottom to get the 2.35:1 version, or just from the bottom. Maybe the American Cinematographer piece on the film explains this, but unfortunately my subscription had lapsed so i missed the January issue where they covered AVATAR.

Vincent

* The only time I've heard of Cameron adjusting the framing up or down in creation of the 'Scope version of one of his Super-35 films was in the case of TITANIC, due to the amount of steadicam work in that film on the moving set.

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




If you watch the special feature on one of the versions of T2 on framing, you find that with his super 35 films, Cameron rarely just extracts the image from the center of the frame. Not only does he sometimes use the top or bottom of the frame, but he also will enlarge a portion of the frame, sometimes even zooming or tilting in the middle of the shot, creating a camera move that wasn't in the original photography. I have to assume that he is doing the same thing with his digitally photographed films.

Doug

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




Well in that case why don't we just forget what the director has to say about the aspect ratio in any case? David Lean says that Lawrence of Arabia should be screened at 2.20:1, but what does he know he's just the director. Casablanca should be seen at 1.33:1 but what do they know, I like a different ratio better.

Its Cameron's film and if he thinks it should be presented at 1.78:1 for home theater, thats what it should be presented at.

Personally I've seen 3D films in 70mm, 35mm, 1.33:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1.....I think the whole notion that 3D works better at 1.78:1 is pretty much nonsense, but again its not my film.

Doug

Your analogy isn't even close. David Lean didn't release LoA into the theatre at 2.20:1 and at the same time release it at 1.33:1. If he had done that and then decided that the only home version should be 1.33:1 then I wouldn't respect his decision any more than I respect Cameron's. Maybe you think that a director should be able to suppress a theatrical ratio that he saw fit to use in the first place; I don't. Cameron made the choice to theatrically release the film in at least two raitios and he even stated that one of them worked better for flat projection. If Cameron thought that a 2.35:1 ratio was inappropriate then he shouldn't have released it that way into the theatrical market. He should have released only the one ratio. He had two intents when he used two ratios, so what is the problem with releasing both OARs.

You want to use an analogy to make it look like I don't respect a director's decision. Well, let's look at it from the other end. Are you going to tell me that if Spielberg decided that "Jurassic Park" should be cropped to 1.33:1, because he liked it better that way, that you would respect his decision because the director is always right? You wouldn't have an opinion on that? Suddenly, it would just be, "oh, okay, I respect his decision because he's the director"? Right! Now, personally, I don't care if Spielberg has a "new vision" like that, just as long as he doesn't suppress the "old vision". I felt the same way about Nolan' s decision regarding TDK and I feel the same way about Cameron's decision regarding "Avatar". If they saw fit to use two aspect ratios in the first place then they should have the common decency not to suppress any of those aspect ratios in a home video release.

I know that a lot of people have the opinion that a director's decision is some decree from on high and that it is never wrong. I'm just not one of those people. These guys are people who put their pants on the same way as everyone else on this planet and, horror of horrors, they actually can make decisions that are wrong. And suppressing a theatrical aspect ratio that they chose to use in the first place is wrong. Okay, I'm done. I'll try my level best not to extend the debate, since I don't want this thread to become a carbon copy of the TDK thread. I just feel strongly about this issue.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin



Okay, I'm done.

These are admirable decisions.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Vincent_P

The T2 special feature has to do with the creation of the pan-and-scan/full-frame version of that film, not the 2.35:1 theatrical version. In fact, said special feature clearly shows that the theatrical 'Scope framing was set in stone. It didn't change at all*. Cameron used a "common topline" approach for his Super-35 films, wherein more is cropped from the bottom vs. the top in creation of the 2.35:1 version from the full-frame Super-35 original. The full-width of the frame was always used for the 2.35:1 framing.

I'm not sure if Cameron used "common top" for AVATAR since he was originating in 1.78:1 as opposed to 1.33:1 like Super-35. He may have cropped equally top-and-bottom to get the 2.35:1 version, or just from the bottom. Maybe the American Cinematographer piece on the film explains this, but unfortunately my subscription had lapsed so i missed the January issue where they covered AVATAR.

Vincent

* The only time I've heard of Cameron adjusting the framing up or down in creation of the 'Scope version of one of his Super-35 films was in the case of TITANIC, due to the amount of steadicam work in that film on the moving set.

Sorry I went back and watched it again and you are correct that the super 35 frame stays on the constant top line.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Your analogy isn't even close. David Lean didn't release LoA into the theatre at 2.20:1 and at the same time release it at 1.33:1. If he had done that and then decided that the only home version should be 1.33:1 then I wouldn't respect his decision any more than I respect Cameron's. Maybe you think that a director should be able to suppress a theatrical ratio that he saw fit to use in the first place; I don't. Cameron made the choice to theatrically release the film in at least two raitios and he even stated that one of them worked better for flat projection. If Cameron thought that a 2.35:1 ratio was inappropriate then he shouldn't have released it that way into the theatrical market. He should have released only the one ratio. He had two intents when he used two ratios, so what is the problem with releasing both OARs.

You want to use an analogy to make it look like I don't respect a director's decision. Well, let's look at it from the other end. Are you going to tell me that if Spielberg decided that "Jurassic Park" should be cropped to 1.33:1, because he liked it better that way, that you would respect his decision because the director is always right? You wouldn't have an opinion on that? Suddenly, it would just be, "oh, okay, I respect his decision because he's the director"? Right! Now, personally, I don't care if Spielberg has a "new vision" like that, just as long as he doesn't suppress the "old vision". I felt the same way about Nolan' s decision regarding TDK and I feel the same way about Cameron's decision regarding "Avatar". If they saw fit to use two aspect ratios in the first place then they should have the common decency not to suppress any of those aspect ratios in a home video release.

I know that a lot of people have the opinion that a director's decision is some decree from on high and that it is never wrong. I'm just not one of those people. These guys are people who put their pants on the same way as everyone else on this planet and, horror of horrors, they actually can make decisions that are wrong. And suppressing a theatrical aspect ratio that they chose to use in the first place is wrong. Okay, I'm done. I'll try my level best not to extend the debate, since I don't want this thread to become a carbon copy of the TDK thread. I just feel strongly about this issue.

Personally I wouldn't make a film with multiple aspect rations, either with in the film itself or for different venues.

However yes if Spielberg desided that 1.33:1 is the way Jurrasic Park should be seen then I would support that. Its his film and his choice, not mine. Its not a matter of the director knowing more than anyone else or never being wrong, its a matter of it being his film, and no one else has the right to tell him (until they are putting up the money) how to make or display the final product.

Maybe Cameron likes the way the film looks better at 1.78:1 in a home theater environment. He has long been known for saying that he never liked a having 2.35:1 film letterboxed on a 4 x 3 display. He clearly has different ideas about what works at home as apposed to the theater.

Doug

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

I know that a lot of people have the opinion that a director's decision is some decree from on high and that it is never wrong. I'm just not one of those people. These guys are people who put their pants on the same way as everyone else on this planet and, horror of horrors, they actually can make decisions that are wrong.

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 think it's really weird. The HTF has a whole forum dedicated solely to the discussion of movies themselves, in which you can find plenty of criticism of all kinds of different decisions that go into the movie-making process: casting, editing, cinematography, etc. But as soon as it comes time to release that same movie on DVD or Blu-ray, every decision the director makes is automatically right, no matter what? Why should that be? It also strikes me that this phenomenon affects only some films, for whatever reason. The Blu-ray release of The Dark Knight sparked a surprisingly heated debate about its aspect ratio with plenty of HTF forum-goers opining that the Blu-ray release was correct simply because the director said it was. And yet, unless I'm misremembering, the Blu-ray release of The French Connection drew pretty much universal criticism for the changes it underwent for its Blu-ray release, in spite of the fact that they were done at the behest of its director. Why weren't more folks defending Friedkin in that case, I wonder?

 

[WillG]

and no one else has the right to tell him (until they are putting up the money) how to make or display the final product.

One could argure that at the end of the day it's the movie going public that finance the films (or at least the possibility to continue making films). That's not to say the public should dictate how a Director makes the film, or be able to make unreasonable demands on how the film should be presented on home video against their intent (ex. Pan and Scan). However, I do think that if a film is released to theaters in multiple fomats it's not beyond reason to desire that the film be released on video in those multiple ways which gives the viewer the option to choose. Cameron might prefer 1.78:1 for home video, but he also released the film in 2.35:1 and millions of people must have seen it and enjoyed it that way.

This is one of the reasons that I am more of a fan of anamorphic photography above all else. All the compositions are definitavely done in camera.

 

[Worth]

I suspect the reason that there's not a lot of support for Friedkin's changes to The French Connection - or Lucas's changes to the original Star Wars films, or Storaro's retroactive preference for 2:1 ratios - is that he made them thirty years after the fact. If Friedkin's film had been released theatrically in both its original and re-colourized form, I don't think you'd hear very many people complaining.

Films like Avatar and The Dark Knight are special cases because there is no one "correct" version of them - they were conceived and exhibited in different forms (at the time of release, not decades later).

I think Cameron's preference for 2:35.1 theatrically and 1.78:1 has more to do with visual impact than composition. 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).

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

However yes if Spielberg desided that 1.33:1 is the way Jurrasic Park should be seen then I would support that. Its his film and his choice, not mine. Its not a matter of the director knowing more than anyone else or never being wrong, its a matter of it being his film, and no one else has the right to tell him (until they are putting up the money) how to make or display the final product.

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.

 

[PaulDA]

The issue is not whether a director is "always right". It is that he (or she) is the creator of a work of art and thus entitled to decide how best to present that creation. Artists are NOT obliged to "respect their audience". They simply aren't. MY preference as a viewer/listener/reader is IRRELEVANT to the creator's decisions. I have complete freedom to like or dislike the creator's choices--I have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to expect the creator to fulfill my wishes. NONE.

I try to get OAR for everything I can (I've always done so--from the days when it was rare on VHS to today when it is almost universal). I "settle" for something else if I must. Sometimes I mind a great deal (I have a few DVDs of films that have NEVER been released in OAR and are only available in "pan and scan"). Sometimes it doesn't really bother me (I enjoy the BD of TDK as is--though I sympathize with those who would like a straight 2.39 release on BD). However, regardless of how I feel about a particular title's OAR (or "cut"), I adamantly, fully and forever support the right of creators to choose how they wish their creations to be presented--even if it means I am occasionally disappointed. I am far less sympathetic when rights owners who are NOT creators prevent OAR releases, even when the creator would wish otherwise but no longer has the ability to make it so (as is the case with a few films I own). Unless I have a specific need for such a release (as is the case with one title in my collection) or I enjoy the film enough to live with a less than perfect presentation (as was common in VHS, and occasionally still happens today), I simply exercise my right not to purchase or view the title in question.

We all have the right of refusal. NONE of us has the right to expect satisfaction from creators. And creators have no right to expect satisfaction from the audience--they can only hope it is forthcoming.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by cafink

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

What if the poor decision was 2.35 and Cameron is now picking the AR that works best for the movie?