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

Seems like everyone has it for just under $20 USD, but there are rumors of a late summer re-release into 3D theaters with an additional chunk of film (extended edition). I'm excited to get it on Blu-Ray, but not sure if I should just wait until Christmas to get it with the extra footage or not.

Any thoughts from anyone else that has been watching the rumor mill? If I buy this version today, I won't be buying the "extended edition" in the future. Just one version. No double-dipping like some people had done for the studios for LOTR.

I'm broke today, but tomorrow I plan on getting it. I'll probably also buy the extended version.

I never bought the extended version of LOTR, but I'm waiting for the blu-ray version. Maybe one of these days.

I bought the original version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Then when the extended version came out, I just had to have it. I was really disappointed in that one, because what they put back in just wasn't worth the money. I hope Avatar isn't the same way.

Good grief - isn't the regular version already almost 3 hours long? Not sure how much extension I would want.

I think that it is around 2.5 hours. I liked the movie, and the 3D was awesome. Just not sure how well it will "translate" over to Blu-Ray since the 3D part was such a huge component of liking the movie, and thus the reason that I am not sure that I will care about another 12-20 minutes added in.

I just know that with LOTR that the extended editions, to me and a bulk of the LOTR fans, are the best versions, so I am afraid of jumping in the current theatrical release just to potentially regret it later on. Then again, LOTR was a much better movie series.

I hope there's a tortoise shell option for the glasses. I look awful in black, even in the dark. (Though I do look much, much better in the dark in general.)

Seriously. Saw it twice. First time IMAX 3d, 2nd time, 3d/no IMAX. IMAX ruled---by far. And the whole schmear was a lot less interested and exciting the 2nd time. I also stared noticing anomolies in some of the texture mapping and other visuals 2nd time around. Also, I think that the story and dialogue just aren't that riveting for repeated viewings. Honestly, I'm getting bored with Sigourney's deaths away from Earth.

And yes. I'm going out right now to buy it. Wonder if it's 7.1?
Only disc I have in 7.1 is "Dark City."

I pre-ordered from Amazon and it should be arriving today, as Tom pointed out three hours is about my limit so I'm not really interested in the extended version.
The 3d version is rumored to be released in 2011, I saw it in 3D at the theatre and enjoyed it, but as far as that goes I'll be happy to have it in bluray and not have to wear those glasses for 3 hours, the kids were pulling them off and on the majority of the movie anyhow.

Sigourney DIES???

Gee, thanks for ruining the movie for me.

The aliens finally get her? Took long enough...

Yes; getting it today, everthing here seems to be priced at $27,

(sarcasm alert) I'm sure it's more blu than the US version.

Uh oh! 2x4 is seeing red now!

Not buying today. I’m going to wait until I can rent it to decide if it’s worth buying. Also might allow more time to see if another version will be released since I don’t mind watching for most of the day if the show is worth watching in the first place.

Same with the LOTR. “Tale of Two Towers” should be arriving from Netflix today so I can see if the Blu-ray is any real improvement over the standard DVD. But I’m still going to wait until the extend version ship to buy it since those are the only one I’ve watched since I saw them in the theater.

Went out for steak and porkchops. Damn you warehouse stores.
It was 19.88.

Am I wrong? Haven't there already been 3-d releases w/ glasses?

Surprised this isn't offered that way. I'm not that disappointed.

Oh, and they had hundreds of 'em.

If there was a 3D release with glasses, it would probably cost >$100, right? Plus the TV.

Coraline had four pairs of glasses. The red and blue ones.

I have Avatar coming from Amazon.com. I didn't get around to seeing it in theaters, and James Cameron's best writing may be behind him, but I imagine it will still make good demo material. Here's hoping, anyway.

Really, Ken. You have lil' ones. Aren't there titles out there that come w/ glasses? Kiddie sort of titles.

Oh, I thought you meant Avatar. I'm sure there's a ton of 3D stuff with the red/blue glasses.

Also, I'm one of those weird hippy earth dad types. My kids don't really watch TV. Never seen a movie. Sesame Street, when my wife gets fed up. We call it kiddie crack.

I prolly rent it at the least.

Yet when you watch it, you just call it TV. Such double-standards, man...

That's right. Being a parent is all about double standards.

Don't be too excited. I hear that not only is it not the extended edition, but they kind of "skimped" on the video/audio quality. Some reviewers mentioned that it was too inconsistent throughout the movies with some being OK and others not. None of it is supposed to be as good as it should be for Blu-Ray.

As for the Red/Blue or Red/Green or whatever colors that the 3D people like to use (seems like they like different shades too)... I just watched the 3D bonus feature of B.O.B. from Monsters Vs Aliens, and the 3D was annoying since the colors were off due to the glasses. I hate that.

Just spent 1/2 hr. w/ Avatar. Jumped around to pretty-pretty and boom-boom scenes. Lots of both. Surround stuff seems really well-placed and should be pretty g.d.cool throughout. I'm glad it's not in 3D, but you know I would have snarfed it had it been.

This is NOT for Ken. But it is for somebody, probably at your local Wal-Mart.

Well, I picked it up anyway tonight just to find out that my kids wanted to get it for me for Fathers Day... Yes, Father's Day... Like 2 months from now.

Oh well, so be it. I'll hang on to the receipt and by then maybe have a better feel for how good the Blu-Ray is and sift through the rumor mill of extended edition versions...

I ordered it from amazon today for 20 bucks, had completely forgot it until I saw this thread earlier.

I just picked it up at the local Best Buy, and I grabbed LOTR as well. I have apparently been living under a rock as I didn't even know LOTR was out on BD until I saw it on the shelf. I am quite dissapointed both of them are theatrical editions and that Avatar is only 2D, but I want them now and I'm not about to buy more later. I hate that double/triple dipping game they play, total crap, I don't know why people put up with it by buying several times. I have a hard time even buying a BD disc of a DVD that I have unless it's a big improvement and a movie I really love.

Heading down to the theatre to watch it now, will report back later.

I hear ya! I felt the same way about my 8-tracks.

Watched it, for the first, time last night. I enjoyed it more than I expected (I'm not a huge Sci Fi fan).

Grabed the BR yesterday and watched it last night.. Not big si-fi fan but it was a decent flick.. Lots of eye candy and quality sound..

IMHO, if you drop the 3D part the movie was "good" or "entertaining". It wasn't great... to me anyway. I know people who thought it was the best movie EVAR!

I'll put it on my Birthday and Christmas lists, but I won't be spending my own cash on it.

snazzed

Best movie ever, give me a break. The visuals are just incredible but it's a popcorn flick, the plot is very average.

Anyway, I have to say even with a very slight disappointment of no 3D, the movie was a heck of a lot of fun to watch in the home theatre. The audio is great, there is plenty of LFE and surround effects are used well. I found dialogue was very easy to hear and clear, which I can't say of all movies. Of course the visuals are just unreal, the use of colour is fantastic.

Overall I give it 8.5/10 just for sheer movie watching fun.

On another note, at the end of the credits there is a THX demo thing... This may be old news but I have never seen it before, and it's pretty cool.

I love how it becomes the number one movie ever because it raked in more money than any other to this date but only because they charged more for 3D so it brought in more money. Once inflation adjusted it is only in ~14th place(might climb slightly higher) hardly the best or highest grossing movie of all time.

With that said, I like it way more than Titanic, lol.

But does Avatar include any comic relief like Titanic does? I found the scene in Titanic where the guy on the steeply inclined deck is bouncing off of railings on his way down as if he were a human plinko ball particularly amusing.

I saw about 30 minutes of a boot leg version of Avatar a month or two ago at a buddies house... seemed like a decent movie. He asked if I wanted to borrow it but didn't want to watch it unless it was in HD with killer sound.

Now I just need to snag it online or rent it...

There is some comedy, although nothing really hilarious. There are dramatic parts and some light-hearted parts, a good mix.

Thanks to Cameron's, ah, writing, some of the dramatic parts are pretty funny, especially from the third viewing forward.

I watched it again tonight and enjoyed it again. The PQ is really stunning and the audio is great as well. IMHO one of the best looking blu-rays out. Definitely would be a great demo movie for sound and picture.

My wife picked it up for me at our local Fry's on Thursday($19.98). We did not see it in the movies, so we'll be watching it with the kids today.

My wife's aunt, uncle, and three of her cousins are visiting for the weekend. Her uncle picked up the Avatar DVD at Costco and we watched it after dinner. My son (6yo) stood up and yelled "No!!!" at the screen when the (spoiler free version ahead) protagonist was in a particularly hairy situation early on, then decided not to watch any further. My 4yo daughter watched the entire thing.

I enjoyed it, but don't regret waiting to see it at home (even on my SDTV). The audio was fantastic and really gave the sub a workout. I think I was sitting in a particularly good spot because I could feel my pant legs vibrating during some of the air battle scenes.

Picked up a combo pack at Wally World today... I wonder if I've got a blown fuse in my sub again as there was not much in the way of LFE felt . I think the M80's were giving it all. The kiddies watched it, I only checked in once in awhile. Why is the housework never done?

I had to bump up the level on both my sub and Buttkicker a little to get the LFE I felt was appropriate for the action I was watching so I think it’s the way it was mixed.

I'm not using my AS-EQ1 right now, so certain frequencies are exaggerated, and I have the subs running slightly hot (calibrated to the same SPL as the other speakers on the Radio Shack meter, which means the subs are running hot due to less sensitivity to lower frequencies, correct?), so I was getting what I thought was pretty decent LFE. I love feeling the steps the mechs take.

I have a relatively light (weight) clock that sits on my EP-500. After watching Avatar, I noticed the clock had rotated about 120 degrees and had marched close to the edge of the sub. One of these days, I'm gonna find that poor thing on the floor.

Ya know, I can't remember exactly how long I've had the EP-500. Gotta be somewhere around 5 years or so. I've been a fairly observant follower of the audio products that come and go, and I've seen newer, highly praised subs appear on the market regularly. All I can say is, I am STILL completely happy with my EP-500. It delights me every day. There was a low frequency moment in the recent Sherlock Holmes movie where the EP-500 had me saying WOW!

Quite often, the transmission of a movie via cable TV doesn't stand up the DVD experience, LFE-wise. Well, I caught the tail end of Kung Fu Panda on TV the other day, and the way the EP-500 handled the "skadush" moment really impressed me.

The EP-500 is simply a consistently excellent performer.

Pisses me off that it's not 2.35. Other than that, quite enjoyable.

Watched for the first time last night. Good. I liked the original better - you know Dances With Wolves. The whole time I kept waiting for a blue Kevin Costner to jump out from a tree.

The visuals were very good, but really hard to compare to anything but animation. Some live actor shots are first rate, but some of the trees in the distance shots looked a tad less than perfect.

Overall, it was as good as Aliens and looks cool. Worth the $30 for a good demo set. But the load times suck. My PS3 takes a while to get comfortable before it will load up to the menu. After that, it purs along fine.

I just had a really atrocious load time on... Apollo 13, I believe? It was one of the catalog titles I just got, anyway. I don't know what it was doing, but I didn't even select the BD-Live functionality.

I had load problems with this one too. One time I had to shut off the player and start all over again. It just seems to get hung up.

While the young girl in Aliens brought down the movie a bit, I'd still say it was a lot stronger movie than Avatar, mainly because, as you said, it's basically a re-tread of past movies. The idea of the avatars themselves held a lot of potential, but to use that idea to simply remake Dances With Wolves? Such a wasted opportunity. And yeah, the message was uninspired, the writing heavy-handed. Of course, I liked The Abyss, and you could make the same arguments about it. Anyway, I like James Cameron's technical vision, if nothing else. It really was some decent fun for the senses, but I'm definitely feeling insulted by the writing.

Fuses OK, but someone had the volume turned waaaayyy down.. Re-calibrated and all is good and shaking as expected. Even had the Mrs tell me to turn it down

Scott

Hmmm. Makes me think that you know EXACTLY how (who did it) the volume got turned way down...

Actually, I think it was one of the kids. The Mrs. would just not turn it on to start with. I've found it left on before after the kiddies watched a movie. Not a problem.

Scott

If you are going feel insulted, it should be based on the fact that dragon is having its way your your unicorn on your avitar. That pony must like the bad boys!

Was this movie 2.35 in the theatre? I can't remember, but I don't know why they would change it bringing it to DVD, they don't usually (anymore).

I had horrible load time on this one as well. I thought I might have to update the firmware again like I had to with Inglourious Basterds, but it worked after a good 30 seconds.

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

There were actually multiple aspect ratios of the film distributed. What ever the native size of the theater's screen was the version they got. The idea was to have the largest picture area and no masking.

Very few (if any) theaters have a native screen size of 2.35:1. That's very limiting. Besides that, the "film" wasn't shot in scope format. The few scenes that aren't 100% CGI were shot digital, which is natively 1.78:1.

Cameron was VERY fussy about the image size. In fact the IMAX version of the film didn't fill the screen horizontally. (or obviously vertically either).

It's the battle of the knowledgeable people! Chris, just fyi, Craig (spiffnme) works for IMAX.

Thanks for sucking all the potential "fun" out of that, Ken.

The needed citation.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Great special effects. Shit movie.

IMO cost does count toward enjoyment since I’m not independently wealthy anything I buy is a trade-off for something else I now can’t 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 won’t 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 can’t speak to everyone’s 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t apply to most people and though I’m to lazy to research it right now I’d be surprised if 2.35:1 is the most popular screen ratio

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.

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.

I normally do not get into these debates. It’s usually pointless to argue merits with people who refuse to compare apples to apples and want to throw a watermelon into the mix.




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 19” television sets sitting on milk crates in the tent in the back yard. And in that case, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.



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, don’t 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 I’m 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 don’t, 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.



1.78 is much more popular than 2.35. No need to research that. The reason isn’t because the aspect ratio of 1.78 is more pleasing though. It’s 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 “constant image height” actually meant and what was involved to achieve it, you’d 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 won’t 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.

Regardless of the merits of a CIH setup...the original question referred specifically to Avatar, and a 2.35:1 viewing of that particular film is LOSING picture. That's all my point ever was.

If CIH is best then why does it “piss” you “off that it’s not 2.35,” I seem to be missing something here since if it’s best then what difference does the ratio of the source make?



I have seen CIH and CIA (which I prefer to CIH). I know exactly what I would have been missing with CIH, a larger IMO more engaging image in 1.85:1 and taller aspect ratios.



You could simply say it’s pointless to argue, unless winning it the point. Discussion on the other hand is a different thing since that implies an exchange of ideas, and in this case preferences of which not all will agree upon.



I’m not debating you as that implies a winner and looser and since I accept that people have differing opinions on what’s “best” for them I don’t see any one format being better for all people. I’m simply relating my preferences. Since money is a factor in enjoying our hobby it is IMO relevant to part of the discussion.



Just because economics is a primary factor doesn’t require that people do not find 1.78 more pleasing. When Sean and I watch the “Dark Knight” Blu-ray I found the 1.78:1 scenes much more pleasing because they seemed more natural than the 2.40:1. I made the point of telling Sean that I never even notice when it switched to the larger format, as it just looked “right.“ However, it was instantly noticeable for a few minutes when it switched back because to me the 2.40:1 image is not high enough for it’s width to fill my field of view as naturally. The flatter 2.40:1 image just lacks the same perception of depth compared to the 1.78:1 image for me. This movie was a perfect A/B comparison for the 2 ratios.



IMO the more natural looking, and engaging nature of the 1.78:1 image is also a valid point.



Who said I was referring to film in this day and age? I haven’t seen a lot of 1.33:1 films and that was 25% of what I stated viewing above. I may be off base but I imagine more and more people use there HT for other things than just movies. HDTV (especially sports), consol gaming and like now as I type this a computer monitor all support native resolutions of 16:9 or something close. Hence for me the very small amount of 1.35:1 material I use. Also, more and more of the new movies I watch are showing up in 1.78:1 or 1.85:1.



Where have you read this?

I don’t begrudge you or others preferring CIH and as I said above I can understand why some people prefer it. I would hope others could understand why I prefer the largest image size possible per aspect ratio.

I actually think you two may be closer than you realize. Michael did say (I think) a couple of times that 2.35 works only if and when you have sufficent height. Unless you are saying that between two screens with the same height you still prefer the 1.78?

If you can have both screens the same height you have nothing to gain with 1.78, you may as well go 2.35 at that point. Problem is, for most people to go 2.35, you lose height due to width restrictions.

Thank you for noticing. That is exactly what I said.

When picking a screen, start with the height. Figure out the maximum screen height that you can “comfortably” watch at your main seating position. Don’t even worry about width at this point. The best way to do this is to wait on the screen until you have your projector mounted, hang a sheet on the wall and zoom the image to an image size that you can watch without eye strain. Because you will not have an HE lens, you will be looking at a 1.78 image. If the 1.78 image is large as you can go and not feel eye strain, going wider will not bother you one bit. Going too high however will. But don’t believe me, ask your ophthalmologist. After you figure this out, you just do the math and if the room can accommodate a 2.35 width, then it’s just a decision that will be based on personal preference and finances. If you have the room for the 2.35 width, there really is nothing to loose by going with that AR. Black bars on the sides can be an irritant if the display does not have good native contrast, but curtains from Home Depot can fix that easily enough.

There’s a lot more to this AR discussion. I would prefer to discuss, debate, argue or whatever in a more orderly manner instead of an OT discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with it. If I can find some spare time, I’ll start an AR discussion thread where all the pro’s / con's can be discussed (as there are a few of each).

This OT derailment was started because I expressed my displeasure that this movie was not “native” 2.35, although I failed to state “native” because as Craig stated, cropped a 1.78 image to get a 2.35 AR would loose a ton of pixel content. I just said the same thing that all CIH owners are saying. I did not intend to bat the ball back and forth over the merits of CIH or personal preference of screen AR.

The reviewer at High-Def Digest said the Avatar BD is best viewed zoomed to 2.20:1. Going to 2.35 crops some of the graphics, but leaving it 1.78 has the subtitles floating high in the frame, and the open matte has too little action in the top and and bottom of the shot.

What I’m saying is that I prefer a 1.78:1 or similar ratio screen if neither height nor width is a limiting factor. I find those ratios more natural and aesthetically pleasing. Images that are much narrower either vertically or horizontally reminded me more often that I’m watching a screen.

I think we need to backtrack to why I commented in the first place. Note I’m not making multiple quotes to be a pinhead just to reset the discussion to the beginning in hopes of clarification.

Michael_d asked:



To which Potatohead responded:



To which michael_d responded:



My first point that money is a factor in enjoyment since one can only separate the two in a theoretical discussion not in the real world so I don’t see the point in limiting the discussion by that parameter. Michael and I clearly disagree on this.

My other point was that some people, like me, prefer an image ratio of 1.78:1 or similar because for most material we find it a more natural way of viewing the world therefore finding it more engaging making it easier to suspend disbelief.

That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate 2.35:1 or similar in some cases. Looking at large armies arrayed on the battlefield looks very impressive. However, in most shots even outdoor shots like in “Dark Night” I prefer an image framed closer to 1.78:1.
I believe Einstein once suggested that films be shot in various aspect ratios depending on the content of the scene. I don’t agree as it is a little distracting, reminding you for a bit that you are just watching a movie. But like with Dark Knight the distraction came for me when switching back to 2.40:1 and not the other way because the image seemed less natural and more like watching a film when in a 1.78:1 ratio.

Finally Michael, I am genuinely curious about the your comment that there will be a day when 2.35 projectors are mainstream and that it will cause a shift in the market. Considering the market penetration of 16:9 HDTV displays. That most affordable projectors right now have a native resolution of 16:9. That HDTV content is in that format and from my impression (no evidence) that more directors are framing their movies in 1.85:1 (presumably because of the proliferation of 16:9 displays) what would drive the market for projectors toward a 2.35 aspect ratio. Not that they won’t perhaps become more prevalent as costs of making projectors drops but what why would this drive a shift in the market? It seems to me that right now everything is moving in the other direction.

Oh, OK, I see now where the basis of the disagreement lies. It's just a personal preference then. Carry on...

It’s not that we disagree with this point (economics), as it always applies to all things in life in a society where material things need to be purchased. It’s that I disagree that money should not be a point of contention in this particular discussion, because it is strictly related to A/R viewing preference. IE: do you like 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 2.70 better? When you throw money into that discussion, the discussion then looses focus and pretty soon wall paper, lawnmowers, politics and religion become factors. I will not partake in discussions when the topic can not be focused on. I have better things to do than argue. In my day job, I spend a great deal of time with root cause analysis to find the failure mode of equipment. Same principle as this, stick to the facts and findings and don’t listen to the bullshit or make assumptions. Pretty soon you find the root cause. The bullshit does not pertain and clouds the investigation.

My comments regarding 2.35 are based on consumer demand. 2.35 is becoming more popular all the time for those who buy a front projection system. People are becoming more curious about it. Damn near all screen manufactures have ready to ship 2.35 screens. The PT 4000 has a button now for 2.35. It’s pretty goofy in how it does it, but nonetheless, it’s there. Some of the high end companies are already shipping 2.35 machines. Look at the trend in TV’s. 20 years “wide screen” TV’s started to roll out. Now you can’t find a 1.33 TV. They are all 1.78 or wider (many 1.85 TV’s are on the shelves now). I don’t recall the make or model, but remember seeing a 2.35 TV in an electronics store not too long ago. It only makes sense that projectors will soon be 2.35. It’s not terribly difficult and does not require massive hardware changes. It would not take much to re-tool and start pumping them out.

Getting back on the LOTR thing, I just watched the first one on Saturday night, the LFE is the best so far of any movie I have played in my theatre room, it was great. Lots of good demo material there.

I watched Terminator Salvation last weekend and didn't even have the movie as loud as I like it when I am watching something by myself (my family doesn't like it too loud). Anyway, they like movies around -21, I like them around -16. I had Terminator Salvation at -18 with no other adjustments, and the room SHOOOOOK! My poor VP150 fell off the shelf under my screen TWICE before I just set it on the floor! Wowza!

T:Salv is definitely one of my favorite movies for sound design.

Too bad the movie blows. I laughed out loud when Bale was using his Batman voice at the beginning.