Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn
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
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.
Originally Posted by b curry
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.
"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.