Originally Posted by LilGator
You can't until Cameron releases that presentation on Blu-ray.
Here is hoping he might in the near future.
This is false. A center crop of the 1.78 frame is NOT the actual experience you had at the cinema. It's a new, inferior experience you are creating yourself.
We are talking P&S which as it passes through from the upper portion of the frame to the lower portion of the frame, will at some point have to pass the centre - IE a centre crop. The images posted in the BD section clearly show that centre cropping of this film can work.
Since you keep insinuating it, I'll keep repeating myself ... because I can. You cannot show Avatar the way it was showing in the cinema in 2.39 fashion. Period.
No not exact, fairly close to though.
Yes, really. CinemaScope lasted from '53-'67. "In Like Flint, a spy spoof with James Coburn, was Fox's final film in CinemaScope", according to Wikipedia.
So what are films like ALIEN (1979, including the 3rd in 1992 and 4th film in 1997), all 6 STAR WARS, all 4 DIE HARD films, 2 AVP films (and soon to be released PREDATORS in June 2010) if not FOX titles that were released in CinemaScope?
Oh and lets not forget TITANIC (James Cameron's film before AVATAR that won him some 11 Oscars).
Notice the quotes around that phrase? The poster I was responding to used OAR in relation to the 2.39 presentation. I would consider both the 1.78 and 2.39 presentations OAR as they were presented in theaters, but I prefer to call 2.39 a MAR, as it was modified from the 1.78 frame to fit a particular screen.
And so what I intend to do is also MAR. It will be modified to fit my screen.
Because Cameron refers to the 1.78 presentation as the highest and best form of Avatar, I believe it is OAR.
However, should Cameron release the 2.39 presentation on Blu-ray, they'd both be valid. As it stands, only 1.78 is valid in the home.
Sounds great. Have to limit all films to a certain height. All 1.85 and 1.78 are forced to be smaller, no flexibility otherwise.
Only the width is less than full screen width. The height is the same. We discussed this with SPIDERMAN in 1.85:1 Vs the other 2 in Scope. Why should Spiderman be taller in the first the film?
On top of that, you have to crop other ARs down to 2.39 just so you feel like the money you spent on an A-lens was worth it.
No, just AVATAR. I watched GAMER two nights back in OAR which is not Scope and felt no desire to see this film in Scope.
All trailers are not in "CinemaScope" (obviously, CinemaScope is dead), or even 'scope as ~2.39 is referred to now. I just saw trailers in 1.78 last night on a heavily watched NBA playoff game, and they filled every pixel of my Kuro at the time.
Zoom it did you?
Post a link to a site that an AVATAR trailer presented in 1.78:1. All the trailers I've seen on both TV and the internet (U-Tube) are Scope. The 3D image I found are one example from U-Tube.
Now also provide the source for your other stories. The ones with Cameron "opening mattes" in post production.
I read it on the internet, so it has to be true.
Newsflash, you can't "open mattes" if you never matted for 2.39 in the first place. They shot 1.78 and then derived a cropped 2.39 frame by panning vertically and finding the sweet spot. You have it bass-ackwards.[/quote]
When Lucas shot SW2 in digital, there was "safe action lines" denoting the Scope portion of the frame on the 1.78:1 displays used as monitors (there is footage of this on disc 2 of the DVD). He kept the "action" inside those lines. The full imaging chip is used for capture, and therefore he would have access to the material above and below the lines during post should he need it. Same would have been done for AVATAR.