slop101

The reason your argument doesn't hold water is because you're talking about theatrical and I'm talking about home.

Ideally, and most typically, the 2:35 canvas in a given theater is bigger/wider than the 1:85 canvas. But on a 16:9 TV, 2:35 is the same width as the 1:85 and always smaller. The picture I posted is the difference for home and Imax screens - in a normal theater the 2:35 image would be wider.

CertifiedTHX

I can speak only for the theater I frequent, but every screen in that place seems to have a 16:9 aspect ratio. For scope films, a "matting bar" slides down from the top to create a 2.35:1 frame. So every feature presentation has the same width.

--THX

Supermallet

Movie screens come in either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 ratios. If they're the former, then the masking will come down from the top and the bottom to create a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. If it's the latter, the masking comes out from the sides to make 1.85:1.

slop101

I said, ideally - the whole point of the 2.35 ratio is to be wider than 1.85, not more squat.

Teremei

Well some are already out there. Some people say you just need 120hz. Others say it's more than that. Mitsubishi DLP's say 3D ready, but who's to say if they are RealD 3D ready? We just won't know for sure until the first wave of RealD players and BDs are about to come out.

One thing I'm pretty sure about, no 60hz tv will beable to work with RealD. And maybe alot of 120hz tvs too. They probably won't cost that much depending if there are TVs out now that are actually ready. You could just buy an older floor model or something. My problem is bigger is better for 3D and movies for me and it would cost me an arm and a leg to replace my 67" DLP if I wanted to atleast have the same size or larger.

JediJones

I saw it in a real Imax theater and the image was cropped on the sides. Unlike the non-Imax camera Dark Knight scenes, they did not letterbox the top and bottom for any of this film.

Real Imax's aspect ratio is 1.44:1 not 1.78:1 (or 16:9). So the screen is MUCH squarer than seeing it at any normal theater. They need to mask off the top and bottom for a 1.78:1 or a 2.35:1 projection. In my King of Prussia, PA Imax theater they didn't do that. Instead they blew up the image to fill the whole screen and cropped off the sides. That means a 19% loss of image on the left/right. The Thanator chase inparticular was impossible to follow with the cropping, as compared to the online clip or the Avatar Day preview, which I saw in a fake Imax theater, which are all sized as standard movie screens, not in the squarer original Imax 1.44:1.

AmityBoatTours

Well at a L.A. Times envelope series screening of the film which was hosted in Hollywood prior to the films release James Cameron stated his perferd directors Version of Avatar was the 16x9 Flat apsect ratio version. (which is the version that was screened at that event even though the theatre hosting it was not an imax theatre)
there was a Q&A with James Cameron,Sam Worthington,Sigorney Weaver,Zoe Saldona,and Michelle Rodriguez that followed the screening.

he also said the first dvd/bluray released would be 2D with a latter release being 3D.
He also mentioned his preference of Real-D over Dolby Digital 3D in 3D equiped theatres
and that there is a real good possiblity that he is going to work on a 3D rerelease of Titantic.

Eric F

I don't see much point in buying this movie in 2D at all, and being as I don't have the proper equipment to watch it in 3D I won't be purchasing it in any format.

shaun3000

Does anyone know why this was released in two different aspect ratios? There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which AR is used where.

Blu Man

The first showing I went to screen has a native ratio of 1.78:1, the second has a ratio of 2.35:1. Cameron has stated that he used the 1.78:1 aspect ratio because "most" theaters screens are naturally 1.78:1, and then matted to 2.35:1. But the theater were I saw AVATAR in 2.35:1 has a 2.35:1 screen, not 1.78:1. I'm assumeing this is because the image would actually be smaller at the second theater in 1.78:1, not larger.

rdclark

In the much-quoted statement from Cameron, he acknowledges that while they wanted as many Real3D screens as possible to be 1.85, it wasn't always possible and so there would be 2.35 3D prints made as well.

I saw the Real3D version in such a theater. The 2.35 screen was matted at the sides to 1.78 for all the pre-show material that was on video, and then the traveling mattes opened up to 2.35 for the film (and trailers).

It was wonderful. However, I will welcome a 2D version (for the sake of maximum clarity) on BD, and would wish for whatever aspect ratio crops out the least of what was shot.

Josh Z

Cameron prefers 2.35:1 for 2-D, but he feels that 3-D works better at 1.85:1.

toddly6666

Is the first 3D DVD/Blu-Ray editions going to come with:



In other words, is AVATAR going to be released primarily as an old school 3D DVD/Blu-ray?

Matthew Chmiel

Cameron has stated that Avatar will not be in anaglyphic 3-D.

When I saw the film in Cinemark's Extreme Digital theater, the presentation was 1.78:1.

It's also interesting for Cameron to state that he prefers Real-D over Dolby Digital 3D (only because Dolby Digital 3D is shit and it's surprising someone coming out and stating that publicly).

Spiky

I would like to understand this definition of immersive. Does it have anything to do with movies? Or just the amount of plastic you've purchased in your LCD?

I'm sure the plastic does indeed feel more immersed when all of it is used.

Giles

and it works better on IMAX screens too - less annoying than having those goddamn black borders above and below the image - "thanks Cameron!"

Giles

IMAX-Digital screens are 1.78:1
standard IMAX screens are 1.43:1

as I understand it the IMAX framing is 1.85, why Cameron didn't use the original shot composition of 1.78 for the IMAX even more of the screen would have been utlized.

really? I might have to trek over to the Egyptian where they are presenting this in 'Extreme Digital' - is 'Extreme' 2K or 4K digital projection?

Blu Man

Well the "Extreme Digital" doesn't really matter. It all depends on whether the theaters screen is native 2.35:1 or 1.78:1.

JediJones

Someone on IMDB reported the Academy screener DVD is in 1.78:1 ratio.

pmreed

I saw this on a true Imax screen and was wowed. I'll be buying a 3D capable set (probably the 72" Visio LCD) later this year as well as a 3D capable BD player. I'll wait for the Avatar 3D release; it's the only one I want, and I hope it's the 1:78.