[ilsiu]

EDIT: Title should read 1.78 vs 2.37


As the other Avatar thread was killed for various reasons, I'll try to keep this as factual as possible.


Fact: The Avatar blu-ray will have 16x9 aspect ratio.


Fact: In order to view Avatar blu-ray on a scope screen, the native image must either be distorted (stretched) or cropped.


The following are production stills provided by the studio that were published on many mainstream websites (imdb, yahoo, etc). They all started out with 16x9 aspect ratio. I can't say for sure they represent the exact images shown in the movie, but I can't think of a good reason why they would've been altered.


The left side is the native image as would be seen in a 16x9 display. The right side represents the 75% vertical center crop expanded to the same height, as would be displayed in a 2.37 display.


Scope afficianados keep in mind: every scene will need to be cropped in order to view in scope, even the ones that may suffer from cropping.


Image 1:

Image 2:

Image 3:

Image 4:

Image 5:

Image 6:

Image 7:

 

[HogPilot]

It seems that the theatrical 'scope presentation of this movie was not presented as a pure center crop from the 1.78:1 presentation of the film - whether or not the overall difference in center/not-center crop proves to be a major difference remains to be seen, but I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between the two to see how it was done.

 

[dvdvision]

Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/18429320


The right side represents the 75% vertical center crop expanded to the same height, as would be displayed in a 2.37 display

Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.

 

[Deke6]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18430215


Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.

I haven't seen this film, but are there any subtitles? That may be the biggest potential source of grief.

 

[Art Sonneborn]

Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?


art

 

[Gary Lightfoot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/18429320


Fact: In order to view Avatar blu-ray on a scope screen, the native image must either be distorted (stretched) or cropped.

Not strictly true, you could watch it as 1,78 in the center of the scope screen like you would normally. In this case we have the choice of full 1.78 or cropped to 2.37.


Gary

 

[Gary Lightfoot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18431343


Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?


art

I think it was meant to be, but in my local multiplex, the screen was 16:9 and masked down to scope and I saw it in 3D.


Gary

 

[LilGator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision /forum/post/18430170


Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html

This is correct, and accurate for Avatar. I refer to it as 2.39 vertical pan'n'scan within the full 1.78 frame.


Because of this, Avatar cannot be presented properly in any other way than 1.78 in the home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18430215


Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.

The images are missing a representation of the 2.39 presentation in theaters. Center cropping the 1.78 frame is a completely inaccurate/incorrect way to view this film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deke6 /forum/post/18430461


I haven't seen this film, but are there any subtitles? That may be the biggest potential source of grief.

Subtitles are within a safe area for a center 2.37 crop of the 1.78 frame. Unfortunately, this is the smallest potential problem.

 

[ilsiu]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/18431660


Not strictly true, you could watch it as 1,78 in the center of the scope screen like you would normally. In this case we have the choice of full 1.78 or cropped to 2.37.


Gary

True, I suppose it should have read "in order to completely fill a scope screen..."

 

[Art Sonneborn]

Really unfortunate (strange really) that this isn't being released as a scope title despite the fact that the 2D theatrical presentation was scope ratio.


Art

 

[ilsiu]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision /forum/post/18430170


Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18431343


Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?


art

I suspect both are you are correct: the theatrical scope 2D was 2.40 and was a vertical pan and scan extraction from the 1.78 presentation.


But that doesn't matter for the home version. Those that want to crop it to fit a scope screen will have to settle for a center crop for the entire movie (I suppose those that have a sophisticated video scaler can create custom crops that select the top, bottom, or anywhere in between; but they still can't dynamically adjust the crop appropriately for every scene).


The screenshots posted are a way to evaluate the two options for home viewing. You can view it in theatrical 1.78 OAR, or you can watch the center crop in scope. There is no way to watch it in theatrical 2D scope OAR at home. I was limited to screenshots that are already in public domain.


For the most part, if I wasn't aware of the 1.78 version, I probably wouldn't be bothered by the center crop. However, there was a image posted in the previous thread of the two Navi holding a bow and arrow, ~3/4 body shot, that I think clearly demonstrates that any cropping (top, center, bottom, wherever) significantly weakens the composition compared to the original 1.78. But I couldn't find it with a cursory google search.

 

[CAVX]

I fully get your point about the centre crop, however, just how much not seeing the tip of the arrow affects the scene remains to be seen. I can't remember the associated dialog for that scene, so even if they are talking about siting down the arrow, you're getting the point of what is happening. Out of all of the centre crops I've seen, I've not seen one that removes a head, so again head clipping should still be acceptable.

 

[LilGator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18433976


I fully get your point about the centre crop, however, just how much not seeing the tip of the arrow affects the scene remains to be seen. I can't remember the associated dialog for that scene, so even if they are talking about siting down the arrow, you're getting the point of what is happening. Out of all of the centre crops I've seen, I've not seen one that removes a head, so again head clipping should still be acceptable.

If a static center crop was never presented, it's not a valid way to view the film. Period. It's absolutely no different than cropping any other 1.78 film.


There is a valid, director-approved, 2.39 presentation. It was created via pan and scan from the 1.78 frame and CG elements were reworked to fit the shorter frame (such as GUI overlays).


Since Cameron hasn't, and probably never will release this presentation for the home, there is only one valid way to view Avatar- 1.78! This is fine really, because Cameron prefers the 1.78 presentation anyway.


You can create your own crop to fit your screen that you think looks OK- but this is no better than folks zooming 2.35 films to fill their 1.78 plasmas/LCDs, and quite frankly it's laughable that anyone would seriously consider doing it- especially in this subforum. Absolutely ridiculous.


We get to hear the tired old spiel about our eyes being more sensitive to vertical information as a reason to go CIH. To quote CAVX: "we are more sensitive to image height than image width".


Now the first thing you want to do with this film is chop 25% of it's vertical information! All framed, shot, modeled, animated, and rendered intended and even preferred to be seen by the viewer.


As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.


CIH is not a perfect solution, and because of it's limitations, won't present every film properly.


You have to compromise somewhere. Films like Avatar are an area where CIH users chose to compromise, but may not have realized it when they made that decision.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18434071


As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.

I didn't bother with side masks because most of what I watch is Scope, not 1.78:1. No doubt I will watch this in 1.78:1 after I have watched it "centre cropped" for Scope and based on which I prefer, will be the way I screen it in future. I see no reason what so ever to move my seating in closer as I already have a 2x the image height distance which works regardless of AR.

 

[Gary Lightfoot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18434071


As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.

This is one of the points that often gets ignored by zoomers despite it's being posted time and time again.


Those who use lenses do so because they sit close enough that 16:9 doesn't look too small, and at that distance zooming gives a distorted image due to enlarged pixel size. In order to get a more watchable image a lens with scaling must be used. Those who have done the back to back testing with a lens against zooming choose a lens because of this.


If you haven't done the back to back testing with a lens you don't know what you're missing and it's quite obvious from the comments they post that this is the case.


How many here who saw it at the cinema will be watching it again in the home though?


Gary

 

[ilsiu]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/18434362


...zooming gives a distorted image due to enlarged pixel size...

Okay this is off topic, but I'm going to be trivial and argue semantics

I understand your point, but I don't think distorted is an accurate description. Distortion refers to an inaccurate reproduction of a reference signal; e.g. pincushion distortion.


What you're describing is how zooming makes deficiencies inherent in the display (square pixels) more visible at a fixed viewing distance vs using a lens.


Anyway, whatever it's called, it isn't relevant to this thread, which is comparing the composition of 1.78 vs cropped 1.78 images (regardless if it's accomplished by zooming or lens).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/18434362


How many here who saw it at the cinema will be watching it again in the home though?

Me for one. I only saw it in 1.78 (IMAX 3D). I'll rent it and watch it both ways out of curiosity.

 

[Gary Lightfoot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/18434665


Okay this is off topic, but I'm going to be trivial and argue semantics

I understand your point, but I don't think distorted is an accurate description. Distortion refers to an inaccurate reproduction of a reference signal; e.g. pincushion distortion.

I'm inclined to agree to a degree, but one point of view is that we're meant to be seeing a certain level of sharpness when the BD is mastered on a plasma display, and that's how we're meant to be watching it (on the same kind of display). When you zoom the image, you are distorting the original intent since you are increasing the sharpness beyond what was intended. It's also suggested that when a disk is mastered on a plasma and we watch it on a pj, we're not seeing that as intended either. Of course, I'm sure that how we were originally intended to see it at the cinema there is a different intent there as well. I'd like to think that with the compromises projector owners go to to arrive at the theatrical intent in the home, we make the best compromises available to us to achieve the theatrical intent with a HDTV mastered disk, if you get my drift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/18434665


Anyway, whatever it's called, it isn't relevant to this thread, which is comparing the composition of 1.78 vs cropped 1.78 images (regardless if it's accomplished by zooming or lens).

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/18434665


Me for one. I only saw it in 1.78 (IMAX 3D). I'll rent it and watch it both ways out of curiosity.

I doubt I'll be watching it again for quite some time (if at all), and as I saw it as 3D in scope I'm not sure the movie I saw will ever be available!


Gary

 

[Josh Z]

Keep in mind that even if these examples are accurate, the cropping will likely not look as severe when the shots are in motion, the actors strutting to and fro, dragons bobbing up and down, and the camera weaving this way and that all around them.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator /forum/post/18434071


You can create your own crop to fit your screen that you think looks OK- but this is no better than folks zooming 2.35 films to fill their 1.78 plasmas/LCDs, and quite frankly it's laughable that anyone would seriously consider doing it- especially in this subforum. Absolutely ridiculous.

You've made your point. Now please move on.


We can all acknowledge that Cameron has, for his own peculiar reasons, decided to reframe the movie for 16:9 even though he originally composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1. Nonetheless, some of us are interested in discussing whether it's possible to recreate the original 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, for academic purposes if nothing else. We're getting tired of you constantly haranguing us about it.


This is not the same as cropping/distorting any other 1.85:1 movie to fit the screen. Avatar in 2-D was originally composed for 2.35:1, and many of us saw it presented that way theatrically. Those other 1.85:1 movies were not composed for 2.35:1. This is a different situation entirely.


You've argued your side of this debate. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. We're done with that now. Please stop.


As someone who has admitted to having absolutely no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Height at all, your continual posting in this forum is borderline trolling.