After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 04:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dvdvision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This is a speculative thread.

I'd like to know what you folks think.

As you known by now, Avatar is coming out on BD and DVD in 1.78:1 format, and the 2.35:1 presentation that played in most theaters will never, according to Cameron, be released on home video.

Now let's take a look at the reissues on BD of Cameron movies next in the pipeline :

- Aliens (originally 1.85 format) is confirmed for fall in the Alien Anthology box set.

- Terminator (originally 1.85 format) from a 2K scan by Lowry is supposed to be next.

- Abyss (originally 2.35 format) is said to have a new HD remaster completed, however, no word have leaked on the format. This is a movie that exists on DVD in 2.35 non anamorphic format, and in an alternate, way better in my opinion 4/3 "Director's pan & scan" transfert for the SE, that offer more info top and bottom, and less on the edges, than the 2.35 non anamorphic version, while boasting better encoding and PQ.

Keep in mind The Abyss was first released on Laserdisc in 1.91 format (initial widescreen release) because Cameron thought then that it fitted better current screens. This 1.91 version offers more image top and bottom than the 2.35 / 2.40 one released later on LD and DVD (that feels totally cramped).

My feeling is that The Abyss will also come out in 1.78 format just like Avatar and just like the initial laserdisc release (adjusted to current screen displays format).

- True Lies : Cameron recently declared he will work on getting it released as soon as possible on BD. The "widescreen" version that airs on most HDTV channels is 1.78:1, offering more image top and bottom than the 2.35 / 2.40 one released on DVD. I also have a hunch this could come out in the 1.78 format because of this.

- Terminator 2 / Titanic : currently being rumored to be converted in 3D. My money, since these were shot in Super 35 too, and they will be distributed in theaters in the same circuit as Avatar was, that there will be 2.35 and 1.78 (IMAX 3D) copies of them. An that the BD releases will also be 1.78. Note that many SFX for 2.35 movies are protected in 1.78 format (to allow the director to adjust the frame in the final stages), so this shouldn't be a problem.

I think Cameron, who championed in the past "director's pan & scan" in 4/3 of his films (Abyss, T2, True Lies, Titanic), is heading the 1.78 way in the blu-ray format for these when they are re-released.

All this is just speculation. But I wouldn't be surprised.
dvdvision is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 05:32 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I'd say a bigger question might be if 3D takes over is scope dead ?

art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #3 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
James Cameron said in one interview that he prefers scope for 2D and 16:9 for 3D. Later he said for home (the BD release) he wanted Avatar to be seen in the biggest format and for most people that would be 16:9 since most have relatively small 16:9 HDTVs compared to what they saw in the theatre, so a scope presentation on a 16:9 tv wouldn't give the effect he wanted. He also said people should sit real close to their tvs when they watch it. I don't think he had the projector owners in mind when he made that decision.

IIRC, with Titanic he cropped the 35mm for scope, but used more visible height from the neg for the 'full screen' VHS (and DVD?) release (both versions were released so the consumer had a choice). Not sure what he might do for his other movies today though. I think that he will release all his movies in their original aspect ratios and not crop any of the scope movies to 16:9 unless perhaps he has them pseudo 3D'd.

Interesting topic though and will be interesting to see what he actually ends up doing.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #4 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 05:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'd say a bigger question might be if 3D takes over is scope dead ?

art

Good point, especially if Cameron makes them.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #5 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 06:02 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'd say a bigger question might be if 3D takes over is scope dead ?

art

Couldnt they do 3D in scope?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #6 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 06:14 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

He also said people should sit real close to their tvs when they watch it.
Gary

Exactly how close is he talking about? I can see it know family moving their lounge suites close to the tv to accomodate for this. So people who have 50" screens with a family of 4 + are going to be immersed by this?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #7 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 07:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Couldnt they do 3D in scope?

I'm sure but for some reason the powers claim that the added height of 16x9 is better for 3D thus my concern if 3D becomes the standard rather than a flash in the pan.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #8 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Exactly how close is he talking about? I can see it know family moving their lounge suites close to the tv to accomodate for this. So people who have 50" screens with a family of 4 + are going to be immersed by this?

I'm guessing he means something like the 40 degrees, or 2.4 image heights distance like THX recommend (about 5 feet back from a 50" display). Most people sit much further back than that at home.

As you say though, even with a family of 4 you'd all be hard pressed to all get in that close.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #9 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'd say a bigger question might be if 3D takes over is scope dead ?

The majority of 3-D movies being released this year are in scope ratio. So, no.

James Cameron likes 1.85:1 for 3-D. That isn't going to be the case for every director working in 3-D.

And the notion that 3-D will ever "take over" from 2-D is pretty far-fetched as well, IMO.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #10 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 10:10 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'm sure but for some reason the powers claim that the added height of 16x9 is better for 3D thus my concern if 3D becomes the standard rather than a flash in the pan.

Art

Well I have to admit if they do go that direction and every film is 16x9 I'm just going to crop it and watch it in scope. I tried a few movies tonight and looked quite good.
I'm certaintly not going to get rid of my Stewart 2:37:1 screen and go back to 16x9. The industry is going forward and backwards when it comes to aspect ratio. I'm sure afterawhile the directors would like to film scope again.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #11 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 10:11 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Funny I saw Avatar in 3D and in Scope looked just right to me. It was at the Gold Class theater with top quality Real D.

www.NastyPerformance.com

10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #12 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 11:59 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The majority of 3-D movies being released this year are in scope ratio. So, no.

James Cameron likes 1.85:1 for 3-D. That isn't going to be the case for every director working in 3-D.

And the notion that 3-D will ever "take over" from 2-D is pretty far-fetched as well, IMO.

Thanks, hope you are right but if you look the media this is portrayed like the advent of talkies.I just received an email asking "are you getting left behind , 3D is the future ?" When I opened it it was for a 3D orthodontic X -ray unit but it obviously was using the 3D mania to catch my eye.

Is Clash of the Titans scope ?

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #13 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 01:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Is Clash of the Titans scope ?

Yes.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #14 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 06:41 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Thanks, hope you are right but if you look the media this is portrayed like the advent of talkies.I just received an email asking "are you getting left behind , 3D is the future ?" When I opened it it was for a 3D orthodontic X -ray unit but it obviously was using the 3D mania to catch my eye.

Is Clash of the Titans scope ?

Art

But lets say it does go that what would you end up doing Art or any other CIH user. Just curious to see what some people will do.

A. Would you sell your lens and screen and go back to a 16x9 screen.

or

B. Hang on to your gear and just watch it in 16x9 regardless still keeping your cinemascope screen. Maybe even using the crop feature every now and then.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #15 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 06:56 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

But lets say it does go that what would you end up doing Art or any other CIH user. Just curious to see what some people will do.

A. Would you sell your lens and screen and go back to a 16x9 screen.

or

B. Hang on to your gear and just watch it in 16x9 regardless still keeping your cinemascope screen. Maybe even using the crop feature every now and then.

In my opinion, the correct answer (if such a thing) is replacing the scope screen with a 1.78 screen the same width of the screen currently there, adding top/bottom masking to the mix. You don't have to necessarily lose any capabilities you already have. CIH approach for everything but 3D or large format is still doable at the exact same sizes if such is your preference.

Now, some people have such wide screens and short ceilings that this is not feasible. In this case, I'd go dual screen with the tallest 1.78 screen your room can fit to drop down in front of the scope screen for 3D (or vice versa). This will also be the way people go if they want to go passive 3D.

This is what I think most people will gravitate towards, but this is assuming 1.78 for 3D is to become popular. If it's few and far between, I doubt many will bother.
LilGator is offline  
post #16 of 148 Old 04-05-2010, 08:43 PM
Senior Member
 
ComputerCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I won't be giving up my Scope screen for 3D. I thought the whole point of CIH was that it is great for Scope and pretty good for Flat or 16:9. I don't mind watching movies in the center of the screen. I would not crop them unless it was a movie like Avatar, which I also saw in 3D on a Scope screen. Movies like Avatar and King Kong for example are made to be masked. I would be happy to try it cropped with Avatar and maybe switch back and forth. I know I played with this with King Kong. I had the 1.78 version on the HD-DVR and the 2.35 version on HD-DVD. I liked the 2.35 cropped version better.
ComputerCowboy is offline  
post #17 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,380
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Couldnt they do 3D in scope?

I've only seen 2 films in 3D so far and both were Scope

I think that whilst 2D and 35mm film is used, Scope will always be used for blockbusters that require the wider field of view, regardless if ONE director thinks 1.78:1 looks better or not.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 06:54 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I've only seen 2 films in 3D so far and both were Scope

I think that whilst 2D and 35mm film is used, Scope will always be used for blockbusters that require the wider field of view, regardless if ONE director thinks 1.78:1 looks better or not.

I agree on the reasoning for scope but Cameron has come straight out and said that in his opinion 3D requires added height not width which means at least he feels that scope is not the way for 3D. Avatar screamed for scope IMO.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #19 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 08:02 AM
Senior Member
 
zax123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Another interesting thing to consider here is that BD is pretty much optimized for 16:9 and not for scope. When watching a movie in scope on BD, you aren't taking advantage of the full 1920x1080 resolution whereas in 16:9 you are (since BD doesn't have anamorphic). Strange that the BluRay consortium decided to do this. Could it be indicative of an eventual move away from scope and towards standardizing the 16:9 format for movies at home?
zax123 is offline  
post #20 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 08:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
I see little to no chance that if 3D becomes big that scope will cease to be used. This is Cameron's first 3D film. Perhaps it's the case that the content of Avatar was well served by 16:9, but that doesn't mean all films would be, or even perhaps Cameron's future films. He may decide that scope works fine for a future 3D film.

Cameron is just one director with one opinion. The fact that Avatar may usher in a 3D craze hardly means that every director and cinematographer would become sheep to Cameron's personal opinion, and simply drop their love affair with scope.

Different content has dictated different ARs for decades. No reason that would suddenly change.
R Harkness is online now  
post #21 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 08:28 AM
Senior Member
 
zax123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Different content has dictated different ARs for decades. No reason that would suddenly change.

Maybe it would change for standardization purposes? I'm just offering up ideas... Now that HD TVs are all 16:9 (and ushering in a new format of TV is really not going to happen in the near and not-so-near future), maybe studios, broadcasters, and movie-makers will move towards a standard format in order to simplify hardware setup, recording and editing equipment, cameras, etc...
zax123 is offline  
post #22 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 09:12 AM
Senior Member
 
MoFoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by zax123 View Post

you aren't taking advantage of the full 1920x1080 resolution whereas in 16:9 you are (since BD doesn't have anamorphic). Strange that the BluRay consortium decided to do this.

Aggreed! WHY didn't the Blu-ray specs allow for anamorphic?!!
MoFoHo is offline  
post #23 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 09:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

But lets say it does go that what would you end up doing Art or any other CIH user. Just curious to see what some people will do.

A. Would you sell your lens and screen and go back to a 16x9 screen.

or

B. Hang on to your gear and just watch it in 16x9 regardless still keeping your cinemascope screen. Maybe even using the crop feature every now and then.

A third choice:

C. Hang on to your gear and just NOT WATCH IT!

I may rent Avatar ... but no way it's a purchase.

It's really sort of annoying. The purpose of HT is to replicate as much as possible the cinematic experience one has in a commercial theater. Could be wrong ... but I'll bet most people saw this in 'Scope in a theater. So why can't we see it the same way at home?

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #24 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 09:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by zax123 View Post

Maybe it would change for standardization purposes? I'm just offering up ideas... Now that HD TVs are all 16:9 (and ushering in a new format of TV is really not going to happen in the near and not-so-near future), maybe studios, broadcasters, and movie-makers will move towards a standard format in order to simplify hardware setup, recording and editing equipment, cameras, etc...

You assume that filmmakers care greatly about standarization. That hasn't been the case for the last 60 years. Cinemascope was invented to give theater audiences something they couldn't get at home on their narrower TVs. That isn't changing now.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #25 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 09:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I agree on the reasoning for scope but Cameron has come straight out and said that in his opinion 3D requires added height not width which means at least he feels that scope is not the way for 3D.

He said that about Avatar, and specifically referenced the sense of vertigo that the extra height added to the flying sequences. I don't know that he was suggesting that 1.85:1 is necessary or appropriate for all 3-D movies.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #26 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 12:38 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Cameron said that he avoided 1.85 but found that it worked really well for 3D. The fact that he had a strong preference for 2.35 and against 1.85 but found out that he liked and actually preferred 1.78 (fell in love with, even) for 3D (Avatar) is the point here.

I don't know that he even knows whether or not it will be necessary or appropriate for all 3D movies, but it's certainly a strong indication that the possibility exists.
LilGator is offline  
post #27 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 01:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Personally I don't think there are enough 3D films,let alone good 3D film,let alone enough good 3D films on BD for home to care much yet but but this could drive things away from scope IMO.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #28 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,380
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I agree on the reasoning for scope but Cameron has come straight out and said that in his opinion 3D requires added height not width which means at least he feels that scope is not the way for 3D. Avatar screamed for scope IMO.

Art

And I think that his reasoning behind this is that 3D seems to look smaller than 2D, even on the same size screen. I certainly found this with HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON in 3D.

AVATAR also seemed to have a lot vertical pans where his earlier works like T2 seem to be more stable vertically, panning horizontally. I agree Art, AVATAR did work well in Scope and unless the Scaling process renders this film unwatchable, that is how it will be screened in my HT.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #29 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I think 3D is good for some movies, but bad for others. This spike is due to avatar and avatar only. I recall as a kid (12) seeing a import marshall arts movie in 3D and I'm 50 years old. This is almost like dvd audio and sacd...here today and slowly gone tomorrow. IMHO

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #30 of 148 Old 04-06-2010, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Personally I don't think there are enough 3D films,let alone good 3D film,let alone enough good 3D films on BD for home to care much yet but but this could drive things away from scope IMO.

Art

I think 3D will save 16:9.......not kill scope.IMO This could move more people to masking, which is what some theaters do right now.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
Closed Thread 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off