The Avatar Blu-ray Release Thread

[Kryptonic]

I don't see why he would use the 2.39:1 since 1.78:1 is the ratio of HDTV's and it's readily available and offers a more complete visual experience as well as more visual information.

[rjg77vett]

Originally Posted by Bageara

I googled "Avatar floating mountains" to see what i could find. I did find quite a few people in different forums demanding an explanation....geeks but also found this which satisfys my curiosity and doesnt sound to far away from your theory. Glad to see Cameron has written a science behind it all for the more questioning viewer



http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/200...nd-the-fantasy

Bageara: Thanks for the unobtanium "science" link.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I don't see why he would use the 2.39:1 since 1.78:1 is the ratio of HDTV's and it's readily available and offers a more complete visual experience as well as more visual information.

Since that's the ratio used for the 2D version. If the 3D and 2D versions aren't on the same disc, I'm sure the 2.39:1 version will be used for the Blu-ray.

[JimShaw]

Question for those of you that have seen the RealD 3D and the IMAX 3D.

I saw Avatar in RealD 3D and it was great. What big difference between the old blue and red glass 3D of yesteryear and today's.

I went last night because I wanted to see it in 3D to see what it was like. My wife, on the other hand, only wanted to see it in 2D when it comes out in Blu because she never cared about 3D.

BUT

I thought the new 3D was so good that she should see it and would like it.

Now here is my question:

Of the two (RealD vs IMAX) which is better for the 3D experience?? I am not talking about sound only the picture.

[Grevlin]

Originally Posted by JimShaw

Question for those of you that have seen the RealD 3D and the IMAX 3D.

I saw Avatar in RealD 3D and it was great. What big difference between the old blue and red glass 3D of yesteryear and today's.

I went last night because I wanted to see it in 3D to see what it was like. My wife, on the other hand, only wanted to see it in 2D when it comes out in Blu because she never cared about 3D.

BUT

I thought the new 3D was so good that she should see it and would like it.

Now here is my question:

Of the two (RealD vs IMAX) which is better for the 3D experience?? I am not talking about sound only the picture.

I've seen it twice in each version.

For me:

The 3D effect is exactly the same between the two.

The ReadD is a little easier to "keep a hold of" as far as taking in the picture. It might be a little easier on the eyes and prevent possible headaches.

The Imax3D just had more of the 3D effect ie more image. The sound is also ridiculously loud in imax, the bass rattles your chest in explosions.

All in my opinion

[Ureh]

Is the 2D version inferior in anyway compared to 3D (excluding ratio difference)?

[Grevlin]

Originally Posted by Ureh

Is the 2D version inferior in anyway compared to 3D (excluding ratio difference)?

Its missing a dimension...





I'm still holding true to my vow to NEVER see it in 2D.

[JimShaw]

Originally Posted by Grevlin

I've seen it twice in each version.

For me:

The 3D effect is exactly the same between the two.

The ReadD is a little easier to "keep a hold of" as far as taking in the picture. It might be a little easier on the eyes and prevent possible headaches.

The Imax3D just had more of the 3D effect ie more image. The sound is also ridiculously loud in imax, the bass rattles your chest in explosions.

All in my opinion

Grevlin

A big thanks for the info. ReadD 3D it is!!!

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Since that's the ratio used for the 2D version. If the 3D and 2D versions aren't on the same disc, I'm sure the 2.39:1 version will be used for the Blu-ray.

I realize this, but the 3-D version is also 2.39:1 based on IMDB and members statements. Both of my theaters showed the RealD 3-D in 1.78:1 and it looked amazing at that ratio. The 1.78:1 obviously has more picture information and since that's the ratio of HDTV's, it seems pretty obvious to use that for the Blu-Ray.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I realize this, but the 3-D version is also 2.39:1 based on IMDB and members statements. Both of my theaters showed the RealD 3-D in 1.78:1 and it looked amazing at that ratio. The 1.78:1 obviously has more picture information and since that's the ratio of HDTV's, it seems pretty obvious to use that for the Blu-Ray.

If it's in 3D and in 2.39:1, then it's the wrong ratio. Cameron himself said that 3D worked better in 1.78:1, that's why he used different ratios.
And having more picture information and being the same ratio as HDTV doesn't really matter. Tons of 2.39:1 movies shot in Super35 have more picture info in the 1.78:1, that doesn't mean those movies should be in 1.78:1 on Blu-ray.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

If it's in 3D and in 2.39:1, then it's the wrong ratio. Cameron himself said that 3D worked better in 1.78:1, that's why he used different ratios.
And having more picture information and being the same ratio as HDTV doesn't really matter. Tons of 2.39:1 movies shot in Super35 have more picture info in the 1.78:1, that doesn't mean those movies should be in 1.78:1 on Blu-ray.

With regards to Super35, I completely realize that. That's one of the reasons Cameron used - because it was easier to translate to standard television without losing a huge amount of information. But with this film, the director preferred 3-D version is framed in 1.78:1 so it makes sense to use that ratio for HDTV and Blu-Ray.

[Daredevil666]

If it's in 3D and in 2.39:1, then it's the wrong ratio.

Wrong, you are wrong I said it here before, I saw Avatar in a theater where Cameron in person validated the set up, 3D and in 2.35 or 2.39 or whatever... IT'S NOT WRONG IT'S RIGHT.
I also saw in september 30mn of the movie in the same room as Mr Jon Landau the honorable producer, same thing, this was in 2.35 and I didn't see him complain. He smiled from ear to ear.

1.77 3D is exclusive to IMAX theaters as far as I know.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Wrong, you are wrong I said it here before, I saw Avatar in a theater where Cameron in person validated the set up, 3D and in 2.35 or 2.39 or whatever... IT'S NOT WRONG IT'S RIGHT.
I also saw in september 30mn of the movie in the same room as Mr Jon Landau the honorable producer, same thing, this was in 2.35 and I didn't see him complain. He smiled from ear to ear.

1.77 3D is exclusive to IMAX theaters as far as I know.

Okay, then Mr. Cameron is contradicting himself. But if that's the case, there's really no need for a 1.78:1 version on Blu, is it?

[Grevlin]

Who's on 1st?

[A Tortured Duckling]

I drove an hour and 15 minutes to the nearest decent theater, bought a ticket, walked into the theater in which the movie was playing, and walked out within a few seconds. I hate full theaters, and especially when it's filled with kids and teenagers smacking on popcorn, talking to eachother, texting their friends all kinds of random shit, and kicking the back of the seats in front of them while others are trying to enjoy a movie. I got a refund, and i'll wait until next weekend

[Daredevil666]

I think KubrickFan you might be refering to an old interview -- since around Avatar Day, there's only been two 3D format for Avatar, 2.35 in realD, XpanD and others, and 1.77 for IMAX.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

1.77 3D is exclusive to IMAX theaters as far as I know.

Nope. Two separate theaters from two different chains show the film in RealD 3-D at 1.78:1. Maybe it depends on the theater, I'm not sure. I love the framing at 1.78:1. I would much prefer to see that version on Blu-Ray.

[#Darren]

Yes it does depend on the theater as they set all these parameters in house. And theaters often mess these things up too. Not saying yours messed up, but it is a posibility.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Nope. Two separate theaters from two different chains show the film in RealD 3-D at 1.78:1. Maybe it depends on the theater, I'm not sure. I love the framing at 1.78:1. I would much prefer to see that version on Blu-Ray.

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Nope. Two separate theaters from two different chains show the film in RealD 3-D at 1.78:1. Maybe it depends on the theater, I'm not sure. I love the framing at 1.78:1. I would much prefer to see that version on Blu-Ray.

I saw it in 2 different theaters in 3-D in 2.39:1. Both were Real-D. Different chains as well. Seems like milage may vary. Either way, I guess you could consider both aspect ratios correct. You have 1.78:1 for Imax & HDTV, and some theaters showing it open matte. Then you have 2.39:1 for theatrical outside of Imax, and possibly the Blu-ray. Either way both ratios were watched approved by Cameron (although I can understand one may be intended for 3-D or 2-D) I personally don't care one way or the other, as long as it hits Blu in both 2-D and 3-D so that we have a 3-D version that can be watched in the home.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Grevlin

Its missing a dimension...





I'm still holding true to my vow to NEVER see it in 2D.

Then you are gonna wait along time to see it on bluray because it comes out in 2D at first. And 3D tv and bluray 3D players is not even in shops yet and they are VERY expensive. So you will wait a long long time after its out of theaters