AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ?

14K views 147 replies 29 participants last post by  Mike Lang 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#28 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18440499


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.
 
#29 ·
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
 
#30 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18443085


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.
 
#31 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 /forum/post/18443791


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

And like DVD-A and SACD, 3D will require a new playback system. It was this very fact that killed the HR audio formats as many people did not want to buy a new player just for a select few titles, even though (like 3D systems) the new players were backwards compatible.
 
#32 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by zax123 /forum/post/18440881


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).

I just want to say that I find this slightly misleading, because resolutions is too often equated to quality and/or detail. It's true 16:9 is more resolution, but it's no more quality or detail.


The statement above "aren't taking advantage of the full..." seems to imply the quality would be better with 16:9 which is not the case. Look at it specifically from the perspective of standard 16:9 setups, the detail/information/quality is the same between 16:9 and scope on BD, only the size is different.


Of course for those with CIH setups, it of course would have been optimal for the BDA to include anamorphic provisions to give us more information to use to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zax123 /forum/post/18441020


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...

Studios and movie-makers have a long history of intentionally making movies "non-standard", to differentiate from the home presentation. Films began in the "Academy Ratio" (roughly 4:3), they were like this for a long time. Then the TV came out, logically the same ratio as films were shot.


However not too long after TVs started to become commonplace, the film industry jumped to Cinemascope. Maybe a coincidence of technological advancement, but IMO the timing is to convenient and it sure seems to me that the uptake of Cinemascope was done in part (if not largely) to differentiate the cinema from home again.


As far as 3D and large formats go? Who knows what will happen this time, but they've been tried numerous times in the past, and they've faded quickly every time, yet the trusty Cinemascope format has continued on and only gained traction since it's introduction in 1953.


What's different this time? Digital projectors, but are they alone enough to overcome whatever problems have prevented large formats and 3D from taking off in the past?
 
#33 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18443945


And like DVD-A and SACD, 3D will require a new playback system. It was this very fact that killed the HR audio formats as many people did not want to buy a new player just for a select few titles, even though (like 3D systems) the new players were backwards compatible.

DVD-A and SACD did have one more thing going against them that 3D doesn't. Their difference/impact was subtle at best. Even the averagest of average Joes can pop on a set of 3D glasses and ooh and aah at the 3D in a 3D setup, but most people just couldn't even tell a difference with HR audio.
 
#34 ·
These are not true SIDE BY SIDE, rather the "cross eyed" version. Notice that they are all Scope, not 1.78:1. have fun, just don't cause yourself an eye strain.





 
#35 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/18444082


I just want to say that I find this slightly misleading, because resolutions is too often equated to quality and/or detail. It's true 16:9 is more resolution, but it's no more quality or detail.


The statement above "aren't taking advantage of the full..." seems to imply the quality would be better with 16:9 which is not the case. Look at it specifically from the perspective of standard 16:9 setups, the detail/information/quality is the same between 16:9 and scope on BD, only the size is different.


Of course for those with CIH setups, it of course would have been optimal for the BDA to include anamorphic provisions to give us more information to use to begin with.

I was pretty much referring to the CIH crowd when saying that an anamorphic specification for BD would have been optimal. But we can look at it another way. If a movie is filmed in scope, you'd want to take advantage of the full bandwidth of a BD to display the movie information. We all know that even though BDs are not compressed as much as DVDs, they are still compressed. Maybe when a BD is in scope format, the "black bars" above and below the scope format take very little bandwidth to compress and so the compression of the used video area is less and therefore the quality of the picture in that area is higher. This is PURE speculation as I don't know the intricacies of the BD format.
 
#36 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by zax123 /forum/post/18448846


I was pretty much referring to the CIH crowd when saying that an anamorphic specification for BD would have been optimal.

Absolutely agree there.

Quote:
But we can look at it another way. If a movie is filmed in scope, you'd want to take advantage of the full bandwidth of a BD to display the movie information. We all know that even though BDs are not compressed as much as DVDs, they are still compressed. Maybe when a BD is in scope format, the "black bars" above and below the scope format take very little bandwidth to compress and so the compression of the used video area is less and therefore the quality of the picture in that area is higher.

Actually that's exactly right. A not insignificant portion of the compression algorithms used on BD is reduction in redundant information, and that's all bars are, redundant information.
 
#37 ·
Though, with Clash of the Titans and probably almost every 3D live-action movie coming this year these are 2D to 3D conversions and not originally shot or envisioned for 3D. Who knows if the DP for CotT would have composed for scope or used 1.85:1 like Cameron if he/she was shooting with a 3D rig to begin with.


100% computer animated cartoons, like from Dreamworks and PIXAR, are a whole other kettle of fish, obviously, so I'm not really worried about those titles.


Is "fake" 3D about to take over just as "real" 3D was just getting started? This is worrisome to James Cameron, and he's stated this publicly. It could kill things off rather quickly as live action 3D conversions never look as good as the real thing; more like moving pop-up books.
 
#38 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman /forum/post/18449273



Is "fake" 3D about to take over just as "real" 3D was just getting started? This is worrisome to James Cameron, and he's stated this publicly. It could kill things off rather quickly as live action 3D conversions never look as good as the real thing; more like moving pop-up books.

And so he should be worried. In the end, comes down to cinemas having to outlay huge amounts to outfit their cinemas and therefore needing program to re-coupe that outlay.


I agree, a 2D conversion to 3D will never be as good as a true 3D capture.


If this is what it takes for the format to launch, then so be it. The paying public will have the final say by either going to see these films or not. If not, then chances are 3D will fail yet again.
 
#39 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman /forum/post/18449273


Is "fake" 3D about to take over just as "real" 3D was just getting started? This is worrisome to James Cameron, and he's stated this publicly.

And yet he's working to convert Titanic into 3-D.
 
#42 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy /forum/post/18461792


I just can't imagine anything funnier than the whole family gathered around some dinky 50" tv, everyone wearing their 3D glasses! How long before this latest incarnation of a bad idea fades away...?

Depends how many are in the family also not everyone will be able to be immersed. Oh and you all have to sit close too. I can see some fights beginning to sit in the middle.
 
#43 ·
Or worse, the "no glasses system" that requires viewers to sit at exacting angles in order to see 3D.


Kid 1: Move over, I am seeing a double image.

Kid 2: No you move!
 
#46 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18463214


I just hope with all my heart that 3D isn't used instead of good scripts and stories.


Art

So you have seen Madeline in 3D then?
 
#48 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18470340


So you have seen Madeline in 3D then?

I agree, Coraline was a fantastic (1.85!) film in 2D, and I doubt if I'll even ever see it in 3D.


I can't decide whether I'd rather films be made well for 2D (quality scripts/stories and more) and then have subtle 3D tacked on like Coraline or Up, or have an "experience" unfold in front of you where the movie is built around 3D, but the script/story is lacking (like Avatar).
 
#50 ·
Though, one could argue the case of whether or not Iron Man 2 will be of any quality whatsoever...


Jon Favreau chose to not shoot IM 2 in 3D and the film, so far, is not getting a 2D to 3D conversion.


Either he hasn't jumped aboard the "3D or Bust!" hype train like some have or he's, rightly, of the opinion that if a movie wasn't 3D to begin with, it shouldn't get some sort of ho-hum retrofit ala Alice In Wonderland or Clash of the Titans.
 
#51 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFoHo /forum/post/18471901


Do you mean Coraline?

Yes I did, sorry for wrong name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18472159


I agree, Coraline was a fantastic (1.85!) film in 2D, and I doubt if I'll even ever see it in 3D.

Fantastic? Really? I only watched it in 2D as there is no way I would sit through whatever time it ran for with that horrid excuse for 3D that analygraph is. I was bored stupid with this film and it would not have been any better for me if it were Scope. The story lacked for me big time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman /forum/post/18472351


he's, rightly, of the opinion that if a movie wasn't 3D to begin with, it shouldn't get some sort of ho-hum retrofit ala Alice In Wonderland or Clash of the Titans.

I agree. Either shoot for 3D or not. This pretend 3D is going to put more people off in the long run as bad 3D is just bad and if the story is already lacking because eye popping effects were supposed to lift it, then sorry it just doesn't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top