Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AVATAR for BR/DVD .. in 1.78:1 ??

This is topic AVATAR for BR/DVD .. in 1.78:1 ?? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000870

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-22-2010, 01:48 AM:

Went tonight, I went to my local and friendly WallyWorld to get my midnight special purchase of AVATAR where I got the BR version (surprisingly, it's also packaged with the DVD release, thus two birds for 20 bucks.. not bad at all..) - not much of a line but it was fun none the less.

Look at the specs for both releases and the presentation ratio is in 1.78:1 . I even checked out the regular DVD release and the same ratio was displayed.

So, "Dang, what gives-not in 2.40:1 as it was on the 'Big Filum/DCI/3D screen?'"

Took it home, shoved the disc in the player and sure enough on my big screen at home: 1.78:1 presentation - thing filled the screen all the way full.

..oh well ... - Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-22-2010, 02:16 AM:

You act surprised. I could have told you this immediately when the scope + flat thing started kicking around before the movie was released. I may have even mentioned that the Blu-ray would end up being full 16:9 somewhere. Anyway, it is the director's choice and nowhere did he say (that I know of) that the 2.35 aspect had the better composition. I'm very surprised that he even allowed 2.35 versions... I wouldn't. I'd just pick a god damn aspect ratio, whatever it may be, and stick with it. I still can't get over that whole scope AND flat thing.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-22-2010, 04:42 AM:

After the 1.85, 2.35, 1.78, 3D non-ghostbusted, 3D ghostbusted, 3D-Dolby color corrected and 2D versions, I'm now waiting for the 1.33 pan and scan PAL-color space 25fps (or maybe NTSC 29.97fps 3:2 pulldown interlaced, not sure what would better preserve the original vision) before I buy it.

That will set another record.

Perhaps on my next long haul flight they'll make it fit the small TV screen in front of the seat in the airplane and I can record it with my cellphone camera to watch at home later.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-22-2010, 09:33 AM:

I'm proud to say that, having seen it once in 3-D, I have completely removed a sense of hype about this movie from my brain. I have absolutely no interest in seeing it again in any format. I believe James Cameron will never get another dollar from me again. (Fool me once, shame on you, etc.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-22-2010, 09:59 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I'd just pick a god damn aspect ratio, whatever it may be, and stick with it. I still can't get over that whole scope AND flat thing.

It brings up one of my complaints about the Super35 format. In short, the movie studio wants to fill the screen in all venues. Shoot the movie spherical on Super35, or videotape it in 16:9 HD. Then crop or do whatever to fill a 2.39:1 commercial movie theater screen, 16:9 HDTV screen, 4:3 SD TV screen, etc.

I didn't hate Avatar, but don't really have a strong urge to run out and buy the Blu-ray. Perhaps when I get another large screen HDTV with 3D capability and Fox releases the BD-3D version of Avatar I might check it out then. $20 isn't expensive for a new release Blu-ray, but the discount is going to have to get a bit more aggressive to encourage me to buy.

I'm much more likely to buy other catalog titles newly released on Blu-ray. The new Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan Blu-ray releases are getting very good marks on video and audio, due in part to the movies using up all the data capacity of Disc 1 in their respective 2-disc packages. Collateral and Apollo 13 were both good movies, but I'm going to wait until they get discounted further before buying them. Hopefully Days of Heaven will go on some sort of sale.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-22-2010, 11:21 AM:

I saw it last on a 60-ft screen (for free). Just can't bring myself to pay money to see it on a tiny tv, BR or not.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-23-2010, 11:14 PM:

They are counting on this release to save the DVD biz. Good luck with that one. Probably sell a lot of copies, but piss everyone off for not including any extras etc. and then going to the well again this fall with the "deluxe" release.

At least they are doing the theatrical rerelease with the extra footage before they do the special DVD release. That'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-24-2010, 12:56 AM:

In one respect I think Fox did a good thing with Avatar. By excluding all the usual extras they maximized the bit rate for video and audio making the movie portion a "reference quality" thing to behold. If I was managing an electronics store I would have Avatar playing on every big HDTV screen and Blu-ray player in the house. The movie, though very thin on plot, was not thin at all on "eye candy."

When Fox releases their super-duper 2D edition, they'll need to retain the movie-only 1st disc and put all the extras on the 2nd disc. Otherwise the video quality and possibly audio quality will suffer. Whenever the BD3D version is released the movie may have to be spread across 2 discs.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-24-2010, 01:28 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Whenever the BD3D version is released the movie may have to be spread across 2 discs.

I heavily doubt this. Even cable and satellite channels are managing to squeeze a workable 3D image into their bandwidth constraints at this point (granted, with a bit of artifacting).

I don't see any reason this would need to be spread across 2 discs if they do a skillful multiple pass AVC encode of the video tracks. (I also see it being a marketing disaster if word spreads that you must change discs in the middle of the movie.) Such a clean source makes things easier as well.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-24-2010, 02:39 AM:

In as much as this "AVATAR" package contained both disc versions, I do have to agree with Bobby with his statement on the simple fact that the DVD version did look very good - probably due to the extra bandwidth that was available on the DVD disc.

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-24-2010, 12:30 PM:

quote: Mark Strube
I heavily doubt this. Even cable and satellite channels are managing to squeeze a workable 3D image into their bandwidth constraints at this point (granted, with a bit of artifacting).

Cable/satellite HD quality is honestly very bad compared to the higher standards of Blu-ray. If a studio released a disc squeezed down to the bit rates typical of cable/satellite I would never buy it.

Not all the reviews of Avatar are saying the disc has perfect picture quality either. Despite the higher bit rate and full use of the disc's capacity there are still some instances of banding and other technical issues more easily seen on large HDTV monitors.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-24-2010, 01:15 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Anyway, it is the director's choice and nowhere did he say (that I know of) that the 2.35 aspect had the better composition.

Actually, he did say that. The very first time he brought it up, he very specifically said that while he preferred the extra height of the 1.85:1 image for 3D, he felt that 2.39:1 offered the best compositions for 2D. I wonder why he changed his mind.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-26-2010, 02:45 AM:

Is it only me but when I saw some footage in a store yesterday the blu ray image looked to me to be recroped. ie not full width of the scope version and similar in hight to the scope version?

I have only seen the scope version in both 2d and 3d. Am I imagining this or does it contain 30% more image top and bottom?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2010, 09:01 AM:

I was under the impression the Blu-ray is showing more imagery. The video cameras used to shoot the movie have a native 1.77:1 aspect ratio (like HDTV).

However, it's possible Cameron may have panned and scanned the 2.39:1 cropped image in certain shots to get tighter close-ups and such. I've seen it done with various movies shot in Super35 (Terminator 2, The Matrix, etc.).

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-26-2010, 02:51 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Not all the reviews of Avatar are saying the disc has perfect picture quality either. Despite the higher bit rate and full use of the disc's capacity there are still some instances of banding and other technical issues more easily seen on large HDTV monitors.

I was surprised by this (not owning the disc myself yet, to be fair) just knowing what a high profile release this is. I Googled blu-ray reviews for Avatar, and I also checked a favorite site I used to go to all the time - dvdfile.com ... I am not finding these bad reviews? Everything I'm finding is gushing about what a reference quality disc this is. Could you point me in the direction of one or two reviews that had issues with the video quality?

Also, isn't banding usually a display issue? Or are you talking about color banding, not motion banding?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-26-2010, 03:33 PM:

I had no intention of buying Avatar. But I happened to see it playing on BD at Best Buy over the weekend and was pretty amazed at how good it looked there. So I had to buy it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2010, 06:10 PM:

quote: Mark Strube
I was surprised by this (not owning the disc myself yet, to be fair) just knowing what a high profile release this is. I Googled blu-ray reviews for Avatar, and I also checked a favorite site I used to go to all the time - dvdfile.com ... I am not finding these bad reviews?

I didn't say the reviews were bad. I said some reviews stated the video quality was not perfect. Read Bill Hunt's review at The Digital Bits web site for one example.

The reviews I've read on Avatar have all made specific mention of the disc's high video bit rate contributing positively to the image quality. Minority Report is another recent BD release getting high marks for its high bit rate and spreading the movie across an entire BD50 disc.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-26-2010, 08:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Cameron may have panned and scanned the 2.39:1 cropped image in certain shots

Then, wonder if we're gonna see "Titanic" on a 1.77:1 BR release then since that was also done in Super35 ...

-Monte

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-26-2010, 09:36 PM:

I watched the BD a few days ago, and based solely on the compositions, I'm guessing that some shots were opened up and some shots were cropped to create the 1.78:1 version.

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 05-05-2010, 06:40 AM:

I figured this is exactly what was going to happen the minute i saw the faxes about flat/scope versions of the theatrical release several months ago.

Assumingly, 99.9% of HDTV owners have a 16:9 TV and care more about using the full size of the screen than it being 2.39:1.

I wish consumers had a choice though.
Some of us have digital projectors with squeeze lenses/ anamorphic conversion boxes, and motorized masking [Big Grin]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-05-2010, 07:59 AM:

Don't you worry. You'll have a choice between 1.78, 1.85 and 2.35 in either the special-special edition, the ultimate-edition, the definitive-edition or the foreign australian-widescape hard-to-get limited collector's edition.

If not, you can always crop it to 2.35:1 yourself ... [Razz]

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 05-05-2010, 07:38 PM:

Damn.
I was hoping they would come out with a "Special Fox is going to skullfuck every last penny out of you because this is the only decent film we've released in years super spectacular edition"

[Razz]