Avatar vs. The Avengers - Specific Comparison - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 19 Old 07-03-2012, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
I'm trying to get a reasonable gauge of 3D technologies comparing Real 3D or something comparable vs. IMAX 3D.

Has anyone seen Avatar and The Avengers in both 3D formats?

Since Avatar was supposedly such a great 3D presentation, how does the Real 3D of Avatar compare to the IMAX 3D of the Avengers?

How does the Real 3D of both movies compare to each other?



First of all, I'm using these two movies because, while I have not seen Avatar in 3D, I keep reading of its regard in the 3D community so I figure it makes for a valid comparison. I have; however, seen The Avengers in both 3D formats with the first being in IMAX 3D, which has changed my opinion about the possibilities of 3D (I'm not a 3D proponent). I'm not wanting to compare the movies themselves, just the 3D presentation of each. I'm doing this because I keep reading reviews and opinions about "3D" but no one ever explains which format it was viewed in almost as if it shouldn't matter.

So with the above, I'm trying to find out if a, supposedly, great 3D presentation in Real 3D can compare to what I regard as an at least very good IMAX 3D presentation? The other viewings and comparisons are to establish benchmarks for understanding the quality of each format.
Closet Geek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 05:00 AM
Senior Member
 
bontrager's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Murrysville, PA
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I'm trying to get a reasonable gauge of 3D technologies comparing Real 3D or something comparable vs. IMAX 3D.
Has anyone seen Avatar and The Avengers in both 3D formats?
Since Avatar was supposedly such a great 3D presentation, how does the Real 3D of Avatar compare to the IMAX 3D of the Avengers?
How does the Real 3D of both movies compare to each other?
First of all, I'm using these two movies because, while I have not seen Avatar in 3D, I keep reading of its regard in the 3D community so I figure it makes for a valid comparison. I have; however, seen The Avengers in both 3D formats with the first being in IMAX 3D, which has changed my opinion about the possibilities of 3D (I'm not a 3D proponent). I'm not wanting to compare the movies themselves, just the 3D presentation of each. I'm doing this because I keep reading reviews and opinions about "3D" but no one ever explains which format it was viewed in almost as if it shouldn't matter.
So with the above, I'm trying to find out if a, supposedly, great 3D presentation in Real 3D can compare to what I regard as an at least very good IMAX 3D presentation? The other viewings and comparisons are to establish benchmarks for understanding the quality of each format.

I have seen both in IMAX 3D. Avatar (have not seen the READ 3D presentation) was shot in 3D while the Avengers was converted to 3D before the release.

If memory serves me correctly Avatar had more depth to the presentation. Neither one had a considerable amount of "pop out" but I am beginning to think that more forum members are beginning to think that too much "pop out" is not life like. It seems that animated 3D movies have a little more of this feature if that is what you are looking for.

Just learned this the other day while viewing the new Spiderman at IMAX. The movie was available both in REAL 3D and IMAX 3D. While getting my 3D glasses I asked if the REAL 3D glasses would work at the IMAX showing and vice versa. The answer is "no" since IMAX show s a separate image for each eye and REAL 3D does not; so Imax may show more of a true 3D image.

Based on this I would say that the IMAX presentation would always be superior.

I guess I have really haven't addressed your question but since I spent the time typing this I don't want to delete.

Peace.
bontrager is offline  
post #3 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 07:20 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bontrager View Post

I have seen both in IMAX 3D. Avatar (have not seen the READ 3D presentation) was shot in 3D while the Avengers was converted to 3D before the release.
If memory serves me correctly Avatar had more depth to the presentation. Neither one had a considerable amount of "pop out" but I am beginning to think that more forum members are beginning to think that too much "pop out" is not life like. It seems that animated 3D movies have a little more of this feature if that is what you are looking for.
Just learned this the other day while viewing the new Spiderman at IMAX. The movie was available both in REAL 3D and IMAX 3D. While getting my 3D glasses I asked if the REAL 3D glasses would work at the IMAX showing and vice versa. The answer is "no" since IMAX show s a separate image for each eye and REAL 3D does not; so Imax may show more of a true 3D image.
Based on this I would say that the IMAX presentation would always be superior.
I guess I have really haven't addressed your question but since I spent the time typing this I don't want to delete.
Peace.

IMAX 3D = Linear Polarization

RealD = Circular Polarization

That is why the glasses are incompatible with each other.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #4 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 10:47 AM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The way that the 3D was created by the filmmakers matters much more than if you see the 3D in IMAX, RealD, or home theater 3D. If those three venues are equally calibrated and the viewer is at recommended seating distance, then the 3D will look proportionally the same, just with different sized screens. (A bigger screen does make a bit of difference, and sometimes IMAX does get a different cut with an exclusive aspect ratio though.) The movie is what matters most if the projection quality doesn't suck. (IMAX tends to have better projector calibration than RealD, but that really depends on individual theaters.)

The Avengers was a good conversion, but overall it was middle-of-the-road 3D. Stereoscopic 3D makes different impressions on different people, but in my opinion, you aren't even close to having seen 3D at its maximum potential. Avatar wins--no contest.

I saw Avatar and The Avengers in nicely-calibrated RealD 3D theaters, and I've seen clips of Avatar at home on my 3DTV.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #5 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11 View Post

The way that the 3D was created by the filmmakers matters much more than if you see the 3D in IMAX, RealD, or home theater 3D. If those three venues are equally calibrated and the viewer is at recommended seating distance, then the 3D will look proportionally the same, just with different sized screens. (A bigger screen does make a bit of difference, and sometimes IMAX does get a different cut with an exclusive aspect ratio though.) The movie is what matters most if the projection quality doesn't suck. (IMAX tends to have better projector calibration than RealD, but that really depends on individual theaters.)
The Avengers was a good conversion, but overall it was middle-of-the-road 3D. Stereoscopic 3D makes different impressions on different people, but in my opinion, you aren't even close to having seen 3D at its maximum potential. Avatar wins--no contest.
I saw Avatar and The Avengers in nicely-calibrated RealD 3D theaters, and I've seen clips of Avatar at home on my 3DTV.

Post converted films aren't as good. I get it and expect that. But what I'm trying to isolate is when people say 3D is excellent or sucks, no one ever speaks to the format, IMAX 3D or Real 3D, even critics. Should we assume that their opinion is based on an IMAX presentation? Or more to the point of what I'm trying to find out, should the format matter?

The AVengers is the only IMAX presentation that I've seen. Before that, I would tell you that all 3D is a waste of money because of the handful of movies I've seen (in Real 3D), the effect has been marginal at best and not even that 50% of the time. Had I seen The Avengers in Real 3D first I would have said the same thing based on the fact that my second viewing was....marginal at best. I can't speak to specifics but I believe the theaters in my area are pretty decent and would have at least above average calibration for 3D presentation. And I probably would not have gone back to see it in 3D IMAX or otherwise. Now....with The Amazing Spiderman and Dark Knight Rises, where should my expectations lie with viewing format? If I'm going to consider 3D should it automatically be IMAX, just so happens to be the more expensive...for the supposedly same effect? Or again, does the format matter and the only thing that IMAX should offer is a bigger screen? Or is 3D so much across the board that the only way to know is to go view each movie in each format each time?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #6 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Yes, the theater that the reviewer saw it at does matter if the projection quality was bad. If he says, "the 3D was good/bad" and just leaves it there, that doesn't really tell you anything about the nature of the 3D, the quality of his theater, his taste in 3D, or why he had a good/bad experience. Those kind of comments don't help anyone.

Projection quality is literally different across the board at every single theater with every single projector. You can't depend on reviewers to make the best viewing decision for you. You just have try out different 3D movies at different theaters and see which one has consistent projection and a good price to satisfy your needs. If all dimly lit scenes look more like 2D than 3D, try a different theater the next time you go see 3D.

Personally, I always have a better experience at my local digital IMAX. The screen is bigger, the sound is better, the calibration is perfect, the chairs are tall, they always get the exclusive aspect ratios, and the theater is empty during Mon.-Thur. $10 matinees. You just have to decide if the extra ticket price is worth the improvements you get over your local theaters.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #7 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

But what I'm trying to isolate is when people say 3D is excellent or sucks, no one ever speaks to the format, IMAX 3D or Real 3D, even critics. Should we assume that their opinion is based on an IMAX presentation? Or more to the point of what I'm trying to find out, should the format matter? ... Now....with The Amazing Spiderman and Dark Knight Rises, where should my expectations lie with viewing format? If I'm going to consider 3D should it automatically be IMAX, just so happens to be the more expensive...for the supposedly same effect? Or again, does the format matter and the only thing that IMAX should offer is a bigger screen? Or is 3D so much across the board that the only way to know is to go view each movie in each format each time?

My understanding is that RealD 3D lets you tilt your head and maintain the 3D effect because of the circular polarized glasses and IMAX 3D tends to be brighter (supposedly). But I think those are really the only main differences. In each case, the separation between the left and right images is going to be the same, so I would expect the 3D effect to be very similar.

It's worth noting that not everyone gets the same effect from stereoscopic 3D and some folks even get zero effect, so it does vary from person to person. Add in the fact that there is a wide range of 3D quality and depth from one movie to the next, and you've got a lot of variables.

By the way, The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. On a side note, I saw the IMAX version of The Dark Knight, which has some native IMAX film format scenes and I would say that the super detailed image was cooler than any 3D effect. It should be worth it to check out The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX, since I understand that even a larger number of scenes were shot in IMAX for that one.
Steve Tack is offline  
post #8 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 02:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Thanks guys, I've found both of your comments to be helpful. I have tried Real 3D in two different theaters but now that I think of it, they're the same chain, AMC, and are in fact right down the street from each other, probably only 3 miles or so apart. So perhaps I'll try Weherenberg. I actually knew about DKR not being in 3D and actually did plan to see that one in IMAX.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #9 of 19 Old 07-09-2012, 03:53 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

My understanding is that RealD 3D lets you tilt your head and maintain the 3D effect because of the circular polarized glasses and IMAX 3D tends to be brighter (supposedly). But I think those are really the only main differences. In each case, the separation between the left and right images is going to be the same, so I would expect the 3D effect to be very similar.

IMAX 3D is brighter because they use dual projectors while RealD uses a single projector. IMAX went with Linear polarization because it has a better extinction ratio then circular polarization. The drawback is very limited head movement.
Quote:
It's worth noting that not everyone gets the same effect from stereoscopic 3D and some folks even get zero effect, so it does vary from person to person. Add in the fact that there is a wide range of 3D quality and depth from one movie to the next, and you've got a lot of variables.
By the way, The Dark Knight Rises will not be in 3D. On a side note, I saw the IMAX version of The Dark Knight, which has some native IMAX film format scenes and I would say that the super detailed image was cooler than any 3D effect. It should be worth it to check out The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX, since I understand that even a larger number of scenes were shot in IMAX for that one.

Only IMAX 15/70 theaters will be showing The Dark Knight Rises in true IMAX (for the 60 minutes of real IMAX footage shot for the movie). Digital IMAX will not.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #10 of 19 Old 07-11-2012, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,010
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Only IMAX 15/70 theaters will be showing The Dark Knight Rises in true IMAX (for the 60 minutes of real IMAX footage shot for the movie). Digital IMAX will not.

So is this one going to be another combination of switching aspect ratios when the IMAX scenes occur?

blastermaster is offline  
post #11 of 19 Old 07-12-2012, 03:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 48
i find i like digital imax 3d better than real due to greater brightness. small yet noticeable difference.

avengers was a mediocre 3d transfer, nothing special.

2 best 3d movies i have seen are avatar and prometheus, both shot and recorded in full 3d format

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #12 of 19 Old 07-12-2012, 03:53 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

Quote:
Only IMAX 15/70 theaters will be showing The Dark Knight Rises in true IMAX (for the 60 minutes of real IMAX footage shot for the movie). Digital IMAX will not.
So is this one going to be another combination of switching aspect ratios when the IMAX scenes occur?

Yes - just like THE DARK KNIGHT and MI4
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #13 of 19 Old 07-17-2012, 02:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Only IMAX 15/70 theaters will be showing The Dark Knight Rises in true IMAX (for the 60 minutes of real IMAX footage shot for the movie). Digital IMAX will not.

Yeah, I saw The Dark Knight in a "real" IMAX theater and it was very cool. There's only one of those in the Denver area that I'm aware of (that plays movies rather than documentaries). I'll definitely be checking out the new one in that IMAX theater at some point.

So do the other IMAX branded theaters you see in multiplexes ever use the real 15/70 projectors or do they show this "Digital IMAX" you referred to? I suppose without the huge vertical screen you wouldn't get the same benefit anyway. How can the consumer tell the real 15/70 theaters from the others? Seems like poor branding. Add in IMAX 3D and it's pretty confusing.
Steve Tack is offline  
post #14 of 19 Old 07-17-2012, 02:34 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

Yeah, I saw The Dark Knight in a "real" IMAX theater and it was very cool. There's only one of those in the Denver area that I'm aware of (that plays movies rather than documentaries). I'll definitely be checking out the new one in that IMAX theater at some point.
So do the other IMAX branded theaters you see in multiplexes ever use the real 15/70 projectors or do they show this "Digital IMAX" you referred to? I suppose without the huge vertical screen you wouldn't get the same benefit anyway. How can the consumer tell the real 15/70 theaters from the others? Seems like poor branding. Add in IMAX 3D and it's pretty confusing.

Here is a link that shows all the IMAX theaters in the USA and what IMAX format they use. Do not know how accurate it is.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

Digital IMAX uses dual Christie 2K digital projectors
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #15 of 19 Old 07-19-2012, 09:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Here is a link that shows all the IMAX theaters in the USA and what IMAX format they use. Do not know how accurate it is.
http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm
Digital IMAX uses dual Christie 2K digital projectors

That does answer something I was curious about. The one "real" IMAX in Denver does indeed appear to be the only one in the area that does 15/70. I never realized how few of those there really are.
Steve Tack is offline  
post #16 of 19 Old 07-19-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

That does answer something I was curious about. The one "real" IMAX in Denver does indeed appear to be the only one in the area that does 15/70. I never realized how few of those there really are.

Many have been converted from 15/70 to Digital. They stopped installing new IMAX 15/70 theaters years ago. A 35mm print costs about $1,200. An IMAX 15/70 print costs $45,000. If it's IMAX 15/70 3D - 2 prints are needed - $90,000. The projector lamps cost $4,000 each and have to be replaced 3 or 4 times a year per projector. 2 lamps per projector.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #17 of 19 Old 07-19-2012, 10:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
So is the size of the screen the only thing the viewer loses out on if it's not 15/70? Quality wise everything else is the same (theoretically)?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #18 of 19 Old 07-19-2012, 10:56 AM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

So is the size of the screen the only thing the viewer loses out on if it's not 15/70? Quality wise everything else is the same (theoretically)?
No, you miss the extra high resolution of 15/70mm film, especially when certain scenes were filmed with 15/70 IMAX cameras.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #19 of 19 Old 07-19-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

So is the size of the screen the only thing the viewer loses out on if it's not 15/70? Quality wise everything else is the same (theoretically)?

imax1570.jpg

tdkimaxcomparison.jpg
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Avatar Three Disc Extended Collectors Edition Bd Live Blu Ray , Blu Ray Movies
Gear in this thread - Avatar by PriceGrabber.com

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