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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Avatar Aspect Ratios (3D = 1.78:1) (2D = 2.39:1)

Author Topic: Avatar Aspect Ratios (3D = 1.78:1) (2D = 2.39:1) Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 05-30-2009 05:33 PM                        From a Q&A session at a 70MM screening of Aliens & The Abyss. http://aintitcool.com/node/41244 - Cameron never thought he’d shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-30-2009 05:35 PM                     Wow, I guess I won't bother with the 3D then.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-30-2009 05:42 PM                    This is so cool The way 3D is today, it certainly offers a better image in 1.85 because of the technical limitations of DLP projectors (too much cropping in Scope, meaning little resolution and often little illumination, on top of the 4:2:2 and 10 bits color resolution and depth reduction). If Cameron made the film thinking of Scope (for 2D), then he finished it in Scope 3D as well, so eventually there will be a re-issue in 3D Scope, since Sony 3D pbbly doesn't have a problem with that ratio. Or a special edition 3D-blu-ray Scope much later on Scope 3D will surely fit better for this type of movie that aims in putting the viewer in the middle of a (computer simulated hyper-realistic) 3D world, but not the way it's done with single DLP projectors. Oh, well, at least at 1.85 it could look good on an digital-imax installation ... If you want to listen to Cameron himself, well: http://www.archive.org/download/JamesCameronAtAeroTheatre05-29-09/JamesCameronAero052909.mp3  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 05-31-2009 04:48 PM                     What's it shot in? Cameron was known to favour shooting 35mm Super 35. Is it Super 35 or shot in some form of digital?  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-31-2009 05:29 PM                     It's "some sort of digital." There was a big thing about this that he had a digital rig set up where you had the 2 cameras able to be moved side-to-side to give different focus points for the 3-D throughout the movie. I remember some stuff being put up on youtube from a short interview he did about the process.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-31-2009 05:44 PM                     Oh come on Chris... you can do better then that. Avatar was shot using the Pace Technology "Fusion 3-D cameras". Cameron was the person that backed the Pace design. So in a way they are "his" cameras. I got to see the Pace Demo reel in the Dolby screen room a while back and its pretty amazing! Interesting article HERE Mark  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-31-2009 05:51 PM                    If you listen to the audio file above from the interview, at about 12:20, Cameron says he hasn't shot a single frame of film since 2000 and it's all been 100% digital for him (with the exception of the Dark Angel TV series for which he was a producer) and that he doesn't want to go back to film. For a few directors like him (Rodriguez, i.e.), the advantages of shooting digital far outweight the limitations of digital. Limitations that are quickly dissapearing to the point that it's foreseable that in just a year time frame or so, digital cameras and production could offer comparable or better results in just about all parameters of image quality (sensitivity, resolution, dynamic range, color depth, shooting speed, exposition freedom, speed, motion rendition, etc). I'm not saying that a lot of cameras currently beat the pants down compared to 35mm film in all aspects today at reasonable price ranges. I'm saying that it's very foreseable that this will be so at some point in the near future and, thus, there is little point on trying to improve film anymore and sooner rather than later digital cinematography will have only mostly advantages compared to film in practical terms with very few drawbacks. Avatar is mostly "CGI generated" (it's said that something like 95% of the shots include Computer Generated Imaginery) with some (not a whole lot) live-action ELEMENTS embedded in the film. Cameron has referred as to how the film has been "shot" with a lot of motion performance capture (actors move around wearing funky suits and their actions later re-created by a computer), a lot of "puppetry" to use as reference for the scenes (the action is recreated in real-life to use as a mock-up to later match the exact same thing with computer generated animation or simulation). His sets for Avatar are said to be mostly green screens with almost 200 video cameras in a circle pointing to the actors. The images from the cameras can then be used to produce a 3D rendition of the character in any point in space from any camera position. Here is an interview with an actor that talks some about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGhKLgJNs40&fmt=18 That kind of stuff. I'd say that the "Fusion cameras" (a two-camera 3D rig) will appear in less than 10% of the shots of the films, for those parts that show humans in the few practical sets built for "real" action (i.e. not as mostly a mock-up for actors and a guide for animators). But the big "novelty" is the use of physics simulation, where the "CGI" elements are "alive" and know how to behave naturally instead of the (always) artificial look of having a person manually animate the stuff "one-by-one". Sure, it has been used before in "flock" scenes (i.e. hundreds of CGI warrior battles in lord of the rings), or a bit on nature elements (plants and the like auto-animated in a forest, so an animator doesn't have to move every single leaf), or stuff like "smart hair" or "smart clothes" on CGI characters that animated realistically "on their own". This film is suppossed to include more and better of that. It will not look so much like the usual CGI animation because, well, it won't be so much "manually animated by humans" as much as "automatically animated by a physics simulation engine by a machine". The way it's going, I wouldn't be surprised if even CGI animators start to be replaced by computers ... Interesting also how this film is shot in a 1.78 aspect ratio, which is perfect for blu-ray and home HD Televisions, but must be cropped to either 1.85 or 2.35 for "proper" cinema distribution. I wonder if it could start to make sense to build cinemas for that aspect ratio (just kidding, the answer is no, as digital cameras will probably be optimized for both, 1.78 and 1.85, and there is little difference anyway between those). But it does make sense to compose for 1.78 and then crop to 1.85 for the few months the movie is in theatrical distribution, rather than letter box for the "millions of times" and "years to come" that it will be displayed through blu-ray, cable and HD tv.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 06-01-2009 09:58 AM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Oh come on Chris... you can do better then that. I was trying to point out that this was already discussed to death and covered in media for that matter, but since I was also tired I failed.  |  IP: Logged David E. Nedrow Master Film Handler Posts: 368 From: Columbus, OH, USA Registered: Oct 2008 posted 06-09-2009 03:29 PM                        quote: Geoff Jones Cameron never thought he’d shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D. That's odd, since Cameron specifically shoots Super 35 so that the film can be presented at any aspect ratio. He's never been quiet about insisting that there is no benefit to framing for a specific aspect ratio. He basically makes sure that onscreen eye lines are the same throughout the film and that nothing distracting is in the top and bottom of the non-hardmasked frame, and off he goes.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-09-2009 04:13 PM                        Actually he isn't very careful in that regard. When Arnie smashes the payphone in Terminator 2 to get change, you can see how it is set up to easily smash in the unmasked version (VHS, etc). It looks really bad and you can tell that was not meant to be seen.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.