slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/3d-avatar-vs-2d-avatar-and-the-importance-of-aspect-ratios/

The uncropped aspect ratio makes sense for Blu-ray, no? ...even if not viewed in 3D (Cameron said that the first release may not even be a 3D BD).

I have only seen the movie in 2D (no 3D theatres in my town) so it would be great to see it in its full glory on my 42" plasma come next summer. It's actually rather annoying that they cropped it for 2D, even the online featurettes are uncropped.

Sorry, can't post clickable link.

That article is incorrect. The 1.78:1 presentation was for IMAX. All other screenings, 3D or not, were scope. I have a feeling we'll see the 1.78:1 format on BD, kind of like the IMAX sequences from the Dark Knight.

1.85:1 3D prints have been made, so those digital files are already there. I have a feeling it will be 1.78:1 on BD, because Cameron's intent was to immerse you as fully as possible, and it's more immersive if it fills the entire screen.

No, your incorrect. I have seen it in 3D at two different theaters, both were Real D, one was in native 1:78:1, the other was cropped to 2:35:1. It just depends on were you go to see it.

The Blu Ray will most likely be 2:35:1, as Cameron has said that the only reason he would release it in 1:78:1 is if were in 3D, and the first round of Blu Rays will not be 3D.

First round of Blu-Rays?
I guess the whole double dipping thing has become such the norm now that they can just come out and say it ahead of time that they aren't going to bother doing it right the first time.

Do I smell an AVATAR BIG SCREEN EDITION coming to Walmart?

Well, we already know that the initial Blu Ray release will not be in 3D. Cameron said it himself. The ratio will likely be 2.35:1 for that release.

Per Cameron himself, he says there will be the standard 2D release, then 3D sometime down the road, probably within "6 to 8 months." He doesn't go into detail regarding the aspect ratio, but after seeing this last night (damn good movie I thought), it looked like the ratio was 1.85:1. As for the BD releases, I would guess it'd be the same. Of course, it was on an IMAX screen, so it could have very well been 1.78:1.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3932

Really? What's the point of that?

I honestly don't see why they would release it cropped when instead of black bars you could have your whole TV screen filled with image without any loss from sides.

Because the director prefers the composition of the 2.35:1 frame.

I get it, but like another poster said, if we're talking about immersiveness then 1:78:1 would be ideal for home entertainment. A question, is a 3D BD picture going to look normal without the glasses? If it is then I'm gonna buy the 2nd 3D release as well even if I don't own a 3D TV just for the uncropped ratio.

Edit:

marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/s3d-blu-ray-standard-is-complete-ces.html

So I guess the 3D BD image can be displayed in 2D. Good to know.

Yeah, I'm going to hold off for the 3D release unless I can get the 2D one for $10 or less.

If the first Blu will be 2D only, then it will be the 2.35 aspect ratio as that was Camerons intent when he shot the film. Its framed for 2.35, not cropped.

I think a more interesting question is if there is an Extended Cut, as seems pretty likely, will there be a 3D version of it or will the 3D blu-ray be theatrical only?

That would be incorrect. The movie was filmed it 1:78:1, and then a scope image was extracted from that image for the 2D showings. It was not cropped in the sense that they just cut the top and bottom off, Cameron was able to decide what part of the image we got, so that it looks like it was filmed with the 2:35:1 aspect ratio.

Oh

Well, still point remains that the 2.35 isn't cropped and is framed to Camerons wishes. So I have no problem with getting the 2D blu

Speaking of incorrect, the aspect ratios are 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, not 1:78:1 or 2:35:1.

And what you're describing is essentially the digital equivalent of Cameron's preferred Super 35 format for film. He could have chosen to just keep the aspect ratio at 1.78:1 across formats, but he didn't. It appears he chose 2.35:1 for all presentations except IMAX. That would lead me to believe he will choose 2.35:1 for non-3D home presentations.

It's not going to be as immersive for Josh Z, you know.

When are the new 3D Blu-ray players coming out?

I'd reckon that Cameron won't release Avatar in 3D until those players are available. Avatar would look fucking awful with the old red/blue glasses.

2:35 would crop a lot of the image along with Cmeron's valuable CGI - I'm pretty sure he'll go with 1:78 for all home video versions.

No, most 3D theaters, not just IMAX kept the original 1.78:1 aspect ratio. A scope image was extracted for 2D theaters. Like I said before, I've seen it twice at different theaters, both RealD. One was 1.78:.1, the other 2.35:1.

I made some comparisons from material (trailers and featurettes) available:

1.78 = img37.imageshack.us/img37/1641/1781n.jpg
2.35 = img37.imageshack.us/img37/1388/2351.jpg

1.78 = img109.imageshack.us/img109/7597/021781.jpg
2.35 = img189.imageshack.us/img189/4412/022351c.jpg

Wasn't it said that PS3-s and some players just get a firmware update for 3D playback? The question is when are we going to see 3D TVs (that don't cost a million hehe).

Since you can't post images yet, let me help you out. Warning, they're huge.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Why did Cameron choose 2.35:1 for non-3D and even some non-IMAX 3D presentations? It would seem he likes the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. He could have chosen to present "Avatar" at 1.85:1 across the board, in all theaters, but he didn't. And every commercial and clip I've seen on TV has been in 2.35:1. I'm willing to bet we'll get 2.35:1 for home, at least until 3D becomes available.

So, in your experience, by "most" you mean 50 percent.