Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Since no polarized displays are actually planned for commercial release, I think "almost all" covers it

Don't you mean "precisely none" covers it? How can you use polarized glasses with a non-polarized display?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Since no polarized displays are actually planned for commercial release, I think "almost all" covers it

Has JVC pulled plans for its polarized sets?

BTW, the LG 3D projector uses polarized (circular) eyewear (though I realize that the discussion here is really aiming at direct-view).

[Jeff Kleist]

These aren't polarized, they're LCD shutter glasses

No one has announced a polarized set for retail yet. Yes I expect Polarized projectors, but LCD shutter is the standard, and I don't expect that anyone is going to launch more than a handful of sets that devate from that.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Sigh. Did you bother to read what was explained?

The *native* filmed and edited image was 1.78:1. IMAX viewers saw it natively. 2.35:1 theatrical projections, however, CROPPED the image top/bottom. The reason it was shown 2.35:1 anywhere at all was bcs Cameron wanted viewers to see the biggest most immersive image... and since most commercial theaters are constant height, 2.35:1 projection was the way to maximize the size in the theater. Since IMAX is constant width, the native 1.78 image was the "biggest", as it will also be on 16x9 screens.

No, I didn't see the explanation.

So theatrically it was released in 2.35 and 1.78. So either would be considered OAR. I prefer 2.35, most prefer 1.78. To each their own.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

These aren't polarized, they're LCD shutter glasses

Those are shutter glasses?! Wow, that technology's progressed! That's pretty incredible, if the black level's decent. Are they wireless?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by phansson

No, I didn't see the explanation.

So theatrically it was released in 2.35 and 1.78. So either would be considered OAR.

Not exactly. It was shown theatrically in 2 ways, but the original aspect ratio is 1.78 which is the full image as intended for optimal presentations by the director.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Not exactly. It was shown theatrically in 2 ways, but the original aspect ratio is 1.78 which is the full image as intended for optimal presentations by the director.

I was under the impression that a lot of movies are filmed in 1.78 and then cropped later by the director, knowing that the finished film would be 2.35. King Kong comes to mind. So wouldn't you say that the AR of King Kong is 2.35 even though it is shown "open matte" 1.78 on HBO/Cinemax occasionally?

Do you also not think that Cameron knew that the film would be shown in different AR's and took into that into account?

Bottom line for me is this, I saw the movie twice in 2.35. That is an OAR in my book......

This is a moot argument, you want it 1.78 so it will fill your screen, I would prefer 2.35 so it will fill mine. We will not agree on the subject.

[Jeff Kleist]

Those are shutter glasses?! Wow, that technology's progressed! That's pretty incredible, if the black level's decent. Are they wireless?

All the LCD glasses look like that. The Samsung ones I tried tonight were comfortable and fit well over glasses. They're all wireless and receive an IR sync signal from a transmitter hooked into the TV or built into it.

The correct AR of Avatar is whatever Cameron decides it is. Easy enough

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

All the LCD glasses look like that. The Samsung ones I tried tonight were comfortable and fit well over glasses. They're all wireless and receive an IR sync signal from a transmitter hooked into the TV or built into it.

The correct AR of Avatar is whatever Cameron decides it is. Easy enough

Snap, step back, Jeff has spoken and he's right, guess we'll just have to live with whatever AR James decides to give us.

[Vincent Pereira]

I'm not trying to start a fight, DaViD. I'm simply pointing out that if the 2.4:1 version- which WAS released theatrically and obviously a lot of people saw it that way- is a simple center crop with equal amount matted top-and-bottom, that it could be presented on Blu-ray with BOTH viewing options available by offering the 2.4:1 matte as a subtitle overlay. Is that really such an objectionable idea to you?

Vincent

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

but why? the 2.35:1 projection was non-optimal and is not the native aspect ratio or Cameron's preferred vision... it was just means to an end to get the biggest picture possible for 3D audiences in 2.35:1 set ups.

The irony is that the Real3D theaters I saw it at (two of them) were constant width! They literally matted down the top and bottom from the 1.85:1 trailers at the opening to the 2.35 feature film. Had Cameron realized this was going to happen on those screens, he would have insisted on a 1.85 projection for these Real3D screens which, ironically, act more like IMAX than they do conventional screens in terms of aspect ratio adjustment.

At least on the BD we'll be getting it right: 1.78:1.

[NL197]

I wasn't able to see it in IMAX (a decision I regret every time I think about it, like right now...dammit) but I did see it twice at two different theaters in RealD - first time was 'roughly' 1.78 or possibly 1.85, I say roughly because it didn't fill the width of the screen exactly and was difficult to determine, while my second time was definitely 2.35. Neither presentation had issues with regards to cropping or anything, but I'd prefer a 1.78 for home viewing.

[Jeff Kleist]

I say roughly because it didn't fill the width of the screen exactly and was difficult to determine,

Sounds like the anamorphic lens wasn't engaged

[DaViD Boulet]

I was under the impression that a lot of movies are filmed in 1.78 and then cropped later by the director, knowing that the finished film would be 2.35. King Kong comes to mind. So wouldn't you say that the AR of King Kong is 2.35 even though it is shown "open matte" 1.78 on HBO/Cinemax occasionally?

A film that's shot on 4x3 or 16x9 film stock and then matted to 2.35:1 as the director's intended aspect ratio is not the same thing as when the director intends for the ideal aspect ratio to be 1.78, but only opts for 2.35 in special cases as in the case of Cameron with wanting to get the "biggest" image in each venue possible, even if it meant deviating from his intended aspect ratio and composition.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

I'm not trying to start a fight, DaViD. I'm simply pointing out that if the 2.4:1 version- which WAS released theatrically and obviously a lot of people saw it that way- is a simple center crop with equal amount matted top-and-bottom, that it could be presented on Blu-ray with BOTH viewing options available by offering the 2.4:1 matte as a subtitle overlay. Is that really such an objectionable idea to you?

Vincent

Of course that's not objectionable. I'm only taking point with the notion that the two aspect ratios are somehow equally representative of the director's true vision. As to providing both on the disc, sure, why not, it if didn't impact image quality or bit-rate as a black-out subtitle feature would permit without bit-rate penalty.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

All the LCD glasses look like that. The Samsung ones I tried tonight were comfortable and fit well over glasses. They're all wireless and receive an IR sync signal from a transmitter hooked into the TV or built into it.

That's impressive. Did you get a chance to compare 3D and 2D viewing on the Samsung? Beyond the less-than-ideal viewing-environment reflection issues you described, can you share any impressions of the relative light outputs? Since the glasses are no doubt tuned for sufficient light rejection in shuttered state, I'm curious how compromised they are when "open".

[Jeff Kleist]

Impossible to tell real world results due to stor lighting and the glare. I didn't feel it was dim though, and unlike my old master system glasses, looking at other light sources didn't produce any flicker (unless I specifically really looked for it for several seconds, then I'd notice an afterthought of a blip of flicker)

[Jeff Kleist]

before anyone asks about power, they take watch batteries and will do about 50 movies. There are rechargeables, but they carry a hefty premium

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

before anyone asks about power, they take watch batteries and will do about 50 movies. There are rechargeables, but they carry a hefty premium

is it true the rechargable ones dont have a long "battery life" ie have to be charged between every 2-3 movie viewings ?

[Jeff Kleist]

I don't know, I haven't used them. I wouldn't be suprised though. Small and light batteries need to fit in the glasses. If you can watch 3 movies on a charge, not a big deal

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

All the LCD glasses look like that. The Samsung ones I tried tonight were comfortable and fit well over glasses. They're all wireless and receive an IR sync signal from a transmitter hooked into the TV or built into it.

This is good news to hear since home theater had said the glasses were heavy. It makes me think they are kind of in that middle area where if you wear glasses they are not too bad but if you have not they are heavy. Which seems like a good starting place. And them fitting over glasses well is even a better thing. Since I have to say from the pics I had seen that was a concern.