The Avatar Blu-ray Release Thread

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by MaCruz

This thread is not a sticky anymore? I guess it's "dying" down, but it will heat up again once the Special Edition comes out.

It could only stay a sticky for so long. It actually lasted quite a while. No doubt it will heat back up around November.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

This is completely false. AVATAR was shot with 3D cameras for true stereo vision... you don't do that "in post".

What Cameron has said is that he filmed it to succeed first and foremost as a 2D film... meaning that it wasn't a showcase for 3D gimmickry and that the 2D presentation could and should be able to be watched and enjoyed on its own. However, the 3D element was planned from the beginning, and every scene was viewed by he and the cinematographer in 3D to make sure that it worked properly in both 2D and 3D, and of course 3D is Cameron's preferred means for the film to be viewed for his fullest intended experience.

Perfect wording of what I wanted to say.
Thank you.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I disagree. When something is obviously only in the film to wow the audience with 3D, it becomes distracting for me (even if I am viewing it in 3D, but more so when I see it in 2D).

In Avatar, there were only a few moments where I went "well this was only in here to show people the 3D effects" but it wasn't nearly what other movies are doing (like Shrek Goes Fourth: Forever After: The Final Chapter: In 3D, or the upcoming Despicable Me or more so Megamind).

Just to clarify. I absolutely agree with Blu ray.com review that Avatar has the best feeling of dept and dimensiality compared to any other movie, making it the most 3d like 2d blu ray release.

Well, If you feel that having a 3d like picture on your 2d HDTV due to the cinematographic way it was shot is a distraction, than its just a matter of your preferance.

I personally think that 3d cinematography of Avatar had a positive influence on the way it looked on 2d blu ray. (Basically, I agree with Blu Ray.com review).

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Just to clarify. I absolutely agree with Blu ray.com review that Avatar has the best feeling of dept and dimensiality compared to any other movie, making it the most 3d like 2d blu ray release.

Well, If you feel that having a 3d like picture on your 2d HDTV due to the cinematographic way it was shot is a distraction, than its just a matter of your preferance.

I personally think that 3d cinematography of Avatar had a positive influence on the way it looked on 2d blu ray. (Basically, I agree with Blu Ray.com review).

I am not talking about the cinematography or the fact that it was filmed in/for 3D. I am talking about obvious gimmick moments to try to showcase the 3D image. Like objects flying at the screen and whatnot. You don't need those things to show a film in 3D (and in most of this film, they don't go for the cheap gimmicks, there's just an added sense of depth to the image).

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I am not talking about the cinematography or the fact that it was filmed in/for 3D. I am talking about obvious gimmick moments to try to showcase the 3D image. Like objects flying at the screen and whatnot. You don't need those things to show a film in 3D (and in most of this film, they don't go for the cheap gimmicks, there's just an added sense of depth to the image).

There are no more of this moments then many 2d action films. I also don't think the 3D in this film was gimmicky.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I am not talking about the cinematography or the fact that it was filmed in/for 3D. I am talking about obvious gimmick moments to try to showcase the 3D image. Like objects flying at the screen and whatnot. You don't need those things to show a film in 3D (and in most of this film, they don't go for the cheap gimmicks, there's just an added sense of depth to the image).

Whats the definition of grimmik thinks? Do you realize that Avatar didnt need this so called "grimmik moments" to showcase its 3d capabilities because all the rest of the movie (entire movie) was just as good looking if not better in 3d. (This stability and constant presence of 3d was the main think that set it apart from other 3d movies)
Furthemore, these occasinal tree seeds flying around the screen fitted very well with the story, no matter what their "3d purpose" was, as suggested by you.

[Atreyu]

I saw this in Imax 3D and I thouight the 2D blu wouldn't even be able to come close to that but I was wrong. And am glad I am. It is a spectacular looking blu. And what makes it so is that the 3D was used wisely and not for the so called popping out in your face stuff. It helped me to get more immersed in the story and characters.
I am happy with my purchase of this version and eagerly await the special edition out in November.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Whats the definition of grimmik thinks? Do you realize that Avatar didnt need this so called "grimmik moments" to showcase its 3d capabilities because all the rest of the movie (entire movie) was just as good looking if not better in 3d. (This stability and constant presence of 3d was the main think that set it apart from other 3d movies)
Furthemore, these occasinal tree seeds flying around the screen fitted very well with the story, no matter what their "3d purpose" was, as suggested by you.

I'd say it looked worse in 3D. The image is duller, softer and dimmer due to the glasses (even Cameron has said this). But the experience is more immersive. Again, like Cameron said, it's a trade-off. You can either have the bright, vibrant picture, or the extra dimension. Not both (at least not yet).

A gimmick moment is when something needlessly flies at the screen to make the audience go "whoa! this is in 3D!!!" Like I said, in 2D, these moments are incredibly obvious. However, with Avatar, and like I said before, those types of moments are few and far between. But they do exist. And I never mentioned the tree seeds, not sure where you got that from.

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I'd say it looked worse in 3D. The image is duller, softer and dimmer due to the glasses (even Cameron has said this). But the experience is more immersive. Again, like Cameron said, it's a trade-off. You can either have the bright, vibrant picture, or the extra dimension. Not both (at least not yet).

A gimmick moment is when something needlessly flies at the screen to make the audience go "whoa! this is in 3D!!!" Like I said, in 2D, these moments are incredibly obvious. However, with Avatar, and like I said before, those types of moments are few and far between. But they do exist. And I never mentioned the tree seeds, not sure where you got that from.

As I mentioned before also, Cameron's use of 3D was good, it wasn't eye popping effects. It was used to get the viewer more immersed in the story and characters and that worked for me. He used the 3D effects wisely. I never thought he 2D blu would be able to hold a candle to the Imax, but am proud to admit I was wrong.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I'd say it looked worse in 3D. The image is duller, softer and dimmer due to the glasses (even Cameron has said this). But the experience is more immersive. Again, like Cameron said, it's a trade-off. You can either have the bright, vibrant picture, or the extra dimension. Not both (at least not yet).

A gimmick moment is when something needlessly flies at the screen to make the audience go "whoa! this is in 3D!!!" Like I said, in 2D, these moments are incredibly obvious. However, with Avatar, and like I said before, those types of moments are few and far between. But they do exist. And I never mentioned the tree seeds, not sure where you got that from.

Well, if its a tradeoff, than I suppsoe you prefer 2d over 3d, but I prefer 3d over 2d for Avatar (extra dimension>duller and dimmer picture for me)
Its just a matter of personal preferance.
Neevertheless, I do think that Imax 3d version of Avatar was overall a faaaar superiour experience when compared to the 2d blu ray version.

I prefer 3d over 2d anyday, anytime, It is just a better overall experience. 3d hdtvs will inevitabely soon or later be present in any households apartment. There can be no doubt about that, as 3d is the superiour technology and people eventually adopt superiour technologies. (I dont have 3d hdtv myself yet)

As for the tree seeds as an exmaple of 3d "grimmik moment", I never said wow when that sequance started. I said wow right from the begining of the movie till the very end, as I think Avatar 3d experience was exceptional as the 3d effect was present throughout the entire movie. This grimmik moments were more a part of the movie itself rather than 3d wow tools as Avatar simply didnt need that "cheap" means.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Well, if its a tradeoff, than I suppsoe you prefer 2d over 3d, but I prefer 3d over 2d for Avatar (extra dimension>duller and dimmer picture for me)
Its just a matter of personal preferance.
Neevertheless, I do think that Imax 3d version of Avatar was overall a faaaar superiour experience when compared to the 2d blu ray version.

I prefer 3d over 2d anyday, anytime, It is just a better overall experience. 3d hdtvs will inevitabely soon or later be present in any households apartment. There can be no doubt about that, as 3d is the superiour technology and people eventually adopt superiour technologies. (I dont have 3d hdtv myself yet)

As for the tree seeds as an exmaple of 3d "grimmik moment", I never said wow when that sequance started. I said wow right from the begining of the movie till the very end, as I think Avatar 3d experience was exceptional as the 3d effect was present throughout the entire movie. This grimmik moments were more a part of the movie itself rather than 3d wow tools as Avatar simply didnt need that "cheap" means.

I do prefer 2D to 3D. I don't like 2 sets of glasses on my face, but more so I like the brighter, sharper, more vibrant picture.

As for 3D TV's, if they take off and are in every single home like you're claiming they will be (considering how many homes don't even have HDTV's, that's a pretty giant claim, but whatever), not everyone will be using them for 3D. I'd like the new Panasonic plasma (since the quality is amazing on it), but there's no way I'd pay $200 x 8 for each of my movie-watching friends to have a pair of glasses.

Again though, I never mentioned the tree seeds scene. The scenes that are gimmicky to me (more specific shots than scenes) are the ones where something comes flying at the camera/audience. A few of them I wouldn't have noticed or cared about except for this one TV spot that kept showing the final show down at the end and a piece of something comes flying at the screen. It looks fakey and comes directly at the audience which makes it a gimmick to me (plus it's not something that necessarily needs to be there).

But we'll just agree to disagree.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I'd say it looked worse in 3D. The image is duller, softer and dimmer due to the glasses (even Cameron has said this). But the experience is more immersive. Again, like Cameron said, it's a trade-off. You can either have the bright, vibrant picture, or the extra dimension. Not both (at least not yet).

A gimmick moment is when something needlessly flies at the screen to make the audience go "whoa! this is in 3D!!!" Like I said, in 2D, these moments are incredibly obvious. However, with Avatar, and like I said before, those types of moments are few and far between. But they do exist. And I never mentioned the tree seeds, not sure where you got that from.

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I do prefer 2D to 3D. I don't like 2 sets of glasses on my face, but more so I like the brighter, sharper, more vibrant picture.

I agree ... I prefer 2D over 3D, for all the reasons you gave.

While 3D is more immersive in some ways, it is less immersive in others, depending on how you use the word. IMO there are ways that 3D breaks the spell, makes you less absorbed in the movie, i.e., "takes you out of it," as a friend said. Even when very tastefully used, as it was in Avatar, whenever you notice that there is a fair amount of depth -- and the noticeability of the depth seems to vary considerably from shot to shot and scene to scene in every 3D movie I have seen (many, back to through the 1950s) -- you are distanced from the sense of living the story (more important in some films than in others).

A very small example: In the tree seeds scene, I consciously thought something like, "Oh, quite a bit of depth," then thought, "that's lovely." In contrast, in Walt Disney's Grand Canyon, a widescreen film with nothing but music and images, with quite a bit of depth for 2D, there is a scene with golden aspen leaves flashing in a breeze, with some falling and drifting, set to the celeste. I didn't think "depth," or "lovely," but just basked in the beauty. Later, after the film, I recalled the scene, and mentioned that particular shot to a friend, and called it lovely. Even in a film with no story to be taken out of, such as Grand Canyon, I prefer the latter kind of experience. Even though James Algar had said that one of the intentions of the film was to float on the exhilaration of CinemaScope and stereophonic sound, I experienced most of the film as an organic whole, without technique or the considerable 2D depth calling attention to itself.

To me, the ideal medium, one that doesn't break the spell, that has the right amount of depth, a comfortable AR, and the most immersion is 2D 2.20:1 70 mm from a 65 mm negative, projected on a screen somewhere between 60 and 90 feet wide, with close seating, exemplary sound, and no overuse of the infernal bass synthesizer.

[Marcus Wright]

If 3d<2d, than why do most people (the majority, more than 60 or 70%) prefer not only watching movies in 3d, but also to pay a premium for that?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

If 3d<2d, than why do most people (the majority, more than 60 or 70%) prefer not only watching movies in 3d, but also to pay a premium for that?

I won't pay more than $8 myself unless I have to. $10 is beyond ridiculous to me on a movie ticket, can't believe some people pay $20+.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

I won't pay more than $8 myself unless I have to. $10 is beyond ridiculous to me on a movie ticket, can't believe some people pay $20+.

You dont, but the majority of people do that, (more than 60%) including me, why?

[joshlucas]

A 3-D blu-ray release of avatar hasn't been release, correct?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

If 3d<2d, than why do most people (the majority, more than 60 or 70%) prefer not only watching movies in 3d, but also to pay a premium for that?

Could you state your sources? If you look at polls on here, you'll notice there's quite a few people that wont go with 3D for various reasons.

Either way, it's a personal preference thing. I don't like 3D for the most part (for reasons I already gave, not that I was bashing 3D or those that enjoy it or even the film Avatar). You saying that most people like 3D has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I simply was pointing out that Avatar has very few 3D gimmick moments more as a compliment than anything. You can look at other 3D films to find way worse and more obvious gimmicks (I even gave a few examples of current and upcoming 3D releases).

But it seems to me that you and I are on completely different pages here. You think I am bashing 3D when I am not. Although I dislike 3D myself along with my friends and family, I wont go out of my way to put it down as I know others enjoy it which is great. I was simply agreeing with someone that said they felt there are a couple of 3D gimmicks in the film. That is all.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Could you state your sources? If you look at polls on here, you'll notice there's quite a few people that wont go with 3D for various reasons.

Either way, it's a personal preference thing. I don't like 3D for the most part (for reasons I already gave, not that I was bashing 3D or those that enjoy it or even the film Avatar). You saying that most people like 3D has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I simply was pointing out that Avatar has very few 3D gimmick moments more as a compliment than anything. You can look at other 3D films to find way worse and more obvious gimmicks (I even gave a few examples of current and upcoming 3D releases).

But it seems to me that you and I are on completely different pages here. You think I am bashing 3D when I am not. Although I dislike 3D myself along with my friends and family, I wont go out of my way to put it down as I know others enjoy it which is great. I was simply agreeing with someone that said they felt there are a couple of 3D gimmicks in the film. That is all.

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
Probably we are actually on different pages, as you are dicussing the factor of personal preferences when choosing 2d vs 3d, (with which I agree fully), while I am discussing which technology is overall the better one for movie viewing from technological, as well as potential perspective for the future development.

[ClaytonMG]

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
Probably we are actually on different pages, as you are dicussing the factor of personal preferences when choosing 2d vs 3d, (with which I agree fully), while I am discussing which technology is overall the better one for movie viewing from technological, as well as potential perspective for the future development.

But also, in absolutely no way would I say one technology is better than the other, even from a technological stand point. There's still too many people who either can't see 3D, don't like 3D, don't like glasses or some other reason to say that 3D is a better way to view movies.

But I will agree that filming in 3D has potential. Technology is always moving forward and evolving so maybe someday there will actually be a 3D format for everyone to enjoy (and film makers will quit adding gimmicks). But right now, I see almost every studio needlessly attempting to cash in on the recent trend. And if that continues, I fear for what's in store for 3D (that and the exclusive release crap).

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

But also, in absolutely no way would I say one technology is better than the other, even from a technological stand point. There's still too many people who either can't see 3D, don't like 3D, don't like glasses or some other reason to say that 3D is a better way to view movies.

But I will agree that filming in 3D has potential. Technology is always moving forward and evolving so maybe someday there will actually be a 3D format for everyone to enjoy (and film makers will quit adding gimmicks). But right now, I see almost every studio needlessly attempting to cash in on the recent trend. And if that continues, I fear for what's in store for 3D (that and the exclusive release crap).

Before starting, I just want to mention that I am not talking about preferances, just which technology is better.

Comparing 2d vs 3d in terms of which technology is better is like comparing auto travel (which is 2d) vs plane travel (which is 3d, couse you can move in 3 directions). Plane is obviously the more advanced, efficient, and effective means for travel, so is the 3d movie for movie viewing ecperience. Can a car take you to another continent? It cant, because it cant cross oceans. So is the movies, to get a complete or more accurately a better experience you need to see them in 3d, or even 4d in the future, as close to reality, as they can get

Does more advanced viewing come at extra costs and does it have its disadvantages? Of course it does. There are a lot of people who hate plane travel for numerous reasons and just dont take it. Didnt plane travel try to cash in and use plane travel to their advantage when it was first created? Of course it did!! Is that a reason for us not to use plane travel (3d) movies? It isnt, as without demand this new great perspective technology will die.
Furthemore, in any case, there will always be people in the far future who will still appreciate and use cars (2d movies), as classical experiences.

All I am saying is that from a more long--term perspective point of view you will see that adoption of 3d by everyone is inevitable, as was the creation of a plane.