or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ? - Page 4

So it would seem James Cameron's new preference and maybe the best argument to not support or invest in 3D:

"Everybody thought that the highest and best viewing conditions for this movie were in 3D," Cameron explained, "but in 3D, what we struggle with is light levels. The polarized filtration of the projector cuts the light in half, and the 3D glasses cut it in half again. Everybody loves the stereoscopic illusion, so that's our trade-off. But part of the reason you're getting such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture here is because of the extra dynamic range you get with the brightness coming off the monitors. So there's something that actually comes back into the viewing experience - the vividness of the colours, the strength of the contrast - that you don't get in 3D."

On Blu-ray (and, to a lesser extent, on standard-definition DVD), those visuals spring back to life, with colours and shades that simply weren't discernable from behind dark polarized glasses. And it's not some post-facto trickery, either; it's the way "Avatar" has always looked.

Thanks for the information Josh Z!

http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/movi...entid=23942281

### AVS Top Picks

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

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.

To those not as familiar with CIH as CAVX, note that all of the above is predicated on the assumption that all films conform to CIH constraints: the height must always be the same, so rectangles are always bigger than squares.

The next question to consider: is CIH an inviolate law of film composition?

Addendum: ratio doesn't describe size. 2:1 = 4:2 = 8:4, etc. 1:1 = 2:2 = 10:10, etc. So 10:10 > 4:2 is a meaningless statement unless it's qualified by relating either the first/second value in the first ratio to the first/second value in the second ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

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

This is ridiculous.

Avatar 2.39 and Avatar 1.78 have an IDENTICAL amount of width information.

Avatar 1.78 is 25% TALLER than Avatar 2.39. Therefore, it is LARGER. Period.

You can play silly little games, but you can't change facts.

I will stack the 2.39 frame above the 1.78 frame so that you can see, both are identical in width, but the 1.78 frame is taller:

2.39:

1.78:
I guess the answer to the thread title is no Cameron will not likely go 1.78 from here at least not as any kind of rule.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

To those not as familiar with CIH as CAVX, note that all of the above is predicated on the assumption that all films conform to CIH constraints: the height must always be the same, so rectangles are always bigger than squares.

The next question to consider: is CIH an inviolate law of film composition?

Addendum: ratio doesn't describe size. 2:1 = 4:2 = 8:4, etc. 1:1 = 2:2 = 10:10, etc. So 10:10 > 4:2 is a meaningless statement unless it's qualified by relating either the first/second value in the first ratio to the first/second value in the second ratio.

I believe 16x9 or 1.78:1 is a relatively new aspect in the grand scheme of things. Dr. Kerns Powers proposed it as a compromise format while working for the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production in the early 1990's. The compromise is of course having one rectangle that can circumscribe the others used for both film and TV.

Shoot and Protect Technique will compensate for scope 2.35:1 or 1.78:1 inside a scope format. In other words, you can shoot 2.35 with the main action framed for 1.78 CIH inside the 2.35 frame and loose nothing for 1.78 with the expanded vista for 2.35 where applicable. The other way to do it would be to shoot the 2.35 rectangle inside the 1.78. To me it doesn't make sense to do this as you loose height in the scope format where as you preserve height for both aspects with Shoot and Protect.

I don't know how Avatar was shot.
"Of course, I'm in love with the Blu-ray format; I think it's spectacular. It's the absolute equal... of the digital projection formats."

I couldn't believe I was reading that statement.

Anyone who has actually compared a BD with a DCP will attest to the difference in capability being very significant indeed. Im also willing to bet that Mr Cameron is very well aware of that, and why it is.

BD is well short of providing the maximum PQ available from a high quality 1080p machine......well short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry

I don't know how Avatar was shot.

It's illustrated two posts above yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine

"Of course, I'm in love with the Blu-ray format; I think it's spectacular. It's the absolute equal... of the digital projection formats."

I couldn't believe I was reading that statement.

Anyone who has actually compared a BD with a DCP will attest to the difference in capability being very significant indeed. Im also willing to bet that Mr Cameron is very well aware of that, and why it is.

BD is well short of providing the maximum PQ available from a high quality 1080p machine......well short.

I had the same puzzled reaction to that statement. It makes you wonder what was edited out and replaced by the ellipses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator

It's illustrated two posts above yours.

Sorry, with no offense to you, yours is simply an illustration two posts above. There is nothing to document how it was shot or framed or if it is from the original.

I do a lot of work in China and have seen too many copies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z

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.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part, which is a summation from the writer of the linked article.

This Cameron statement:

"Everybody thought that the highest and best viewing conditions for this movie were in 3D," Cameron explained, "but in 3D, what we struggle with is light levels. The polarized filtration of the projector cuts the light in half, and the 3D glasses cut it in half again. Everybody loves the stereoscopic illusion, so that's our trade-off. But part of the reason you're getting such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture here is because of the extra dynamic range you get with the brightness coming off the monitors. So there's something that actually comes back into the viewing experience - the vividness of the colours, the strength of the contrast - that you don't get in 3D."

implies to me that there is a trade-off where you lose brightness/vividness in order to achieve the 3D effect. I don't think he says that he'd take the vivid 2D presentation over the less vivid 3D version.

My take is that he's trying to promote the 2D release, essentially saying to prospective buyers that if they can only view the 2D version, don't feel short-changed because it actually has more vivid/dynamic colors to make up for the lost 3D effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry

Shoot and Protect Technique will compensate for scope 2.35:1 or 1.78:1 inside a scope format. In other words, you can shoot 2.35 with the main action framed for 1.78 CIH inside the 2.35 frame and loose nothing for 1.78 with the expanded vista for 2.35 where applicable. The other way to do it would be to shoot the 2.35 rectangle inside the 1.78. To me it doesn't make sense to do this as you loose height in the scope format where as you preserve height for both aspects with Shoot and Protect.

I don't know how Avatar was shot.

I though it was generally accepted that scope Avatar generated by second method: 2.35 inside the 1.78.

"Basically," Cameron said, "what we did was we finished the picture in 16:9, and then we extracted the CinemaScope (version). This was when we were mastering the film for the theatrical release." When it came time to create the video version, "we didn't do pan-scan or blowups or anything; we just went straight back to the 16:9 master."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator

I had the same puzzled reaction to that statement.

Thats interesting, I'm always keen to read of the experience of others.

What movies, if any, have you directly compared BD with DCP. If you have, I'd be very interested to read how you accomplished that, and what equipment you used. What were the differences, and to what do you attribute them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

Addendum: ratio doesn't describe size. 2:1 = 4:2 = 8:4, etc. 1:1 = 2:2 = 10:10, etc. So 10:10 > 4:2 is a meaningless statement unless it's qualified by relating either the first/second value in the first ratio to the first/second value in the second ratio.

Which is exactly what the ratios 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 do, except some people still don't seem to get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator

This is ridiculous.

Totally

Quote:

Avatar 1.78 is 25% TALLER than Avatar 2.39. Therefore, it is LARGER. Period.

Actually, by your example, the 1.78:1 is actually 33% taller.
1080 x 0.75 = 810 and 810 x 1.33* = 1080.

Quote:

You can play silly little games, but you can't change facts.

Yep, see above.

Quote:

I will stack the 2.39 frame above the 1.78 frame so that you can see, both are identical in width, but the 1.78 frame is taller:

2.39:

1.78:

On an IMAX screen Vs a CinemaScope screen, the above example may very well be true, however once this comes out on BD, it is going to look more like my images below on our Scope screens.

Simulation of Full frame 1.78:1 on CIH system

Simulation of image after Scaling and Optical expansion for CIH

Both images are the same height and I have simply centre cropped the bottom image to simulate how it should look after scaling and optical expansion used for CIH.

Yes some information above and below is lost, however, it will take subtitles a worse case of "head clipping" to prevent me and other CIH (with a lens) owners from being able to watch this film presented this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

Which is exactly what the ratios 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 do, except some people still don't seem to get that.

I stress again to anybody else following this discussion, that only applies to CIH. If someone doesn't believe that all films conform to the CIH standard, then they won't agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

Simulation of Full frame 1.78:1 on CIH system

Simulation of image after Scaling and Optical expansion for CIH

Both images are the same height and I have simply centre cropped the bottom image to simulate how it should look after scaling and optical expansion used for CIH.

Yes some information above and below is lost, however, it will take subtitles a worse case of "head clipping" to prevent me and other CIH (with a lens) owners from being able to watch this film presented this way.

The center crop looks very uncomfortable to me. Her eye is way too close to the top edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

The center crop looks very uncomfortable to me. Her eye is way too close to the top edge.

Hence the reason that the 'scope crop presented in theaters was NOT a straight center crop. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

The center crop looks very uncomfortable to me. Her eye is way too close to the top edge.

That's why I'm watching it in it's OAR. It's benefits well in my setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

I stress again to anybody else following this discussion, that only applies to CIH. If someone doesn't believe that all films conform to the CIH standard, then they won't agree with that.

Quote:

it's qualified by relating either the first/second value in the first ratio to the first/second value in the second ratio.

and I've simply added in the other numbers. Also because we always go width then height, the :1 means the same height. So what is there to not agree with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu

The center crop looks very uncomfortable to me. Her eye is way too close to the top edge.

In this scene, maybe. This does not represent the look of the entire film though. We will find out in a few days time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

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.

You can't 3D the last one (#11) as the two images are not at the same moment in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo

You can't 3D the last one (#11) as the two images are not at the same moment in time.

They all should work. There may very well be timing issue as one pause actually caught two completely different images ie on a scene change one eye advanced faster than the other.

The one with Sam Worthington in the wheel chair works the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine

Thats interesting, I'm always keen to read of the experience of others.

What movies, if any, have you directly compared BD with DCP. If you have, I'd be very interested to read how you accomplished that, and what equipment you used. What were the differences, and to what do you attribute them?

I think you're reading too far into what I said. What I should have said is that when reading that linked interview, the same statement popped out at me and I said, "man, wait until coldmachine reads this- he'll have an aneurysm."

Honestly, just on paper the spec'd differences show they aren't equal in many ways. I understand that, and assumed Cameron did as well.

The last couple trips to the theater have been film and digital 3D for me, but I do remember Star Trek on a Barco, and I would love to see a Blu-ray sourced setup looking that good.

Now, what are your thoughts on this (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=662)?

Quote:

Upon our arrival at Panasonic Hollywood Labs, we were escorted directly through the courtyard of the Universal Pictures corporate headquarters. It seems that all of the brilliant Blu-ray work turned out by PHL happens, literally, under the noses of Universal. Our first stop within PHL was the Panasonic Digital Theater. This room exists as a large screening facility where Blu-ray encodes are projected via 2k projector onto a massive one hundred foot screen so that they can be scrutinized for any flaws or encoding errors. As we were welcomed to the event by Panasonic Vice President of Corporate Development and General Manager of the Blu-ray Disc Group, Eisuke Tsuyuzaki, and introduced to many visiting executives, a beautiful 2k projection of Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was put up on the massive screen. As the introductions were completed it was announced that what we had actually been viewing was a split-screen presentation where one half of the picture was the 2k master and the other half was directly from the Blu-ray version of the film. To our astonishment, not a single attendee was able to correctly guess which side was which. PHL strives to produce truly transparent encodes for Blu-ray and this demonstration was a clear statement of just the kind of quality that PHL is capable of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

On an IMAX screen Vs a CinemaScope screen, the above example may very well be true, however once this comes out on BD, it is going to look more like my images below on our Scope screens.

Simulation of Full frame 1.78:1 on CIH system

Simulation of image after Scaling and Optical expansion for CIH

Both images are the same height and I have simply centre cropped the bottom image to simulate how it should look after scaling and optical expansion used for CIH.

Yes some information above and below is lost, however, it will take subtitles a worse case of "head clipping" to prevent me and other CIH (with a lens) owners from being able to watch this film presented this way.

I know how all of this works, I've posted illustrations of this multiple times.

Center cropping the 1.78 frame is an invalid way to view this film. As you say, it won't stop you from doing it, and that's fine. The irony here is fantastic though, as I've heard so many times from people zooming 2.39 to fit their 1.78 plasmas, "I'm not losing anything important, and now it fills my screen!".

Your setup cannot properly display a 1.78 frame that is intended to be identical in width to a 2.39 frame, as this film is.

Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39- CIH is compromised such that this is not a possibility.
Has anyone considered a constant image area screen of about 2.0:1? Masking is minimal for either 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 (or anything in between) It seems to me this is the best bang for the buck and future proof screen. My next screen, being built now, will be a 2.0:1.

Anthony Grimani is pushing this with his "PMI 2.0" http://www.youtube.com/user/pmiengineering

As you can see, both 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 both look big!

Dr V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinculum

Has anyone considered a constant image area screen of about 2.0:1? Masking is minimal for either 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 (or anything in between) It seems to me this is the best bang for the buck and future proof screen. My next screen, being built now, will be a 2.0:1.

Anthony Grimani is pushing this with his "PMI 2.0" http://www.youtube.com/user/pmiengineering

As you can see, both 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 both look big!

Dr V

Several folks on AVS use the concept.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

and I've simply added in the other numbers.

Please don't quote me out of context. You added the bolded part; I imposed no conditions on the comparison, you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

Also because we always go width then height, the :1 means the same height. So what is there to not agree with?

Obviously you agree with the conditions you imposed. What others may disagree with is the assumption that :1 always means the same height.

Consider a 56 inch 21:9 TV and a 56 inch 16:9 TV. Does the fact that they both specify :9 mean they have the same height? This question isn't specifically directed to CAVX.
Scope was designed be the same height and wider than the existing screen when it was developed by Fox back in the 50s:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide...sb2-page00.htm

Page 20:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaScope Manual

1) Can a picture of twice the width of the present picture be secured within the proscenium, or must it be brought forward of the proscenium, thereby shortening the throw, or must structural alterations be arranged which might either shorten or lengthen the throw?

2) Should your projection angle to the horizontal be 14 - 15 degrees or more, can the screen frame in the position you desire to place it be tilted to the rear to approximately 6- 7 degrees?

3) When a patron is seated in any seat, would he be able to see the top and bottom of a picture of the present height and twice the present width, if the screen position is approximately the same as at present? Likewise, will he be able to see the top and bottom of a similar picture should the screen be brought forward or placed to the rear of its present position?

Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX

Yes some information above and below is lost, however, it will take subtitles a worse case of "head clipping" to prevent me and other CIH (with a lens) owners from being able to watch this film presented this way.

CAVX, wouldn't you prefer to watch this Blu-ray movie in its OAR? After all, thats what everybody strives to achieve mostly on these forums isn't it? Why would you even want to consider cropping the image (on the Blu-ray disc that I presume Cameron himself has signed off on), to make it fit your requirements?

Thats the same as me, 'zooming' a 'scope movie to eliminate the black bars top and bottom of the image, and would rightly be considered hearsay.

I have a 16:9 projection screen. When me and my son watch Pinocchio on this screen, we watch it 1.33:1, with black bars down the sides. I respect and preserve the presentation (ie aspect ratio) given to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a CIH setup, and I'm researching this as a possibility sometime in the future. But I'm pretty sure Avatar would look pretty stunning, presented in its 1.85:1 on ANY respectable setup.

Do you crop other films?
You and others continue to not see the difference between zooming Pinocchio and Avatar. In the 1940's, no one in the general public ever saw a zoomed 1.85 presentation of the animated classic. However, a substantial portion (dare I guess and say a majority?) of the general public saw Avatar in 'Scope. I did ... and I really liked seeing it in that format. So Cameron can say what he wants now, but when I was putting my Real Dollars down to see it in Real3D, it was served up for me in 'Scope.

Lots of European productions (early Bond films) were shot and presented in 1.66 over there (I'm here in the US) ... but, for us, the OAR was 1.85. Now, when those films are released on BD, they're in 1.66. But I watch them in 1.85 ... because that's how I originally saw them.

For me, Avatar's OAR was 'Scope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

Scope was designed be the same height and wider than the existing screen when it was developed by Fox back in the 50s:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide...sb2-page00.htm

Page 20:

Gary

Technically, "CinemaScope" is obsolete and was abandoned by Fox in the late 60's.

Either way, it has zero relevance to Avatar anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell

You and others continue to not see the difference between zooming Pinocchio and Avatar. In the 1940's, no one in the general public ever saw a zoomed 1.85 presentation of the animated classic. However, a substantial portion (dare I guess and say a majority?) of the general public saw Avatar in 'Scope. I did ... and I really liked seeing it in that format. So Cameron can say what he wants now, but when I was putting my Real Dollars down to see it in Real3D, it was served up for me in 'Scope.

Lots of European productions (early Bond films) were shot and presented in 1.66 over there (I'm here in the US) ... but, for us, the OAR was 1.85. Now, when those films are released on BD, they're in 1.66. But I watch them in 1.85 ... because that's how I originally saw them.

For me, Avatar's OAR was 'Scope.

Since Cameron has not released the "scope OAR" to us, your only option is to watch in the 1.78 OAR, or create your own hack job of the film by center cropping it. This of course is not identical to the 2.39 presentation in theaters, and thus is not a valid OAR.
CAVX just has to use his anamorphic lens , even when the original film is 16:9! I like scope too, but not to the extent of cropping my 16:9 movies and throwing away 33% of the original picture. For people who are so obsessed on maximizing PQ for scope presentations, it always suprises me how readily the A-lens people are to compromize the presentation of their 16:9 material.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
• After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ?