Avatar in Blu-Ray in europe confirmed 21/04/2010 - Page 4  

I'd like to see more 'screen caps' with the actors in frame to see what (if anything) I'll be missing if this does come out on BD as 1.78:1 and I decide to still watch it in Scope. I am thinking that it will be no different to the hype surrounding TDK and TF2, both of which also contain scenes framed for IMAX and yet both work for perfectly well for Scope projection.

It's all crop friendly.

Thans for the extra screen caps. I hope the 2D is Scope and should they bring out 3D version, then prehaps it could be 1.78:1.

Yes, to my eye, all but the third and the last shots in that set look better cropped to 2.39:1. The rest lose much of their dynamism opened to 1.78:1.

you'll take the scope version framing even in this where it clearly cuts off floating 3D elements at times and often cuts off important parts of the landscape during flying scenes in awkward ways that reduce the visual impact and depth (even in 2D) of many scenes and that makes the top and bottom edges of the screen fall easily within your field of vision and reducing thus clearly reducing the feeling that you are actually there on the planet yourself?

with the 2.35:1 most of the lower arches and forest can't even been seen when they fly in towards the

all i can say is I thought it was a pretty magical experience (not that Olympic National Park isn't pretty magical too) and I don't see what in the world whether it represents something that exists or not has anything to do with anything???, pretty awesome to get to explore an amazing new world.

he did take his avatar out for a pretty agressive first run though you have to admit, he seemed pretty thrilled to be trying out those legs (and with the tech they had then, unlike today, he knew there was a fix available for his actual legs)

I don't think the 2.39:1 version does what you describe at all, and I saw both versions in separate screenings within 12 hours of the other. The 2.39:1 frame works better, compositionally speaking, for 80-90% of the film.

If you look at the screenshots Kram posted, the compositional elements are much more often horizontally aligned than vertically aligned. If you look at the areas that are cropped away, they're generally empty and compositionally dead. The 2.39:1 frame is better balanced and more dynamic, which is why I'd prefer it on the 2D release.

3D is a different story, as composition tends to take a back seat to immersion. With 3D I've noticed that I'm more likely to focus on certain elements within the frame rather than the compositional sum of the elements. In 3D, biggest screen size wins and since most of us are watching on 1.78:1 screens, I'd like a 1.78:1 release.

I'm sure Cameron has final say in this, though, so whatever we'll get will be director approved.

This might be included

http://gizmodo.com/5452790/an-epic-2...enes-of-avatar

I agree. Even though they clearly shot for both ARs, the scope version has to be a compromise, and that is evident in these screenshots. Sure, 2.39:1 looks "epic" in a conventional theater with constant height. But on a 16:9 TV screen, the scope presentation would not just show less of the image, it is also a smaller image (less immersive) and would have lower resolution because unlike 16:9 scope Blu-ray images are only using a fraction of the 1080 vertical resolution. I don't call that more "epic".

All the battles over OAR were NEVER EVER EVER about showing more or less of the image; it's never been about "epicness;" it's never been about "immersion;" it's always been about preserving the proper composition of the frame.

With the argument above you begin skidding down a very slippery slope. Few films are shot scope any more and the majority of 2.39:1 films are cropped from a Super35 or 16:9 frame. By your argument, these should all be released open matte.

It's a little bit different with Avatar since both aspect ratios are officially sanctioned, but I honestly don't see how anybody with a trained eye can look at the majority of those screengrabs and not see that the scope version is better framed. It's not a compromise. Nothing that is cropped is essential. It's all dead space and muddles the balance of the image.

I've been saying the same thing regarding the writing/dialogue. It was so bad that it took me out of the story. Talk about weak, bland, cheesy, stereotypical and boring. Because of the poor writing the acting suffered tremendously. Besides that the Navi were not alien enough, they were just like blue Indians with tails. I didn't like all that mumbo jumbo stuff either. I went to see it again just to give it another chance but strike 2. I like 3D very much though and am glad it did well as the timing with the CES show was perfect for getting 3D out there to Joe and Jane.

i say it for the simple that reason that it was distracting to see stuff suddenly sliced off frame all the time that didn't in 1.78:1 and it was less impressive when they were flying around all you mostly saw what was ahead of them and not what they were sweeping over dowm below. There is a difference between looking at a few still shots and watching the movie.

anyway, i've said what i can say so there is no point in my going on about this anymore.

2D scope for me, please and thank you.

well eventually Camaeron will have avatar with 36p :-)

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=3691&cs=1

If you cropped the top off of Rembrandt's Night Watch so it fits a wider aspect ratio, you'd also be removing dead space, non-essential elements, etc. Would people with "trained eyes" also consider it superior to the original?

To me, since Cameron intended 1.78 3D to be the optimal way to view Avatar, then 1.78 is the OAR. It's nice that he framed in such a way to protect the cropped scope presentation to such an extent that "trained eyes" consider it "better."

To give an honest answer to your first question: no, it wouldn't, because the flag's staff in the upper left of Rembrandt's frame is part of a leading line, as are the spears in the upper right. Notice how they're tilted at the same angle. Those lines are what guide the eye in the painting. It's not dead space as you assert. They're essential to the image. I'd write more about how the height in that painting and the value choices also balance that composition via the rule of thirds, and how the height is essential to conveying space, but I think I've already made my point. Your dismissive mockery aside, there is such a thing as a trained eye in evaluating such things.

And to your second part, has any 2D theater shown Avatar at a ratio other than 2.39:1? It's an honest question, but everything I've read and heard through anecdotal evidence states no, and that the 2D version has been projected scope. The 2D version OAR therefore is 2.39:1.

And with that, I'm done. There's nothing more to say or argue here on the issue until the disc is announced.

Your points are very valid re:Rembrandt's composition. Elements in the top portion play an important role in the overall composition. My point is, why can't you apply similar reasoning to the Avatar 1.78 composition? If you don't see value in the cropped section, perhaps Cameron does.

I'd have to argue that you're only partially right. Yes, composition matters to an extent, but what matters more about OAR is director's intent. THAT has always been the leading argument in favor of the "black bars". And I don't think anyone here is qualified to say that the 2.39:1 version should be the "proper" one when the film's own director says it should be 1.78:1. Composition be damned.

So what's your take on the 1.78:1 Kubrick Blu-rays? Better framed, because they chopped off the "dead space"? Hell, you could chop off the top and bottom of almost any screenshot and make it work. Doesn't make it right.

And in 98% of cases, composition is the primary consideration behind director's intent.


Cameron has never said it should be 1.78:1. He has said he thought he liked the look of 3D in 1.78:1, while still releasing the 3D version of the film in 2.39:1. He released the 2D version exclusively in 2.39:1. All the pre-release promotional footage of the film, including televised trailers, were 2.39:1.


Not going to open that can of worms here. It's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. This is about Avatar.


No, you couldn't.


Because there's nothing of value in the cropped areas. It's compositional noise.

I've said it before and I'll say it again for a final time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. The audience views a film differently in 3D than 2D. Cameron is a brilliant man. He knows this. He's talked about how 3D affected his editing choices on the film, and in fact there's a wealth of film theory yet to be written on film grammar specific to 3D.

With 2D, the audience is situated outside a firmly bounded frame looking in at the picture. The very existence of these boundaries necessitate and emphasize composition. With 3D, however, the aim is to blur the boundaries between the screen and the audience so as to envelop the audience within a three-dimensional volume of the film world. With deemphasized frame boundaries, composition is likewise deemphasized, and a greater importance is placed on depth and filling the periphery with imagery. THIS likely is the value Cameron sees in 1.85:1/1.78:1 3D presentations of the film for constant width screens. For him, the compositional sacrifice is worth the greater screen real estate that he can use to better immerse the audience in the 3D version of his world.

And with that, I'm really done.

2D scope, please.

Source or did you just make that up?

GREAT quote! Right or wrong!

Ok, I'm just having fun, so I'll post another rhetorical example. The left is the original Ansel Adams Moonrise, Hernandez; the right is with the top 25% cropped off (same percentage of 1.78 vs 2.35):



Which one would someone trained in artistic composition prefer?

lilsiu,

This discussion isn't about Ansel Adams. It's about Avatar. If you've read my comments closely, you'll see I've never advocated matting anything else. I'm not a 2.39:1 fanatic. I don't want to crop everything. I simply believe that the proper 2D ratio for Avatar is 2.39:1. If you want to goad me for being condescending or pompous and claiming I have a trained eye, go ahead. I probably deserve some of it. I haven't done enough to back up my claims with visual evidence. But so far, no one has provided any solid argument for 1.78:1 as the proper 2D OAR.

I know I've said I was done multiple times, but hopefully after my next few posts I really will be. I took sometime to apply the 2.39:1 mattes to Kram Sacul's 1.78:1 screen grabs and I'm going to take some time to write up some visual analysis of why the 2.39:1 frame works better. I didn't do anything to the frame that Cameron didn't already do himself. Millions of people saw the film this way. In fact, my entire argument is that the mattes convey how Cameron originally framed these shots. Hopefully this will provide some insight for some into how composition factors into visual storytelling.

I'll start with a simple profile close up of Sigourney Weaver, presented in matted 2.39:1 below.



Now, from a storytelling perspective, what is this image doing? What is Cameron communicating to the audience with this image? What is he trying to convey?

This isn't a trick question. The answer is that Sigourney Weaver's character, Grace, is looking through a microscope. That's it.

The 2.39:1 frame is bounded to convey this simple act. The focus is on Grace's eyes as they look through the microscope. Now, what happens when we open up the matte to 1.78:1?



Not much you might say. Grace is still looking through that microscope. But let's look closer.

We get to see a lot more of her forehead at the top of the frame and her lips and jaw become visible on the bottom. A greater percentage of the frame is occupied by unfocused background due to the shallow depth of field of a long lens. From a storytelling perspective, what does this extra visual information add to the purpose of the shot?

Nothing. Grace's forehead isn't doing anything. Her lip and jaw aren't doing any talking. Nothing is going on in that fuzzy background. It's all extraneous detail.

Now, it would be hyperbolic to say that opening the mattes ruins the storytelling in the shot, but it does blunt the pointedness of the original 2.39:1 frame. There's a precision to the 2.39:1 framing that's lacking in the 1.78:1 frame. You may say that I'm overanalyzing a simple shot, but this is the process that good directors and cinematographers go through when framing their shots.

Between playoff games tomorrow I'll go through a few more examples where I'll mark up screen grabs to explain how the eye lines, balance and geometry all seem to be composed and designed for the 2.39:1 frame. Before that, however, I need to get some sleep. Hopefully this has been helpful.

I think the difference between people like us and people that were unimpressed is imagination, or rather how much desire and fun we have using it.

For me, this movie was an absolutely amazing experience. I have never in my life felt so "transported" to another world. After the first 20 minutes or so, I was so into it that I never questioned a visual as to whether it looked "realistic" or not. I simply looked at it with wonder and believed it was.

My wife, on the other hand, is not a sci-fi fan and would rather be watching a drama or something more reality based. That is her preference, and that's ok. I think she has trouble relating to things that are so far from her reality. She enjoyed it, but didn't have anywhere near the same experience I did.

But then I took my mother to see it (who is 64) and when I looked at her face after the movie it looked just like mine must have. She had just seen something that came closer than she would have believed to actually witnessing the ecosystem of another planet.

It didn't matter one bit if the basic story was similar to other things we have seen (what isn't??) or if a line of dialog was not read exactly as we would have said it. What mattered is that this experience was new and wonderful, and fired our imaginations, leaving us wanting to see everything else that may be on that planet.

And for the record I would just like to agree with everything Kyle D has said about the composition of the film. Both times I saw it was at 2.35:1 and I never saw a single shot that seemed the least bit cropped. Everything flowed just beautifully.

Looking forward to this. This is the kind of informed discussion I enjoy on AVS as opposed to, say, the tit-for-tat noise over on the movie review thread.

Part 2:

Now let's look at a 2.39:1 matted shot of Jake and some Marines in a dropship as they approach Pandora.



The first thing you'll likely notice is the red line I've marked extending from the approximate lower left corner of the frame to the approximate upper right. This red line marks the axis of mise en scene along which Cameron has arranged his actors, and it provides the audience with a guide line by which to move our gaze across the image.

Notice how this axis is angled to accentuate the dynamics of the 2.39:1 frame. Now let's open up the mattes.



Again, everything that's added is extraneous to the storytelling. In this case, it really is dead space, as there's just nothing there. Moreover, the axis now does nothing to accentuate the frame and appears to be angled awkwardly. Opening the mattes strips the shot of its dynamics and it just looks sloppy now.

Here's another shot with a marked axis that accentuates the 2.39:1 frame.





Again, the dynamics are stripped from the 1.78:1 version.

But let's also look at the storytelling purpose of the shot. Cameron is conveying the enormity and destructive prowess of the corporation's mining equipment.

In the 2.39:1 version, the big wheel and the dust it kicks up dominate the background of the frame. Even in this wide shot, the full extent of the wheel cannot be captured by the frame and it's left to the imagination to fully visualize its size.

In the 1.78:1 version, we see the top of the wheel and we see the sky above to give it proper scale. Somehow, the size of wheel now seems less impressive. The dust it kicks up occupies less percentage of the screen and isn't as overwhelming. The impact of the shot is diminished.

Taking a break for now. Will be back later with more examples.

what about when they fly to the tree of souls and on the 2.34:1 cropping you can barely see the forest and arches below and on the 1.78:1 you not only see straight ahead but the incredibly landscape they are flying over below, etc.?