Avatar in Blu-Ray in europe confirmed 21/04/2010 - Page 2  

My bet is on 1.78:1 as the home video aspect ratio, since that's the fuller-frame version in theaters and will also give a bigger picture, higher-resolution and more immersive experience on home theater screens... it'll be interesting to see what we actually get.

I'm looking forward to this release on blu. I saw this in Real 3D 2.35:1. It doesn't matter to me what format it comes out on in 2D but when the 3D comes out I wouldn't mind the 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 AR for more immersion in my HT since my width is limited due to an entrance door.

As for 2D and 3D versions of Avatar on Blu-ray there is video interview with Cameron and a story on this on blu-ray.com at includes the following:

In the interviews given to promote Avatar, which opens in theaters today, James Cameron has already given a few tips on the Blu-ray of his latest movie epic. The filmmaker said that the BD will include over ten minutes of deleted scenes, and also that the initial Blu-ray release of 'Avatar' "probably won't be in 3-D", and there will be another edition with 3-D support in late 2010.

Cameron told MTV that the discarded footage gave added background on the native Na'vi people of Pandora. "It's all wonderful stuff, but it was sort of bogging down the middle section of the movie," Cameron said. "So there's plenty for a value-added DVD experience on this film. Of course, we'll have to go punch it all up and get it all mixed and stuff like that." There is also a trial ritual where, to become one of the clan, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) must hunt a local beast.

With regard to whether the Blu-ray release would include 3-D or not, Cameron said: "Probably the initial Blu-ray release of Avatar won't be in 3-D and then a subsequent release will be in 3-D. That's my guess right now. So we will probably put out a disk, you know, in six or eight months, let's call it six months, and then after that we will have a 3-D disc when there are enough sets available." As for what aspect ratio will be used for the Blu-ray Disc release, my guess would be 1.78 AR. It's my understanding that Cameron used 1.78 AR 3-D HD cameras without any anamorphic lens and that was essentially what was used for the 3D digital IMAX release while there were some non-IMAX versions that were vertically cropped to a 2.35 AR. So for those forum members that demand OAR, so that it will be the same as they saw in the local cinema, then this movie presents a problem since it had multiple ARs for its theatrical release. However, the one that appears to be the best candidate for "the true OAR" appears to be be 1.78 AR, so it gets my vote, especailly for the 3D version. HERE is a link to Cameron's comment on the aspect ratio (from last May) of Avatar which includes the following info (see link for complete story):

The report says that "Cameron never thought he'd shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D." Flat and scope are the two standard aspect ratios in use today. Typically, scope (the wider ratio) is used for action, so that more of it can be captured and it looks much more epic because it's so wide. Flat (the taller ratio) is usually used for close ups and more personal shots.

All this 3D business is very confusing.

So, are they going to release a standard 3D Bluray version? Can't they have a 3D version like the theaters for Bluray with the glasses? I want to be able to enjoy Avatar in 3D without having to rebuild my home theater.

After watching the 1080p trailer on my Kuro 500m, I'd have to say that the picture looked pretty damn near 3D. It will be enough to satisfy me. I also attended CES last week and while the 3D TVs were the big thing, I'd have to say that it wasn't like "I NEED to have this". The Panasonic booth was showing clips of Avatar in the full 1080p 3D and, while it did look like it did in the theater, it also caused me to have a nasty headache (this didn't happen in the theater). I'm guessing it had something to do with the active shutter glasses I was wearing.

I'm not shooting the messenger here, just responding to the original quote. I simply couldn't let this pass without comment: "flat" is NOT an aspect ratio, it is a cinematographic process. Films shot flat come in a wide variety of ratios - 1.33:1 (or 1.37:1) for pretty much any sound film before the early 1950s, 1.66:1, 1.85:1... a great many 2.35:1 films are shot flat as well, thanks to the uptake of the Super35 process, of which Cameron was a major proponent.

This statement was linked on page one and (as Kram Sacul noted) it's incorrect. IMAX 3D was 1.78:1, but non-IMAX 3D was 2.39:1, at least on screens that could accommodate it. This is how I saw it and it looked fine (not overly cropped or cramped at all). I'm sure it doesn't look bad at 1.78:1 either, but I have a strong feeling that version was done with IMAX in mind -- some other 2.39:1 films have also been 1.78:1 in IMAX.

I haven't gotten a head ache with shutter glasses while watching anything, but my eyes felt a little weird for a good 10 minutes or so afterward.

I just wish Cameron would release the Avatar trailer in full stereoscopic 1080p, for those of us that already have shutter glasses. The version floating around on the net isn't very good (I'm talking about the trailer).

Although I hope to have a projector/theater setup by the time this is released, I suspect most blu ray capable households will be watching this on a 16:9 flat panel display and will receive the most immersive and satisfying experience with the 1.78:1 OAR image I saw in a digital IMAX theater. Since the film was shot to be viewed in this aspect ratio and it would produce a better home entertainment experience in the majority of households, 1.78:1 would seem like the likely choice.

Just my opinion but, I think 3D is only appropriate for theaters and large screen front projection home theater. I just don't think there is much to gain from 3D on a typical 50" set.

Anyway, I will pick this up the day it comes out and completely enjoy it on my 50" 2D set!

Hmmm...

Amazon.France = June 1st, 2010

Amazon.Germany = December 31st, 2010

Amazon.England = No date even listed

My guess would be Summer 2010. The OP says Fox studios called him back and told him April 2010? Sorry OP, I don't think some Intern they hired to answer phones and return calls has correct information. Amazon in the EU has been pretty spot-on with their estimated release dates in my experience.

You and Kram may have your own preferences and Kram can claim that it is the 2.35:1 screens which showed the 3D Avatar in its proper aspect ratio, but that doesn't seem to jive with James Cameron's opinion shown here:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...aspect-ratios/

which includes:

Interpreting I would say that what Cameron meant is that theaters that could do the full 16:9 image without unused screen on the sides would get the 3D version in the 16:9 (or close) format that he wanted the 3D version to be shown in, but those who would have had to make the image smaller in order to show the 3D version as ~16:9 got a 2.35:1 version instead, but wouldn't be in his preferred format for the 3D version. The fact that theaters with 2.35:1 screens got 2.35:1 versions doesn't mean that this was the aspect ratio James Cameron preferred the 3D version be shown in. Just that he didn't want to make the image smaller in order to get the aspect ratio he seems to have preferred for the 3D version based on those comments from him.

--Darin

They recently converted my local theater to one of the new digiIMAX setups.

When Avatar started it became slightly side-boxed (maybe 12-18" lost on each side), I'm actually a little puzzled about why they didn't just extend the screen a touch higher and lower, then it would've fit at 1:78 to the full width.

More oddly at a real IMAX theater, using 3D film projection, I noticed that it was not just letterboxed (of course for a 1.4:1 ratio screen) but also side boxed. Maybe loosing 4-6' on each side. My only guess is that some, many, all real IMAX theaters just use the same bulb they use to project their 2D stuff and when they go to 3D and with the loss of light due to polarization they can't fill the full screen width??? I'm not sure but it almost seemed like the one here looked even taller than 1:78, if not by a lot.

My feeling is that 1.78 actually works better for this.

You want to feel wrapped by the image in all directions so that you are literally a part of the film. I tried sitting far back for a minute and while it looked cool still it totally lost the amazing feeling like you were literally in the film, I think it would be hard to pull that off with 2.35:1 especially with current projectors, you'd need to sit front rows and then you'd see the grid pattern.

So far i've only seen the 1.78:1 but I will check out a D3D and RealD3D 2.35:1 too. Although I've heard that both of those technologies can only support 54' screen width, which won't help the immersiveness any. I bet they'd have to side and letterbox the 70' screens in my area.

I would love to see the 3D Blu-Ray come out in 1.78. This is what the IMAX footage on "The Dark Knight" was in, and that disc basically got me to buy into Blu-Ray. I can adjust to any aspect ration on my (projector) setup, and 1.78 simply has more viewing area (when shot that way).

Walking out of the theater, a couple of weeks ago, I questioned if I would even want to buy the bluray of the movie. Normally, I prefer the audio and video presentation on my FP set up compared to what I experience in the commercial theater. But coming out of Avatar in 3d I knew there was no way for my system to recreate the 3d I had just seen.

This was my experience, as well. There was an audio recording at the beginning of the movie explaining the aspect ratio presentation, but I was talking to someone and totally missed what it said. It looked way taller than 1.78:1.

Looking forward to the BD.

3D = cool but overrated, imho.

I agree with you! A movie should be able to stand on its own in good-ol' normal 2D without 3D gimmicks. I still haven't seen in Avatar yet, probably won't until the BD comes out, so I won't be disappointed with it being "only" 2D.

would you upgrade for the 3D?

I know that I am!! The minute that all 3D gear (front projector, player, etc.) is released, I'm in.

As far as Avatar is concerned... I will be buying the 2D Blu-ray once released since I loved the movie and I can have this version ripped to my media server. Then when they release the 3D version, I'll be buying that one as well.

There is a front projector already released called the Titan Dual 3D, might be worth looking into

Yeah, I kinda feel like the 2D blu-ray Avatar on a 52" HDTV would feel like VHS on an ipod in comparison. And even the 3D, it's not gonna be the same. Gonna need to sit close too to give any chance of wrap-around immersion.

you're missing an amazing experience....

Movies can stand up on VHS on a black and white tv with mono sound but it's not as compelling experience.

and a photo of the great serengeti migration can be awe inspiring but it's not exactly even close to actually being there and that is the difference between having the perfect seat at a giant IMAX installation and watching this movie and seeing it at home

I agree. This movie was stunning in 3D.

Thats great news usually if it's out on Europe it should be the same over here in Aus. Glad I waited

I agree with this. I know there are some who dont like 3d and that is obviously fine, but if you have not experienced it and/or like 3d and have not seen this, it should be seen on the big screen in 3d. This is coming from a guy who hates going to a commercial theater and always waits for the BR or DVD so I can watch in my own HT, but us HT guys simply cant recreate this one at home. See it on the big screen if you can as this is one to make an exception for

I haven't seen it in 3D yet because I do suffer from headaches when it comes to watching it. I know many are saying the new way is safe but I've heard know from friends they suffered and forum members so im tending to just wait for the 2D on blu. But you hit the nail on the head Toe it's not going to be an easy task to recreate this at home.