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
#53 ·
I don't know why they just can't release two versions, one in 16.9 and the other in scope, then everyone can decide for themselves. I mean, how hard could it be?
 
#54 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanDave /forum/post/18481336


I don't know why they just can't release two versions, one in 16.9 and the other in scope, then everyone can decide for themselves. I mean, how hard could it be?

Remember when they used to release movies in both widescreen and full screen (4:3)? Do they still do that?
 
#55 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanDave /forum/post/18481336


I don't know why they just can't release two versions, one in 16.9 and the other in scope, then everyone can decide for themselves. I mean, how hard could it be?

Two reasons; for one, there's already a minimum of three releases for this film. Now, later in Nov. with the extras, and later with 3D. Why are more needed?


And of course there's the simple fact that Cameron prefers 1.78 and 2.35 was a compromise ala "formatted to fit your screen" pan'n'scan for theaters incapable of showing a large 1.78 image.
 
#56 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18482025


Two reasons; for one, there's already a minimum of three releases for this film. Now, later in Nov. with the extras, and later with 3D. Why are more needed?


And of course there's the simple fact that Cameron prefers 1.78 and 2.35 was a compromise ala "formatted to fit your screen" pan'n'scan for theaters incapable of showing a large 1.78 image.

I can't even say how disappointing this is to see that Avatar is being cropped. Will be skipping the purchase of this and going right to my rental queue. What gets me is that this release is not the version that I saw in the theater.
 
#59 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by owl1 /forum/post/18482943


I can't even say how disappointing this is to see that Avatar is being cropped. Will be skipping the purchase of this and going right to my rental queue. What gets me is that this release is not the version that I saw in the theater.

Exactly
 
#61 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18485478


Exactly what? It would be disappointing to have to watch Avatar cropped.


Thankfully, we are getting the full 1.78 frame and not the one with 25% of the film chopped out (2.39).

Like ALL of Cameron's films (post ALIENS), I saw AVATAR in Scope. I'd like to be able to watch this way at home. Even the trailers I found on the net are Scope. I would suggest that the ONLY reason he choose 1.78:1 was that he had more height to work with once he experienced the same issue I've not only read about, but experienced for myself - that 3D images look smaller on the same size screen compared to a 2D image. He would have simply choose the open the masks to compensate for this during post as he would have been focused on the 3D presentation. Now that is 1.78:1, it makes marketing the film for home use much easier as it will fit more screens - small screens none the less - this way.
 
#62 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18482025


Two reasons; for one, there's already a minimum of three releases for this film. Now, later in Nov. with the extras, and later with 3D. Why are more needed?

Err.... b/c some people want scope, I thought that was clear when I said there should be a 16.9 and scope release.
 
#63 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanDave /forum/post/18485974


Err.... b/c some people want scope, I thought that was clear when I said there should be a 16.9 and scope release.

Oh he heard you, he just doesn't care.
 
#64 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18486088


Oh he heard you, he just doesn't care.

Oh, I see. He is one of "those" people.
 
#66 ·
Yes, that movie worked well in Scope.


Did you experience a "height" difference in 3D? To me (and I've also read similar in the 3D section) the 3D images look smaller than 2D images on the same screen.
 
#67 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18489733


Yes, that movie worked well in Scope.


Did you experience a "height" difference in 3D? To me (and I've also read similar in the 3D section) the 3D images look smaller than 2D images on the same screen.

I did and I also found some of the scenes on the left ( just some) not clear at all. Wasn't that much off the left but enough to cause a stir on AVS. I noticed the adverts and previews cropping to cih will not be an issue at all.
 
#68 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin /forum/post/18490125


I did and I also found some of the scenes on the left ( just some) not clear at all. Wasn't that much off the left but enough to cause a stir on AVS. I noticed the adverts and previews cropping to cih will not be an issue at all.

That is simply a apart of the effect to enhance depth of field. When something was meant to be in focus, it was. When HTTYD hits BD, it will be letter boxed, so Scaling for Scope will not be a problem. AVATAR on the other hand remains to be seen.
 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18490582


That is simply a apart of the effect to enhance depth of field. When something was meant to be in focus, it was. When HTTYD hits BD, it will be letter boxed, so Scaling for Scope will not be a problem. AVATAR on the other hand remains to be seen.

I haven't seen Avatar but does the effect also occur in the middle?
 
#70 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin /forum/post/18490630


I haven't seen Avatar but does the effect also occur in the middle?

I didn't see it in 3D, however from the 3D scenes (cross eyed) I posted HERE , it would suggest that effects occur both centre and sides.
 
#71 ·
Apparently I was know told that we have to change our screens also to enjoy 3D if that's the case I can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by biomed_eng_2000 /forum/post/18500388


If your 3D projector uses the polarizing technique, a normal white screen will not retain the polarization...thus the need for the specialized screen (one that retains the polarization).
 
#72 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanDave /forum/post/18485974


Err.... b/c some people want scope, I thought that was clear when I said there should be a 16.9 and scope release.

Front projection probably consists of a single digit percentage of Blu-ray sales. Those with 2.35 shaped screens, even less.


Nobody cares, including Cameron who generally prefers "scope".


Avatar was made to be just as wide as any other 2.35 film, but 25% taller.


Most people's setups can accommodate this just fine, no matter the size of their screen.


CIH setups by definition cannot do this, therefore the problem lies with their home theater, not the Blu-ray release.
 
#73 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin /forum/post/18501510


Apparently I was know told that we have to change our screens also to enjoy 3D if that's the case I can't.

There was a link to a Joe Kane lecture on 3D where he stated a silver screen might be needed for brightness when using the LCD shutter glasses. If I remember right, he did also acknowledge that silver screens may make 2D look worse (hot spotting etc). Real D cinemas use a silver screen. I noticed in my last 3D cinema trip that the cinema no longer used the 35mm film projector in that cinema, only their digital unit and therefore what ever calibration setting were made, 2D (before the film) still looked quite good on that screen.
 
#74 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18503450


There was a link to a Joe Kane lecture on 3D where he stated a silver screen might be needed for brightness when using the LCD shutter glasses. If I remember right, he did also acknowledge that silver screens may make 2D look worse (hot spotting etc). Real D cinemas use a silver screen. I noticed in my last 3D cinema trip that the cinema no longer used the 35mm film projector in that cinema, only their digital unit and therefore what ever calibration setting were made, 2D (before the film) still looked quite good on that screen.

Ah damn. Unfortunatley im not going to change my screen.
 
#75 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18503202


Front projection probably consists of a single digit percentage of Blu-ray sales. Those with 2.35 shaped screens, even less.


Nobody cares, including Cameron who generally prefers "scope".


Avatar was made to be just as wide as any other 2.35 film, but 25% taller.


Most people's setups can accommodate this just fine, no matter the size of their screen.


CIH setups by definition cannot do this, therefore the problem lies with their home theater, not the Blu-ray release.

Dosent phase me at all wether it 16x9. Im still going to get a great picture at 16x9 and at a good size too.
 
#76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin /forum/post/18504492


Ah damn. Unfortunatley im not going to change my screen.

Me neither. I expect a system with white screen compatibility will be along soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin /forum/post/18504503


Dosent phase me at all wether it 16x9. Im still going to get a great picture at 16x9 and at a good size too.

Agreed and the beauty constant image height
And lilgator thinks CIH is compromised
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top