This is a follow up article to the previous 3D World 2010 Conference in NYC article, in which I highlighted the subject of the CinemaScope presentation for Avatar. I will cover the subject in more detail here.
As mentioned in the previous article, the Avatar 3D trailer was shown in the same CinemaScope widescreen aspect ratio as the original 3D movie in the local theater. IMAX cinemas showed the movie at a more squarish aspect ratio. The demo at 3D World was done with a Sony 4K projector with polarizing filters and a 16:9 screen showing a CinemaScope 3D image that was cropped with top/bottom black bars and displayed as dual 1080p interleaved images viewed with RealD polarized glasses.
As usual for 3D, the 3D image was low in luminance, but the image quality was acceptable considering that the projector was very far away from the screen. Although James Cameron likes the CinemaScope aspect ratio...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2010/12/avatar-why-not-a-cinemascope-option-on-bluray.php]Read Article[/url]
Avatar - Why not a CinemaScope Option on Blu-ray?
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Rodolfo,
thanks for a very thoughtful article. You wrote:
> When the Blu-ray disc was released, why weren’t consumers offered an option to buy a CinemaScope version as well? <
Actually, my first thought was somewhat different, "Why wasn't the Cinemascope version that I saw when I went to the theater already on the disc that I bought? Especially since both were 2D versions."
I paid to see this film twice in the theater. Once in scope in 2D, and once in 16:9 in 3D. My preference was for the scope version as well. I was actually quite surprised when I found that the Blu-ray I bought had neither version. I expected the theatrical release. Even more surprised to find that even though only 2D versions are available, the theatrical version I saw was completely unavailable to me.
So much for the promise of Blu-ray, which was supposed to have the capacity to eliminate these dilemmas. But I suspect the real answer to your original question posed above will come years later... after we've gone through all the variations of 2D and 3D with Directors Cuts, and Extended versions, and all the rest. When they've milked that dry, perhaps then we'll see yet another release with the original theatrical aspect ratio that I enjoyed in the theaters several years prior. Then we can pay again to buy that one too.
I already had to pay for a DVD copy that I didn't want, when I bought the first version on Blu-ray. No choice there. The game has now shifted to "How many times can we get people to buy the same d@mn movie, over and over again?" That may wind up a contest between Cameron with Avatar, and Lucas with Star Wars... though I suspect George has that one in the bag.
- Tim
thanks for a very thoughtful article. You wrote:
> When the Blu-ray disc was released, why weren’t consumers offered an option to buy a CinemaScope version as well? <
Actually, my first thought was somewhat different, "Why wasn't the Cinemascope version that I saw when I went to the theater already on the disc that I bought? Especially since both were 2D versions."
I paid to see this film twice in the theater. Once in scope in 2D, and once in 16:9 in 3D. My preference was for the scope version as well. I was actually quite surprised when I found that the Blu-ray I bought had neither version. I expected the theatrical release. Even more surprised to find that even though only 2D versions are available, the theatrical version I saw was completely unavailable to me.
So much for the promise of Blu-ray, which was supposed to have the capacity to eliminate these dilemmas. But I suspect the real answer to your original question posed above will come years later... after we've gone through all the variations of 2D and 3D with Directors Cuts, and Extended versions, and all the rest. When they've milked that dry, perhaps then we'll see yet another release with the original theatrical aspect ratio that I enjoyed in the theaters several years prior. Then we can pay again to buy that one too.
I already had to pay for a DVD copy that I didn't want, when I bought the first version on Blu-ray. No choice there. The game has now shifted to "How many times can we get people to buy the same d@mn movie, over and over again?" That may wind up a contest between Cameron with Avatar, and Lucas with Star Wars... though I suspect George has that one in the bag.
- Tim
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Thanks Tim,
It was claimed that there was not enough capacity in the Blu-ray disc to include more material much less including a full CinemaScope version of the same movie, but that could have been solved by offering a second disc within the same package, as many other movies do with additional material and other endings/versions of the same movie as a courtesy of the director and to please the fans.
I agree with you that it should have been offered on same purchase but I was willing to accept a package separation if that was Cameron’s choice.
I did not want my article to touch the subject of permanently “milking” consumers with the same content because it is as sensitive as politics, taxes, and religion and I absolutely never get into those sensitive subjects on any publication.
My purpose was only to point out that consumers should at least have had the option of putting their dollars on the exact same movie they viewed at the theater if only for a technical/artistic reason.
Experimenting with my CinemaScope lenses and projector I must have seen the movie at least 8 times to confirm if the camera composition was actually made with the mindset of a CinemaScope sub-image within the 16:9 image (as claimed), but obviously it was not, otherwise there would have been no need of panning vertically in production any camera shot to visually fit well within the CinemaScope frame. While experimenting I became very disappointed, and as a movie collector I frankly wanted to avoid seeing the movie again because of the aspect ratio alteration, certainly not a director's dream to have viewers that want to avoid seeing his/her movie.
The result: Since I already got stuck with the 16:9 version I promised myself not to buy the CinemaScope version even if Cameron makes it available in the future; and I will be very skeptical in considering the purchase of the Blu-ray/3D versions of the Avatar 2 and 3 he has announced for the next few years.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
It was claimed that there was not enough capacity in the Blu-ray disc to include more material much less including a full CinemaScope version of the same movie, but that could have been solved by offering a second disc within the same package, as many other movies do with additional material and other endings/versions of the same movie as a courtesy of the director and to please the fans.
I agree with you that it should have been offered on same purchase but I was willing to accept a package separation if that was Cameron’s choice.
I did not want my article to touch the subject of permanently “milking” consumers with the same content because it is as sensitive as politics, taxes, and religion and I absolutely never get into those sensitive subjects on any publication.
My purpose was only to point out that consumers should at least have had the option of putting their dollars on the exact same movie they viewed at the theater if only for a technical/artistic reason.
Experimenting with my CinemaScope lenses and projector I must have seen the movie at least 8 times to confirm if the camera composition was actually made with the mindset of a CinemaScope sub-image within the 16:9 image (as claimed), but obviously it was not, otherwise there would have been no need of panning vertically in production any camera shot to visually fit well within the CinemaScope frame. While experimenting I became very disappointed, and as a movie collector I frankly wanted to avoid seeing the movie again because of the aspect ratio alteration, certainly not a director's dream to have viewers that want to avoid seeing his/her movie.
The result: Since I already got stuck with the 16:9 version I promised myself not to buy the CinemaScope version even if Cameron makes it available in the future; and I will be very skeptical in considering the purchase of the Blu-ray/3D versions of the Avatar 2 and 3 he has announced for the next few years.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Agreed.Rodolfo wrote:that could have been solved by offering a second disc within the same package, as many other movies do with additional material and other endings/versions of the same movie as a courtesy of the director and to please the fans.
No problem there. In understand your position. However that doesn't mean others can't point it out.I did not want my article to touch the subject of permanently “milking” consumers with the same content because it is as sensitive as politics, taxes, and religion and I absolutely never get into those sensitive subjects on any publication.
Absolutely! And very disappointing that this option is unavailable.My purpose was only to point out that consumers should at least have had the option of putting their dollars on the exact same movie they viewed at the theater if only for a technical/artistic reason.
- Tim
-
Richard
- SUPER VIP!
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:28 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Contact:
This story reminds me of a Cameron movie I had a vested interest in during the laserdisc years; Terminator 2.
It was the early 90s, I had received my education on aspect ratios and what was missing in a 1.33 presentation, seeking the theatrical 1.85 or 2.35 when ever possible so I could see the whole picture. Another big fan (and aspect ratio aware person) and I were discussing Terminator 2 and he said he preferred the 1.33 home video release. I was stunned and his point was with 4:3, the tops of actors heads were not cut off providing better framing. My point was with the theatrical 2.35 the sides were not cut off so you could see all the action. A gauntlet was thrown down and he brought an issue of The Perfect Vision containing an interview with Cameron for me to read (back when TPV was a videophiles bible of movie making information).
It appears Terminator 2 was captured in 1.85 as Camerons best answer to the film theater and home video markets. Shots were framed to keep action towards the middle when possible to support both experiences. The 1.85 original was then cropped on the sides for 1.33 home video, and cropped top and bottom for 2.35 theatrical. I rented Terminator 2 in both 1.33 and 2.35 to make comparisons. It appears my friend had a solid argument for the 1.33 release based on things, mostly peoples heads, not being cut off and there was not much missed on the sides, as Cameron stated, making my point moot. I could not watch this movie again in 2.35 without noting heads being cut off which only fed my desire to someday see it as a directors cut in 1.85! Never happened and likely never will. Per that review Cameron had no vested interest in either ratio other than explaining the aspect world he had to deal and cope with as film maker and that he did have a vested interest to satisfy both.
Since then, I have no vested interest in the aspect ratio of Cameron films.
(I discovered today on IMDB that Abyss was originally released in 1.90 in 1990 on laserdisc along with 2.35 and 1.33 versions appearing in 1996 on laserdisc. All DVD appears to be 2.35 or 1.33 only.)
As the years progressed I discovered Cameron was not alone and other directors were doing similar things to cover both presentations. OAR, original aspect ratio, had come to mean less and less. Do you recall plenty of 2.35 films where the focal point of a scene is pushed to one side? Welcome to the purposely framed 1.33 area for the pan and scanned home video release (and the lack of any important image content on the other side for the 2.35 aspect). More and more films were no longer being framed for the 2.35 theatrical screen like they used to. Home video viewers were being penalized less and less for missing half the frame. At one point I gave up on these details and concerns choosing a preference to watch theatrical aspect ratios, move on and enjoy the experience regardless.
Although the original aspect of Avatar may have been recut and purposely manipulated for a better 2.35 release I can’t help but suspect that this inspiration reflected the same old story; this movie is going to be shown in 2 aspects due to the market and expectations; make it happen. Choosing the 1.85 version for home video is understandable if not commendable in my book and as you point out it is Cameron’s preference. Based on what I have shared so far, it’s no surprise I would prefer seeing the whole frame rather than the top and bottom being cropped for 2.35, even if manipulated by Cameron himself for the best result (and I own a 2.35 screen).
At this time the difference for home video and theater is blurred due to the HDTV aspect ratio. I have read that directors are far happier these days working with the 1.78 of home video which supports film 1.85 without any loss worth discussing while providing better support for 2.35 due to far less loss of on screen image compared to the 1.33 TVs of yesteryear (where 2.35 was a low resolution racing stripe going across the screen). It is far easier to maintain action areas for both home and theater regardless of the capturing aspect ratio since far less will be cropped for home or theater.
For me, 2.35 does not mean what is used to; the only way to see all the action. That concern is best reserved for the movies of yesteryear where not seeing the whole frame nearly always meant you missed something! It seems to me at this time, 1.85 versus 2.35 aspect ratio for current and future movies is more of a videophile preference than a requirement. If 3D takes off, I predict 1.85 is likely to become the more dominant theatrical aspect ratio in the future.
Due to this whole topic I can’t help but quickly cover my Avatar 3D experience. It started with the local cinemaplex 3 minutes down the street. They have had their quality problems in the past. They presented Avatar 3D on a 2.35 screen; needless to say this was a terrible experience. I didn’t notice the excessive overscan of image content top and bottom until about midway in the movie; yes, they had zoomed the image to fill out the 2.35 screen. Rather than risk another venue I went straight to the top, IMAX, to insure I got the right stuff as the director intended! That was pretty awesome with a bright image (and overly bright with the glasses off). While it was fun I did not want to take 3D home... in fact I left after about 1.5 hours into the movie looking forward to seeing it in the future as 2D on my system...
It was the early 90s, I had received my education on aspect ratios and what was missing in a 1.33 presentation, seeking the theatrical 1.85 or 2.35 when ever possible so I could see the whole picture. Another big fan (and aspect ratio aware person) and I were discussing Terminator 2 and he said he preferred the 1.33 home video release. I was stunned and his point was with 4:3, the tops of actors heads were not cut off providing better framing. My point was with the theatrical 2.35 the sides were not cut off so you could see all the action. A gauntlet was thrown down and he brought an issue of The Perfect Vision containing an interview with Cameron for me to read (back when TPV was a videophiles bible of movie making information).
It appears Terminator 2 was captured in 1.85 as Camerons best answer to the film theater and home video markets. Shots were framed to keep action towards the middle when possible to support both experiences. The 1.85 original was then cropped on the sides for 1.33 home video, and cropped top and bottom for 2.35 theatrical. I rented Terminator 2 in both 1.33 and 2.35 to make comparisons. It appears my friend had a solid argument for the 1.33 release based on things, mostly peoples heads, not being cut off and there was not much missed on the sides, as Cameron stated, making my point moot. I could not watch this movie again in 2.35 without noting heads being cut off which only fed my desire to someday see it as a directors cut in 1.85! Never happened and likely never will. Per that review Cameron had no vested interest in either ratio other than explaining the aspect world he had to deal and cope with as film maker and that he did have a vested interest to satisfy both.
Since then, I have no vested interest in the aspect ratio of Cameron films.
(I discovered today on IMDB that Abyss was originally released in 1.90 in 1990 on laserdisc along with 2.35 and 1.33 versions appearing in 1996 on laserdisc. All DVD appears to be 2.35 or 1.33 only.)
As the years progressed I discovered Cameron was not alone and other directors were doing similar things to cover both presentations. OAR, original aspect ratio, had come to mean less and less. Do you recall plenty of 2.35 films where the focal point of a scene is pushed to one side? Welcome to the purposely framed 1.33 area for the pan and scanned home video release (and the lack of any important image content on the other side for the 2.35 aspect). More and more films were no longer being framed for the 2.35 theatrical screen like they used to. Home video viewers were being penalized less and less for missing half the frame. At one point I gave up on these details and concerns choosing a preference to watch theatrical aspect ratios, move on and enjoy the experience regardless.
Although the original aspect of Avatar may have been recut and purposely manipulated for a better 2.35 release I can’t help but suspect that this inspiration reflected the same old story; this movie is going to be shown in 2 aspects due to the market and expectations; make it happen. Choosing the 1.85 version for home video is understandable if not commendable in my book and as you point out it is Cameron’s preference. Based on what I have shared so far, it’s no surprise I would prefer seeing the whole frame rather than the top and bottom being cropped for 2.35, even if manipulated by Cameron himself for the best result (and I own a 2.35 screen).
At this time the difference for home video and theater is blurred due to the HDTV aspect ratio. I have read that directors are far happier these days working with the 1.78 of home video which supports film 1.85 without any loss worth discussing while providing better support for 2.35 due to far less loss of on screen image compared to the 1.33 TVs of yesteryear (where 2.35 was a low resolution racing stripe going across the screen). It is far easier to maintain action areas for both home and theater regardless of the capturing aspect ratio since far less will be cropped for home or theater.
For me, 2.35 does not mean what is used to; the only way to see all the action. That concern is best reserved for the movies of yesteryear where not seeing the whole frame nearly always meant you missed something! It seems to me at this time, 1.85 versus 2.35 aspect ratio for current and future movies is more of a videophile preference than a requirement. If 3D takes off, I predict 1.85 is likely to become the more dominant theatrical aspect ratio in the future.
Due to this whole topic I can’t help but quickly cover my Avatar 3D experience. It started with the local cinemaplex 3 minutes down the street. They have had their quality problems in the past. They presented Avatar 3D on a 2.35 screen; needless to say this was a terrible experience. I didn’t notice the excessive overscan of image content top and bottom until about midway in the movie; yes, they had zoomed the image to fill out the 2.35 screen. Rather than risk another venue I went straight to the top, IMAX, to insure I got the right stuff as the director intended! That was pretty awesome with a bright image (and overly bright with the glasses off). While it was fun I did not want to take 3D home... in fact I left after about 1.5 hours into the movie looking forward to seeing it in the future as 2D on my system...