After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ? - Page 3  

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.

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.

Oh, I see. He is one of "those" people.

I watched how to train your dragon in 3D today which it was fantastic I noticed that the 3D was more to the centre of the screen which got me thinking cropping some of these films I guess you will still be able to appreciate the same effect but at a wider scale.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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


Agreed and the beauty constant image height And lilgator thinks CIH is compromised

I hope so!




we have the best of both worlds!

Having a "good" picture at a "good" size is fine, but very subjective.

Avatar is meant to be the same width as any other 2.39 film in your system, just taller.

In this regard, CIH is compromised. It does not include this possibility.

All well and good except for one glaring omission: Avatar in 2D was released in theaters as scope. It makes sense to release the 2D version for the home the same.

There are tons of scope films made/ released in scope on BD despite the fact that scope displays in the home are a small percentage of the overall number. This is called OAR and the OAR 2D Avatar was scope.



Art

Scratching my head with this comment?

It's no more compromised than the theaters that showed the film on their scope sized screen that was masked to give a 16x9 viewing.

I find it even more interesting that the commercials I've seen on TV this week promoting Avatars release this Thursday are showing the film in 2.35 on my 16x9 TV; black bars and all.

What "makes sense" to a given person and what the director explicitly prefers are two different things. Avatar is not a scope film, it is a 1.78 film. It was modified as a compromise to better fit 2.39 screens.


"No more compromised" is still 100% compromised.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about it. Avatar was shot as a 1.78 film.

Because there are many theaters that show a wimpy 1.78 size (CIH), they compromised with a pan'n'scan 2.39 release for those theaters.

Since Blu-ray is all about giving everyone the best PQ and Cameron's preference being 1.78, that is what we have.

The OAR for Avatar was 1.78, the MAR (Modified Aspect Ratio) was 2.39.

In the case of a film like say Gladiator, OAR is 2.39 and MAR is 1.78 (opening the mattes would be the "modification", where Avatar's was crop/pan'n'scan).

Wishing for that 2.39 BD to be released because it "fits" your screen? Fine, it's just not likely to happen.

The point is, the 1.78 frame is intended to be displayed the same width as any other 2.39 film, just taller. CIW (most FP setups, all LCD/Plasmas), 1.78 masked CIH (method CAVX has mentioned), 1.78 CIA or VIS setups have this capability.

Now take any OAR 2.39 film and you've now found the compromise of your typical CIW setup; those films are not meant to be the same width as a 1.85 film obviously.

I don't know why it's so much to sweat about, as of now there are only three films, TDK, TF2, and Avatar that are definitely compromised on a CIH setup (with the 1.78 frames), and the first two have 2.39 releases anyway. The relative height of everything else, 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, etc... are all debatable.

It was a film intended to be shown and shown in 2D as scope. This isn't anything that can be argued with. The theaters weren't modifying it on the fly. Showing the 2D version as shown in 2D DCI theaters makes more sense than showing only as it was shown in 3D on a 2D home displays instead of the way it was shown theatrically on 2D installs.

You can say that it was a 1.78 film period but it was shown (intentionally) as scope AR in 2D.

Art

Sorry, I've never seen or been to a commercial theater sporting two different screens. Modern theaters, with the exception of the IMAX's, tend to have horizontally masked 2.35's for anything less. Every theater in my neck of the woods that showed the film in 3D, with the exception of the IMAX's, showed the film on masked scope screens.

I live in a state with a population of 10 million. There are 1,313 screens in the state; most are scope. http://boxofficemojo.com/showtimes/t...e&id=MI&p=.htm

I would wager most of the world saw it that way in 3D. I guess Cameron's preference was compromised from the beginning.

I still wonder why Cameron's preference is not being used for the TV advertising trailers.

Except this director shot for scope (hence why all the trailers are Scope) originally using a 1.78:1 digital camera array (2 cameras for 3D) then decided due to technical limitations of 3D*, to open the matts to give the image more height. I am betting Cameron experienced the same thing.

* I've both read (in the AVS 3D section) and experienced for myself, 3D images tend to look smaller than the same image in 2D.


No. When scaled for CIH, it is a 25% loss or compromise vertically, not 100%. 100% would mean no image at all.


And so was Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3, yet those film are Scope and based on that logic, all Scope films shot using Super 35s are therefore 1.33:1! I DON'T THINK SO!


Here he goes again trying to convince us all that 1.78:1 is actually larger than 2.39:1. I wonder if two piles of money ($178 and $239) were placed in front of him and he was instructed to take the LARGER amount if he'd still go for the $178 pile? Of course based on his CIA logic, they'd both be the same

My experience as well. all of the commercial theaters in my area ,except IMAX, are scope AR with side masking.

Max

I would suggest that those that are unfamiliar with CIH consider the above quote very carefully. Does shape (aspect ratio) and size (area) describe the same thing? Is a rectangle always larger than a square?

There is not too many that post in this forum that are not familiar with CIH.

When using the SAME unit of measure (mm, inches, feet, yards, meter etc) and the side of the square and the short side of the rectangle are both 1 unit, then yes the rectangle is larger.

Of course lilgator will have a come back that will suggest otherwise. Most likely he will stick to his theory that the long side of the rectangle is 1, so therefore the square is larger (taller).

We are actually comparing two rectangles, 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 where the :1 is the common link here. Of course we have been down this road before.

We all have to take anything James Cameron says about his intentions for the movie after-the-fact to promote the Blu-ray with a grain of salt. Now, he's even saying that he prefers it in 2-D over 3-D. Somehow, I suspect that his story will change when the 3-D Blu-ray is ready.

PRICELESS all the way to the bank.