Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AVATAR for BR/DVD .. in 1.78:1 ??

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » AVATAR for BR/DVD .. in 1.78:1 ?? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: AVATAR for BR/DVD .. in 1.78:1 ??

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-22-2010 01:48 AM

Went tonight, I went to my local and friendly WallyWorld to get my midnight special purchase of AVATAR where I got the BR version (surprisingly, it's also packaged with the DVD release, thus two birds for 20 bucks.. not bad at all..) - not much of a line but it was fun none the less.

Look at the specs for both releases and the presentation ratio is in 1.78:1 . I even checked out the regular DVD release and the same ratio was displayed.

So, "Dang, what gives-not in 2.40:1 as it was on the 'Big Filum/DCI/3D screen?'"

Took it home, shoved the disc in the player and sure enough on my big screen at home: 1.78:1 presentation - thing filled the screen all the way full.

..oh well ... - Monte

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-22-2010 02:16 AM

You act surprised. I could have told you this immediately when the scope + flat thing started kicking around before the movie was released. I may have even mentioned that the Blu-ray would end up being full 16:9 somewhere. Anyway, it is the director's choice and nowhere did he say (that I know of) that the 2.35 aspect had the better composition. I'm very surprised that he even allowed 2.35 versions... I wouldn't. I'd just pick a god damn aspect ratio, whatever it may be, and stick with it. I still can't get over that whole scope AND flat thing.

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 04-22-2010 04:42 AM

After the 1.85, 2.35, 1.78, 3D non-ghostbusted, 3D ghostbusted, 3D-Dolby color corrected and 2D versions, I'm now waiting for the 1.33 pan and scan PAL-color space 25fps (or maybe NTSC 29.97fps 3:2 pulldown interlaced, not sure what would better preserve the original vision) before I buy it.

That will set another record.

Perhaps on my next long haul flight they'll make it fit the small TV screen in front of the seat in the airplane and I can record it with my cellphone camera to watch at home later.

[Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-22-2010 09:33 AM

I'm proud to say that, having seen it once in 3-D, I have completely removed a sense of hype about this movie from my brain. I have absolutely no interest in seeing it again in any format. I believe James Cameron will never get another dollar from me again. (Fool me once, shame on you, etc.)

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-22-2010 09:59 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
I'd just pick a god damn aspect ratio, whatever it may be, and stick with it. I still can't get over that whole scope AND flat thing.

It brings up one of my complaints about the Super35 format. In short, the movie studio wants to fill the screen in all venues. Shoot the movie spherical on Super35, or videotape it in 16:9 HD. Then crop or do whatever to fill a 2.39:1 commercial movie theater screen, 16:9 HDTV screen, 4:3 SD TV screen, etc.

I didn't hate Avatar, but don't really have a strong urge to run out and buy the Blu-ray. Perhaps when I get another large screen HDTV with 3D capability and Fox releases the BD-3D version of Avatar I might check it out then. $20 isn't expensive for a new release Blu-ray, but the discount is going to have to get a bit more aggressive to encourage me to buy.

I'm much more likely to buy other catalog titles newly released on Blu-ray. The new Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan Blu-ray releases are getting very good marks on video and audio, due in part to the movies using up all the data capacity of Disc 1 in their respective 2-disc packages. Collateral and Apollo 13 were both good movies, but I'm going to wait until they get discounted further before buying them. Hopefully Days of Heaven will go on some sort of sale.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008

posted 04-22-2010 11:21 AM

I saw it last on a 60-ft screen (for free). Just can't bring myself to pay money to see it on a tiny tv, BR or not.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2010 11:14 PM

They are counting on this release to save the DVD biz. Good luck with that one. Probably sell a lot of copies, but piss everyone off for not including any extras etc. and then going to the well again this fall with the "deluxe" release.

At least they are doing the theatrical rerelease with the extra footage before they do the special DVD release. That'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-24-2010 12:56 AM

In one respect I think Fox did a good thing with Avatar. By excluding all the usual extras they maximized the bit rate for video and audio making the movie portion a "reference quality" thing to behold. If I was managing an electronics store I would have Avatar playing on every big HDTV screen and Blu-ray player in the house. The movie, though very thin on plot, was not thin at all on "eye candy."

When Fox releases their super-duper 2D edition, they'll need to retain the movie-only 1st disc and put all the extras on the 2nd disc. Otherwise the video quality and possibly audio quality will suffer. Whenever the BD3D version is released the movie may have to be spread across 2 discs.

| IP: Logged

Mark Strube
Master Film Handler

Posts: 322
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-24-2010 01:28 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Whenever the BD3D version is released the movie may have to be spread across 2 discs.

I heavily doubt this. Even cable and satellite channels are managing to squeeze a workable 3D image into their bandwidth constraints at this point (granted, with a bit of artifacting).

I don't see any reason this would need to be spread across 2 discs if they do a skillful multiple pass AVC encode of the video tracks. (I also see it being a marketing disaster if word spreads that you must change discs in the middle of the movie.) Such a clean source makes things easier as well.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-24-2010 02:39 AM

In as much as this "AVATAR" package contained both disc versions, I do have to agree with Bobby with his statement on the simple fact that the DVD version did look very good - probably due to the extra bandwidth that was available on the DVD disc.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-24-2010 12:30 PM

quote: Mark Strube
I heavily doubt this. Even cable and satellite channels are managing to squeeze a workable 3D image into their bandwidth constraints at this point (granted, with a bit of artifacting).

Cable/satellite HD quality is honestly very bad compared to the higher standards of Blu-ray. If a studio released a disc squeezed down to the bit rates typical of cable/satellite I would never buy it.

Not all the reviews of Avatar are saying the disc has perfect picture quality either. Despite the higher bit rate and full use of the disc's capacity there are still some instances of banding and other technical issues more easily seen on large HDTV monitors.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-24-2010 01:15 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Anyway, it is the director's choice and nowhere did he say (that I know of) that the 2.35 aspect had the better composition.

Actually, he did say that. The very first time he brought it up, he very specifically said that while he preferred the extra height of the 1.85:1 image for 3D, he felt that 2.39:1 offered the best compositions for 2D. I wonder why he changed his mind.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-26-2010 02:45 AM

Is it only me but when I saw some footage in a store yesterday the blu ray image looked to me to be recroped. ie not full width of the scope version and similar in hight to the scope version?

I have only seen the scope version in both 2d and 3d. Am I imagining this or does it contain 30% more image top and bottom?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-26-2010 09:01 AM

I was under the impression the Blu-ray is showing more imagery. The video cameras used to shoot the movie have a native 1.77:1 aspect ratio (like HDTV).

However, it's possible Cameron may have panned and scanned the 2.39:1 cropped image in certain shots to get tighter close-ups and such. I've seen it done with various movies shot in Super35 (Terminator 2, The Matrix, etc.).

| IP: Logged

Mark Strube
Master Film Handler

Posts: 322
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-26-2010 02:51 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Not all the reviews of Avatar are saying the disc has perfect picture quality either. Despite the higher bit rate and full use of the disc's capacity there are still some instances of banding and other technical issues more easily seen on large HDTV monitors.

I was surprised by this (not owning the disc myself yet, to be fair) just knowing what a high profile release this is. I Googled blu-ray reviews for Avatar, and I also checked a favorite site I used to go to all the time - dvdfile.com ... I am not finding these bad reviews? Everything I'm finding is gushing about what a reference quality disc this is. Could you point me in the direction of one or two reviews that had issues with the video quality?

Also, isn't banding usually a display issue? Or are you talking about color banding, not motion banding?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.