Is Avatar going to be available for general purchase in February

I'm assuming you mean avatar in 3D? You've always been able to buy it.

I'm also sure he means other than off eBay for 80-90 dollars, or without purchasing a Panasonic tv, htib, or blu ray player.

There has been no announcement concerning the release of AVATAR on 3D BD to retailers.

This is still on the Panasonic website:


http://www.panasonic.com/3D/

i just sent my rebate in and the offer is till the end of feb. and must be postmarked by march 31 so I doubt it would be any time before then.

Really? Why hasn't Avatar been released in 3D in mass quantity? And who's responsible?

Blame Fox and Panasonic.

I hope it released to the general public soon as I for one am hanging for this to come out - but refuse to pay $80 - $90 for it on eBay!

For what it's worth Comcast has had it on demand this whole time. Obviously not the same as the hard copy would be but it should hold most people over, if of course you have Comcast

Hmm, i think clarity and detail are part of the foundation of good 3D. HD makes a scene look real, 3D makes the scene appear before you. I don't imagine that comcast stream coming in at over 720p would it? Maybe streaming Avatar is a major cause of all this lack of enthusiasm for 3D. I would think so, after seeing what youtube compression does to my already compressed recordings.

Comcast On Demand is a completely different experience than streaming Internet content. Not even in the same league. And they use 1080i SBS, not 720p T&B.

Having said that, a 3D BD disk in full 1080p would look significantly better than any On Demand 3D from any provider.

Cameron is no doubt disappointed that real-d, which he's on the board of directors of, couldn't work out a deal with samsung to make full 1080p w/ passive glasses hdtv's. I wonder if this might make him hesitant to release the 3D blu-ray out into the wild, knowing that the ideal equipment with which to view it doesn't even exist yet.

Saturation of the marketplace might also be a factor. They just did two BD releases in 2010. People might not be as anxious to buy it a third time just to get it in 3D. Maybe they'll wait a while.

I certainly hope they make this a 3D upgrade of the existing 2D ultimate collector's edition. It would be stupid to take a step back and make this little more than the Panasonic version, only retail this time.

It looks fantastic in 3D and was worth the purchase of a worthless Panasonic BD player to get it. Whenever someone wants a demo of 3D, I whip out Avatar.

+1

Jacob

The ideal equipment already exists, FPR Passive 3D.

I watched Avatar on 3D BD and then watched a clip of Comcast on-demand and it was surprisingly good but just not on the same level. I would have no problem watching it on-demand if I didn't have the BD but of course the BD is better. On a projector I'm sure the difference would be bigger but on a 55 inch screen the on-demand version is watchable. I would think it would be cheaper to buy a Panasonic bd player and get Avatar and sell the bd player used than to buy one off Ebay.

I'm tired of waiting. I just found it for $25 on a site called ChinaBluray.com. The site appears to be legit. They even sent me a 5% off coupon code for my first order. Yeah - it's a Chinese version, but I lucked out w/ Chinese versions of Bolt and Alice in Wonderland. Once you start watching the movie, there's no difference.

You got Alice from the same place?

Is the one that going to be released next month going to be the same as the one Panasonic has? I always thought they would probably release a different version of the 3D Avatar? Maybe add something more extra features than the one Panasonic had?

It's a bootleg site: https://www.chinabluray.com/faq.php#37

Now knowing that and buying from that site, would that open the BUYER up for legal consequences?

Where did you read or hear that? Certainly not in this thread.

My bad...somehow I missed that.

I don't think Avatar 3D will be released for sale until a few months before the release of the Avatar sequel, so it might be a year to two before you see it for sale.

I dont see that happening in light of this news:
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-...s-away-1054261

Remember that the Panasonic agreement was till Nov 2011 and they only added on three months which hardly sounds like a huge postponement.
My guess is it had something to do with Fox/Cameron wanting 3D more in the spotlight when the Titanic 3D conversion comes out in theaters.

Think of how many people are waiting for a legit copy extrapolated from the responses on this thread alone, and, yes, thats a huge market so its coming out this year for sure.

540p per eye. It's not ideal until it's 1080p per eye.

"540p" is a weird way to put it, since each eye is receiving what is better approximated as a 1080i interlaced frame. If you are acknowledging that the brain fuses it into a progressive image ("p"), the result is a full 1080p frame at any given moment. Unless you assume the human brain is throwing away half the image, which I have no reason to believe is true.

Active shutter glasses don't display a separate 1080p image simultaneously to both eyes, so I'm not sure why you'd demand it of passive glasses.

See also (which you likely have already):
http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...PR-Report-.jpg
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc3E...eature=related

It sounds like he's saying one eye sees the odd lines (1,3,5,7...1079), the other eye sees the even lines because a polarization strip is placed on each row... The image shown though is 1920x540 for each eye. It's not interlaced, and the brain does not fuse together the images. Though towards the middle he discusses a new way to show 1080p to each eye wearing passive glasses using a passive/active hybrid on the screen... this sounds interesting.

True, but fused together it's only one 1080p frame, about 2 million pixels total. With a 1080p active display you would get two different full 1080p images sequentially, 4 million pixels total.


It's not simultaneous of course but it's fast enough that we perceive the two images to be displayed at the same time, though some people can see flicker. With passive, you're stuck with the same 2 million pixels (an exception is LG's passive implementation, though I don't know how effective it is in practice). This isn't to put down passive, I think it's great on balance and 2 million pixels is still plenty of detail, but just to be objective, 4 million is better than 2 and active shutter has the advantage here.


I hope they realize that some, like me, have been skipping the 2D releases, patiently waiting for the 3D Blu-ray!