The Avatar Blu-ray Release Thread

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

I am not saying there arent any people who prefer and will choose 2d over 3d, of course there are, but they are few, to be more accurate, about 20% of people for the case of Avatar. Here is the source from boxofficemojo. http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2667 3rd paragraph

Even though some of us don't prefer 3D, I think it's plausible that most people would.

The article you gave us the link for doesn't quite address whether people actually preferred the 3D experience itself ... which version they bought tickets for could reflect, in part, the influence of advertising, novelty effect, and a lot more. Even I paid extra to see the 3D version the first time around ... to see what it was like .. and ended up preferring the 2D version.

As someone who used to teach behavioral and social science research, I can say that their procedure was not the best way to study preference, and stated preference alone isn't the whole ball of wax. You would probably also want see if 3D v.s. 2D made a difference in such things as suspension of disbelief, memorability, enjoyability, absorption, the degree the film moved people emotionally, the overall rating the audience members give the film, etc, and whether the difference 3D made was an enhancing or diminishing one in regard to each of these factors. For me, 3D seemed to diminish all of them a bit.. There are some designs with a manipulated independent variable and random assignment of audience members, that could be of the between subject, within subject, or even between X within subject variety that would be much more unambiguously informative than what was done in the study cited. This better sort of study has been done a few times in the history of the movies, but not nearly often enough. 3D v.s. 2D would be a natural to look at this way. So would 70 mm v.s. 35 mm, large v.s.medium v.s small screen, etc. .

[Atreyu]

I agree it is very high for a 3D movie in the theater and I think Avatar was worth it as it got me more immersed in the action. For the most part I don't think 3D is needed on every film that comes down the pike. The market is going to be oversaturated with everybody and their brother needlessly hopping on the proverbial 3D bandwagon. 3D can be used wisely and I can see it easily being misued just for the financial rewards.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Even though some of us don't prefer 3D, I think it's plausible that most people would.

The article you gave us the link for doesn't quite address whether people actually preferred the 3D experience itself ... which version they bought tickets for could reflect, in part, the influence of advertising, novelty effect, and a lot more. Even I paid extra to see the 3D version the first time around ... to see what it was like .. and ended up preferring the 2D version.

As someone who used to teach behavioral and social science research, I can say that their procedure was not the best way to study preference, and stated preference alone isn't the whole ball of wax. You would probably also want see if 3D v.s. 2D made a difference in such things as suspension of disbelief, memorability, enjoyability, absorption, the degree the film moved people emotionally, the overall rating the audience members give the film, etc, and whether the difference 3D made was an enhancing or diminishing one in regard to each of these factors. For me, 3D seemed to diminish all of them a bit.. There are some designs with a manipulated independent variable and random assignment of audience members, that could be of the between subject, within subject, or even between X within subject variety that would be much more unambiguously informative than what was done in the study cited. This better sort of study has been done a few times in the history of the movies, but not nearly often enough. 3D v.s. 2D would be a natural to look at this way. So would 70 mm v.s. 35 mm, large v.s.medium v.s small screen, etc. .

I understand what you say, but let me analyse this (2d vs 3d) from a perspevtive of someone who is doing a specialist degree in Economics and teaching Economics in the University at the same time.

We live in a free, open market economy, in which people choose to buy the better at the lower price.

The fact that 3d is proliferating at a more and more hihger speed cant be caused by advertisments, as 3d has been around for a while already. What it means is that if 3d was indeed inferiour to 2d, people would figure it out for themselves after such a long while and no advertsment could brainwash them.
As it isnt due to advertisments, the only explanation for increase in 3d movies is that people, having a choice of choosing between 2d and 3d themselves, demand more 3d as it is the better technology, experience.
You pay more and buy more of smth. only if it serves better your needs in an open economy.

I think that most of people who saw Avatar in 3d have had already seen a 3d movie before, as its been here for a while already, with 3d sales always higher than 2d. Even if some of them havent seen them before, I bet than 80% of them who saw Avatar will see Shrek, Clash of the Titans, and so on in 3d, just look at their 3d figures. People still see 3d.
Advertsiment can full you only once, than, you will only buy whats indeed better. Thats what we are now seeing, even more people seeing 3d each time, both before and after Avatar.

Buy the way, if its not a secret, was Avatar your 1st 3d experience, and if it wasnt, it means that what I said above applies also to you and you prefer 3d over 2d as well.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Buy the way, if its not a secret, was Avatar your 1st 3d experience, and if it wasnt, it means that what I said above applies also to you and you prefer 3d over 2d as well.

I don't see how it means that... perhaps you are being humorous? IMO, seeing Avatar in 3D was merely the result of my natural curiosity about how Cameron would handle it (and he handled it quite well), not expressive of a preference. The same goes for my viewing of other 3D films by other directors. In most cases, unlike in the case of Avatar, there was not an opportunity to choose 2D or 3D in theaters anywhere near to being close in time or geography.

I will respond to most of your email, especially our different perspectives on methodology and the drawing of conclusions in a few days when I have a bit more time.

No, Avatar was not my first 3D experience. I have been watching 3D movies since 1957. They were:

1. A set of Disney cartoons and a live action 3D film at Disneyland in 1957, left over from when Walt was experimenting with 3D a few years before.
2. Arch Obler's The Bubble in the '60s
3. Many Lenny Lipton 3D films at the San Francisco Art Institute in the '70s. Although his conversations with Uncle Bill on the latter's houseboat did not seem to benefit much from 3D, his other, more experimental, films did including the instances in which, superimposed over a regular 3D image, he sent wildly different images (not just different angles on the same basic view) in through each eye, and let the brain combine them. Lenny may be known to some forum members as the author of several books on small format filmmaking, as well as being the co-writer of the lyrics of the song "Puff the Magic Dragon."
4. Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder in revival at the York theater in S.F. Hitch had originally filmed it in 3D, and used many low camera angles, and compositions from behind objects, etc. The 3D was top quality, but I couldn't say it enhanced the film much, if at all.
5. Captain EO (Michael Jackson) in Disneyland. One of the disadvantages of 3D probably made this worse than it would have been in 2D, and that is that the image was much too dark in many scenes. The park did provide the best, and biggest (but light weight) 3D glasses I have ever seen, though.
6. Several Imax 3D films, including Avatar, and several science oriented films, most recently an undersea one in McMinnville.

All in all, I still prefer 2D, particularly when telling a story, for the reasons stated in my last email.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I don't see how it means that... perhaps you are being humorous? IMO, seeing Avatar in 3D was merely the result of my natural curiosity about how Cameron would handle it (and he handled it quite well), not expressive of a preference. The same goes for my viewing of other 3D films by other directors. In most cases, unlike in the case of Avatar, there was not an opportunity to choose 2D or 3D in theaters anywhere near to being close in time or geography.

I will respond to most of your email, especially our different perspectives on methodology and the drawing of conclusions in a few days when I have a bit more time.

No, Avatar was not my first 3D experience. I have been watching 3D movies since 1957. They were:

1. A set of Disney cartoons and a live action 3D film at Disneyland in 1957, left over from when Walt was experimenting with 3D a few years before.
2. Arch Obler's The Bubble in the '60s
3. Many Lenny Lipton 3D films at the San Francisco Art Institute in the '70s. Although his conversations with Uncle Bill on the latter's houseboat did not seem to benefit much from 3D, his other, more experimental, films did including the instances in which, superimposed over a regular 3D image, he sent wildly different images (not just different angles on the same basic view) in through each eye, and let the brain combine them. Lenny may be known to some forum members as the author of several books on small format filmmaking, as well as being the co-writer of the lyrics of the song "Puff the Magic Dragon."
4. Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder in revival at the York theater in S.F. Hitch had originally filmed it in 3D, and used many low camera angles, and compositions from behind objects, etc. The 3D was top quality, but I couldn't say it enhanced the film much, if at all.
5. Captain EO (Michael Jackson) in Disneyland. One of the disadvantages of 3D probably made this worse than it would have been in 2D, and that is that the image was much too dark in many scenes. The park did provide the best, and biggest (but light weight) 3D glasses I have ever seen, though.
6. Several Imax 3D films, including Avatar, and several science oriented films, most recently an undersea one in McMinnville.

All in all, I still prefer 2D, particularly when telling a story, for the reasons stated in my last email.

Well, if you are being curioused to see 3d movies over and over again, than it means you find smth inteseting in them. They provide you with a different perspective for experiencing the movie.

As I told before, If 3d was really inferiour to 2d even for you, why would you see another 3d movie ever again?
It doesnt make sense.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Well, if you are being curioused to see 3d movies over and over again, than it means you find smth inteseting in them. They provide you with a different perspective for experiencing the movie.

As I told before, If 3d was really inferiour to 2d even for you, why would you see another 3d movie ever again?
It doesnt make sense.

I think he's saying that he likes 2D better, but still gives 3D a shot every once in a while. That and Avatar was somewhat of a ground breaking special effects film, so I am assuming he wanted to see it for the technological advances for 3D technology. Just like I've seen multiple 3D films, but still prefer 2D. Though this summer I may see Toy Story 3 in 3D just to see how Dolby Surround 7.1 sounds.

[Trogdor2010]

Hello

I have a "scope" screen and use an anamorphic lens when I watch "scope" movies, but I had only watched my Avatar BD when we had a movie night and I decided to play it safe and watch it in 16:9, and I'm not fond of doing rewatching films unless if a month or so passes. Today when I had a friend was watching a couple of movies with me, I did an odd double feature (Watched "Cleo from 5 to 7" first), then we watched avatar, but I decided to "crop" the image to the scope presentation I saw at the theater, and I regreted not using the scope method when watching the movie. I thought the full 16:9 image had too much "space", people seemed to exaggerated the cropping and I thought I could see what I wanted, although a few shots of the cropping are a bit obvious (Log reports), but most shots appear composed and designed for scope, even the flying sequences, and most of the faces, while some crop, seem to be in the safe zone for scope. The next time I would watch it would be in the cropped scope presentation than in the smaller 16:9 picture. The best compromise you can do and I love it that way that much.

[RebelPrince1986]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Hello

I have a "scope" screen and use an anamorphic lens when I watch "scope" movies, but I had only watched my Avatar BD when we had a movie night and I decided to play it safe and watch it in 16:9, and I'm not fond of doing rewatching films unless if a month or so passes. Today when I had a friend was watching a couple of movies with me, I did an odd double feature (Watched "Cleo from 5 to 7" first), then we watched avatar, but I decided to "crop" the image to the scope presentation I saw at the theater, and I regreted not using the scope method when watching the movie. I thought the full 16:9 image had too much "space", people seemed to exaggerated the cropping and I thought I could see what I wanted, although a few shots of the cropping are a bit obvious (Log reports), but most shots appear composed and designed for scope, even the flying sequences, and most of the faces, while some crop, seem to be in the safe zone for scope. The next time I would watch it would be in the cropped scope presentation than in the smaller 16:9 picture. The best compromise you can do and I love it that way that much.

The theatrical release wasn't just cropped equally on the top and bottom, James Cameron went through shot by shot and extracted the part of the frame he wanted to exhibit. So, your method of just chopping off the top and the bottom, while it may work for you, is about the same as when DVD's were released in Full Screen Pan & Scan versions.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I think he's saying that he likes 2D better, but still gives 3D a shot every once in a while. That and Avatar was somewhat of a ground breaking special effects film, so I am assuming he wanted to see it for the technological advances for 3D technology. Just like I've seen multiple 3D films, but still prefer 2D.

Exactly.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Hello

I have a "scope" screen and use an anamorphic lens when I watch "scope" movies, but I had only watched my Avatar BD when we had a movie night and I decided to play it safe and watch it in 16:9, and I'm not fond of doing rewatching films unless if a month or so passes. Today when I had a friend was watching a couple of movies with me, I did an odd double feature (Watched "Cleo from 5 to 7" first), then we watched avatar, but I decided to "crop" the image to the scope presentation I saw at the theater, and I regreted not using the scope method when watching the movie. I thought the full 16:9 image had too much "space", people seemed to exaggerated the cropping and I thought I could see what I wanted, although a few shots of the cropping are a bit obvious (Log reports), but most shots appear composed and designed for scope, even the flying sequences, and most of the faces, while some crop, seem to be in the safe zone for scope. The next time I would watch it would be in the cropped scope presentation than in the smaller 16:9 picture. The best compromise you can do and I love it that way that much.

I also have a scope screen and think it looks best in 16:9.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I also have a scope screen and think it looks best in 16:9.

I can see though why you and some prefer the 16:9 image, as the cropping may be bothersome with their foreheads sometimes cut, the flying sequences and floating islands give it more vertigo, but I have to say I still find the shots have a better composition in "scope", which I found the scope presentation has more of an emotional impact on me that I had theatrically in 3D than I watched it in 16:9 before. That and the size of the scope image made the tradeoff worth it for me.

I hope you don't take this negatively, and I bet you seen it in both CIH and CIW versions, but I want to comment that I notice in your theater that you use the Zoom method for your screen, which doesn't allow you to crop the image for watching scope films as you can with an anamorphic lens method. I don't think you could test the image without noticing the image even on blackout curtains. Again, I can see why you and others perfer in 16:9, but that more emotional impact made it better for me.

[bpmford]

My opinion on 3D is that I like it and don't mind watching a movie in it, but don't want it for everything. I thought Avatar was the best 3D I've seen, but I love my 2D blu-ray a lot too!

I think my wanting to still have 2D comes from the fact that movies have always been in 2D, and I find that normal now...

Plus 3D still has it's issues, I can still see the two separate images sometimes, and it buggs my eyes!

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by RebelPrince1986

The theatrical release wasn't just cropped equally on the top and bottom, James Cameron went through shot by shot and extracted the part of the frame he wanted to exhibit. So, your method of just chopping off the top and the bottom, while it may work for you, is about the same as when DVD's were released in Full Screen Pan & Scan versions.

I don't think he did. I checked it too, when I was watching it on Blu-ray (that's how interesting the movie was the second time for me) and everything looked as it was framed for 2.35:1 in the middle part. Look at every shot of actors from a distance (no close-ups), the abundant head room is in every of those shots.

[bpmford]

This was his intention all along tho, he wanted to utilize the available space to it's full capacity... He filled it in 16:9 so it would fill the whole TV screen! I believe

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I don't think he did. I checked it too, when I was watching it on Blu-ray (that's how interesting the movie was the second time for me) and everything looked as it was framed for 2.35:1 in the middle part. Look at every shot of actors from a distance (no close-ups), the abundant head room is in every of those shots.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by bpmford

This was his intention all along tho, he wanted to utilize the available space to it's full capacity... He filled it in 16:9 so it would fill the whole TV screen! I believe

No, Cameron originaly intended to crop the image and around two months before its release decided he prefered the 1.78:1 format.

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

I can see though why you and some prefer the 16:9 image, as the cropping may be bothersome with their foreheads sometimes cut, the flying sequences and floating islands give it more vertigo, but I have to say I still find the shots have a better composition in "scope", which I found the scope presentation has more of an emotional impact on me that I had theatrically in 3D than I watched it in 16:9 before. That and the size of the scope image made the tradeoff worth it for me.

I hope you don't take this negatively, and I bet you seen it in both CIH and CIW versions, but I want to comment that I notice in your theater that you use the Zoom method for your screen, which doesn't allow you to crop the image for watching scope films as you can with an anamorphic lens method. I don't think you could test the image without noticing the image even on blackout curtains. Again, I can see why you and others perfer in 16:9, but that more emotional impact made it better for me.

True but I have seen the blu croped tn 2.35:1 and didn't like the composition. I find that the 1.78 :1 ar allows for you to more clearly see the body and hieght differences between the navi, avatars and humans.

[bpmford]

Really, maybe i only heard that after he changed his mind... good thing he filmed it that way then

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

No, Cameron originaly intended to crop the image and around two months before its release decided he prefered the 1.78:1 format.



True but I have seen the blu croped tn 2.35:1 and didn't like the composition. I find that the 1.78 :1 ar allows for you to more clearly see the body and hieght differences between the navi, avatars and humans.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I'd say it looked worse in 3D. The image is duller, softer and dimmer due to the glasses

- dimmer, yeah, the glasses stop 1/2 the light which is why each eye sees a different image.
- duller maybe if duller means the same as dimmer (i.e. some vibrant colours might look duller because they are not as bright)
- softer, that is not right. 3D does not change the PQ. the issue is that you are probably comparing a badly set-up theatre presentation to a your TV. It is softer because you saw it in a theatre and the projector was not perfectly focused (they seldom are)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I think he's saying that he likes 2D better, but still gives 3D a shot every once in a while. That and Avatar was somewhat of a ground breaking special effects film, so I am assuming he wanted to see it for the technological advances for 3D technology. Just like I've seen multiple 3D films, but still prefer 2D. Though this summer I may see Toy Story 3 in 3D just to see how Dolby Surround 7.1 sounds.

yes, but that only works with one-offs, Avatar reached close to 2B$ that is many hundreds of millions of viewings, and many multiple viewings, if someone really preferred 2D they would not see it 3 times in 3D and once in 2D. The ratio was way too lopsided for that. It also would not explain similar ratios where 3D got the vast majority of viewings even in other films. Plus since 3D is more expensive that will tend to help the opposite (i.e. someone that might like 3D but not willing to pay 5$+ more for 3D).

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by anthony p

yes, but that only works with one-offs, avatar reached close to 2b$ that is many hundreds of millions of viewings, and many multiple viewings, if someone really preferred 2d they would not see it 3 times in 3d and once in 2d. The ratio was way too lopsided for that. It also would not explain similar ratios where 3d got the vast majority of viewings even in other films. Plus since 3d is more expensive that will tend to help the opposite (i.e. Someone that might like 3d but not willing to pay 5$+ more for 3d).

+1

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

- dimmer, yeah, the glasses stop 1/2 the light which is why each eye sees a different image.
- duller maybe if duller means the same as dimmer (i.e. some vibrant colours might look duller because they are not as bright)
- softer, that is not right. 3D does not change the PQ. the issue is that you are probably comparing a badly set-up theatre presentation to a your TV. It is softer because you saw it in a theatre and the projector was not perfectly focused (they seldom are)

DLP theatrically generally does not look as sharp to me. I saw it in 3D on a DLP screen. Yes, the image was dimmer (as in not as bright), the colors were duller (as in, not as vibrant or colorful due to the grey glasses). So no, they don't mean the same thing to me.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes, but that only works with one-offs, Avatar reached close to 2B$ that is many hundreds of millions of viewings, and many multiple viewings, if someone really preferred 2D they would not see it 3 times in 3D and once in 2D. The ratio was way too lopsided for that. It also would not explain similar ratios where 3D got the vast majority of viewings even in other films. Plus since 3D is more expensive that will tend to help the opposite (i.e. someone that might like 3D but not willing to pay 5$+ more for 3D).

I was responding directly to what someone else's personal experience and opinion, not as an overall figure.

I like how someone says that there's a couple of 3D gimmicks in a film and it turns into a "3D is the way of the future!!! I will defend 3D to the death!" sort of thing. Very odd...