Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by FiendishlyInventive

And yet he did for Judgment Day anyway.

And Titanic. If the opportunity pretents itself, I don't doubt that he would fix stuff if he wanted.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I think it will be just like with the first one and it will be in full 1,78:1 on Blu-ray / UHD.

King of the World is too big for them to make taller AR exclusive for IMAX screens and later for Disney+. The question is, though, is he big enough to make them release it on BD100 with Dolby Vision. I guess the UHD of the first Avatar (only theatrical cut or all three versions?) will be a good test for what to expect from the UHD release of A2.

He made Fox use DV on Alita although he couldn’t break the spell of the UHD66. But you are correct, they’ll do whatever he wants.

Originally Posted by Roonan

And Titanic. If the opportunity pretents itself, I don't doubt that he would fix stuff if he wanted.

And Aliens. Cameron LOVES to have a tinker when he does new transfers of his movies, but as Avatar was so technically accomplished anyway it’s hard to see just where he’d change things. He’s already done three cuts of the film too!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by FiendishlyInventive

And yet he did for Judgment Day anyway.

Originally Posted by Roonan

And Titanic. If the opportunity pretents itself, I don't doubt that he would fix stuff if he wanted.

Sorry - I did not know this. Just going by the T1 comments he had made at that time.

[demonbeast]

Originally Posted by FiendishlyInventive

And yet he did for Judgment Day anyway.

I saw an interview with him that might have been on the 3D blu ray where he mentioned that there was one shot in T2 he wasn't happy with might have been a time issue I can't remember. It was when the truck crashes through the overpass I think the window was held in place with a rope or wire and during the 3D conversion, he decided to edit it out.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I think it will be just like with the first one and it will be in full 1,78:1 on Blu-ray / UHD.

King of the World is too big for them to make taller AR exclusive for IMAX screens and later for Disney+. The question is, though, is he big enough to make them release it on BD100 with Dolby Vision. I guess the UHD of the first Avatar (only theatrical cut or all three versions?) will be a good test for what to expect from the UHD release of A2.

It begs the question, does a 1.78:1 version even exist for these sequels or just 1.90:1?

The first Avatar was actually shot in 1.78:1, the native aspect ratio of the sensor of the Sony cameras used to shoot that movie in 2007. The Sony Venice camera used on the sequels is native 1.90:1 if I’m not mistaken.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t still show the non-Imax version that way. James Gunn got The Suicide Squad out there in 1.90:1 in all of its various deliverables, letterboxed in a 1.85:1 container for the normal screens and fully utilizing the 1.90:1 pixel grid for the Imax version.

We could see something similar happen with the Avatar sequels. For the “constant width” screens, they would show a letterboxed 1.90:1 version in a 1.85:1 container, and the “constant height” auds would get the 2.39:1 scope version like last time. Then the Imax version would completely fill the screen (well, the liemax screens anyway).

The irony is that I still remember hearing about how Avatar was pillarboxed in liemax in order to preserve the taller 1.78:1 aspect ratio on those 1.90:1 screens. Only those who saw it in 70mm Imax 3D would’ve gotten the ultimate experience.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Cameron LOVES to have a tinker when he does new transfers of his movies, but as Avatar was so technically accomplished anyway it’s hard to see just where he’d change things. He’s already done three cuts of the film too!

At least there's no grain in the first one to tinker with.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by demonbeast

I saw an interview with him that might have been on the 3D blu ray where he mentioned that there was one shot in T2 he wasn't happy with might have been a time issue I can't remember. It was when the truck crashes through the overpass I think the window was held in place with a rope or wire and during the 3D conversion, he decided to edit it out.

That was 1 of 100 things he changed.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

It begs the question, does a 1.78:1 version even exist for these sequels or just 1.90:1?

The first Avatar was actually shot in 1.78:1, the native aspect ratio of the sensor of the Sony cameras used to shoot that movie in 2007. The Sony Venice camera used on the sequels is native 1.90:1 if I’m not mistaken.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t still show the non-Imax version that way. James Gunn got The Suicide Squad out there in 1.90:1 in all of its various deliverables, letterboxed in a 1.85:1 container for the normal screens and fully utilizing the 1.90:1 pixel grid for the Imax version.

We could see something similar happen with the Avatar sequels. For the “constant width” screens, they would show a letterboxed 1.90:1 version in a 1.85:1 container, and the “constant height” auds would get the 2.39:1 scope version like last time. Then the Imax version would completely fill the screen (well, the liemax screens anyway).

The irony is that I still remember hearing about how Avatar was pillarboxed in liemax in order to preserve the taller 1.78:1 aspect ratio on those 1.90:1 screens. Only those who saw it in 70mm Imax 3D would’ve gotten the ultimate experience.

Native sensor size of the Venice is 1.50 as befits its VV-sized sensor. But yes, I'd think that the IMAX version will be 1.90 as that's their bespoke ratio now.

Originally Posted by demonbeast

I saw an interview with him that might have been on the 3D blu ray where he mentioned that there was one shot in T2 he wasn't happy with might have been a time issue I can't remember. It was when the truck crashes through the overpass I think the window was held in place with a rope or wire and during the 3D conversion, he decided to edit it out.

Typical Cameron fudgery. He fixed a bunch of stuff in T2 like pasting a digital Arnie head onto the stuntman in several shots in the canal chase, erasing visible crew members in the Pescadero escape when the car smashes through the fence, erasing Arnie's black-socked arm from when the T-800 frees himself from the giant gear in the steel meel, erasing a camera that peeks over the edge of the wall when the T-1000 crashes his truck during the canal chase. Yet he literally said in an interview that he only changed ONE thing, which was those windows. Lying mother****er.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Typical Cameron fudgery. He fixed a bunch of stuff in T2 like pasting a digital Arnie head onto the stuntman in several shots in the canal chase, erasing visible crew members in the Pescadero escape when the car smashes through the fence, erasing Arnie's black-socked arm from when the T-800 frees himself from the giant gear in the steel meel, erasing a camera that peeks over the edge of the wall when the T-1000 crashes his truck during the canal chase. Yet he literally said in an interview that he only changed ONE thing, which was those windows. Lying mother****er.

And don't forget Robert's balls.

[roborunner94]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

And don't forget Robert's balls.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Native sensor size of the Venice is 1.50 as befits its VV-sized sensor. But yes, I'd think that the IMAX version will be 1.90 as that's their bespoke ratio now.

I stand corrected.

I must’ve jumped to that conclusion based on Top Gun: Maverick having been shot on Venice and only going for a 1.9:1 finish. I could’ve sworn that was the native aspect ratio even though I knew it was vv-sized, but it must’ve gotten jarbled in my memory with the specs of some RED camera.

[Neverman]

mmh, eliminating movie errors that are so minor that most viewers wouldn't even recognize and that shouldn't even be there to begin with imo doesn't constitute a 'change'. if he changed something elementary to the story (i.e. replacing guns with walkie talkies), i would be pissed. but he's just polishing it up a bit.
what he could do with avatar is give it a proper 4k upscale and add dolby vision and dolby atmos. and he should decide which version he likes the best and convert this one. it probably would be the theatrical one because it's the version that most people know.

this whole imax shenanigans pisses me off. we get the smalles picture (2.35:1/Scope) in non-imax, a little bit taller picture (1.90:1) in imax and the tallest picture (1.85:1/16:9/Flat) on home video? why not just stick to the tallest picture possible and give people the chance to see it only that way for christ's sake? i get that distribution has to adapt to movie theater's technical capabilities, but are there really theaters out there that can't show Flat? wtf...

[Kylo_Ren]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Jim doesn’t usually like to go back and retouch his movies effects or whatever. He was asked about the first terminator film which clearly has a few dated shots. His response was: movies are a product of their time. It is what it is. I’m OK with it.

I thought so too, Mikey. But then I bought the T2 4K blu ray and was shocked at the new transfer. haha

Hopefully, Avatar gets a nice 4K upgrade worth the money.

I also want to see Aliens and True Lies get the 4K treatment.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Kylo_Ren

I thought so too, Mikey. But then I bought the T2 4K blu ray and was shocked at the new transfer. haha

Hopefully, Avatar gets a nice 4K upgrade worth the money.

I also want to see Aliens and True Lies get the 4K treatment.

Yeah - guess I was wrong about that then. I do remember Jims comments about T1 when he was asked about "fixing" some shots though. Oh well!

Aliens MUST be released in 4K but they'll likely !@#$ us and release it in some box set which means Im OUT. Already have Alien in 4K and I am not paying money towards Alien 3, Resurrection or Covenant. No way, no how.

I own Prometheus in 3D/blu-ray which is good enough & I can get that in 4K separately if I ever want to. Honestly, Disney owning some of these catalog title rights kind of sucks. They really dont seem to care much about physical media these days.

[DigitalDeluge24]

I wouldn't try to determine the film's AR based on Sony Venice's specs. I suspect Sony's involvement was mostly for publicity and that the Sony Venice was mainly used for capturing footage of real actors, in order to insert them into the digital environments. I doubt any raw shots from this camera will end up in the finished film. Most of it is just a computer render and from what I understand they usually render a much taller image than they actually need.

For the home video release and especially the 3D version, I would prefer the full fat 1.78:1 over the 1.90. If they're doing the whole This film has been formatted to fit your screen thing, then they should release something that actually fits our screens and not some half-measure. They should, at least, do it for the sake of consistency with the first film.

Then again, they can make everything consistent by matting Avatar 1 to 1.90:1 for the 4K Blu-ray and every subsequent release.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Neverman

mmh, eliminating movie errors that are so minor that most viewers wouldn't even recognize and that shouldn't even be there to begin with imo doesn't constitute a 'change'.

I agree, and that's probably the point that Cameron was getting at, but sadly most people here see those as actual changes.

I mean, they are changes. But any remaster or restoration invariably has changes.

[SilverFox84]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

Disney is turning to James Cameron’s sequel to reignite a format left for dead when audiences grew tired of cash-grab conversions: "Warming up 3D has to be done thoughtfully and carefully."

Details


Interesting

Ultimately, I want to see the return of 3D OLED TV's for the home. There's a hope this might kick off with Avatar 2

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by SilverFox84

Ultimately, I want to see the return of 3D OLED TV's for the home. There's a hope this might kick off with Avatar 2

I keep wondering if the z-screen tv samsung was developing with real-d a decade ago might become a thing.

It was cancelled once they realized the tv’s couldn’t be mass-produced cheaply enough … but that was a decade ago.

The thing I never liked about lg’s passive 3D tv’s were the fpr screens and how they made everything look in 2D. When I checked out the older 1080p sets at best buy they looked like I was looking through a screen door, since the even lines were polarized one way and the odd lines were polarized the other.

Is the “screen door effect” noticeable on the 4k sets in 2D?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by SilverFox84

Ultimately, I want to see the return of 3D OLED TV's for the home. There's a hope this might kick off with Avatar 2

Not a chance. Consumers have already decided they don't want 3D in their homes. In theaters - OK. But not in their homes.

[Noremac Mij]

I would pay a lot of money if they could bring back CRT. High definition. Decent size. Modern manufacturing.