The Avatar Blu-ray Release Thread

[bpmford]

Agreed, gotta get some Avatarin' goin' again!!!

Originally Posted by JOHN MFN D.

Man. It's been like 3 weeks since I watched Avatar. I think the time has come to watch again!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by bpmford

Agreed, gotta get some Avatarin' goin' again!!!

I'm waiting on a pair of 100 watt bass shakers to arrive first.

[bmwone]

I just picked it up for $ 21 CDN delivered. (new sealed) on ebay. As an after thought I am wondering if I need those 3d glasses to watch it properly. If I do, where might get them?

tks

[SpaceDog]

Avatar won't be out in 3D until at least November, and it will require a specifically capable TV, Blu-ray player, and glasses. Your edition is a standard "flat" edition.

You should check out the technology section of the forum for all the 3D details.

[odvan]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Hence it is filmed at a level that has a lot less detail then most films that have been shot (35mm is usually said to be around 4k to 5k. What does make it look so detailed is it is shot (probably) with a shallow lens for the live action scenes (and to similar effect for digital scenes), which is much like imax and thus more of the image is in focus then usual. Also the design of pandora is so intricate it allows for the film to be so incredibly detailed.

Absolutely incorrect. 35mm in theory has around 2K of vertical resolution, but due to MTF generation loss in the film process in reality it's much less, around 850/700 lines in good cinema and even worse.

In live action scenes Avatar has proper 1080 lines of vertical resolution, but effects and graphic has more details because master actually has greater resolution.

About depth of field (DOF) - Avatar doesn't have insane DOF, the movie wasn't shot in deep focus because it doesn't work in 3D, that's why Jim used shallow focus (focused face and blurred background). That's how ours vision works - we can see in focus only things we look at. Peripheral is always blurred.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by odvan

Absolutely incorrect. 35mm in theory has around 2K of vertical resolution, but due to MTF generation loss in the film process in reality it's much less, around 850/700 lines in good cinema and even worse.

In live action scenes Avatar has proper 1080 lines of vertical resolution, but effects and graphic has more details because master actually has greater resolution.

About depth of field (DOF) - Avatar doesn't have insane DOF, the movie wasn't shot in deep focus because it doesn't work in 3D, that's why Jim used shallow focus (focused face and blurred background). That's how ours vision works - we can see in focus only things we look at. Peripheral is always blurred.

Actually, it's around 2K resolution when you have a bad print. It can only go up from there.

[odvan]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Actually, it's around 2K resolution when you have a bad print. It can only go up from there.

I wouldn't argue, just ask yourself why any BD based on film scan doesn't look like reference quality or demo worthy.

Btw, creating the Na'vi characters and the virtual world of Pandora required over a petabyte of digital storage, and each minute of the final footage for Avatar occupies 17.28 gigabytes of storage.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by odvan

I wouldn't argue, just ask yourself why any BD based on film scan doesn't look like reference quality or demo worthy.

Btw, creating the Na'vi characters and the virtual world of Pandora required over a petabyte of digital storage, and each minute of the final footage for Avatar occupies 17.28 gigabytes of storage.

I think its that much storage in the initial computer that generates all that movie.
Its basically the big size of the computer program itself, which creates Avatar.

Just rerecording it will result in no loss of storage as you are coping the scenes and not the programs. For that, much much less storaga of 50 gigs should be enough.

[lDlisturb3d]

Everytime i call my wife she's either watching this or her company, out of 200 BD's Avatar gets the most attention in my HT.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I'm waiting on a pair of 100 watt bass shakers to arrive first.

Have they arrived?

Can anyone imagine that sometime in the future we have access to 1000w subwoofers, that literally shake the room foundations.

That would be so cool

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by odvan

I wouldn't argue, just ask yourself why any BD based on film scan doesn't look like reference quality or demo worthy.

What? The majority of movies released on Blu-ray is shot on film, so I'm wondering what you're talking about. Star Trek, No Country For Old Men, Fight Club, The Incredible Hulk all look fantastic, and were shot on film. Not that it even matters, because Blu-ray can only hold less than 2K worth of resolution.
And I hate the phrase 'demo worthy'. A movie should be judged by the way it's intended, not by how much '3D pop' or whatever it has.

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

What? The majority of movies released on Blu-ray is shot on film, so I'm wondering what you're talking about. Star Trek, No Country For Old Men, Fight Club, The Incredible Hulk all look fantastic, and were shot on film. Not that it even matters, because Blu-ray can only hold less than 2K worth of resolution.
And I hate the phrase 'demo worthy'. A movie should be judged by the way it's intended, not by how much '3D pop' or whatever it has.

I like the fact that you are a Kubrick Fan.

[odvan]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

What? The majority of movies released on Blu-ray is shot on film, so I'm wondering what you're talking about. Star Trek, No Country For Old Men, Fight Club, The Incredible Hulk all look fantastic, and were shot on film. Not that it even matters, because Blu-ray can only hold less than 2K worth of resolution.
And I hate the phrase 'demo worthy'. A movie should be judged by the way it's intended, not by how much '3D pop' or whatever it has.

Yes, majority was filmed on film. But they doesn't have reference quality. Why? It has minimum 2K of vertical resolution, right? Why we see grain and other crap in this case?

Read what I wrote above. Good night and good luck.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by odvan

Absolutely incorrect. 35mm in theory has around 2K of vertical resolution, but due to MTF generation loss in the film process in reality it's much less, around 850/700 lines in good cinema and even worse...

..... That's how ours vision works - we can see in focus only things we look at. Peripheral is always blurred.

• And 70 mm is another ball game. I think RAH said it took around 8K to fully capture the 70Mm LOA. Of course less resolution gets on a cinema screen, even in 70 mm, but I have seen prints made with TLC and projected through great optics, that are far, far superior to any BD. Naturally 8k doesn't make it onto a theater screen or a BD
• Yes peripheral is always blurred, BUT when you turn and look at something in that blurred area in real life, it is sharp. In film shots with great DOF, often shot with wide angle lenses, if there is not too much distortion, the scene will appear natural, because no matter where you look within the frame, everything is sharp. Part of the glory of traditional 70 mm like Todd-AO is that you can seem to be inside the picture looking around. The DOF with the shortest lens used in D150 was so deep that they didn't need to focus it (although they did).

[odvan]

Originally Posted by garyrc

• And 70 mm is another ball game. I think RAH said it took around 8K to fully capture the 70Mm LOA. Of course less resolution gets on a cinema screen, even in 70 mm, but I have seen prints made with TLC and projected through great optics, that are far, far superior to any BD. Naturally 8k doesn't make it onto a theater screen or a BD
• Yes peripheral is always blurred, BUT when you turn and look at something in that blurred area in real life, it is sharp. In film shots with great DOF, often shot with wide angle lenses, if there is not too much distortion, the scene will appear natural, because no matter where you look within the frame, everything is sharp. Part of the glory of traditional 70 mm like Todd-AO is that you can seem to be inside the picture looking around. The DOF with the shortest lens used in D150 was so deep that they didn't need to focus it (although they did).

Imax short movies has at least 4K of vertical resolution on the screen. And?

But still everything out of your focus is blurred. I don't get your point actually. Movies, at least for me, are not about a possibility to see each scene in deep focus. What for?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by odvan

Yes, majority was filmed on film. But they doesn't have reference quality. Why? It has minimum 2K of vertical resolution, right? Why we see grain and other crap in this case?

Read what I wrote above. Good night and good luck.

In The Realm of the Senses, North By North West, The Searchers were all shot with Vista Vision I believe, and The Matrix was shot on Super 35......

You can argue any one you like, but "The Searchers" is about as reference as you can get in terms of strength of transfer.... (I saw a remastered version at a cinema within the past 2 years or so)

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by odvan

Yes, majority was filmed on film. But they doesn't have reference quality. Why? It has minimum 2K of vertical resolution, right? Why we see grain and other crap in this case?

Read what I wrote above. Good night and good luck.

I'm sorry, but you cannot be serious. You honestly believe Star Trek looks like crap? Film, at least can be scanned it at higher resolutions and with better scanners. With digital you're stuck with whatever resolution you shoot at, and for a lot of productions that's still 2K, so where your bias against that comes from, I honestly don't know.

[odvan]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

In The Realm of the Senses, North By North West, The Searchers were all shot with Vista Vision I believe, and The Matrix was shot on Super 35......

You can argue any one you like, but "The Searchers" is about as reference as you can get in terms of strength of transfer.... (I saw a remastered version at a cinema within the past 2 years or so)

Well, I'm trying to say that 35mm is comparable and on the same level with HD, but a bit behind overall. I agree you could extract great transfer from 35mm on BD but this is still nothing like King-Kong, Sin City or any Pixar flick.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by odvan

Well, I'm trying to say that 35mm is comparable and on the same level with HD, but a bit behind overall. I agree you could extract great transfer from 35mm on BD but this is still nothing like King-Kong, Sin City or any Pixar flick.

King Kong was shot on 35mm film.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by odvan

Well, I'm trying to say that 35mm is comparable and on the same level with HD, but a bit behind overall. I agree you could extract great transfer from 35mm on BD but this is still nothing like King-Kong, Sin City or any Pixar flick.

If you mean "Digital" when you say HD, you are wrong..... and if you think "Digital" has greater resolution potential than film, then you're also wrong.

"HD" simply means 1080i/720p or greater...... and there are streaming sources, OTA sources, Film, and Digital all capable of that and more......

As far as digital is concerned...... it comes at a price of macro-blocking etc... and yes, FILM has greater resolution than digital is currently capable of.

Is your LCD set to "Vivid" by chance?

EDIT:

Technically, I believe "HD" refers to 481p or higher.... although standardization has brought us 720p/1080p

Originally Posted by aiman04

King Kong was shot on 35mm film.