Although a month old, this article is rather interesting: http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=3691&cs=1

So he wanted to shoot AVATAR at 48fps. I wonder if he'd do that on his next movie.

Cool - you pretty much made my point for me since even though they might be "crop friendly", every single shot looks better at 1:78. The cost of the effects cropped off from the 2:35 could help fund a small country.

That's subjective. I personally prefer the 2.35:1 compositions.

And most movies have their CGI effects rendered at a different aspect ratio than the one that was intended. For example, Terminator 2 and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring had their CGI effects rendered at an aspect ratio of 2:1 whereas they were both presented in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio in theaters.

No money or effects are truly lost. Another example is Star Trek where full models of the ships were rendered by ILM but in many shots you only see parts of them because the ships were zoomed in to be integrated into a specific composition. Yes, this is a case of a movie shot in Anamorphic rather than Super35 and yet CGI had to be "cropped". But neither case was some costly waste.

You have the aspect ratios at 2.9x:1.

Open the mattes a little more:





--THX

I disagree. I like the composition of the 2.35:1 frame better in just about every case.

You have severely overmatted the picture to make your argument. I saw the movie at 2.35:1 and it was very well composed. Most of the 16:9 shots you've posted have a lot of wasted dead space.

I finally saw it this past weekend in a "Real-D 3D" theater, and now this thread makes me confused as I definitely saw it in 3D but it was definitely in the scope 2.35:1 ratio.....

It was pretty good (I still think of the "biggest films ever" that The Dark Knight was much better though)....the 3D was cool and all, but I still consider it a gimmick and I didn't "feel more immersed in the world/story" by it...I definitely have no interest in seeing any films that were not specifically made in 3D (like this was) in this same fashion however....

I'll grab the BD when it comes out and give it a rewatch...I think it will still play well in 2D only....

The 3-D version of the movie is being distributed in both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 ratios. Theaters are instructed to project whichever one will be larger on their screens. Constant Height screens should show the 2.35:1 version. Constant Width and IMAX screens should show the 1.85:1 version.

All 2-D prints are 2.35:1, because that is Cameron's preferred ratio for the 2-D version.

First I just wanna say that 2:35 is just great theatrically, and have no problem with it there - especially if it results in a physically bigger overall image.

But along the same lines, the fact that 1:78 is also an approved AP, and that it would make for a larger image on everyone's TV, compounded by the fact that the screener is 1:78 (its been almost a decade since screeners were at an AR that was different than the official home release), logic dictates that's going to be the obvious choice for the home screen.
That would also dictate the 1:78 for home TVs - but then he's just talking about theaters...

That was my theatrical experience as well.

I think they should just pull a TF:RotF with this (sans Wal-Mart exclusivity) and make the 2D and 3D versions available in both aspect ratios.

Would it be possible to have the blu-ray create matte overlays on the fly so there could be 2 ARs on one disc with only one movie on it? I think the problem would be that the picture would have to keep shifting up and down since some scenes have more of the bottom matted than the top and vice-versa.

I don't think Cameron is aiming for the largest image on everyone's TV. No director would care about that. All 2-D prints of Avatar are framed at 2.35:1. That's the aspect ratio Cameron established for that version. Only makes sense that the 2-D Blu-ray will have the same aspect ratio, regardless of the screener.

--THX

It's probably not part of the BD spec, but it would have been a nice feature. No reason the buffer couldn't be made large enough to adjust the frames on the fly. You could also use seamless branching for more complex changes.

Theatrical 2-D - THEATRICAL! He hasn't said squat about the home version. If he wanted the home version to be 2:35, the screener would be too. If every 2-D print is 2:35 why would they use the 1:78 for the DVD screener?

In May 2009 James Cameron stated the following about the different aspect ratios:

(Taken from http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...aspect-ratios/.)

I have no answer for why the screener is 1.78:1. But if Cameron favors scope for all 2-D presentations in theaters, there is no reason he would use anything else for 2-D home video. Compositionally, there is no difference between a theater screen and a television.

--THX

Only for 3-D!

No, he was talking about the difference between 2-D and 3-D, not the difference between home and theaters.

Do you believe that James Cameron had anything to do with the production of that screener?

Until Avatar, which was shot digitally, Cameron shot every one of his (narrative) movies from The Abyss onward using the Super 35 format. How many of those movies are available on DVD or Blu-ray in modified 16:9 open-matte transfers?

The Abyss - 2.35:1 only.
Terminator 2 - 2.35:1 only.
True Lies - 2.35:1 only.
Titanic - 2.35:1 only.

Do you sense a pattern here yet?

Also keep in mind that Cameron is a control freak who insists on supervising the video transfers for all of his movies. That's why there's been so much delay in getting remastered editions of The Abyss and True Lies. He last approved masters for those two movies in the laserdisc days. Reportedly, newer HD transfers for both were struck a few years ago, but he has yet to approve the work done. And thus we're stuck with the non-anamorphic letterbox DVDs we have now.

My point being that he only signed off on those movies being 2.35:1 for DVD or Blu-ray. Because he likes 2.35:1.

As has been said earlier in this thread, Cameron supports opening the mattes for a taller image in 3-D, because he feels that it's more immersive in 3-D. But for 2-D, he still prefers the 2.35:1 composition.

This isn't limited to theaters. If it were just about getting the biggest image size in both 2-D and 3-D, why aren't there any 1.85:1 2-D theatrical prints for theaters with Constant Width screens? Again, because he only likes 2.35:1 in 2-D.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words when the Blu-ray is released. But at this point, I doubt it.

No, he was talking about the difference between 2D & 3D in the theaters - there is a difference.

Since he is such a control freak, and the studio knows this, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to get a simple "okay" or approval of the AR they used - they have to get the print from him anyhow. If he wanted them to use the 2:35 print for the screener, he would've given them that.

Well, either way.. we probably have a yr or so before a possible 3D Blu-Ray release... I guess we'll all find out than. Case closed!

You have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. His statement had nothing to do with home vs. theaters. Where are you reading that? His statement was strictly about 2-D vs. 3-D.

If Cameron were fine with the 2-D version of the movie being opened up, why aren't there any 1.85:1 2-D theatrical prints? Why aren't any of his other movies opened up to 16:9 on home video?

Because they needed to rush the screener out. Cameron isn't going to say, "Well, you got the aspect ratio right, so yeah go ahead. That's good enough." He'd insist on supervising the entire transfer from start to finish. And, as mentioned, he's very slow to do such things.

Again: for theaters - he hasn't mentioned one fucking thing about the home presentation. Why are you glossing over this?

Home vs. theater is just as big a difference (if not more so) than 3D vs 2D. Why are you pretending that they're the same, and that he's talking about all platforms, when up to now he's only discussed theatrical presentations?

EXACTLY - if they had to rush out the screeners, and no 1:78 2D prints exist - they had to make one for the screener, which means that's what's intended for 2D home video. Thanks for proving my point!

Not at all. That just means they took either the left or right side image of the 3D print and slapped it onto the screener.

Why do you insist on limiting his statement to only the theatrical release, when he made no such qualifier?

You're extrapolating something that simply is not there in what he said.

Because that's how all filmmakers talk, especially when they're talking about their current theatrical releases - across the board this is always the case, and especially for Cameron. Why do you not understand this?

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. Do you?

It comes down to this:

you think the home release will be exactly what Cameron has said in interviews: 2D: 2:35, 3D: 1:78

I think this is likely to be bogus because:
a) he was talking about the theatrical presentations and not the home
b) the DVD screener is 1:78

You, however, think this is bogus because you're sure he was talking about both theater and home presentations*, and you also feel that that the AR of the DVD screener is irrelevant**.

All I'm saying is that my position is more logical.

*

**