You are not logged in. [Log In]


Forums » General Discussion » The Water Cooler » Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today?

Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#303671 - 04/28/10 01:14 PM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: tomtuttle]
ClubNeon Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 3466
Loc: Western Maryland, USA
The needed citation.

 Quote:
To optimize the experience for different screens sizes, Cameron made the decision to complete the movie in three aspect ratios: Scope (2:39:1), flat (1:85:1) and Imax (1:43:1). "You are not going to see many directors releasing in different aspect ratios, as most pick their canvas and that is their format," Fox vp postproduction Steve Barnett says.

_________________________
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011
Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8
Sony PS4, surround backs
-Chris

Top
#303700 - 04/28/10 04:21 PM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: spiffnme]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 4253
Loc: Up yonder
 Originally Posted By: spiffnme
 Originally Posted By: michael_d
Pisses me off that it's not 2.35. Other than that, quite enjoyable.


huh? Why? It wasn't 2.35:1 in theaters, why would you want it skinnier at home?



Because I have a 2.35 constant image height set up. Why would anyone want 1.78 if they can have 2.35 in all its glory without black bars?

You can keep Imax. I don't find them to be all that and a bag of chips.

Top
#303713 - 04/28/10 05:05 PM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: ClubNeon]
spiffnme Offline
axiomite

Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 5233
Loc: Los Angeles
 Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
The needed citation.

 Quote:
To optimize the experience for different screens sizes, Cameron made the decision to complete the movie in three aspect ratios: Scope (2:39:1), flat (1:85:1) and Imax (1:43:1). "You are not going to see many directors releasing in different aspect ratios, as most pick their canvas and that is their format," Fox vp postproduction Steve Barnett says.


It's funny to see people who should know better (Barnett & Gagliano) spreading things that aren't exactly accurate. Cameron my have released the film in more than one aspect ratio, but I can tell you for certain that the IMAX version was not 1.43:1, not even close. Cameron also didn't want the largest image possible, as he specifically had us SHRINK the size of his image because he felt our screens were too big. (IMAX is too big...isn't that like saying water is too wet?)

So, bottom line, yeah it was released in a ton of different formats, but the original photography, the version which gives you the MOST image was the digital capture at 1.78:1. If you saw it at 2.35:1 you were losing picture. (kinda the opposite of the old pan & scan days)
_________________________
"A nation cannot prosper long, when it favors only the prosperous." -President Barack Obama

Top
#303722 - 04/28/10 05:57 PM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: michael_d]
Potatohead Offline
aficionado

Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 670
Loc: Vancouver
 Originally Posted By: michael_d
 Originally Posted By: spiffnme
 Originally Posted By: michael_d
Pisses me off that it's not 2.35. Other than that, quite enjoyable.


huh? Why? It wasn't 2.35:1 in theaters, why would you want it skinnier at home?



Because I have a 2.35 constant image height set up. Why would anyone want 1.78 if they can have 2.35 in all its glory without black bars?

You can keep Imax. I don't find them to be all that and a bag of chips.


Lots of reasons. If someone is limited in screen width for whatever reason if they go 2.35, the 1.78 image is much smaller than it would be with a 1.78 screen, and you have bars on the sides anyway.

Top
#303756 - 04/28/10 09:02 PM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: Potatohead]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 4253
Loc: Up yonder
That's one reason and I see your point. What are all the others? Cost of the lens or a video processor doesn't count seeing how we are talking about enjoyment and not money.

I don't see any bars on the sides when watching formats other than 2.35 unless the lights are on. If the lights are on, I don't care about image quality anyway.

Top
#303773 - 04/29/10 01:30 AM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: FordPrefect]
2x6spds Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 03/16/02
Posts: 3333
Loc: CA, USA
Great special effects. Shit movie.
_________________________
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.

Top
#303776 - 04/29/10 02:17 AM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: michael_d]
grunt Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 3569
Loc: Nirvana
 Originally Posted By: michael_

That's one reason and I see your point. What are all the others? Cost of the lens or a video processor doesn't count seeing how we are talking about enjoyment and not money.

I don't see any bars on the sides when watching formats other than 2.35 unless the lights are on. If the lights are on, I don't care about image quality anyway.


IMO cost does count toward enjoyment since Iím not independently wealthy anything I buy is a trade-off for something else I now canít afford that might also be equally enjoyable but in a different way. For example I seriously considered your recommendations of the JVC projectors and will eventually upgrade to something in that range, but at a minimum one would have cost me $2,500 more which was the budget for my curtains in that round of buying. Since I wonít be upgrading the curtains any time soon and already knew their benefit in my situation I figured this being my first projector I would be sufficiently blown away that a lesser model would offer more utility value.

I imagine most people have to make the same trade-offs as I did meaning they are not likely using a lens or video processor. I canít speak to everyoneís constraints but it just so happened that the widest screen I could fit would also accommodate the corresponding height for a 1.78:1 screen. So why would I sacrifice my 1.33:1 (about 25+% of my viewing) and 1.78:1 (about 70+% of my viewing) size to use a 2.35:1 screen. Also, since most of what I watch is in a 1.78:1 or similar ratio it made sense intuitively to buy the screen that was in both that ratio which is also the native ratio of the projector rather than adding more processing steps to the image (lens and scaling).

IMO (I understand not all people will share it) 1.78:1 creates a more natural view. The area it covers is just as wide as a 2.35:1 image but being higher also covers more of the area I can naturally focus on w/o going to far off into my peripheral vision. So even if I could afford a lens and video processor I wouldnít want to use one to get a 2.35:1 ratio since I prefer a 1.78:1 picture.

Finally, if for some reason I later want to change my screen to 2.35:1 exclusively I can always mask it down. To go the other way I would have to buy another screen. While I can see some reasons why a person might prefer a 2.35:1 screen I imagine they donít apply to most people and though Iím to lazy to research it right now Iíd be surprised if 2.35:1 is the most popular screen ratio
_________________________
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1

Top
#303781 - 04/29/10 07:46 AM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: grunt]
Murph Offline
axiomite

Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 6955
Loc: PEI, Canada
In a total opposite that might add some comparative clarity to Avatar, we (my wife and I) went on an ill-advised whim to see "Clash of the Titans" last night. We both had rough days and decided we wanted mindless entertainment to clear our minds and we were lured by the prospect of another 3-d movie.

Well, if your goal is to go see another 3-D movie, do not pay the premium for this one. If you exclude the previews and the robot puppy prologue to introduce that it's in 3-d, there were zero 'out from the screen' effects. There was depth from the screen inwards but you had to strain to see it was there.

I'd say that most times, it was closer to the side of indistinguishable from 2d. Except for the fact that you had to put up with the extra motion blur that tends to happen in 3d movies, which is normally excusable if the 3d is good but in this case, it just made for a blurry 2-D movie.

The movie itself provided the mindless entertainment we needed but I would put in in the recommendation class of a decent Sunday afternoon hangover movie.

Completely incomparable to Avatar that I would recommend everyone go see in a good 3-D theater, even if you will hate the story, as the visual effects were enough to make it worth your while.
_________________________
With great power comes Awesome irresponsibility.

Top
#303787 - 04/29/10 09:48 AM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: Murph]
nickbuol Online   content
axiomite

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 5406
Loc: Marion, IA
Murph, I read somewhere that Clash of the Titans was shot in 2-D and half way through the post production and CG work, they decided to jump on to the 3-D bandwagon and "convert" everything to 3-D. It was somewhat rushed, and again, the live stuff wasn't shot in 3-D to begin with, thus a less that stellar 3-D effect.

When I was in LA earlier this week, I was looking for a great movie going experience and I came REALLY close to seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D with DBox (motion seats), but the movie just wasn't appealing to me after all of the reviews and complaints about bad CG and bad 3-D. At least it wasn't appealing enough for the $25 (plus tax) ticket plus prime parking right in Hollywood. I am sure that it would have been somewhat cool for the DBox part, but I will have to wait until my next trip there later this year to see if there is a better movie playing.
_________________________
2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120

Top
#303814 - 04/29/10 11:56 AM Re: Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today? [Re: grunt]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 4253
Loc: Up yonder
I normally do not get into these debates. Itís usually pointless to argue merits with people who refuse to compare apples to apples and want to throw a watermelon into the mix.


 Originally Posted By: grunt
IMO cost does count toward enjoyment since Iím not independently wealthy anything I buy is a trade-off for something else I now canít afford that might also be equally enjoyable but in a different way.


You can not do that and keep the debate reasonably neutral and on topic. We are comparing enjoyment of content and the format in which it is viewed. If you start pulling dollars into the discussion, we might as well keep the discussion limited to 19Ē television sets sitting on milk crates in the tent in the back yard. And in that case, thereís no reason to continue this discussion.

 Originally Posted By: grunt
I imagine most people have to make the same trade-offs as I did meaning they are not likely using a lens or video processor. I canít speak to everyoneís constraints but it just so happened that the widest screen I could fit would also accommodate the corresponding height for a 1.78:1 screen. So why would I sacrifice my 1.33:1 (about 25+% of my viewing) and 1.78:1 (about 70+% of my viewing) size to use a 2.35:1 screen. Also, since most of what I watch is in a 1.78:1 or similar ratio it made sense intuitively to buy the screen that was in both that ratio which is also the native ratio of the projector rather than adding more processing steps to the image (lens and scaling). IMO (I understand not all people will share it) 1.78:1 creates a more natural view. The area it covers is just as wide as a 2.35:1 image but being higher also covers more of the area I can naturally focus on w/o going to far off into my peripheral vision. So even if I could afford a lens and video processor I wouldnít want to use one to get a 2.35:1 ratio since I prefer a 1.78:1 picture.


I already conceded to this point. It is valid, and quite frankly, the only valid point. If you can not accommodate a 2.35 screen width without sacrificing a comfortable 1.78 image height, donít do it.

Most movies (film) are 2.35 and have been for decades (most were actually 2.70 prior to 2.35). I have very few that are anything but 2.35 so Iím not real sure why you have more 1.78 than 2.35 if you are referring to film. Heck, I even have more 1.85 movies that 1.78.

One point that needs to be mentioned in this debate is maximum screen height. Rarely (if ever) do you hear screen height mentioned because that is rarely limited by room dimensions. I find this ridiculous. Moving the eyes up / down creates more eye strain than back and forth by a considerable degree. When selecting a maximum screen size, a person should be more concerned with the height than the width. Having said that, once maximum screen height has been established, physical room width now becomes the limiting factor. If you have room for 2.35, go for it. If you donít, then stick with 1.78. If you do go for 2.35 and install a HE lens, the image height will remain the same regardless of content.

 Originally Posted By: grunt

Finally, if for some reason I later want to change my screen to 2.35:1 exclusively I can always mask it down. To go the other way I would have to buy another screen. While I can see some reasons why a person might prefer a 2.35:1 screen I imagine they donít apply to most people and though Iím to lazy to research it right now Iíd be surprised if 2.35:1 is the most popular screen ratio


1.78 is much more popular than 2.35. No need to research that. The reason isnít because the aspect ratio of 1.78 is more pleasing though. Itís simple economics and education. If you were to take a poll to every person who has ever bought a screen and asked if they knew what the term ďconstant image heightĒ actually meant and what was involved to achieve it, youíd probably see a percentage of less than 10% who did. Of that 10%, most believe the costs involved are too great. There are more costs involved, but they are not as much as most think they are. You can spend over 10 grand on a HE lens, but you most certainly do not need to. High quality lenses can be found on used market for under a grand. You also do not need to buy a video processor. Most displays have a V-stretch feature now. All you need to do is move the lens or buy one that you can leave in place and turn a knob to pass through with expansion. There will be a day when 2.35 projectors are main stream and all you have to do is punch a button. When that day comes, you will see a shift in the market.

Until seeing a CIH set up in person, you just wonít know what you are missing. Ther is no way I would give it up unless I had no other choice. I doubt you will find any CIH owners who would disagree with me on this point.

Top
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 
Forum Stats

15,407 Registered Members
16 Forums
24,328 Topics
430,901 Posts

Most users ever online:
2,082 @ 01/22/20 10:43 AM

Top Posters
Ken.C 18044
pmbuko 16437
SirQuack 13675
CV 11754
MarkSJohnson 11445
2 registered (nickbuol, BBIBH)
297 Guests and
2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup