|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Avatar 2009 (plus lots of off-topic, non-review junk)
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-20-2009 03:25 PM
Claude,
Just as with 35mm, it's impossible off-hand to know what theatres are going to provide a better presentation necessarily. We all know 3D "eats a lot of light" and that Imax theatres use "very large screens", so it's a challenge. On the other side, they use "two projectors" (two lamps, double the light) and they use an effective polarizing system (passive filters) and a reflective silver screen. So it's doable for them.
But as with all theatres, it would depend a lot on having the system well setup and the correct lamps installed and in good order. Not all theaters are going to do that.
And due to the reflective silver screen, those sitting at an angle off-center from the screen, specially the front corners of the auditorium, could get a picture that is as little as half as bright as those sitting in the exact center of the theater (if it's all well aligned). Specially if the screen is not curved to help distribute the light more evenly and help avoid the hotspot.
Dolby 3D theaters don't need a silver screen, so they usually don't install one. They DO nonetheless usually install a high-gain screen which would also display less light to those off-center, but instead of 50% (half) the light (i.e.) to those sitting in the front-corners this type of screen would usually only cut-off say around 30%. Also, Dolby theaters need a lot more light to begin with, since Dolby filters "eat more", so you also have to trust that the owners are employing the highest possible lamps available of even 6000W and above. Of course, not all of them are going to use fresh lamps all the time.
Imax has the potential of a better quality presentation, specially true 70mm Imaxs, but also, to a much lesser extend, the Digital Imaxs. Their sound systems are often of high quality as well. But if you are not seating in the sweetspot in their theater, you could have a less than stellar experience.
This could also happen on a Dolby presentation, although it would be somewhat more unusual.
Ultimately, it's going to have to be your choice. If I were you are you are up to it, you could try the Imax and, if you don't like it in the first few minutes, walk out the show, complain you don't see a clear picture and want your money back, and drive to the next show in the Dolby.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler
Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008
|
posted 12-20-2009 10:09 PM
1st show: IMAX 15/70 3D. Didn't fill the screen side to side. Liked it, but the 3D was just off, too much ghosting I'm assuming (not enough 3d knowledge in my case). Just don't like the auditorium, lack of surround sound, too shallow of a theatre, damn uncomfortable seats, and not near enough leg room for a 3 hr film. 7/10
2nd show: Cinemark XD. Full screen flat, fixed height and width. Loved it. Had no issue with the 3D, digital picture looked perfect, especially on a huge screen. Sound was amazing, deep booming sounds when needed, crisp clear surrounds. Nice comfortable leather seats, plenty of leg room. 9.8/10
I know I didnt review the actual film, yall have done that plenty already.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 12-27-2009 09:52 AM
Cinemagnum Theatre Frankfurt/Germany
2K double projector setup
(Christie, I believe)
Good presentation, excellent sound (This is a former IMAX 15perf theatre).
Positive
- 3D done right, no eyestrain at all, very few "fancy show-off" effects.
- The film didn't feel like 160 minutes to me, would have guessed 135 if I hadn't known before.
- No shaky-cam shots (except for the POV shot of the marines running down the ramp at the beginning.)
- Excellent sound design and mixing.
- Excellent design and animation of landscapes and natural structures, although at IMAX screen size 2K doesn't seem to resolve enough detail.
Negative
- Most human characters are nothing but cardboard, director seems to be satisfied re-using clichés from his older films.
-Every military character is evil. Nothing but evil, not even a remote possibility that these people might believe in what they are doing. Bad military, good scientists, yeah, sure, that's fascinating. The Na'vi are good, like all Indians are perfect beings in absolute harmony with their planet.
- Bad, bad dialogue - enough has been quoted already. Me Tarzan, you Jane.
- The hero has no plan but simply proceeds to do something, don't worry, everything will be solved in the last 90 seconds.
- Voice over narration is completely unnecessary and does not help the story.
Everything in this film has been done with excellent craftsmanship, but the story and message (too much preaching) is so predictable and routine that sometimes I felt I was watching a "Best of James Cameron" rip-off where all technical and situative stuff from his former movies were recycled.
I was willing to accept the sheep-nosed blue creatures like animation characters, but when humans appeared with them, it didn't feel real although it was done very well technically. To me, it was more like a combination of cartoon and real characters like in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. Maybe it has to do with the Uncanny Valley.
All in all, decent entertainment and very nice to see in 3D, but I wouldn't watch it a second time. (Unless it is rereleased with a film score minus those "ethnic flutes" ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) )
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-03-2010 02:04 AM
I saw Avatar at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. They were using 2 projectors and XpanD LCD shutter glasses. While the projectors themselves were (assumably) non-filtered, the glasses dimmed the picture quite a bit, but it was still a lot brighter than what Ive seen with read-D (exept at the El Capitan, which I believe also uses twin projection, at least they did on Chicken Little). Depite the giant, deeply curved screen, things seemed perfectly aligned.
HOWEVER, the glasses were very problematic. No eyestrain or strobing effect, BUT they were damned uncomfortable. Wearing regular glasses was a major problem, since they kept slipping off ever few minutes, and that was after I tried hanging them on my regular glasses bridge. AFter seeing an entire movie like this, I will see it in 2-D. 3-D did give an enchancement, but those glasses were almost a deal-breaker (and my friend doesn't wear glasses. He was also having problems with the glasses slipping.
Im wondering with the huge popularity of this film if it could actually be the one to start the dying off of the latest 3-D craze. People may just wonder if its that big of a deal considering the glasses and the extra charge at the box office. I really liked the film, but am now questioning whether 3-D is worth it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 19 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 18 19
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic