Lol... what?

So you basically don't own anything?

Fox's crappy DVD screeners?

Because he prefers 2.35 for the 2D presentation. Hopefully it is released that way.

Most of Fox's DVD screeners have "PROPERTY OF 20TH CENTURY FOX. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COPY OR WE WILL SUE YOUR ASS INTO THE STONE AGE AND TAKE OUT A CONTRACT ON YOUR LIFE, YOU SCUMBAG PIRATE" watermarks plastered all over the video, and no bonus features. That doesn't have any bearing on what the final consumer product will be like.

This is no different than any movie shot on Super 35, which is the dominant format for 2.35:1 movies these days. How much information gets photographed on the camera negative (or CCD, if digital) has nothing to do with what aspect ratio the movie was composed for.

Cameron has stated that he composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1.

The aspect ratios are 1.33:1, 1.78:1, or 2.35:1.

A 1:33 picture would look like this:

---------------------------------

So basically this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6e...terbox-200_fun

No. That would be 33:1. 1:33 is more like:

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

TLK

I have a pretty large LD/DVD/BD collection with aspect ratios of 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.35:1, and 2.40:1.

TLK

If that's the sort of example you wan to use, then you just proved my point since Fox screeners also never get the aspect ratio wrong either.

fixed

He has said nothing about the home version. And it's ridiculous to assume he would crop the image to a 2:35 for a canvas that's 1:78.

The whole point of a scope aspect is that it's bigger and wider, not more squat. What you're suggesting is reverse pan-n-scan.

Lmao. My fault, TLK. I just glanced over what you wrote so quickly I didn't notice what was obviously wrong with it.

Then you must hate every BD/DVD copy of movies shot in Super35.

Bad example. 99.9% of movies shot on Super35 just have one intended aspect ratio. Where as the difference with Avatar is that it was initially composed for 1:78 but also protected for 2:35, so both ratios are intended and correct. So why not go with one that has the most information and fills your screen?

Here, would you rather have this on your TV:



or this:

The former. The framing is tighter,with less unused space at the top and bottom of the frame. Your attention is focused more on the characters.

The first image is wider than 2.35:1.

It's just an approximation.

Well then if it is released in 1:78, I hope you put black mattes on your screen to cover up the superfluous parts of the image.

If you saw it on Imax, did you put your hands up to cover those parts of the screen? That's how ridiculous you sound - contrary just for the sake of it.

How about these



Keep in mind, these are both the approved theatrical ARs for Avatar. Regardless, on most TVs it's almost like the difference between squinting and not squinting, and you think squinting looks better.

Still not right man. Way to wide.

Exactly. slop101's aren't useful for any valid comparison. We need actual screenshots from the movie in both aspect ratios to make a valid comparison.

No need to be dickish. I'm not being contrary for the sake of it. You asked a question and I gave you my legitimate answer. Maybe you were being rhetorical.

IMAX is a very different experience from how you watch a movie at home. In an IMAX presentation of "Avatar," a great deal of the unmatted image is deliberately intended to be in your peripheral vision, not the focus of your attention. That will not be the case when watching the movie at home. The framing of the image is different because how you watch it is different.

Argue all you want, but Cameron has said he framed the movie for 1.78:1 (not 1:78) for 3D and IMAX and 2.35:1 for 2D and home viewing. There is a reason for that.

Yeah, a little wide there. But I'm with you, I'd prefer the 1.78 for home viewing. Maybe they'll do like they did for the theatrical release(s) and give us both for the 2D and eventual 3D release.

Those are actual screen-grabs from the screener - I just covered up the top and bottom (I guess too much) to approximate the 2:35 AR. Name a scene you want to compare.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=125

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...0&postcount=92

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=118



http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=119