Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

[Sherman_Conley]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

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

Because it's cumbersome. People who wear glasses are already at a disadvantage. But optional 3D TV's that don't require glasses? That might actually be an enticing market to explore.

It depends on how the technology fares this time around, but... Well. As many have said before, only an idiot bets against Jim Cameron.

[LordoftheRings]

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

■□ https://petapixel.com/2022/06/07/the...-ever-created/

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Sherman_Conley

Because it's cumbersome. People who wear glasses are already at a disadvantage. But optional 3D TV's that don't require glasses? That might actually be an enticing market to explore.

There is nothing new about Autostereo 3D (no glasses) TVs. No breakthroughs have been made. The problem is always the same . . . multiple viewers. Commerically - it's different. Huge breakthroughs:

3D LED billboards and OOH advertising amazing Trends 2021, The best 3D LED board in the world - YouTube

3D digital billboard image of a giant cat draws attention in Tokyo - YouTube

But this technology doesn't work in home sized TVs

It depends on how the technology fares this time around, but... Well. As many have said before, only an idiot bets against Jim Cameron.

I'm sure the 3D will be spectacular in Avatar 2. But the only real difference this time will be 48 FPS. That doesn't translate to the home because no format supports 48 FPS

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 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.

It’s not the camera, it’s just that 1.90 is IMAX’s in-house ratio now so it makes sense. But it’d be fookin amazing if they’d render out a 1.43 version for full-height IMAX venues, then they can take a 1.78 from that for the home versions.

Originally Posted by Sherman_Conley

Because it's cumbersome. People who wear glasses are already at a disadvantage. But optional 3D TV's that don't require glasses? That might actually be an enticing market to explore.

It depends on how the technology fares this time around, but... Well. As many have said before, only an idiot bets against Jim Cameron.

Cameron himself literally said that glasses-free 3D wasn’t gonna happen. The tech has been knocking about for years but it’s just not commercially viable.

[Bubbles-11]

Disney closed its show with an in-person visit from Avatar producer Jon Landau who flew into Barcelona from New Zealand to tout the upcoming sequel. He said Avatar: The Way Of Water was in the final stages of post-production and that it was important to be in Barcelona “to show our support for the exhibition community.”

Before showing off four scenes from the film, Landau noted that the strengths of James Cameron’s scripts are in their universal themes; “There is nothing more relatable than family,” he said before tossing to a message from Cameron.

Cameron from New Zealand said the Avatar team was “pushing the limits even further… every shot is designed for the biggest screen and highest resolution possible… I believe the audience wants this.” He added, “We as an industry are not going away.”

https://deadline.com/2022/06/avatar-...pe-1235050452/

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Sherman_Conley

Because it's cumbersome. People who wear glasses are already at a disadvantage. But optional 3D TV's that don't require glasses? That might actually be an enticing market to explore.

It depends on how the technology fares this time around, but... Well. As many have said before, only an idiot bets against Jim Cameron.

It will be interesting to see if Avatar 2's 3D can inspire a new surge from TV manufacturers to offer a glasses free 3DTV option. Sony was working on a glasses free 3DTV for years but that faded away. Of course there should always be a choice of 2D or 3D for each movie or program, because not everyone can see in 3D due to a variety of reasons.

For home 3D TVs, glasses free stereo 3D displays could be the next step if Avatar 2 inspires more 3D at home again, as it did in 2010 with the introduction of new 3DTVs. You'd be able to see strong 3D and pop outs without having to wear 3D glasses ideally, at any reasonable angle.

While I'm a lifelong 3D fan and don't mind 3D glasses, that is probably the number one complaint for those who are interested in 3D, but are bothered by having to wear extra glasses to enjoy 3D. Then there are a lot of mild 3D films that are almost 2D, so wearing glasses barely has an effect with those poorly done 3D films.

[Lee A Stewart]

Autostereoscopic 3D (no glasses) has been in development for decades. They have STILL yet to solve the problem: having a group of people watch it and see 3D. Yes it works great if you are sitting in the "sweet spot" but for those siitting next to you - they don't get the same experience.

Avatar 2 will not rekindle the 3D for the home craze. Same problem - must wear 3D glasses. People already know this from their last experience a decade ago. It turned them off then - it will turn them off now.

[Shane Rollins]

Off topic but Titanic got restored in 4K in complete secrecy and is hitting theaters in 2023. That’s the confirmed part. The question is whether the transfer will be any good and whether we’ll be getting a physical 4K release out of this.

[Neverman]

titanic got restored in 4k in 2012 for the 3d conversion. and it got hdr for the 2015 rerelease in dolby cinema. the only new thing is hfr.
but yes, a 4k disc is overdue.

they may not solve autostereoscopy for the mass market in the forseeable future, BUT if they manage to bring 3d to the next level with 4k, hdr and hfr, i can see new 3d tv's happening. it's all a big IF though...

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Neverman

titanic got restored in 4k in 2012 for the 3d conversion. and it got hdr for the 2015 rerelease in dolby cinema. the only new thing is hfr.
but yes, a 4k disc is overdue.

they may not solve autostereoscopy for the mass market in the forseeable future, BUT if they manage to bring 3d to the next level with 4k, hdr and hfr, i can see new 3d tv's happening. it's all a big IF though...

??? Per GMA it was a brand new restoration? What am I missing?

Edit: It has 3D, 4K, HDR, and a high frame rate. How much of this is new?

[Neverman]

what's GMA?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...3d-207316/amp/
-4k remaster, 3d conversion in 2012

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-1058456/amp/
-dolby vision conversion in 2017

hfr is new. i didn't find any source that claimed this rerelease to be another restoration. hopefully enough theaters will be capable of showing titanic in 4k 3d hdr hfr.
also, the articles also mention that avatar gets dolby vision and a 4k remaster, but i think that's a given. i'm sure they'll soon announce hfr for the first avatar as well.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Neverman

titanic got restored in 4k in 2012 for the 3d conversion. and it got hdr for the 2015 rerelease in dolby cinema. the only new thing is hfr.
but yes, a 4k disc is overdue.

they may not solve autostereoscopy for the mass market in the forseeable future, BUT if they manage to bring 3d to the next level with 4k, hdr and hfr, i can see new 3d tv's happening. it's all a big IF though...

You will still have to wear glasses. They can go to 1000 FPS or 32K. It makes no difference to Joe Six Pack. He DOES NOT want to wear 3D glaases in his home. In the cinema - that's OK. But not at home.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Neverman

what's GMA?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...3d-207316/amp/
-4k remaster, 3d conversion in 2012

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-1058456/amp/
-dolby vision conversion in 2017

hfr is new. i didn't find any source that claimed this rerelease to be another restoration. hopefully enough theaters will be capable of showing titanic in 4k 3d hdr hfr.
also, the articles also mention that avatar gets dolby vision and a 4k remaster, but i think that's a given. i'm sure they'll soon announce hfr for the first avatar as well.

Good Morning America, the morning news show on ABC here in America. They did a quick once-over where they said Titanic was newly restored and remastered, and it was hitting theaters in 2023. No more details, nothing about discs. Everyone just gave the customary “wow, that’s so exciting” and moved on to the next story, which I honestly forget because I instantly picked up my phone to spread the news.

Without further evidence, the HFR is really the only thing new to this movie. Whether it adds or subtracts from the film we’ll eventually find out. What I will say is that quite a few directors and one certain studio “restore” and “remaster” the same item every time you turn around, and James Cameron is one of those directors. So while we don’t have any sign of a wholly new restoration, it wouldn’t shock me at all if Cameron did indeed restore Titanic yet again. As the forums here prove, more remasters aren’t always a good thing with James Cameron.

And besides, why remaster Titanic again when we still don’t have True Lies and The Abyss?

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You will still have to wear glasses. They can go to 1000 FPS or 32K. It makes no difference to Joe Six Pack. He DOES NOT want to wear 3D glaases in his home. In the cinema - that's OK. But not at home.

The frame rate will be jarring regardless of how fast it plays. As long as JC never finds out he can waste decades converting his movies to 1,000 fps, we’ll be safe. As for the 32K resolution, in terms of native content at native resolution, all human eyes max out at roughly 4K, and probably half of people who own a 4K TV can’t see 4K. On the 8K TV I want (which, aside from my desire to get into film restoration and use it for my work, the TV serves absolutely no purpose), I have to get within inches of the screen to see the difference between native 8K and a 4K upscale. In about 10 years, 8K will be old hat, and 16K TVs and 32K TVs will be the norm, with people swearing they can see the difference and companies touting the better resolution.

While the numbers will be true on a paper (a 32K display would be infinitely better than a 4K display), literally nobody will be able to see the difference. Hopefully JC doesn’t decide to do 32K restorations of his movies, or they’ll be out of circulation for another 20 years.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

And besides, why remaster Titanic again when we still don’t have True Lies and The Abyss?

Because it's the 2nd-highest grossing movie of all time and has a much higher cultural cachet than either True Lies or The Abyss.

[BluBonnet]

[Modren]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Not gonna lie, I thought Sigourney Weaver was gonna be more of a cameo since her character seemingly died/ascended to the afterlife in the first movie. I guess this is her reincarnated in a younger body?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Modren

Not gonna lie, I thought Sigourney Weaver was gonna be more of a cameo since her character seemingly died/ascended to the afterlife in the first movie. I guess this is her reincarnated in a younger body?

She's playing a new character - Jake and Neytiri’s teenage Na’vi daughter, Kiri.

[TheSweetieMan]

This is the awesome part of how perfomance-capture technology keeps moving forward. Directors can basically cast the same actor or actors they like working with, for different roles even if it's within the same 'universe'.

This is something James Cameron would do.

[Atomic Salad]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

She's playing a new character - Jake and Neytiri’s teenage Na’vi daughter, Kiri.

*adopted.

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/...rld-exclusive/



Adopted from where though?

She's an Avatar, not a Na'vi (she has 5 fingers and eyebrows, Na'vi have 4 fingers and no eyebrows).

Grace might have had a backup in the tank in case her original got eaten on a field trip.



Maybe? Resemblance seems pretty vague though. Grace's adult Avatar looked a lot like her.