Avatar in Blu-Ray in europe confirmed 21/04/2010  

Wonder if the French blu-ray will be a 2D AND 3D (the new stuff, i.e. non anaglyph) presentation.

Given the buzz that Avatar has generated for 3D and the raft of products being introduced at CES as 3D compatible, I would assume the blu-ray for Avatar would be a natural candidate for a 'tie-in' to boost sales of the new hardware (players, displays, etc.) If so, the U.S. release date may well be 'adjusted' to coincide with widespread release and availability of the new hardware.

Cameron has already stated the initial Blu-ray release will be 2D. As much as it'll pain me to watch it at home in 2D this year (already saw it in IMAX digital 3D in a theater), I have a feeling we won't see 'Avatar' on 3D Blu-ray until year's end or even sometime 2011.

Only a handful of 3D Blu-ray players were announced at CES recently, of which only one, by Panasonic, will have HDMI 1.4. The PS3 is said to be 3D firmware-updatable, but as it's HDMI 1.3, I don't think it'll be able to do full-res 3D. Then, there are 3D displays and initial cost. Front projection would be the way to experience 'Avatar' 3D Blu-ray at home, so I'm hoping we'll see some announcements at CEDIA. But, I'm guessing initial costs will be too high. Given all this, 2011 is looking more like the year for 3D at home.

I just read on engadget also that it was said this will come out in 2D first then 3D at a later time. Maybe they don't want to release this on 3D right away since I'd be the first titles/displays would disappoint after seeing it in the theater.

Not sure that I would count on an April release date. Avatar (like Titanic) is seeing a very slow reduction at the box office, and it would well happen that Fox decides to leave it in theatres. If it is still doing well theatrically, theatre owners will press for a longer window, they have become increasingly sensitive about this issue.

My guess would be June.

I'll probably wait for the 3D version that Cameron alluded to to come out, especially considering that it will have the legacy 2D version in it as well. My self-control might not be that strong, though.


This has been confusing me ever since i heard it a few weeks ago. If the PS3 can be updated to 3D, what would stop it from showing full-res 3D for films? A 3D presentation of a 1080p 24fps film would require 48fps to be output with one frame for each eye. HDMI 1.3 can pass 1080p at up to 60fps so I would have thought it would be all set. Or does something else come into play?

I hope I'm not derailing the thread...

3D BD player and display discussion is done in other forums here. Thanks.

It will be interesting to see when the BD is released in the states. I agree with the others that said June at the earliest.

larry

It is confusing! From what I understand, to do full 1080p res to each eye, HDMI 1.4 is required. Here's a CNET article on this. The relevant passage reads...
I guess we'll have to wait & see.

I'll still likely pick it up in 2D. A fun flick and likely a gorgeous 2-D picture... I wonder if they'll crop it to scope for the release?

The 3D presentation of Avatar was shown in 1.78:1 aspect ratio, while the 2D was scope, with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, according to this article:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/...ze-everywhere/

I was telling a friend the other day that it won't surprise me if this movie gets pulled from 2D theaters earlier than 3D theaters because it won't be holding there nearly as well as it is in 3D theaters (my guess) and with the first release for Blu-ray being 2D, they could release the disc at a point where the movie won't be in mainstream 2D theaters, but will be in mainstream 3D theaters. Some of the audience who watches it at home or sees it is out for home and decides to watch it could feel compelled to go see it in 3D, but not sure how big that audience would be at that point.

--Darin

While your point is quite valid, theatre owners have slot obligations for other films from other studios. Yes, AVATAR has some major legs but exhibitors may have some serious problems trying to book films in the near future if all the slots are clean with AVATAR. FOX tried this before with Episode I. According to myth, they requested that the film hold clean for an extended period of time, on each theatres best screens. Other studios couldn't have their films open properly because the theatres were booked with Episode I.

This may get interesting....

IMAX 3-D and crappy common width screens showed it in 1.78:1. Proper screens that can show scope films properly got the 2.35:1 version.

Yes, I seen it in RealD 3D and it was 2.35:1.

Like with Super-35 it was intended to be cropped. The 1.78:1 version is basically open matte. Great for a tall IMAX screen but less epic on everything else.

I would like the 16:9 Blu Ray.

I saw it in both aspect ratios in separate screenings within 12 hours of each other. My conclusion from the screenings and from Cameron's comments on the different ratios is that both are valid OARs, but for the majority of screens, 2.39:1 is "proper."

The film is definitely framed more precisely at 2.39:1. At 1.78:1 composition is sacrificed a bit, but for the larger and more vertically oriented IMAX screen the ratio is more suitably overwhelming. My guess is that that the 2D release is definitely 2.39:1, while we might see a 1.78:1 3D release for larger screens sometime down the road, similar to the Transformers 2 "Big Screen" edition.

It contradicts everything else though. Every trailer I've seen was 2.35:1, in 3-D and 2-D. The film was shown 2.35:1 in theaters that are setup properly for scope, in 3-D and 2-D. I'm pretty sure the premieres showed the 2.35:1 3-D version. It seems strange that Cameron would allow a funky cropped version to be so widely seen unless he intended it to be shown that way as well.

I think Kyle_D is correct. Both versions are valid. The 2.35:1 version is for wide scope screens, the 1.78:1 version is for IMAX and smaller common width setups. I'm sure we'll see both versions on video.

My impression from everything I have read is that the 1:78 version is the OAR, but the cropped version is still "valid". I would agree though that both versions are "valid".

This is a very astute observation, and one that leads me to believe we'll see the 2D Blu-Ray release before Memorial Day. To be honest, I don't even care about a 3D version at this point (not going to upgrade hardware).

The latest 1080p Avatar "featurette" - sort of a nice travelogue about Pandora - is 1.78.

It is and if you crop it to 2.35:1 it looks fine so even if a 1.78:1 version is all we get on Blu-ray you'll be safe cropping it to scope ratio.

This thread is must reading for those people that babble on about "director's intent" when justifying their black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

Apparently this director will allow it to be shown any which way.

In 99% of cases with 2.39:1 films, those "babblers" aren't babbling, but Cameron has a history of shooting for multiple aspect ratios. He was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of Super35, and until DVD came along he publicly stated preference for the open matte version of True Lies for home viewing, as he framed for both aspect ratios and believed that neither VHS nor Laserdisc had the resolution to properly present the film when letterboxed. However, for theatrical and DVD versions, he preferred the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. It's all contextual with him.

With Avatar 3D, immersing the audience in the largest possible screen size for any given theater was obviously more important to him than preserving precise compositions. That said, all 2D versions of the film were presented in 2.39:1 regardless of the screen native AR and the film is IMO framed better at 2.39:1, which is why I believe the 2D video releases will and should be released letterboxed. Cameron is one of the most powerful creative forces in Hollywood. I'm sure that whatever AR is released on Blu-ray will convey "director's intent" for home viewing.

You could have both versions in 2D anyway. Like an overlayed menu image you could have overlayed Black Bars to crop the image by pressing pop up menu.

It's being shown in theaters in 3D at 1.78? Why not the standard 1.85? Are the curtains set for the 1.78 ratio (no IMAX) or does it have black bars (some screen showing) on the sides?

as if the choice between 1.78 or 1.85 would make a difference

It does. Maybe your display has overscan but there is a difference between the two. On HDTV it's about 44 lines difference between them and I get obvious black bars top/bottom on my projection screen when viewing true 1.85. This would translate into a 28.8' wide picture on a 30' wide theater screen.

i hate overscan and would never watch movies that way. of course theres a difference between them, but its so small it can be neglected. its comparable to 2.35 or 2.40 or 1.33 to 1.37