After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ? - Page 2  

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely agree there.


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.

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.

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.

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

He will do it properley but his concerns other movies which has nothing to do with him, Where the transfer won't be great because they rush it.

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.

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!

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

Art

I would like to see it confined to sci-fi and some kids movies.

So you have seen Madeline in 3D then?

Do you mean Coraline?

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).

Too late.

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.

Yes I did, sorry for wrong name.


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.



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.

I agree fantastic film!

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?

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.

Avatar isn't being cropped. It was filmed in 1.78:1, so you're actually getting MORE information watching it in 1.78:1 vs. 2.35:1...

Maybe they think there would not be enough profit to justify releasing another version in scope.

Exactly

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).