# Avatar 1.78 vs 2.27 comparison



## ilsiu

EDIT: Title should read 1.78 vs *2.37*


As the other Avatar thread was killed for various reasons, I'll try to keep this as factual as possible.


Fact: The Avatar blu-ray will have 16x9 aspect ratio.


Fact: In order to view Avatar blu-ray on a scope screen, the native image must either be distorted (stretched) or cropped.


The following are production stills provided by the studio that were published on many mainstream websites (imdb, yahoo, etc). They all started out with 16x9 aspect ratio. I can't say for sure they represent the exact images shown in the movie, but I can't think of a good reason why they would've been altered.


The left side is the native image as would be seen in a 16x9 display. The right side represents the 75% vertical center crop expanded to the same height, as would be displayed in a 2.37 display.


Scope afficianados keep in mind: every scene will need to be cropped in order to view in scope, even the ones that may suffer from cropping.


Image 1:










Image 2:










Image 3:










Image 4:










Image 5:










Image 6:










Image 7:


----------



## HogPilot

It seems that the theatrical 'scope presentation of this movie was not presented as a pure center crop from the 1.78:1 presentation of the film - whether or not the overall difference in center/not-center crop proves to be a major difference remains to be seen, but I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between the two to see how it was done.


----------



## dvdvision

Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18429320
> 
> 
> The right side represents the 75% vertical center crop expanded to the same height, as would be displayed in a 2.37 display



Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.


----------



## Deke6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18430215
> 
> 
> Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.



I haven't seen this film, but are there any subtitles? That may be the biggest potential source of grief.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?


art


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18429320
> 
> 
> Fact: In order to view Avatar blu-ray on a scope screen, the native image must either be distorted (stretched) or cropped.



Not strictly true, you could watch it as 1,78 in the center of the scope screen like you would normally. In this case we have the choice of full 1.78 or cropped to 2.37.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18431343
> 
> 
> Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?
> 
> 
> art



I think it was meant to be, but in my local multiplex, the screen was 16:9 and masked down to scope and I saw it in 3D.


Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18430170
> 
> 
> Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html



This is correct, and accurate for Avatar. I refer to it as 2.39 vertical pan'n'scan within the full 1.78 frame.


Because of this, Avatar cannot be presented properly in any other way than 1.78 in the home.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18430215
> 
> 
> Well based on the images you've attached, I am not going to miss anything watching this as Scope on my system.



The images are missing a representation of the 2.39 presentation in theaters. Center cropping the 1.78 frame is a completely inaccurate/incorrect way to view this film.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deke6* /forum/post/18430461
> 
> 
> I haven't seen this film, but are there any subtitles? That may be the biggest potential source of grief.



Subtitles are within a safe area for a center 2.37 crop of the 1.78 frame. Unfortunately, this is the smallest potential problem.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18431660
> 
> 
> Not strictly true, you could watch it as 1,78 in the center of the scope screen like you would normally. In this case we have the choice of full 1.78 or cropped to 2.37.
> 
> 
> Gary



True, I suppose it should have read "in order to completely fill a scope screen..."


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Really unfortunate (strange really) that this isn't being released as a scope title despite the fact that the 2D theatrical presentation was scope ratio.


Art


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18430170
> 
> 
> Ilsiu, usually the "crop" extraction from Cameron films is pushed to the top, ie the extraction crops a lot off the bottom, a slim on top. The 2.37 version is also vertically adjusted shot by shot. Perhaps you should fix the images to reflect how an accurate crop would have to look. If not, all the images when extracted "center" looks way off. I have some accurate samples taken from official stills and the trailers, on my blog here http://seventeen.typepad.com/hdvisio...nemascope.html





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18431343
> 
> 
> Wasn't the theatrical 2D 2.40:1 ?
> 
> 
> art



I suspect both are you are correct: the theatrical scope 2D was 2.40 and was a vertical pan and scan extraction from the 1.78 presentation.


But that doesn't matter for the home version. Those that want to crop it to fit a scope screen will have to settle for a center crop for the entire movie (I suppose those that have a sophisticated video scaler can create custom crops that select the top, bottom, or anywhere in between; but they still can't dynamically adjust the crop appropriately for every scene).


The screenshots posted are a way to evaluate the two options for home viewing. You can view it in theatrical 1.78 OAR, or you can watch the center crop in scope. There is no way to watch it in theatrical 2D scope OAR at home. I was limited to screenshots that are already in public domain.


For the most part, if I wasn't aware of the 1.78 version, I probably wouldn't be bothered by the center crop. However, there was a image posted in the previous thread of the two Navi holding a bow and arrow, ~3/4 body shot, that I think clearly demonstrates that any cropping (top, center, bottom, wherever) significantly weakens the composition compared to the original 1.78. But I couldn't find it with a cursory google search.


----------



## CAVX

I fully get your point about the centre crop, however, just how much not seeing the tip of the arrow affects the scene remains to be seen. I can't remember the associated dialog for that scene, so even if they are talking about siting down the arrow, you're getting the point of what is happening. Out of all of the centre crops I've seen, I've not seen one that removes a head, so again head clipping should still be acceptable.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18433976
> 
> 
> I fully get your point about the centre crop, however, just how much not seeing the tip of the arrow affects the scene remains to be seen. I can't remember the associated dialog for that scene, so even if they are talking about siting down the arrow, you're getting the point of what is happening. Out of all of the centre crops I've seen, I've not seen one that removes a head, so again head clipping should still be acceptable.



If a static center crop was never presented, it's not a valid way to view the film. Period. It's absolutely no different than cropping any other 1.78 film.


There is a valid, director-approved, 2.39 presentation. It was created via pan and scan from the 1.78 frame and CG elements were reworked to fit the shorter frame (such as GUI overlays).


Since Cameron hasn't, and probably never will release this presentation for the home, there is only one valid way to view Avatar- 1.78! This is fine really, because Cameron prefers the 1.78 presentation anyway.


You can create your own crop to fit your screen that you think looks OK- but this is no better than folks zooming 2.35 films to fill their 1.78 plasmas/LCDs, and quite frankly it's laughable that anyone would seriously consider doing it- especially in this subforum. Absolutely ridiculous.


We get to hear the tired old spiel about our eyes being more sensitive to vertical information as a reason to go CIH. To quote CAVX: "we are more sensitive to image height than image width".


Now the first thing you want to do with this film is chop 25% of it's vertical information! All framed, shot, modeled, animated, and rendered intended and even preferred to be seen by the viewer.


As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.


CIH is not a perfect solution, and because of it's limitations, won't present every film properly.


You have to compromise somewhere. Films like Avatar are an area where CIH users chose to compromise, but may not have realized it when they made that decision.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18434071
> 
> 
> As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.



I didn't bother with side masks because most of what I watch is Scope, not 1.78:1. No doubt I will watch this in 1.78:1 after I have watched it "centre cropped" for Scope and based on which I prefer, will be the way I screen it in future. I see no reason what so ever to move my seating in closer as I already have a 2x the image height distance which works regardless of AR.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18434071
> 
> 
> As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.



This is one of the points that often gets ignored by zoomers despite it's being posted time and time again.


Those who use lenses do so because they sit close enough that 16:9 doesn't look too small, and at that distance zooming gives a distorted image due to enlarged pixel size. In order to get a more watchable image a lens with scaling must be used. Those who have done the back to back testing with a lens against zooming choose a lens because of this.


If you haven't done the back to back testing with a lens you don't know what you're missing and it's quite obvious from the comments they post that this is the case.


How many here who saw it at the cinema will be watching it again in the home though?


Gary


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18434362
> 
> 
> ...zooming gives a *distorted* image due to enlarged pixel size...



Okay this is off topic, but I'm going to be trivial and argue semantics










I understand your point, but I don't think distorted is an accurate description. Distortion refers to an inaccurate reproduction of a reference signal; e.g. pincushion distortion.


What you're describing is how zooming makes deficiencies inherent in the display (square pixels) more visible at a fixed viewing distance vs using a lens.


Anyway, whatever it's called, it isn't relevant to this thread, which is comparing the composition of 1.78 vs cropped 1.78 images (regardless if it's accomplished by zooming or lens).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18434362
> 
> 
> How many here who saw it at the cinema will be watching it again in the home though?



Me for one. I only saw it in 1.78 (IMAX 3D). I'll rent it and watch it both ways out of curiosity.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18434665
> 
> 
> Okay this is off topic, but I'm going to be trivial and argue semantics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, but I don't think distorted is an accurate description. Distortion refers to an inaccurate reproduction of a reference signal; e.g. pincushion distortion.



I'm inclined to agree to a degree, but one point of view is that we're meant to be seeing a certain level of sharpness when the BD is mastered on a plasma display, and that's how we're meant to be watching it (on the same kind of display). When you zoom the image, you are distorting the original intent since you are increasing the sharpness beyond what was intended. It's also suggested that when a disk is mastered on a plasma and we watch it on a pj, we're not seeing that as intended either. Of course, I'm sure that how we were originally intended to see it at the cinema there is a different intent there as well. I'd like to think that with the compromises projector owners go to to arrive at the theatrical intent in the home, we make the best compromises available to us to achieve the theatrical intent with a HDTV mastered disk, if you get my drift.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18434665
> 
> 
> Anyway, whatever it's called, it isn't relevant to this thread, which is comparing the composition of 1.78 vs cropped 1.78 images (regardless if it's accomplished by zooming or lens).



Agreed.













> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18434665
> 
> 
> Me for one. I only saw it in 1.78 (IMAX 3D). I'll rent it and watch it both ways out of curiosity.



I doubt I'll be watching it again for quite some time (if at all), and as I saw it as 3D in scope I'm not sure the movie I saw will ever be available!


Gary


----------



## Josh Z

Keep in mind that even if these examples are accurate, the cropping will likely not look as severe when the shots are in motion, the actors strutting to and fro, dragons bobbing up and down, and the camera weaving this way and that all around them.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18434071
> 
> 
> You can create your own crop to fit your screen that you think looks OK- but this is no better than folks zooming 2.35 films to fill their 1.78 plasmas/LCDs, and quite frankly it's laughable that anyone would seriously consider doing it- especially in this subforum. Absolutely ridiculous.



You've made your point. Now please move on.


We can all acknowledge that Cameron has, for his own peculiar reasons, decided to reframe the movie for 16:9 even though he originally composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1. Nonetheless, some of us are interested in discussing whether it's possible to recreate the original 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, for academic purposes if nothing else. We're getting tired of you constantly haranguing us about it.


This is *not* the same as cropping/distorting any other 1.85:1 movie to fit the screen. Avatar in 2-D was originally composed for 2.35:1, and many of us saw it presented that way theatrically. Those other 1.85:1 movies were not composed for 2.35:1. This is a different situation entirely.


You've argued your side of this debate. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. We're done with that now. Please stop.


As someone who has admitted to having absolutely no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Height at all, your continual posting in this forum is borderline trolling.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18435764
> 
> 
> You've made your point. Now please move on.
> 
> 
> We can all acknowledge that Cameron has, for his own peculiar reasons, decided to reframe the movie for 16:9 even though he originally composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1. Nonetheless, some of us are interested in discussing whether it's possible to recreate the original 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, for academic purposes if nothing else. We're getting tired of you constantly haranguing us about it.
> 
> 
> This is *not* the same as cropping/distorting any other 1.85:1 movie to fit the screen. Avatar in 2-D was originally composed for 2.35:1, and many of us saw it presented that way theatrically. Those other 1.85:1 movies were not composed for 2.35:1. This is a different situation entirely.
> 
> 
> You've argued your side of this debate. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. We're done with that now. Please stop.
> 
> 
> As someone who has admitted to having absolutely no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Height at all, your continual posting in this forum is borderline trolling.



Bravo Josh!


----------



## Tom Monahan

Cameron prefers 2D for scope but releases this 2D release in 16x9.







This 2D release should at least have a second disc in scope.


----------



## johnovox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18435764
> 
> 
> You've made your point. Now please move on.
> 
> 
> We can all acknowledge that Cameron has, for his own peculiar reasons, decided to reframe the movie for 16:9 even though he originally composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1. Nonetheless, some of us are interested in discussing whether it's possible to recreate the original 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, for academic purposes if nothing else. We're getting tired of you constantly haranguing us about it.
> 
> 
> This is *not* the same as cropping/distorting any other 1.85:1 movie to fit the screen. Avatar in 2-D was originally composed for 2.35:1, and many of us saw it presented that way theatrically. Those other 1.85:1 movies were not composed for 2.35:1. This is a different situation entirely.
> 
> 
> You've argued your side of this debate. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. We're done with that now. Please stop.
> 
> 
> As someone who has admitted to having absolutely no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Height at all, your continual posting in this forum is borderline trolling.



Agreed (other than the borderline comment).


The presentation of this film is a matter of preference and it is not appropriate to state that a particular presentation is "incorrect", "not valid" or "laughable".


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18435764
> 
> 
> You've made your point. Now please move on.
> 
> 
> We can all acknowledge that Cameron has, for his own peculiar reasons, decided to reframe the movie for 16:9 even though he originally composed the 2-D version for 2.35:1. Nonetheless, some of us are interested in discussing whether it's possible to recreate the original 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, for academic purposes if nothing else. We're getting tired of you constantly haranguing us about it.
> 
> 
> This is *not* the same as cropping/distorting any other 1.85:1 movie to fit the screen. Avatar in 2-D was originally composed for 2.35:1, and many of us saw it presented that way theatrically. Those other 1.85:1 movies were not composed for 2.35:1. This is a different situation entirely.
> 
> 
> You've argued your side of this debate. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. And argued it. We're done with that now. Please stop.
> 
> 
> As someone who has admitted to having absolutely no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Height at all, your continual posting in this forum is borderline trolling.



There's no debate. Yet I still have to repeat myself for people to understand the facts.


Avatar was presented 2.35 in theaters, true. It was not a center crop. Therefore, you cannot reproduce this with a 1.33x vertical stretch and 1.33x horizontal expansion A-lens.


You will have to watch this 1.78.


To create your own framing of a film is, yes, no better than cropping any other film, to any other aspect ratio.


Please point me in the direction of the zooming subforum. How about the CIA or Variable AR subforum? What's that? There aren't subforums for those topics? It's all clumped in here?


Here I stay.










Jeez, I took the time to compare the 2.39 theatrical presentation to the 1.78 presentation with a center cut to verify whether they would be identical, or if there was a different framing involved. You call this borderline trolling?


Yeah, it didn't turn out to be the way you said it would be. Grow up.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnovox* /forum/post/18436155
> 
> 
> Agreed (other than the borderline comment).
> 
> 
> The presentation of this film is a matter of preference and it is not appropriate to state that a particular presentation is "incorrect", "not valid" or "laughable".



The presentation of a film is a matter of the director's preference, and in this case he clearly prefers 1.78. Now, if Cameron released this 2.39 framing to the public and gave us the choice, then it would be a matter of preference, I agree.


To crop a film down to a framing other than that which was intended, preferred, or seen by anyone is laughable- again, especially for this subforum who think something like 2.35 displayed OAR albeit letterboxed on a 16:9 display is heresy.


The hypocrisy is stunning.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Bottom Line,


Who cares, it's an over hyped movie that would not even be remotely as popular without 3D, in 2D it's just another average sci-fi flick (regardless of whatever 'message' one walks away with).


Sorry but I just have a little chuckle when I see people taking this movie so serious, it's no timeless masterpiece







.


Jason


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaGamePimp* /forum/post/18437190
> 
> 
> Bottom Line,
> 
> 
> Who cares, it's an over hyped movie that would not even be remotely as popular without 3D, in 2D it's just another average sci-fi flick (regardless of whatever 'message' one walks away with).
> 
> 
> Sorry but I just have a little chuckle when I see people taking this movie so serious, it's no timeless masterpiece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Jason



I don't know that anyone has to take this movie seriously, and opinion always will vary. I think Avatar will be remembered as an experience far more than a film.


But you would think in this subforum, the proper presentation of films would be taken seriously.


----------



## DaGamePimp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18437263
> 
> 
> I don't know that anyone has to take this movie seriously, and opinion always will vary. I think Avatar will be remembered as an experience far more than a film.
> 
> 
> But you would think in this subforum, the proper presentation of films would be taken seriously.



I understand your point and obviously people simply have to decide to either be entertained with what they get or not buy. I would say what has been done to the LOTR trilogy on blu is a much greater travesty than the 'crop' choices that we have to deal with on Avatar (at least Avatar should look spectacular on blu).


My point was for people to just lighten up before things get ugly







. I cannot imagine anyone (except for maybe JC himself) having any sort of emotional connection to this film, now on some of the true masterpieces of our time I could see people getting worked up, but this film is not one of those.


Jason


----------



## johnovox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18436346
> 
> 
> There's no debate. Yet I still have to repeat myself for people to understand the facts.
> 
> 
> Avatar was presented 2.35 in theaters, true. It was not a center crop. Therefore, you cannot reproduce this with a 1.33x vertical stretch and 1.33x horizontal expansion A-lens.
> 
> 
> You will have to watch this 1.78.
> 
> 
> To create your own framing of a film is, yes, no better than cropping any other film, to any other aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> Please point me in the direction of the zooming subforum. How about the CIA or Variable AR subforum? What's that? There aren't subforums for those topics? It's all clumped in here?
> 
> 
> Here I stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, I took the time to compare the 2.39 theatrical presentation to the 1.78 presentation with a center cut to verify whether they would be identical, or if there was a different framing involved. You call this borderline trolling?
> 
> 
> Yeah, it didn't turn out to be the way you said it would be. Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presentation of a film is a matter of the director's preference, and in this case he clearly prefers 1.78. Now, if Cameron released this 2.39 framing to the public and gave us the choice, then it would be a matter of preference, I agree.
> 
> 
> To crop a film down to a framing other than that which was intended, preferred, or seen by anyone is laughable- again, especially for this subforum who think something like 2.35 displayed OAR albeit letterboxed on a 16:9 display is heresy.
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy is stunning.



What is stunning is the confusion between public presentation and private viewing.


I think many CIHers as well as non-CIHers who are cinephiles do prefer that films be presented to the public pursuant to the director's intent (i.e., the film's OAR), be that in the form of public cinema presentation or distribution by media (whether disc, online or broadcast). The key is that it be offered to the public in this format so the individual can choose how to view the material. As long as it is provided in OAR consistent with the director's intent, the individual can view it how he likes in the privacy of his own home. Thus, we do cry foul when films are not distributed in their OAR, whether it be on disc or e.g., HBO-HD cropping, generally 2.35:1 OAR films to 16:9. In this case, the individual cannot view the film in OAR, whereas if the film were presented in OAR, he could zoom, say, to fill a 16:9 screen.


There is no hypocrisy here. We merely ask that the film be offered in OAR. You say that's 16:9. Fine. That's what you get. But we can view it as we want in the privacy of our own homes. For CIHers, this means we can view 2.35:1 material in all its glory. The only difference is we choose to have 2.35:1 material be more impactful than 16:9; the opposite is true for those with a 16:9 display.


There is no right or wrong way of viewing, its merely preference, just like you can look at the black bars (or the masking that covers them) when you watch Lord of the Rings this week or you can zoom and cut off the edges. Your choice.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnovox* /forum/post/18437544
> 
> 
> What is stunning is the confusion between public presentation and private viewing.
> 
> 
> I think many CIHers as well as non-CIHers who are cinephiles do prefer that films be presented to the public pursuant to the director's intent (i.e., the film's OAR), be that in the form of public cinema presentation or distribution by media (whether disc, online or broadcast). The key is that it be offered to the public in this format so the individual can choose how to view the material. As long as it is provided in OAR consistent with the director's intent, the individual can view it how he likes in the privacy of his own home. Thus, we do cry foul when films are not distributed in their OAR, whether it be on disc or e.g., HBO-HD cropping, generally 2.35:1 OAR films to 16:9. In this case, the individual cannot view the film in OAR, whereas if the film were presented in OAR, he could zoom, say, to fill a 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> There is no hypocrisy here. We merely ask that the film be offered in OAR. You say that's 16:9. Fine. That's what you get. But we can view it as we want in the privacy of our own homes. For CIHers, this means we can view 2.35:1 material in all its glory. The only difference is we choose to have 2.35:1 material be more impactful than 16:9; the opposite is true for those with a 16:9 display.
> 
> 
> There is no right or wrong way of viewing, its merely preference, just like you can look at the black bars (or the masking that covers them) when you watch Lord of the Rings this week or you can zoom and cut off the edges. Your choice.



I think you may be confused?


I don't disagree with anything you said there really, and haven't come across as opposed to any of the points you made.


If both OAR are provided to us (_in this case their are two legitimate cases for OAR_) then we have the preference to view one over the other. Absolutely.


However, when that second option- the 2.39 presentation is never provided to us, we cannot legitamately hack up our own cropped version of the film in the AR we prefer and say it's ok because there was a 2.39 presentation in theaters.


If it's not an identical framing to what was presented in theaters, it is no longer a valid option alongside the 1.78 OAR. To pretend otherwise is what I referred to as laughable.


If you are wanting to chop the 1.78 frame in the middle and claim it's OAR, you're just delusional. If you want to do that but claim it's OK because it doesn't remove any "important story-telling information", you're just hypocritical (because chopping 2.35 down to 1.78 on HBO removes the exact same amount of information, none of which is important "story telling" bits). The fact remains that you've re-framed the film to fit your screen, and not a single person involved in the making of that film ever intended for it to be seen that way.


If all you are doing is "crying foul" about the lack of 2.39 release, then fine. It won't happen as Cameron prefers 1.78, but you have a legitimate argument that what you saw in theaters is what you prefer to view at home. I get that.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18434362
> 
> 
> This is one of the points that often gets ignored by zoomers despite it's being posted time and time again.
> 
> 
> Those who use lenses do so because they sit close enough that 16:9 doesn't look too small, and at that distance zooming gives a distorted image due to enlarged pixel size. In order to get a more watchable image a lens with scaling must be used. Those who have done the back to back testing with a lens against zooming choose a lens because of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Gary



I always find myself intrigued by this claim.


Ever since 1080p projection became the standard I can't remember the last time (years now) I've been aware of pixels on a projected image, unless I stick my nose up to the screen and look for them.


That includes seeing plenty of LCD, DLP, SXRD and LCOS projectors over the years. And it includes viewing at close distances as well.


I regularly have my image size (zooming) blown up well into (and pushing) the recommended THX/SMPTE viewing distances for 16:9 and 2:35:1 images and I never, ever notice any pixels.


----------



## elmalloc

I wish this movie came out in 2.35. 1.78 is an injustice to a scope system. If this movie was designed for scope - it would have trumped 1.78 easily. Because it appears cameron did a crop of his original intention just for scope, that is the heart of this argument.


In my opinion it is a weak argument as Avatar as a whole was just above average to me. My problem with Avatar is it is pushing the 3D craze.


-ELmO


----------



## Nasty N8

"Pushing 3D" YES it was flat out made for it and done AMAZING too. No over blown effects thrown in just to use the 3D but all the right stuff to use it the way it should be to tell the story. I thought it was done very well. I will just present it in crop Scope in my theater I saw it in 3D Scope and it looked phenomenal nothing missing.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nasty N8* /forum/post/18438316
> 
> 
> I will just present it in crop Scope in my theater I saw it in 3D Scope and it looked phenomenal nothing missing.



Again, you will _not_ be able to reproduce the "scope" presentation you saw in the theater by center cropping this Blu-ray.


You _will_ be missing portions of the picture that both 2.39 and 1.78 theatrical presentations showed by cropping this way.


----------



## Franin

What I find amazing and it might not mean much is we got alvin and the chipmunks 2 and it has a preview of Avatar in scope


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18439409
> 
> 
> What I find amazing and it might not mean much is we got alvin and the chipmunks 2 and it has a preview of Avatar in scope



There is also a 2D Scope AVATAR trailer on U-Tube and a 3D version (also Scope) that allows you to select between several different 3D modes. I had fun with the "cross eyed" version using my DLP projector.


----------



## MoFoHo

Very interesting thread.


So the 2.40:1 'scope' extract is essentially 'panned & scanned', but in the vertical domain, from the 1.78:1 aspect ratio?


In that case you're pretty much stuffed, if you want to do a constant crop, to extract a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, no?


Is it not possible to extract, say, a '70mm style' 2.20:1 aspect ratio for you CIH screens, which would be a little more forgiving to any vertical panning and scanning (which you simply can't do on the fly) that was originally needed on the theatrical 2.40:1 extraction?


Even then though, (and even IF you could pan up and down on the fly), you're still pretty much second guessing James Camerons work here...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18440033
> 
> 
> Very interesting thread.
> 
> 
> So the 2.40:1 'scope' extract is essentially 'panned & scanned', but in the vertical domain, from the 1.78:1 aspect ratio?



So seems to be the case here.



> Quote:
> In that case you're pretty much stuffed, if you want to do a constant crop, to extract a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, no?



Whilst not "his vision", I will say that this will work. Of course nothing will be confirmed until we get our BD copies and see for ourselves.


> Quote:
> Is it not possible to extract, say, a '70mm style' 2.20:1 aspect ratio for you CIH screens, which would be a little more forgiving to any vertical panning and scanning (which you simply can't do on the fly) that was originally needed on the theatrical 2.40:1 extraction?



Not on my system. It is either Scope or 1.78:1.



> Quote:
> Even then though, (and even IF you could pan up and down on the fly), you're still pretty much second guessing James Camerons work here...



Well only time will tell if this works or not. If not, then there is always 1.78:1 which is still great on a CIH system.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18440066
> 
> 
> Whilst not "his vision", I will say that this will work. Of course nothing will be confirmed until we get our BD copies and see for ourselves.



Yes, it will work if you enjoy cramped awkward framing, inadequate spacing, chopped heads, obvious cropping with gui overlays being eaten into, and not seeing the focal point in certain scenes.


And it has already been confirmed, and you can see for yourself on the previous page.

*OAR/IAR* (Original/Intended Aspect Ratio): *1.78*
*MAR* (Modified Aspect Ratio): *2.39*


Only *OAR/IAR* have been provided for us on Blu-ray; *MAR* (_the aspect ratio or dimensions in which a film was modified to fit a specific type of screen, as opposed to original aspect ratio_) may never see the light of day because this isn't a case of Cameron wanting/intending people to see the 2.39 framing, it's a case of him providing a 2.39 presentation to make the most of certain theaters.


Cropping the OAR down to 2.37 does not equal the MAR.


In the home Cameron doesn't have to deal with theaters pitching a fuss about 1.78, he can provide only exactly what he wants to be seen on Blu-ray; meaning those with smaller 1.78 displays (CIH included) need to get the coffee table out of the way and pull up the couch.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18442529
> 
> 
> Yes, it will work if you enjoy cramped awkward framing, inadequate spacing, chopped heads, obvious cropping with gui overlays being eaten into, and not seeing the focal point in certain scenes.



What? Just how much vital information can 12.5% top and 12.5% bottom actually contain at the same time?



> Quote:
> And it has already been confirmed, and you can see for yourself on the previous page.



Your starting to sound like a duck. I bet your just waiting for someone to post a screen cap so you can post back with "see I told you so!"



> Quote:
> *OAR/IAR* (Original/Intended Aspect Ratio): *1.78*
> *MAR* (Modified Aspect Ratio): *2.39*
> 
> 
> Only *OAR/IAR* have been provided for us on Blu-ray; *MAR* (_the aspect ratio or dimensions in which a film was modified to fit a specific type of screen, as opposed to original aspect ratio_) may never see the light of day because this isn't a case of Cameron wanting/intending people to see the 2.39 framing, it's a case of him providing a 2.39 presentation to make the most of certain theaters.



Umm, try MOST Cinemas. IMAX should not even be discussed as it is not conventional cinema, it is a specialty venue that even AVATAR does not fit the screen off at 1.78:1.


The so MAR you refer to is the term used to describe the panning and Scanning process used to convert CinemaScope to 4 x 3 TV.


> Quote:
> Cropping the OAR down to 2.37 does not equal the MAR.



No it doesn't.



> Quote:
> In the home Cameron doesn't have to deal with theaters pitching a fuss about 1.78, he can provide only exactly what he wants to be seen on Blu-ray; meaning those with smaller 1.78 displays (CIH included) need to get the coffee table out of the way and pull up the couch.



Speak for yourself. I don't have a coffee table between the screen and the seats. I like the look of the bare floor area and do wish it to be cluttered.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> What? Just how much vital information can 12.5% top and 12.5% bottom actually contain at the same time?



All of the things I mentioned. If it wasn't vital, Cameron wouldn't have pan 'n' scanned!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> Your starting to sound like a duck. I bet your just waiting for someone to post a screen cap so you can post back with "see I told you so!"



"Duck" must have been a typo.







Or an odd Australian expression.


I already posted screen caps.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> Umm, try MOST Cinemas. IMAX should not even be discussed as it is not conventional cinema, it is a specialty venue that even AVATAR does not fit the screen off at 1.78:1.



Some theaters showed 2.39, some showed 1.78, some showed 1.85? My local CIH theater (non-IMAX) happened to show 1.78. Yours may have been 2.39. That's really exactly the point- it was shot and intended for 1.78. It was then modified to fit 2.39 screens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> The so MAR you refer to is the term used to describe the panning and Scanning process used to convert CinemaScope to 4 x 3 TV.



The term MAR can and has been used to describe that process, but it also perfectly describes what happened with Avatar. It just so happens that the process Avatar went through isn't very common.


It was converted from the OAR of 1.78 to a 2.39 shorter screen by the panning and scanning process, thus Modified Aspect Ratio.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.



Since OAR and MAR are the only valid presentations of Avatar, and only OAR has been provided on Blu-ray, it follows that only OAR (1.78) is a valid presentation of Avatar in the home.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18443679
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself. I don't have a coffee table between the screen and the seats. I like the look of the bare floor area and do wish it to be cluttered.



I don't either, I was just paraphrasing what Cameron said.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18445084
> 
> 
> All of the things I mentioned. If it wasn't vital, Cameron wouldn't have pan 'n' scanned!



He Panned and Scanned all of his other films to "better fit your TV", and quite frankly, I see this move in image capture nothing more than a jump straight to video.



> Quote:
> "Duck" must have been a typo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or an odd Australian expression.



A "duck" is a bird that has a wide flat mouth called a "bill". It often makes this repetitive "quacking" noise. The Aussie term for " duck" is given to a cricket player that just got out and scored no runs - IE "out for a duck". Take that however you like it.



> Quote:
> I already posted screen caps.



And given the source caused the last thread to be deleted, I'd like to see legit screen caps from the BD.




> Quote:
> Some theaters showed 2.39, some showed 1.78, some showed 1.85? My local CIH theater (non-IMAX) happened to show 1.78. Yours may have been 2.39. That's really exactly the point- it was shot and intended for 1.78. It was then modified to fit 2.39 screens.



If Cameron really wanted the "biggest image possible", why would a CIH cinema project 1.78:1? Some 3D cinemas also showed this in Scope.



> Quote:
> The term MAR can and has been used to describe that process, but it also perfectly describes what happened with Avatar. It just so happens that the process Avatar went through isn't very common.



No, I believe it is a first and one I would not call a "break through". Gee lets shoot it for video (with video) so we don't have to modify it later on. Is that working smarter, not harder or just being lazy?



> Quote:
> It was converted from the OAR of 1.78 to a 2.39 shorter screen by the panning and scanning process, thus Modified Aspect Ratio.



quack, quack, quack











> Quote:
> Since OAR and MAR are the only valid presentations of Avatar, and only OAR has been provided on Blu-ray, it follows that only OAR (1.78) is a valid presentation of Avatar in the home.



I can't honestly see myself watching it in 1.78:1 unless it does not work in Scope. The only thing that may force me to watch this film in 1.78:1 will be the subtitles should they be located too low in the frame and are clipped by the scaling process. Otherwise, it will be watched that way simply to see the creative difference.


----------



## Franin

Just watched the trailer in scope, beautiful!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18445877
> 
> 
> Just watched the trailer in scope, beautiful!!



Whether you like the story or not, this film is pure eye and ear candy and would make awesome demo material. Shame the BD is not going to be Scope.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18446082
> 
> 
> Whether you like the story or not, this film is pure eye and ear candy and would make awesome demo material. Shame the BD is not going to be Scope.



Have not seen the movie!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18438128
> 
> 
> I always find myself intrigued by this claim.
> 
> 
> Ever since 1080p projection became the standard I can't remember the last time (years now) I've been aware of pixels on a projected image, unless I stick my nose up to the screen and look for them.
> 
> 
> That includes seeing plenty of LCD, DLP, SXRD and LCOS projectors over the years. And it includes viewing at close distances as well.
> 
> 
> I regularly have my image size (zooming) blown up well into (and pushing) the recommended THX/SMPTE viewing distances for 16:9 and 2:35:1 images and I never, ever notice any pixels.



It's not just me:


KelvinS1965 was a zoomer who bought a lens just to see what it was like with the intent of selling it on as he was more than happy with zooming. After comparing the two he much preferred the image with the lens and kept it. His sig reflects that.


Art Sonneborn sits at around SMPTEs closest (2 x image height IIRC, 61 degrees horizontal viewing angle) and he clearly sees pixels with zooming from the front row. He has to move to the back (3rd) row of his theatre before the image becomes acceptable to him. With a lens he can sit in his front row.


Maybe you can't see pixels but you can still see a difference with 1080 and a lens if you sit close enough for it to matter. If it wasn't the case, there would be little or no difference for it to matter, and no one would buy the lenses since we'd all be happy with zooming.


Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18446082
> 
> 
> Whether you like the story or not, this film is pure eye and ear candy and would make awesome demo material. Shame the BD is not going to be Scope.



Indeed, and logically, since the "scope" version is pure eye candy, the 1.78 BD will be 33% more eye candy.


Facts. Gotta love 'em.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18447358
> 
> 
> It's not just me:
> 
> 
> KelvinS1965 was a zoomer who bought a lens just to see what it was like with the intent of selling it on as he was more than happy with zooming. After comparing the two he much preferred the image with the lens and kept it. His sig reflects that.
> 
> 
> Art Sonneborn sits at around SMPTEs closest (2 x image height IIRC, 61 degrees horizontal viewing angle) and he clearly sees pixels with zooming from the front row. He has to move to the back (3rd) row of his theatre before the image becomes acceptable to him. With a lens he can sit in his front row.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can't see pixels but you can still see a difference with 1080 and a lens if you sit close enough for it to matter. If it wasn't the case, there would be little or no difference for it to matter, and no one would buy the lenses since we'd all be happy with zooming.
> 
> 
> Gary



And it's also not just Rich that is skeptical of this claim. I project a 159" diagonal 16:9 image, and I have to get far closer than comfortable to see pixel structure.


You can sit well within spec and not be able to see pixel structure. This is a fact.


In the very extreme end of acceptable seating, you have where Art's first row is. For DLP, up to 2.14x height you can resolve pixel structure, past that point, it's not so clear. 2.5x Height and further you are definitely not capable of resolving pixel structure. For LCoS obviously you have to be closer than these numbers to resolve pixels.


Pixel structure is only changed in the vertical realm with an A-lens, so you are only improving one dimension. If you are sitting at 2x image height and can resolve pixel structure, then adding a lens will only reduce this, not eliminate it (at best). You will still have an identical horizontal pixel size.


All of this is really a moot point for anyone sitting 1 screen width or further away.


You'd be surprised at how few people sit at distances anywhere approaching 2x image height.


Use this calculator to plug in your seating and screen size and it will provide you a lot of these distances, as well as the PPD (Pixels Per Degree). Anything under 30 PPD is noticeable, and 35 or greater is definitely not. Again, I believe that's for DLP, so LCoS will be able to sit closer than those ranges and not resolve pixel structure (LCD, further away).

http://home.roadrunner.com/~res18h39/calculator.htm 

*To sum it up (and you can read the sources linked on that page that back this up scientifically) an A-lens would do nothing for me as far as pixel resolvability goes. I simply cannot, and am nowhere near resolving pixels sitting at SMPTE Reference distance.*


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I know how it all works, I've seen enough of them.










The fact remains that people who _do the comparison_ more often than not prefer the lens method. Art sits at 2 x, and I like to sit around 2.4 or less. I'm not sure where Kelvin sits but he thought he'd be selling his lens on after testing but found he preferred it to zooming.


Gary


----------



## DaGamePimp

Pixel Structure... a little defocus can do the same thing as typical A-lens blurring







. For me the associated blur from a typical A-Lens outweighs the advantage of its compression (at least of the ones that I have seen, have not yet seen a true high end A-lens).


Jason


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18448713
> 
> 
> The fact remains that people who _do the comparison_ more often than not prefer the lens method.



This is not fact, it is conjecture.


Besides, who wants to admit the thousands of dollars they just dropped on a lens really didn't make that big a difference? There's nothing scientific about this "conclusion", it's typically biased subjectivity.


Here's some more conjecture to go along with yours. More often than not, people choose to sit 1 screen width away or further (Reference SMPTE is 1.25x SW) because they don't feel the image is watchable or comfortable that close, and thus cannot claim to notice a difference in pixel resolvability.


If you sit around 2.4x SH (1SW), then you aren't seeing pixel structure, so you must prefer sitting much closer to 2.0x to justify your A-lens purchase, no?


I'd like to know who has a JVC or Sony paired with an A-lens and feels the lens improves pixel structure resolvability. They'd have to be sitting at or closer than SMPTE spec allows.


Now, how in the heck did we get on this tangent in a thread about a film that will not ever be able to be presented through an A-lens properly?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18447358
> 
> 
> It's not just me:
> 
> 
> KelvinS1965 was a zoomer who bought a lens just to see what it was like with the intent of selling it on as he was more than happy with zooming. After comparing the two he much preferred the image with the lens and kept it. His sig reflects that.
> 
> 
> Art Sonneborn sits at around SMPTEs closest (2 x image height IIRC, 61 degrees horizontal viewing angle) and he clearly sees pixels with zooming from the front row. He has to move to the back (3rd) row of his theatre before the image becomes acceptable to him. With a lens he can sit in his front row.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can't see pixels but you can still see a difference with 1080 and a lens if you sit close enough for it to matter. If it wasn't the case, there would be little or no difference for it to matter, and no one would buy the lenses since we'd all be happy with zooming.
> 
> 
> Gary



Hmm.


I've seen quite a number of CIH set ups using an A-lens at this point and have yet to spot a difference or advantage in terms of pixel visibility vs non

A-lens set ups (like mine).


So IF the advantage (aside from light output) of adding more pixels into the equation is that you remove visible pixelization...it's a moot advantage to me and, it seems, to lots of other folks. I note that quite a number of AVS members have large screen, sit close, but complaints of seeing pixels these days seems exceedingly rare. It's just hard to accept the extra pixels argument being a big issue in most cases. In this day of 1080p projectors, I'm sure I'm hardly alone at shrugging when this issue is touted by CIH enthusiasts.


However, IF somehow the extra pixels in an A-lens set up confer some other visual characteristics, beyond simply decreasing visible screen door, THEN that could be intriguing. I'm not sure how it could, but I keep my mind open until I do a careful A/B of A-lens vs zoom.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18449367
> 
> 
> So IF the advantage (aside from light output) of adding more pixels into the equation is that you remove visible pixelization...it's a moot advantage to me and, it seems, to lots of other folks. I note that quite a number of AVS members have large screen, sit close, but complaints of seeing pixels these days seems exceedingly rare. It's just hard to accept the extra pixels argument being a big issue in most cases. In this day of 1080p projectors, I'm sure I'm hardly alone at shrugging when this issue is touted by CIH enthusiasts.



If a seating distance of 11ft and a largest potential of 125" 1.78 on your screen is accurate, then not only is it a moot advantage, it's also a non-existent one. You will never resolve 1080p pixel structure in your setup, and from what I remember, 125" isn't even the size you typically project?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18449328
> 
> 
> This is not fact, it is conjecture.
> 
> 
> Besides, who wants to admit the thousands of dollars they just dropped on a lens really didn't make that big a difference? There's nothing scientific about this "conclusion", it's typically biased subjectivity.



It's not conjecture at all, it's a fact. It's how I decided on my lens, as have others.


The point you miss is that these people quite often do a comparison test before buying. Art was able to compare an ISCO before buying it. Not everyone has that opportunity, but some companies do a 14 money back option so you can try the lens out first and send it back for a full refund if it's not what you want. That's what I did with my first lens after borrowing a cheaper lens from a forum member. Like Kelvin I bought an ISCO 'just to see' and ended up keeping that one and selling the other. If it was a case of zooming being better, why did I buy the ISCO and sell the Prismasonic? If zooming was better I would have sold the Prismasonic and not bothered with the ISCO at all.


No conjecture there I'm afraid.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18449328
> 
> 
> Here's some more conjecture to go along with yours. More often than not, people choose to sit 1 screen width away or further (Reference SMPTE is 1.25x SW) because they don't feel the image is watchable or comfortable that close, and thus cannot claim to notice a difference in pixel resolvability.



Definitely conjecture.










If you sit where THX suggest you sit for your HDTV plasma, you will be at 40 degrees or 2.4 image heights distance. That equates to around 53 degrees for scope in a CIH set up in the same seat. It's not unusual for the pros to set up their clients at that kind of distance for 16:9 since that's where they are comfortable, and scope of course is wider. SMPTE closest is 2 x IH and furthest 3 x IH.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18449328
> 
> 
> If you sit around 2.4x SH (1SW), then you aren't seeing pixel structure, so you must prefer sitting much closer to 2.0x to justify your A-lens purchase, no?



No.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18449328
> 
> 
> I'd like to know who has a JVC or Sony paired with an A-lens and feels the lens improves pixel structure resolvability. They'd have to be sitting at or closer than SMPTE spec allows.



KelvinS1965 has a JVC and an ISCO II. He was a zoomer until he bought an ISCO 'just to see' and saw the improvement so kept the lens. He could easily have sold it on but didn't. His sig says it all.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18449328
> 
> 
> Now, how in the heck did we get on this tangent in a thread about a film that will not ever be able to be presented through an A-lens properly?



That's easy too. You can watch it as 16:9 with side masking, with or without the lens in place










Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18449367
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a number of CIH set ups using an A-lens at this point and have yet to spot a difference or advantage in terms of pixel visibility vs non
> 
> A-lens set ups (like mine).
> 
> 
> So IF the advantage (aside from light output) of adding more pixels into the equation is that you remove visible pixelization...it's a moot advantage to me and, it seems, to lots of other folks. I note that quite a number of AVS members have large screen, sit close, but complaints of seeing pixels these days seems exceedingly rare. It's just hard to accept the extra pixels argument being a big issue in most cases. In this day of 1080p projectors, I'm sure I'm hardly alone at shrugging when this issue is touted by CIH enthusiasts.
> 
> 
> However, IF somehow the extra pixels in an A-lens set up confer some other visual characteristics, beyond simply decreasing visible screen door, THEN that could be intriguing. I'm not sure how it could, but I keep my mind open until I do a careful A/B of A-lens vs zoom.



Kelvin also thought like you did, and he bought a second user ISCO lens just to see what the fuss was all about, with the intention of selling it on (pretty much what I did about 5 years ago now that I think about it). He found he preferred the image so kept the lens.


I think for many it's a case of unless you do the comparison you can't appreciate the difference they can make. Until I tried one I also thought that perfect pixel to pixel images were the only way to go but found that wasn't necessarily the case after seeing an A lens with good scaling. I also thought that adding a lens would drastically reduce ANSI, and found that not to be the case either. One of those cases where theory and practice differ in expected results.


Gary


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18449367
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a number of CIH set ups using an A-lens at this point and have yet to spot a difference or advantage in terms of pixel visibility vs non
> 
> A-lens set ups (like mine).



I looked at it both ways with a high quality 3 chip DLP in my room on the same screen. I could make out pixel structure clearly at a distance between my second and last row with zooming. With the ISCO III only occasionally in my front row.


I have the money to get rid of the A lens, or toss it in the garbage for that matter, if I felt that I would prefer the look of the zoomed image.


I think 4K will make the lens unnecessary but 1080 ,at least in my set up, it gives a better result than zooming. The MTF of DLP is higher than LCOS or SXRD and I'm not sure if this isn't part of it.


Art


----------



## tbase1




Art Sonneborn
I have the money to get rid of the A lens said:


> Once you do that I'll join you with my 3L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an I don't have the money...but I trust your judgement.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaGamePimp* /forum/post/18449034
> 
> 
> Pixel Structure... a little defocus can do the same thing as typical A-lens blurring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . For me the associated blur from a typical A-Lens outweighs the advantage of its compression (at least of the ones that I have seen, have not yet seen a true high end A-lens).
> 
> 
> Jason



Yes, don't confuse a basic 2 prism VC lens with a true cylindrical HE lens.


If you look at the screen cap I did, you can actually see (monitor pending) inter pixel lines on my AT screen.

LINK and click on the first image. Take note of the word "focus".


----------



## Franin

What is the price of a 4k projector?


----------



## ilsiu

It's interesting, all the threads in this forum seem to lead to the same thing: lens vs zooming.


----------



## Kilgore

In all the "scope" shots in this thread, the composition looks extremely cramped. 1.78:1 looks much better. The shots were obviously composed for that ratio.


Whether you use a lens or zoom, 1.78 is how this should be viewed. Otherwise, you are not viewing this film in its OAR.


To me, CIH is all about making 2.35:1 the larger of the common aspect ratios. It's not about hacking up a 1.78:1 image to fit a 2.35:1 screen just because you want to see your scope screen filled.


How many of you cry heresy when people zoom films to fit their 4:3 or 16:9 screens? It's exactly the same thing. And don't give me that vertical vs horizontal resolution malarky. That's just self-justifying horsecrap.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18450318
> 
> 
> What is the price of a 4k projector?



Last year the JVC was about $180K and the Xenon lamp was about $7K.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18450434
> 
> 
> It's interesting, all the threads in this forum seem to lead to the same thing: lens vs zooming.



Yes, and why is that?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaGamePimp* /forum/post/18437190
> 
> 
> Bottom Line,
> 
> 
> Who cares, it's an over hyped movie that would not even be remotely as popular without 3D, in 2D it's just another average sci-fi flick (regardless of whatever 'message' one walks away with).
> 
> 
> Sorry but I just have a little chuckle when I see people taking this movie so serious, it's no timeless masterpiece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Jason




Overhyped. Are you crazy? This has to rate up there with some of the all time cinematic greats. Bubba Ho-Tep is one that comes to mind.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18450434
> 
> 
> It's interesting, all the threads in this forum seem to lead to the same thing: lens vs zooming.



IMHO...An it gets rather tiring, along with taking away the enjoyment of visiting the CIH forum. Unfortunately, it's a few folks that only seem to post on that topic no matter what the original theme/topic of the tread is (or intended to be).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/18459708
> 
> 
> IMHO...An it gets rather tiring, along with taking away the enjoyment of visiting the CIH forum. Unfortunately, it's a few folks that only seem to post on that topic no matter what the original theme/topic of the tread is (or intended to be).



I am no doubt a part of guily party, however, I understand that in order to project CIH "properly" (no light spill off the top or bottom) requires the full panel to be used. At this point in time, the ONLY way to do that is to use an anamorphic lens and scaling.


What annoys me is the select few that ramble about the same issues it supposedly introduces. Often when asked, the conversation quickly turns from the lens to scaling as the problem or the thread gets littered with uninformed posts about who ALL lenses soften the image. And always by those that admit they have not yet seen a high quality lens.


In the end, the real truth is (and where pride kicks in - which is odd given that most people here remain anonymous anyway, so who really cares?) that many simply can not afford a high end lens like the ISCO III so choose to argue the case against the use of an anamorphic lens and scaling altogether.


----------



## rboster

Mark: I wasn't thinking of you....though I know you get drawn into the frey at times. There is a difference between getting caught up in the debate and starting a debate when the topic doesn't present itself in the first place.


----------



## LilGator

Just so it's clear, the lens vs. zooming debate opened again in this thread with this post:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18434362
> 
> 
> This is one of the points that often gets ignored by zoomers despite it's being posted time and time again.
> 
> 
> Those who use lenses do so because they sit close enough that 16:9 doesn't look too small, and at that distance zooming gives a distorted image due to enlarged pixel size. In order to get a more watchable image a lens with scaling must be used. Those who have done the back to back testing with a lens against zooming choose a lens because of this.
> 
> 
> If you haven't done the back to back testing with a lens you don't know what you're missing and it's quite obvious from the comments they post that this is the case.
> 
> 
> How many here who saw it at the cinema will be watching it again in the home though?
> 
> 
> Gary



Don't pretend it's always "zoomers" hijacking threads.


Besides, I don't know that anyone really cares that much. Avatar is a film that clearly benefits from the flexibility of zooming as the full 1.78 frame should be displayed as wide as 2.35 material but taller. The topic is bound to come up. It's only a matter of time before the "lens advocates" get their feathers ruffled and try to defend something that doesn't need to be defended. You're not going to convince any "zoomers" to go out and buy an A-lens, especially not in this thread, with this topic. All you're really doing is grasping at self-justification where you feel the compromises of your setup are exposed.


CIH has it's compromises just like CIA and CIW and any other method that can be used; accept that Avatar happens to be a weakness for CIH and move on.


There is no better or best approach, only a better or best approach for _you_.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> Just so it's clear, the lens vs. zooming debate opened again in this thread with this post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't pretend it's always "zoomers" hijacking threads.



That response was to yet another one of your snipes against those with lenses:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18434071 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> As has been said before, man up and admit you'll have to pull the side masks in for this one, and maybe pull your seating in closer if possible.



So in fact it was you who yet again who has hijacked a thread to post against lens users. We've all lost count at the amount of threads that have also been _started_ by zoomers posting against the use of lenses (not to mention the insults directed at the users themselves)...


But of course it's never _your_ fault...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> Besides, I don't know that anyone really cares that much. Avatar is a film that clearly benefits from the flexibility of zooming as the full 1.78 frame should be displayed as wide as 2.35 material but taller. The topic is bound to come up. It's only a matter of time before the "lens advocates" get their feathers ruffled and try to defend something that doesn't need to be defended. You're not going to convince any "zoomers" to go out and buy an A-lens, especially not in this thread, with this topic. All you're really doing is grasping at self-justification where you feel the compromises of your setup are exposed.



And the above just goes to prove the point further.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> CIH has it's compromises just like CIA and CIW and any other method that can be used; accept that Avatar happens to be a weakness for CIH and move on.



And further still.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> There is no better or best approach, only a better or best approach for _you_.



Amen to that, but why such vitriolic posts against lenses and those who use them?


Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/18472218
> 
> 
> That response was to yet another one of your snipes against those with lenses:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18434071
> 
> 
> So in fact it was you who yet again who has hijacked a thread to post against lens users. We've all lost count at the amount of threads that have also been _started_ by zoomers posting against the use of lenses (not to mention the insults directed at the users themselves)...
> 
> 
> But of course it's never _your_ fault...
> 
> 
> And the above just goes to prove the point further.
> 
> 
> And further still.
> 
> 
> Amen to that, but why such vitriolic posts against lenses and those who use them?
> 
> 
> Gary



Gary, you're seeing things now. Not once in that post you quoted did I mention anything about lenses. Nor did I say anything about zooming versus A-lens.


You started that battle in this thread.


All my quoted post states is that those with 2.35 shaped screens will need to present the 1.78 frame full height of their screen (hence masks pulled in) to properly present this film. This is a fact, and obviously why this thread was created, so also 100% on topic.


Your tirade about "zoomers" being ignorant, and pixel sizes, yadda yadda came out of left field. But we went with it anyway.


----------



## johnovox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18472128
> 
> 
> There is no better or best approach, only a better or best approach for _you_.



Finally you have come around


----------



## wizzack

Has anyone tried editing BD video to get their desired aspect ratio? I realize it's not the director's intent and you'd be missing some of the picture.


I was thinking about this with The Dark Knight. Why not edit the IMAX scenes and add some black bars to the top and bottom so no picture is displayed outside of my screen when zooming.


You could also do the same with Avatar if you wish. I'm not familiar with video software but for pictures you can set up batch jobs in Lightroom. So you'd basically do the same crop times however many frames there are? Anydvd, Video software (Corel?), Clown BD.


Am I missing anything? Does this sound crazy?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wizzack* /forum/post/18508710
> 
> 
> Has anyone tried editing BD video to get their desired aspect ratio? I realize it's not the director's intent and you'd be missing some of the picture.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this with The Dark Knight. Why not edit the IMAX scenes and add some black bars to the top and bottom so no picture is displayed outside of my screen when zooming.
> 
> 
> You could also do the same with Avatar if you wish. I'm not familiar with video software but for pictures you can set up batch jobs in Lightroom. So you'd basically do the same crop times however many frames there are? Anydvd, Video software (Corel?), Clown BD.
> 
> 
> Am I missing anything? Does this sound crazy?



The DVD came out as letter boxed and it was only the BD that came out as dual AR. Personally, I feel it should have all been letter boxed.


What makes AVATAR different is that whilst both TDK and TF2 were a centre crop from the IMAX footage, AVATAR's Scope version is apparently a vertically panned and scanned crop, not just a centre crop. If it were a simple centre crop, this thread would not exist.


----------



## blastermaster

I am disappointed that this film is 1.78. In my mind, epic movies should be in scope. Leave 16:9 to comedies low-B action flicks. Avatar would really benefit from scope - to my eyes, it is so much more immersive. That said, we can't argue what the director intended, so I will move my lens and watch the film that way. But I won't be happy about it lol.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18523581
> 
> 
> I am disappointed that this film is 1.78. In my mind, epic movies should be in scope. Leave 16:9 to comedies low-B action flicks. Avatar would really benefit from scope - to my eyes, it is so much more immersive. That said, we can't argue what the director intended, so I will move my lens and watch the film that way. But I won't be happy about it lol.



This is, in my mind, the #1 downside to a CIH setup. After forcing 2.39 films to be larger and "grander" than everything else, it's all you want to watch, and the rest feel inferior. I've posted the list before, but it's always been split roughly 50/50 where some of the greatest films are ~1.85. Take any list of a ranking for best films and go down and find the AR. Just as many would have to be presented smaller on a CIH setup even though they may be just as BIG a movie as anything else (not comedies or b-action).


In the case of Avatar, the only way it would benefit from "scope" is because of the shape- if someone preferred that "look". It's obviously _much_ more immersive with the added material of the taller 1.78 frame if you're able to view it at a decent size. Properly presented, 2.39 Avatar and 1.78 Avatar are the same width, but 1.78 Avatar is taller- therefore, it will be more immersive. Shape doesn't dictate immersion; size relative to seating distance does.


The problem isn't the AR, or the director's choice- the problem is a system that forces all 1.78 films to be so much smaller. The less restrictions you impose on the material, the more free you are to present it any way you more prefer, or the way it would best be presented. Giving you a scope presentation on Blu-ray would only serve to give you LESS of the film that was created, just so you can fill the screen you thought was best to put in your theater.


Think about it from the other side of the boat. Many CIW users prefer watching 1.78/1.85 films that fill their screen over 2.39 films. They may even be disappointed over time when they sit down and find out a film is 2.39.


There are many that end up picking mostly 2.39 films and have no problem with CIH- it fits perfectly to their "bias". They look at a 1.85 film and say, "meh, I'll watch something else".


I prefer to be more open minded and enjoy every AR equally- give them all the space they need to breathe. But that's just me- everyone's entitled to their thing.


----------



## floridapoolboy

This whole AR debate is getting weird, why the drama? Bottom line, scope films need to be wider than non-scope films, period. My present 96" diag 16:9 screen shows a great, immersive image with 16:9 movies, but scope films are diminished in size and impact. I'm planning on going CIH with a 120" 2:35.1 screen, so I can enjoy scope films in all their widescreen glory! Guess what, any 16:9 film will STILL be the same size as it is now, nothing lost! For my HT this is the ideal way to view films, both will be optomized.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/18524663
> 
> 
> This whole AR debate is getting weird, why the drama? Bottom line, scope films need to be wider than non-scope films, period. My present 96" diag 16:9 screen shows a great, immersive image with 16:9 movies, but scope films are diminished in size and impact. I'm planning on going CIH with a 120" 2:35.1 screen, so I can enjoy scope films in all their widescreen glory! Guess what, any 16:9 film will STILL be the same size as it is now, nothing lost! For my HT this is the ideal way to view films, both will be optomized.



Exactly that's why we get the best of both worlds. I also used to have a 16x9 screen originally and I've still maintained the same size ( actually nearly 2 " larger than the 16x9 screen.) going to 2:37:1. In a light controlled room when watching 16x9 materials you barley see the side bars. I have heaps of 16x9 movies and enjoy them as much as the CIH movies. Give me any AR and I'm a happy man. Even 3D due to my seating pos will work extremely well.


----------



## tbase1

Holly crap...my samsung up5000 just found a movie that it can not play. I have another player to use for this movie, but I love the player for it's dual format. I hate to have two players for both hd-dvd and blu-ray and i'll be damned if I'll buy a player for Avtar or as i call it the smurfs. Samsung...help a brother out! (firmware)


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/18524663
> 
> 
> This whole AR debate is getting weird, why the drama? Bottom line, scope films need to be wider than non-scope films, period. My present 96" diag 16:9 screen shows a great, immersive image with 16:9 movies, but scope films are diminished in size and impact. I'm planning on going CIH with a 120" 2:35.1 screen, so I can enjoy scope films in all their widescreen glory! Guess what, any 16:9 film will STILL be the same size as it is now, nothing lost! For my HT this is the ideal way to view films, both will be optomized.



No drama, just differing points of view. Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39, so that's why the topic arises in this discussion.


CIH can't do this- some may or may not care, but the fact remains.


When picking a screen size in my room, I took the opposite approach. I said, what's the widest screen I can fit on this wall (assuming 2.39 films)- 11.5ft. Same approach anyone going CIH would use. Now instead of limiting myself to a 2.35 screen, 4.9ft tall, I went with a 1.78 screen, 6.5ft tall. Either way my widest films are the same size, I've just removed the limitation imposed by a CIH setup on other ARs and what sizes they could possibly be.


This is the idea CAVX proposes on his site, only he would use the CIH approach on this screen, and open up the height for a few films needing it.


Now I have the flexibility to do that, but I choose to pull my screen up (Da-lite HP) to a roughly 2.05 ratio, and now my 1.78/1.85 size is ~10ft wide. So I don't have to limit my HDTV sports and 1.85 films to a tiny 8.5ft wide a normal 2.35 screen would restrict me to.


Now Avatar comes along and I pull the screen down to the full 1.78 size and it fills the screen- same width as any other 2.39 film, just taller.


Place my seating in the 2.5-3x image height of a 2.39 frame range, and ... best of every world.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18525262
> 
> 
> 
> Place my seating in the 2.5-3x image height of a 2.39 frame range, and ... best of every world.



on Pandora maybe


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18525458
> 
> 
> on Pandora maybe



Explain your eye-rolling. Need glasses?







Got your PM by the way; shame you have to be a child and refuse PMs in return.


Can dish it out but can't take it...


----------



## Franin

Guys no need for the hostility it's just Avatar!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18525519
> 
> 
> Guys no need for the hostility it's just Avatar!



Gah, it's all tongue in cheek- we've been jabbing in this subforum, and probably always will.










I guess I'll go pull the shrink wrap off and check this BD out. Looking forward to the PQ, though the story may not be all that... I'm sure we can agree on something.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18525478
> 
> 
> Explain your eye-rolling. Need glasses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got your PM by the way; shame you have to be a child and refuse PMs in return.
> 
> 
> Can dish it out but can't take it...



*yawn* would you like an explanation on that too?


Apparently I can only receive PMs from those on my friends list, so that is out of my hands. You could always take it up with the mods.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18524160
> 
> 
> This is, in my mind, the #1 downside to a CIH setup. After forcing 2.39 films to be larger and "grander" than everything else, it's all you want to watch, and the rest feel inferior. I've posted the list before, but it's always been split roughly 50/50 where some of the greatest films are ~1.85. Take any list of a ranking for best films and go down and find the AR. Just as many would have to be presented smaller on a CIH setup even though they may be just as BIG a movie as anything else (not comedies or b-action).
> 
> 
> In the case of Avatar, the only way it would benefit from "scope" is because of the shape- if someone preferred that "look". It's obviously _much_ more immersive with the added material of the taller 1.78 frame if you're able to view it at a decent size. Properly presented, 2.39 Avatar and 1.78 Avatar are the same width, but 1.78 Avatar is taller- therefore, it will be more immersive. Shape doesn't dictate immersion; size relative to seating distance does.
> 
> 
> The problem isn't the AR, or the director's choice- the problem is a system that forces all 1.78 films to be so much smaller. The less restrictions you impose on the material, the more free you are to present it any way you more prefer, or the way it would best be presented. Giving you a scope presentation on Blu-ray would only serve to give you LESS of the film that was created, just so you can fill the screen you thought was best to put in your theater.
> 
> 
> Think about it from the other side of the boat. Many CIW users prefer watching 1.78/1.85 films that fill their screen over 2.39 films. They may even be disappointed over time when they sit down and find out a film is 2.39.
> 
> 
> There are many that end up picking mostly 2.39 films and have no problem with CIH- it fits perfectly to their "bias". They look at a 1.85 film and say, "meh, I'll watch something else".
> 
> 
> I prefer to be more open minded and enjoy every AR equally- give them all the space they need to breathe. But that's just me- everyone's entitled to their thing.



I don't disagree with much you have said here. The thing is though the majority of commercial theaters do exactly what we CIH guys do at home when displaying the films of various ARs.


One could say that there should be (and perhaps is) a better way but the CIH technique is validated quite well.


Art


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> It's obviously much more immersive with the added material of the taller 1.78 frame if you're able to view it at a decent size



I don't know, I disagree here. The super wide screen is much more pleasing to my eyes than 16:9 and it's not just size. I am height limited in my basement which is one of the reasons I chose a 2.4:1 screen, but now that I have it I will never go back. The other thing is it feels more natural to take in the information from my peripheral vision to the left and right of me than to scan up and down (as in a much larger 1.78 screen). Bottom line, I like the shape of "cinemascope" much more than 1.78.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18528038
> 
> 
> I don't know, I disagree here. The super wide screen is much more pleasing to my eyes than 16:9 and it's not just size. I am height limited in my basement which is one of the reasons I chose a 2.4:1 screen, but now that I have it I will never go back. The other thing is it feels more natural to take in the information from my peripheral vision to the left and right of me than to scan up and down (as in a much larger 1.78 screen). Bottom line, I like the shape of "cinemascope" much more than 1.78.



That's fine, it's your setup creating the limitation, not the source. Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39.


Whether or not your setup is capable of that or not is a different matter.


----------



## blastermaster

Sigh. Let me put it this way, I am sitting as close as I should be sitting based on the height of my screen. The height DOES NOT CHANGE when I go from 1.78 to 2.35. So it is the aspect ratio that is limiting, not my setup. It's as simple as that. That said, when I watch a 1.78 movie in my theater I wouldn't want to go any bigger and won't cut off heads just to go scope as I've said before (you're def. right on that one). But, when a scope movie is available, I get the extra width which my peripheral vision takes care of and it is, imho, better than 1.78. (kicks dead horse)


----------



## Erik Garci

My CIH setup cannot convert a 1.78 movie to 2.39. So Avatar 1.78 is the largest for me.


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18528318
> 
> 
> ... Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39....



Only if your 1.78 screen is taller that your 2.39 screen.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18528038
> 
> 
> I don't know, I disagree here. The super wide screen is much more pleasing to my eyes than 16:9 and it's not just size. I am height limited in my basement which is one of the reasons I chose a 2.4:1 screen, but now that I have it I will never go back. The other thing is it feels more natural to take in the information from my peripheral vision to the left and right of me than to scan up and down (as in a much larger 1.78 screen). Bottom line, I like the shape of "cinemascope" much more than 1.78.



One big reason scope was developed and is so immersive.


Art


----------



## R Harkness

Watched some of Avatar last night.


I was watching a few scope movies this week at around 109" wide up to around 120" wide (my max screen width available is 124" wide, which is a bit wider than I typically like to watch from my viewing distance - between 10 to around 11 feet). So that would have yielded me around a 104" diag 16:9 image for Avatar if I went CIH.


I played with various image sizes for Avatar, up to 120" diagonal. Wow, it was like I could fall into the picture it was so immersive! I also liked it at 115" diagonal too.


One thing that aided the "wow" factor is I finally have made the area around the image completely pitch black. The whole screen wall around the screen has been black velvet from the beginning. and there is a black velvet "stage" of sorts projecting a couple feet

from the screen, on which my L/C/R speakers sit.


But I've always known that the more visual information I can remove from around the image the better. So I've been chipping away at it. For a while I've had black velvet covers fitted to my L/C/R speakers so the speakers themselves disappear with the lights out. But what was left was the dim outline of the reflections of my L/R speaker stands to the side of the movie image. This is one of those things that "normal people" would think doesn't matter on the "I can barely see it and I'm watching the movie anyway" argument. But I finally got some velvet around the speakers stands too and so now you can see absolutely nothing at all around the movie image, just pitch black.


Removing that last bit of extraneous visual detail (speaker stands) really did make a difference: the fact that you see only the picture just sucks you right into it, like a giant virtual reality portal. This was particularly true of Avatar! It also seems to help map the sound to the image better, because without seeing any visible speakers at all my brain sort of maps the sound on to the image.


I note that the more I can make the room "disappear" the more enhanced the dimensionality and sucked-into-the-image effect becomes.

So I even have a big piece of Fidelio black velvet stored in one of my ottomans that I can whip down in front of the screen area, so it looks pitch black right up to your feet on the ottomans. It's just a killer effect.


I know some folks have been able to pull this off by putting their speakers behind AT screens, and that is an aspect of AT set ups I've always admired. But I couldn't do it for various reasons. This certainly is the next best thing. For those looking to nudge their image presentation that much further, I highly recommend removing any visual cues around the image - e.g. putting black velvet on speakers etc.


----------



## taffman

Great advice as always Rich. Coincidentally I have recently done exactly what you said and covered my whole screen wall in black velvet cloth ( I still have the burgundy curtains which can be powered fully back to the sides, and the powered screen masks). I immediately noticed the significant improvement in picture impact and immersiveness. I guess the ultimate is an entirely black room, but I will not go that way because I like a cosy intimate look to my theater and all black walls and ceiling is just like the cold tomb-like atmosphere of the multiplexes.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b curry* /forum/post/18529979
> 
> 
> only if your 1.78 screen is taller that your 2.39 screen.



+1


----------



## sotwell

so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).


----------



## Highjinx

If one wasn't fixated that one AR had to be wider/taller than the other and simply enjoyed the presentation at it's best size for the viewing distance. Take into considering that the vast majority of widescreen movies are not shot anamorphically, but matted from a taller frame........makes sense from an image quality POV.


----------



## tbase1

the movie looked great on my 2.37 screen with A-Lens.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b curry* /forum/post/18529979
> 
> 
> Only if your 1.78 screen is taller that your 2.39 screen.



Incorrect. I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.


Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39.


Whether your screen is capable of reproducing that or not isn't what defines the size.


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18532639
> 
> 
> Incorrect. I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.
> 
> 
> Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39.
> 
> 
> Whether your screen is capable of reproducing that or not isn't what defines the size.



I understand now.


You have nanobots inside your body, reconstructing "Avatar" for your minds eye, larger than life.


Yea, that's it!


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18532639
> 
> 
> I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.



What does "source material" refer to exactly?


----------



## Deke6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sotwell* /forum/post/18530692
> 
> 
> so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).



It's infinitely watchable in either OAR or 2.35:1. There are subtitles, but they are placed very high in the frame (the highest I've ever seen in a film, in fact), so they are not at all affected.


In cinemascope you may notice a bit of cropping in a few scenes (the video log shots, as an example) but overall it's enjoyable either way.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/18532821
> 
> 
> What does "source material" refer to exactly?



For us, the 1920x1080 frame on the Blu-ray- but ultimately the full 1.78 frame as it was captured. They chopped off the top and bottom to arrive at a workable 2.39 frame, therefore it is smaller.


This has nothing to do with Blu-ray, or your setup- it's just the way is was created.


Avatar 1.78 is more immersive than 2.39 because it is taller.


If someone enjoys their theater and places their seating relative to a 2.35 size that they feel is immersive, Avatar would be presented the same width, but taller. It can then only be more immersive- the shape doesn't define how immersive it is.


If Avatar is less immersive than other films to you, then your setup is at fault, not the way the film was created.


If you have to take a hacksaw to the top and bottom portions of Avatar to make it fit your screen and feel immersive, again, your setup is the issue.


I hear "more immersive" used over and over in preference to "scope", but it's just not true in this case. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy because of the limitations of CIH.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18526773
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with much you have said here. The thing is though the majority of commercial theaters do exactly what we CIH guys do at home when displaying the films of various ARs.
> 
> 
> One could say that there should be (and perhaps is) a better way but the CIH technique is validated quite well.
> 
> 
> Art



Art, I agree completely. I think that "better" way is what I like to call "CIH+IMAX". Basically a 16:9 screen that's as wide as your scope screen would be, but for which you only use the full height for IMAX films.


I think you and I both agree that CIH not only work well, but works 'correctly' (based on cinemas historical precident) for pretty much any film. The only real exception is the IMAX/large format films.


Problem with "CIH+IMAX" is the dramatically increased cost/complexity vs just standard CIH. Frankly being a "lenser" who won't do CIH without a lens (until scope projectors come out







), I don't even know how you do CIH+IMAX in any sort of automated way without moving into some seriously big iron hardware.


You end up needing 4-way automated masking ($$$), a good lens ($$$), and a good projector with automated 1.33x or greater zoom. To do this really well that basically forces you into a DPI Titan, ISCO III and 4-way masking.


But then there's the remaining problem that if you're sitting close enough to be "too close" for scope without a lens, the IMAX content will have a pixel visibility problem.


All that is IMO just way too much cost/complexity/effort for only one movie I have in my collection (TDK) and one movie I'll rent (Avatar).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18530033
> 
> 
> But I've always known that the more visual information I can remove from around the image the better. So I've been chipping away at it. For a while I've had black velvet covers fitted to my L/C/R speakers so the speakers themselves disappear with the lights out. But what was left was the dim outline of the reflections of my L/R speaker stands to the side of the movie image. This is one of those things that "normal people" would think doesn't matter on the "I can barely see it and I'm watching the movie anyway" argument. But I finally got some velvet around the speakers stands too and so now you can see absolutely nothing at all around the movie image, just pitch black.
> 
> 
> Removing that last bit of extraneous visual detail (speaker stands) really did make a difference: the fact that you see only the picture just sucks you right into it, like a giant virtual reality portal. This was particularly true of Avatar! It also seems to help map the sound to the image better, because without seeing any visible speakers at all my brain sort of maps the sound on to the image.
> 
> 
> I note that the more I can make the room "disappear" the more enhanced the dimensionality and sucked-into-the-image effect becomes.
> 
> So I even have a big piece of Fidelio black velvet stored in one of my ottomans that I can whip down in front of the screen area, so it looks pitch black right up to your feet on the ottomans. It's just a killer effect.



OT-ish but have we ever had a discussion here about _how_ to make the room disappear? That's one thing I'd really like to do in my HT but I'm not really sure how to start. Especially to balance making it disappear and aesthetics.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18530698
> 
> 
> If one wasn't fixated that one AR had to be wider/taller than the other and simply enjoyed the presentation at it's best size for the viewing distance.



That is _exactly_ what CIH does in my experience. In contrast to standard "CIW" where you constantly go back and forth between underwhelming (scope) and overwhelming (16:9).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/18532102
> 
> 
> the movie looked great on my 2.37 screen with A-Lens.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deke6* /forum/post/18532920
> 
> 
> It's infinitely watchable in either OAR or 2.35:1. There are subtitles, but they are placed very high in the frame (the highest I've ever seen in a film, in fact), so they are not at all affected.



That's very, very interesting. Seems almost like they did that on purpose to put the subs in the "safe" area for CIH


----------



## spongebob

What AR was the movie produced in? I don't understand "scope" or any of the other stuff, just want to know in my Avatar BD is as I saw it in the theater

?



bob


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18533275
> 
> 
> But then there's the remaining problem that if you're sitting close enough to be "too close" for scope without a lens, the IMAX content will have a pixel visibility problem.



If you can see pixel structure at a full scope width 1.78 frame seating distance, then you will also see pixel structure with an A-lens.


The scaling/optical stretching involved will only reduce pixel structure visibility in one dimension, so it will be equally visible in the other dimension.


This can be illustrated. Below on the left would be the pixel structure without a lens, on the left with the lens. Sitting the same distance for both, and both projected at the same widths (the CIH+IMAX setup you describe), this is simulated pixel structure, including pixel gaps, the gray lines. This is assuming a ~90% fill rate. DLPs are in this ballpark I believe and LCoS a bit higher.


If you can make out pixel structure at a given seating distance, you will either way. Only the horizontal pixel gaps have gotten smaller, the vertical gaps remain identical (obviously, the image is always 1920 pixels wide).



http://imgur.com/NyviX.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A//imgur.com/rJWjt.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



In my opinion, the next phase of 2D home theater for the crowd that enjoys CIH with an A-lens will be 4K projection with automated zoom presets and 4-way masking. The A-lens will die, and the limitation to a 2.35 strict CIH setup will disappear.


Carada's Maquerade or similar could provide 4-way relatively cheap, there's just no market there yet. I'm sure we'll see affordable 4K projection before we see Blu-ray replaced by it's successor.


Maybe that successor will involve pseudo-anamorphic specifications allowing every AR film to be provided in equal resolution.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18533463
> 
> 
> I'm sure we'll see affordable 4K projection before we see Blu-ray replaced by it's successor.



Pretty safe since there is no media successor to BD and 4K affordability is in the eye of the beholder.


Art


----------



## taffman

Wow, all this fuss about the correct presentation of one film! Personally, I have little if any interest in Avatar as I know it is just not my kind of movie. Sure the BD quality may be superb, but that will hold peoples interest for about 5 minutes. If the plot is mediocre, which many critics think it is, what are you left with? Just another CGI 'ride' film which is filling, like hamburger, but not satisfying like steak.

Ten years from now I bet Avatar will be seen for what it is - a novelty film which successfully exploited the 3D movie craze that lasted from 2009 to 2014.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18533415
> 
> 
> What AR was the movie produced in?



The answer is "yes", and that's really the crux of the issue. Depending on where you saw it, it might have been scope or 16:9.


Then Cameron seems to change his stance on it at the drop of a hat. First it was "Scope is the best AR, except for 3D" when he was talking about theatrical presentation, but even then some theaters showed it. The consistent thread through all the confusion is that it seems Cameron always chooses for Avatar, the aspect ratio that results in the largest image on screen, 16:9 for "CIW" theaters and 2.37:1 for scope/CIH theaters.


Frankly I think looking at his comments about the BD that it's largely spin to sell them. He went through massive effort to film it in 3D and create new technologies to support it, yet he claims 2D is better now that the 2D BD is out.



> Quote:
> I don't understand "scope" or any of the other stuff, just want to know in my Avatar BD is as I saw it in the theater
> 
> ?



Basically if you saw it 2D it was scope (2.37:1), if you saw it 3D at an "IMAX" it was 16:9, if you saw it 3D in a CIH theater it was scope (2.37:1).


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18533463
> 
> 
> If you can see pixel structure at a full scope width 1.78 frame seating distance, then you will also see pixel structure with an A-lens.



It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it doesn't make it true. That idea has been rebutted, dare I say disproven countless times by people like Art, Mark, CM, and many others who have actually tried it and found the lens to reduce pixel visibility.


----------



## R Harkness

I personally don't see much reason to fuss about a few movies, like Avatar and maybe Dark Knight, that might ideally demand a taller image (e.g. due to IMAX formatting). It seems to me the benefits and thrill of having a CIH set up in general far outweighs the issue of the occasional movie done in a taller IMAX format or whatever.


If I had a CIH set up I'm not sure what I'd do with Avatar, either view it 16:9 or

perhaps larger as scope. I wouldn't fuss either way since it was presented with Cameron's blessing both ways in the theater. Sure Cameron has said 16:9 is the preferred format for home viewing. But I'd think that Cameron et al are going on the obvious presumption that most people will view it on a 16:9 display, so the image size will be maximised on the average display. I'm sure CIH set ups are hardly on his radar in terms of having any influence on his decision to market it for home viewing.


From what I've gathered listening to Cameron speak on this issue, in the theaters his main mission was viewer immersion. And the selection of how the film was presented depended on a theater's ability to present as immersive a version as possible. IMAX was first choice in that regard, but if a theater was set up such that it's 2:35:1 image was the bigger/better presentation, they went with that.


I see no big issue with this reasoning carrying over to home environments, at least in the case of Avatar: If it happens your home theater is set up to maximise 2:35:1 images, then you may as well view it that way. That's how they were thinking with the theater releases anyway.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18533836
> 
> 
> The answer is "yes", and that's really the crux of the issue. Depending on where you saw it, it might have been scope or 16:9.
> 
> 
> Then Cameron seems to change his stance on it at the drop of a hat. First it was "Scope is the best AR, except for 3D" when he was talking about theatrical presentation, but even then some theaters showed it. The consistent thread through all the confusion is that it seems Cameron always chooses for Avatar, the aspect ratio that results in the largest image on screen, 16:9 for "CIW" theaters and 2.37:1 for scope/CIH theaters.
> 
> 
> Frankly I think looking at his comments about the BD that it's largely spin to sell them. He went through massive effort to film it in 3D and create new technologies to support it, yet he claims 2D is better now that the 2D BD is out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically if you saw it 2D it was scope (2.37:1), if you saw it 3D at an "IMAX" it was 16:9, if you saw it 3D in a CIH theater it was scope (2.37:1).



Thanks,


I saw it in 3D, non-Imax (Cineart?) Santana Row in San Jose, Ca. I really don't remember if it was "scope" or not, only that it was an amazing immersion experience that I will never achieve in my living room!


BTW, what is CIH and CIW?



thx


bob


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18533275
> 
> 
> Art, I agree completely. I think that "better" way is what I like to call "CIH+IMAX". Basically a 16:9 screen that's as wide as your scope screen would be, but for which you only use the full height for IMAX films.
> 
> 
> I think you and I both agree that CIH not only work well, but works 'correctly' (based on cinemas historical precident) for pretty much any film. The only real exception is the IMAX/large format films.
> 
> 
> Problem with "CIH+IMAX" is the dramatically increased cost/complexity vs just standard CIH. Frankly being a "lenser" who won't do CIH without a lens (until scope projectors come out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), I don't even know how you do CIH+IMAX in any sort of automated way without moving into some seriously big iron hardware.
> 
> 
> You end up needing 4-way automated masking ($$$), a good lens ($$$), and a good projector with automated 1.33x or greater zoom. To do this really well that basically forces you into a DPI Titan, ISCO III and 4-way masking.



I still think you overestimate on this.


You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money. I did the 4 way automated masking for around $5,000, which (as I understand it) is even less than a new ISCO 3 anamorphic lens just by itself.


Sure it doesn't have an automated memory zoom like I think you can get with a mega-expensive projector. But, jeez, it takes a mere 15 seconds

to hit one button to change the screen size, and another two buttons to zoom and shift the image into place. It would be strange to me that someone might be enthusiastic enough about the ability to do a "CIH + IMAX" set up, but would not be willing to wait the occasional 15 seconds here and there to get such a benefit. Or to save the $70,000 (or whatever it is) for a DPI Titan set up. I assure you, it's worth it.










As for an Anamorphic lens, if you are stuck on that idea sure I guess that adds expense. But it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) you could still add a lens to the type of set up I'm talking about.



-----------------------



(QUICK OT DISCUSSION):



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18533275
> 
> 
> OT-ish but have we ever had a discussion here about how to make the room disappear? That's one thing I'd really like to do in my HT but I'm not really sure how to start. Especially to balance making it disappear and aesthetics.



That's a subject I love because I grappled with it for so long...and I got results that I'm incredibly happy with. I'm sure folks here have some great ideas and approaches they have used. But if it's any help I'll give an account of my scenario and approach:


I had extreme aesthetic pressures on my HT design. It's not a dedicated theater; it's on our main floor, the front living room of our house, the first room you see when you walk into our house! My wife didn't give a damn about home theater so wasn't on board for the renovation. She's extremely tentative about decor changes and warned "I don't want anything that looks weird...and don't ruin the decor of the house!" She was so afraid it would look terrible she refused to look at pre-renderings, pretty much refused to be involved, and a lot of the times didn't even look at the room as she walked by it during construction, in case she saw something that freaked her out.


It was not a fun build with that kind of pressure.


But I ended up with something that even my wife had to admit worked

and looks great. Now she actually has pride in the room.


As it was a main floor room, and one I wanted to hang out in during daytime, I couldn't and didn't want to make it into a bat cave. But my high-performance-desiring AVSforum side demanded it have as close to a bat-cave level of performance when actually watching movies.


The way I solved it was to look at how to make a room transform, as easily as possible, into a non-reflective environment. I figured it would be very difficult to transform the ceiling between light in the day time to dark for movies, so that part went permanently dark: We built a bulk-head over the whole screen/seating area covered in dark brown felt (a classy look as it turned out). I figured for the walls I could go with a much lighter color, to keep the room lighter and more cheery. And I could use strategically placed velvet curtains that would pull along the walls to cover them when I watched a movie. That was a HUGE factor in allowing me to have the day-time aesthetics I wanted and the movie-watching performance as well.


I did a darker carpet for non-reflection, but the light walls, when uncovered, keep the room from feeling dark.


The screen wall was a big challenge. For quite a while I was going to have brown velvet curtains cover up the screen. My wife (who, strangely, doesn't care for curtains) thought it would look "dumb" like I'm trying to hide whole wall for some reason. Her one bit of input was to say since it was going to have a big screen...just show the big screen. And that changed my thinking around. I knew I wanted the image masked, and the whole wall to be be black material if possible, so that's what I ended up with. I was nervous about how it would work out. It was the part that I thought had the potential to look most "odd" or unsettling in a main floor room.


The end result worked out fantastic. What sells the look, I think, is trying for as clean, deliberate, coherent as possible. So I built a bulk head just over the screen that houses the electronic side-masking track. It's covered with Fidelio black velvet. Hanging down from there are the side masks (they go all the way to the floor) which are done in the same Fidelio fabric. I used the same fabric, attached to boards, as a sort of "stage" that comes out a couple feet from the screen. Then the L/C/R speakers sit on that "stage" part and are, as described before, covered in velvet.


The Fidelio velvet is particularly dark, but also luxurious (doesn't look cheap).

The sheer blackness of the velvet really does the job at making everything blend together - joints, jutting angle and what have you are hard to take in so it just looks really smooth. It has a clean, built-in look.


So, that's how I personally did it. I got the whole front of my room disappearing when I watch a movie, and most of the rest of the room (via the dark brown velvet curtains) mostly disappearing, while having a nice inviting look for non-movie-viewing hours.


Not having done this before it was nerve-wracking whether it was going to work, so I'm happy it did, and can just now enjoy the room.


Cheers,


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18534719
> 
> 
> BTW, what is CIH and CIW?



CIH = Constant Image Height which means the images just get wider as the AR increases.


Smallest to largest - 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40, 2.66:1, 2.76:1.


CIW = Constant Image Width which means that images actaully get smaller

as the AR increases, so 1.33:1 is actually the biggest image even though it is the smallest AR.


A 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18535104
> 
> 
> CIH = Constant Image Height which means the images just get wider as the AR increases.
> 
> 
> Smallest to largest - 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40, 2.66:1, 2.76:1.
> 
> 
> CIW = Constant Image Width which means that images actaully get smaller
> 
> as the AR increases, so 1.33:1 is actually the biggest image even though it is the smallest AR.
> 
> 
> A 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW.



Thanks, Mark


Is this just for projectors? Any online examples?


thx


bob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18535143
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mark
> 
> 
> Is this just for projectors? Any online examples?
> 
> 
> thx
> 
> 
> bob



Any film (BD DVD LD) that is presented in OAR will have some letter boxing bars once that AR exceeds the native AR of the display.


As mentioned, a 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW, so from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1, the image fills the screen top to bottom and has side pillars (except 1.78:1 which fills the display), hence it is in part, CIH.


Once the AR exceeds 1.78:1, black bars start to appear at the top and bottom with the image always filling the width of the display. So from 1.85:1 to beyond 2.40:1, the image displays constant width.


Those of use that use an anamorphic lens with our 16:9 projectors have the ability to display images in CIH out to 2.37:1. To do this, we use a combination of Scaling + Optics.


The new Phillips 21:9 TVs are also 2.37:1. The difference is that they have 2560 x 1080 pixels as native pixels.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18534880
> 
> 
> I still think you overestimate on this.
> 
> 
> You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money. I did the 4 way automated masking for around $5,000, which (as I understand it) is even less than a new ISCO 3 anamorphic lens just by itself.
> 
> 
> Sure it doesn't have an automated memory zoom like I think you can get with a mega-expensive projector. But, jeez, it takes a mere 15 seconds
> 
> to hit one button to change the screen size, and another two buttons to zoom and shift the image into place. It would be strange to me that someone might be enthusiastic enough about the ability to do a "CIH + IMAX" set up, but would not be willing to wait the occasional 15 seconds here and there to get such a benefit. Or to save the $70,000 (or whatever it is) for a DPI Titan set up. I assure you, it's worth it.



The big problem for me is I'm not willing to "settle" for anything but DLP, and it's all but impossible to find a projector that would be capable of such a setup. My Planar might if I were willing to get up and physically adjust the zoom, but if I need to shift I've got to get out the tools.



> Quote:
> As for an Anamorphic lens, if you are stuck on that idea sure I guess that adds expense. But it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) you could still add a lens to the type of set up I'm talking about.



You could (I would) but you still need a projector capable of the 1.33x zoom, and doing it in some automated way. If you want automated zoom AFAIK your choices are Panasonic (not sufficient for me) or DPI (way over my budget).


Even just to get power zoom looks like it takes you into well into the upper mid price range. If you like the look of LCD or LCoS, more power to you, I don't fall into that category.



> Quote:
> (QUICK OT DISCUSSION):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a subject I love because I grappled with it for so long...and I got results that I'm incredibly happy with. I'm sure folks here have some great ideas and approaches they have used. But if it's any help I'll give an account of my scenario and approach:
> 
> 
> I had extreme aesthetic pressures on my HT design. It's not a dedicated theater; it's on our main floor, the front living room of our house, the first room you see when you walk into our house! My wife didn't give a damn about home theater so wasn't on board for the renovation. She's extremely tentative about decor changes and warned "I don't want anything that looks weird...and don't ruin the decor of the house!" She was so afraid it would look terrible she refused to look at pre-renderings, pretty much refused to be involved, and a lot of the times didn't even look at the room as she walked by it during construction, in case she saw something that freaked her out.
> 
> 
> It was not a fun build with that kind of pressure.
> 
> 
> But I ended up with something that even my wife had to admit worked
> 
> and looks great. Now she actually has pride in the room.
> 
> 
> As it was a main floor room, and one I wanted to hang out in during daytime, I couldn't and didn't want to make it into a bat cave. But my high-performance-desiring AVSforum side demanded it have as close to a bat-cave level of performance when actually watching movies.
> 
> 
> The way I solved it was to look at how to make a room transform, as easily as possible, into a non-reflective environment. I figured it would be very difficult to transform the ceiling between light in the day time to dark for movies, so that part went permanently dark: We built a bulk-head over the whole screen/seating area covered in dark brown felt (a classy look as it turned out). I figured for the walls I could go with a much lighter color, to keep the room lighter and more cheery. And I could use strategically placed velvet curtains that would pull along the walls to cover them when I watched a movie. That was a HUGE factor in allowing me to have the day-time aesthetics I wanted and the movie-watching performance as well.
> 
> 
> I did a darker carpet for non-reflection, but the light walls, when uncovered, keep the room from feeling dark.
> 
> 
> The screen wall was a big challenge. For quite a while I was going to have brown velvet curtains cover up the screen. My wife (who, strangely, doesn't care for curtains) thought it would look "dumb" like I'm trying to hide whole wall for some reason. Her one bit of input was to say since it was going to have a big screen...just show the big screen. And that changed my thinking around. I knew I wanted the image masked, and the whole wall to be be black material if possible, so that's what I ended up with. I was nervous about how it would work out. It was the part that I thought had the potential to look most "odd" or unsettling in a main floor room.
> 
> 
> The end result worked out fantastic. What sells the look, I think, is trying for as clean, deliberate, coherent as possible. So I built a bulk head just over the screen that houses the electronic side-masking track. It's covered with Fidelio black velvet. Hanging down from there are the side masks (they go all the way to the floor) which are done in the same Fidelio fabric. I used the same fabric, attached to boards, as a sort of "stage" that comes out a couple feet from the screen. Then the L/C/R speakers sit on that "stage" part and are, as described before, covered in velvet.
> 
> 
> The Fidelio velvet is particularly dark, but also luxurious (doesn't look cheap).
> 
> The sheer blackness of the velvet really does the job at making everything blend together - joints, jutting angle and what have you are hard to take in so it just looks really smooth. It has a clean, built-in look.
> 
> 
> So, that's how I personally did it. I got the whole front of my room disappearing when I watch a movie, and most of the rest of the room (via the dark brown velvet curtains) mostly disappearing, while having a nice inviting look for non-movie-viewing hours.
> 
> 
> Not having done this before it was nerve-wracking whether it was going to work, so I'm happy it did, and can just now enjoy the room.
> 
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks for the info, I'll have to ponder it







Though fortunately for me, if I wanted to, I could just cover everything in black velvet, but I'd like the end result to be more classy than that


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18535179
> 
> 
> Any film (BD DVD LD) that is presented in OAR will have some letter boxing bars once that AR exceeds the native AR of the display.
> 
> 
> As mentioned, a 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW, so from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1, the image fills the screen top to bottom and has side pillars (except 1.78:1 which fills the display), hence it is in part, CIH.
> 
> 
> Once the AR exceeds 1.78:1, black bars start to appear at the top and bottom with the image always filling the width of the display. So from 1.85:1 to beyond 2.40:1, the image displays constant width.
> 
> 
> Those of use that use an anamorphic lens with our 16:9 projectors have the ability to display images in CIH out to 2.37:1. To do this, we use a combination of Scaling + Optics.
> 
> 
> The new Phillips 21:9 TVs are also 2.37:1. The difference is that they have 2560 x 1080 pixels as native pixels.




Very cool stuff.


Thanks for the education











bob


----------



## R Harkness

stanger89,


I forgot about your desire to stick with DLP. That does complicate things I guess.

My comments might be worth more to others who would consider LCDs, LCOS etc.


----------



## CAVX

The only DLP that I am aware of having greater then 1.2x zoom (less than $10K) would be the BenQ W6000/6500 that since going from 0.9" chips (W5000/20000) to 0.65" have been able to increase the zoom from 1.2x to 1.5x.


----------



## bwhitmore

Bottom line for me...


Cameron really kinda ruined the experience by not releasing this in 2:35


If any movie deserved this aspect ratio, it's Avatar


my $.02


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sotwell* /forum/post/18530692
> 
> 
> so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).



I was up until about 3 AM last night watching Avatar in a variety of different ways.


I watched the movie in full at 16:9. Although I can see what Cameron is saying about *certain sequences* (specifically, the flying sequences) having a more immersive sense of vertigo at that ratio, for the most part the movie looked very unbalanced and awkward. There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame. And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous. They're practically floating in front of the characters' faces, even in medium and wide shots. I'm sure most viewers won't notice, but to me it was clear that the movie was obviously not composed for that ratio. The scope theatrical screening I saw was much better framed.


Next, I zoomed the movie to 2.35:1. Unfortunately, a straight zoom doesn't work very well. The scope portion of the frame was not a direct center extraction. It was taken a little above center. Also, certain on-screen graphics (like those for Jake's diary entries) have been repositioned a bit for the 16:9 transfer. They still float awkwardly in the middle of the 16:9 frame, but extend beyond 2.35:1. A great deal of the movie looks fine at 2.35:1, but foreheads start to get clipped in many scenes, especially most of the Na'vi scenes. I didn't find this acceptable.


I tried playing around with panning the image downward a little bit, but I couldn't find a good setting that worked to my liking.


Finally, I adjusted the aspect ratio to 2.20:1 (the 70mm ratio). This looked pretty much perfect. Faces were correcly framed, on-screen graphics just fit the screen without getting cut off or floating in the middle. And overall the movie just looked much better composed than 16:9. Even the flying sequences look fine.


If you have the ability to, I recommend watching the movie at 2.20:1. That's the best compromise for this Blu-ray.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18535945
> 
> 
> The only DLP that I am aware of having greater then 1.2x zoom (less than $10K) would be the BenQ W6000/6500 that since going from 0.9" chips (W5000/20000) to 0.65" have been able to increase the zoom from 1.2x to 1.5x.



But even those (well the W5000 at least) don't have power zoom, they have manual zoom. I was looking on PJC last night, searched for 1080p DLPs with power zoom, and the cheapest one was the Sim2 D80E, other than that it was largely DPI machines.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18536260
> 
> 
> I was up until about 3 AM last night watching Avatar in a variety of different ways.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie in full at 16:9. Although I can see what Cameron is saying about *certain sequences* (specifically, the flying sequences) having a more immersive sense of vertigo at that ratio, for the most part the movie looked very unbalanced and awkward. There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame. And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous. They're practically floating in front of the characters' faces, even in medium and wide shots. I'm sure most viewers won't notice, but to me it was clear that the movie was obviously not composed for that ratio. The scope theatrical screening I saw was much better framed.
> 
> 
> Next, I zoomed the movie to 2.35:1. Unfortunately, a straight zoom doesn't work very well. The scope portion of the frame was not a direct center extraction. It was taken a little above center. Also, certain on-screen graphics (like those for Jake's diary entries) have been repositioned a bit for the 16:9 transfer. They still float awkwardly in the middle of the 16:9 frame, but extend beyond 2.35:1. A great deal of the movie looks fine at 2.35:1, but foreheads start to get clipped in many scenes, especially most of the Na'vi scenes. I didn't find this acceptable.
> 
> 
> I tried playing around with panning the image downward a little bit, but I couldn't find a good setting that worked to my liking.
> 
> 
> Finally, I adjusted the aspect ratio to 2.20:1 (the 70mm ratio). This looked pretty much perfect. Faces were correcly framed, on-screen graphics just fit the screen without getting cut off or floating in the middle. And overall the movie just looked much better composed than 16:9. Even the flying sequences look fine.
> 
> 
> If you have the ability to, I recommend watching the movie at 2.20:1. That's the best compromise for this Blu-ray.



Thanks for the work Josh.


Art


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18536260
> 
> 
> I was up until about 3 AM last night watching Avatar in a variety of different ways.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie in full at 16:9. Although I can see what Cameron is saying about *certain sequences* (specifically, the flying sequences) having a more immersive sense of vertigo at that ratio, for the most part the movie looked very unbalanced and awkward. There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame. And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous. They're practically floating in front of the characters' faces, even in medium and wide shots. I'm sure most viewers won't notice, but to me it was clear that the movie was obviously not composed for that ratio. The scope theatrical screening I saw was much better framed.
> 
> 
> Next, I zoomed the movie to 2.35:1. Unfortunately, a straight zoom doesn't work very well. The scope portion of the frame was not a direct center extraction. It was taken a little above center. Also, certain on-screen graphics (like those for Jake's diary entries) have been repositioned a bit for the 16:9 transfer. They still float awkwardly in the middle of the 16:9 frame, but extend beyond 2.35:1. A great deal of the movie looks fine at 2.35:1, but foreheads start to get clipped in many scenes, especially most of the Na'vi scenes. I didn't find this acceptable.
> 
> 
> I tried playing around with panning the image downward a little bit, but I couldn't find a good setting that worked to my liking.
> 
> 
> Finally, I adjusted the aspect ratio to 2.20:1 (the 70mm ratio). This looked pretty much perfect. Faces were correcly framed, on-screen graphics just fit the screen without getting cut off or floating in the middle. And overall the movie just looked much better composed than 16:9. Even the flying sequences look fine.
> 
> 
> If you have the ability to, I recommend watching the movie at 2.20:1. That's the best compromise for this Blu-ray.



Thanks Josh. So you didnt have to move the subtitles at all?


----------



## bwhitmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18536260
> 
> 
> I was up until about 3 AM last night watching Avatar in a variety of different ways.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie in full at 16:9. Although I can see what Cameron is saying about *certain sequences* (specifically, the flying sequences) having a more immersive sense of vertigo at that ratio, for the most part the movie looked very unbalanced and awkward. There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame. And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous. They're practically floating in front of the characters' faces, even in medium and wide shots. I'm sure most viewers won't notice, but to me it was clear that the movie was obviously not composed for that ratio. The scope theatrical screening I saw was much better framed.
> 
> 
> Next, I zoomed the movie to 2.35:1. Unfortunately, a straight zoom doesn't work very well. The scope portion of the frame was not a direct center extraction. It was taken a little above center. Also, certain on-screen graphics (like those for Jake's diary entries) have been repositioned a bit for the 16:9 transfer. They still float awkwardly in the middle of the 16:9 frame, but extend beyond 2.35:1. A great deal of the movie looks fine at 2.35:1, but foreheads start to get clipped in many scenes, especially most of the Na'vi scenes. I didn't find this acceptable.
> 
> 
> I tried playing around with panning the image downward a little bit, but I couldn't find a good setting that worked to my liking.
> 
> 
> Finally, I adjusted the aspect ratio to 2.20:1 (the 70mm ratio). This looked pretty much perfect. Faces were correcly framed, on-screen graphics just fit the screen without getting cut off or floating in the middle. And overall the movie just looked much better composed than 16:9. Even the flying sequences look fine.
> 
> 
> If you have the ability to, I recommend watching the movie at 2.20:1. That's the best compromise for this Blu-ray.



Thanks Josh!


The question now is... *how do I do it?*...










I have a Prismasonic lens and a Lumagen Vision HDQ scaler with a SMX screen


thanks!


brad


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bwhitmore* /forum/post/18536516
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh!
> 
> 
> The question now is... *how do I do it?*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Prismasonic lens and a Lumagen Vision HDQ scaler with a SMX screen
> 
> 
> thanks!
> 
> 
> brad



Doesn't the Lumagen allow for aspect ratio adjustable output?


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18536260
> 
> 
> And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous.



Did you try moving the subtitles down?


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18536260
> 
> 
> There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame.



I've been thinking about this since I screened it. And it's not (to my reading) been talked about much. This 1.78 image was shot very wide ... and there's two reasons why any DP or director would want to do that. 1.) If the film is IMAX or is going to be exibited in an IMAX theater where the seating is unusually close to the screen. And 2.) If the filmmaker is trying to straddle the challenge of releasing in multiple ARs. Both of these circumstances apply to Cameron with Avatar.


I ran some of it at 1.78. I agree Josh, it looked rediculous. I even stood up close to the screen ... and it still looked odd. So when my wife, my son & I had our official screening Thursday night, there was no question. I went with 2.37.


I'm sure there were moments in the film ... perhaps even many of them ... where the framing was not the same as what I experienced at the Regal Real3D presentation ... but I didn't notice them at all. It looked fine.


After the screening at our place, I returned the BD to Blockbuster ... this was not a purchase for me. The film is simply not that good.


All just my opinion.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18536351
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh. So you didnt have to move the subtitles at all?



I didn't have to move the subtitles to make them CIH safe. The default position is way up high. Even zoomed to 2.35:1, the subtitles are still well above the bottom of the frame.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/18536947
> 
> 
> Did you try moving the subtitles down?



Yes, subtitle position can be adjusted on the OPPO BDP-83, but only through the player's Setup menu. The trick where you hold down the Subtitle button doesn't work. The subs are player generated, not burned into the picture.


----------



## Josh Z

Here are some screen caps from the included DVD edition. These are used only to demonstrate the framing:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


----------



## R Harkness

I'm pretty sensitive to ARs and frame composition. I watched a bunch of Avatar scenes in 16:9 and didn't notice odd framing. It looked fantastic.


It could be I would notice issues if I really looked for them, but nothing detracted in the scenes I watched.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18537325
> 
> 
> Here are some screen caps from the included DVD edition. These are used only to demonstrate the framing:



The 16:9 framing is superior in all these comparisons. The rest all look cramped.


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18537422
> 
> 
> The 16:9 framing is superior in all these comparisons. The rest all look cramped.



I'd say the 2.35:1 extraction is definetely a little too cramped, but if you MUST crop/extract, 2.20:1 is the way to go.


Edit. In fact, looking at the 2nd example, it looks spot on! JC shooting for 70mm aspect ratio! Yay!


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18537422
> 
> 
> The 16:9 framing is superior in all these comparisons. The rest all look cramped.



The first and last examples I provided were chosen only for the on-screen graphics and subtitles, to show where they fall with different zooming. The second example was chosen to show the forehead being clipped at 2.35:1.


I did not pick shots that demonstrate 16:9 being too loose. I don't have time to do that right now. There's plenty of it in the movie, though. Keep in mind also that it especially stands out during movement and tracking shots.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18537447
> 
> 
> I'd say the 2.35:1 extraction is definetely a little too cramped, but if you MUST crop/extract, 2.20:1 is the way to go.
> 
> 
> Edit. In fact, looking at the 2nd example, it looks spot on! JC shooting for 70mm aspect ratio! Yay!



The scope theatrical screening I saw looked very well framed. I'd say that Cameron definitely composed for 2.35:1. The Blu-ray doesn't work with a straight zoom because the 2.35:1 portion was not a direct center extract, and Cameron has repositioned the on-screen graphics. 2.20:1 is the best compromise for the Blu-ray, IMO.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bwhitmore* /forum/post/18536516
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh!
> 
> 
> The question now is... *how do I do it?*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Prismasonic lens and a Lumagen Vision HDQ scaler with a SMX screen
> 
> 
> thanks!
> 
> 
> brad



Sorry, Guys


I'm confused. if Cameron cropped or pan and scanned the original AR, How do you "bring it back" with lenses, scalers or even smoke and mirrors?










thx


bob


----------



## Kilgore

If you crop a 16:9 film to fit a different aspect ratio because you want it to fit better on a scope screen, you automatically lose the right to criticize people who blow up 2.35:1 images to fit their 16:9 displays.


I truly believe that it is crucial to understand this. The OAR/respect the director's intentions mantra that has been a cornerstone of this hobby of ours since the inception of home theater must apply across the board. You can't condemn Joe Six-Pack for cropping 2.35:1 movies to fit his 16:9 TV, and then turn around and crop a 16:9 image to fit your scope screen. Otherwise, you're being completely and utterly hypocritical.


When you go CIH, you are making a conscious choice, assumedly based on the premise that 2.35:1 films should be larger than 16:9 films. You may also believe that 2.35:1 is the superior aspect ratio (isn't this the main reason for having a scope screen?).


One premise CIH does NOT preclude is the cropping of ANY film to fit any other aspect ratio other than the one it is shot in.


CIH is the epitome of proper representation of film in a home theater. However, if you, as a CIH enthusiast want to promote CIH as a superior method, yet want to crop ANY film to fit a different aspect ratio, then quite frankly, you are a hypocrite.


EDIT: If Cameron wanted this release to be in scope, he would have released it as scope. So obviously he wants us to see this in 16:9. There can be no argument here.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18537592
> 
> 
> Sorry, Guys
> 
> 
> I'm confused. if Cameron cropped or pan and scanned the original AR, How do you "bring it back" with lenses, scalers or even smoke and mirrors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thx
> 
> 
> bob



He didn't crop or scan the OAR. The Blu-ray IS in the OAR. To display it in 2.XX:1, YOU have pan and scan and crop the OAR.


...and there's the rub.


----------



## wizzack

Thank you Josh! I was going to make some masking panels for 2001, this news makes it even more worthwhile.


----------



## gyrfalcon16

I'm not sure why I started reading this thread but here is what I got out of it:


If you're dealing with blu-ray, the aspect ratio is fixed by whoever mastered the disc. If you use any sort of lens to distort or change the aspect ratio you're corrupting/distorting the original content of the blu-ray.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18537672
> 
> 
> If you crop a 16:9 film to fit a different aspect ratio because you want it to fit better on a scope screen, you automatically lose the right to criticize people who blow up 2.35:1 images to fit their 16:9 displays.



Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film. When shooting the movie, he clearly composed the photography for 2.35:1. The decision to make it 16:9 later is a revisionist change by a filmmaker second-guessing himself. There's little difference between this and the way George Lucas has plastered the original Star Wars movies with obnoxious CGI and digital inserts of Hayden Christensen on top of the original actor.


Filmmakers are not gods. They aren't infallible. Sometimes, they make bad decisions. Cameron's decision to reformat Avatar to 16:9 is a mistake, IMO.


Zooming the Blu-ray to 2.20:1 is the best available compromise for those of us who'd like to watch Avatar in its original scope composition.


----------



## spongebob





EDIT: If Cameron wanted this release to be in scope said:


> But I thought he *did* release it in scope in 2D and non-imax 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bob


----------



## gyrfalcon16




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18538146
> 
> 
> Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film... Cameron's decision to reformat Avatar to 16:9 is a mistake, IMO... Zooming the Blu-ray to 2.20:1 is the best available compromise for those of us who'd like to watch Avatar in its original scope composition.



IMO it's stupid to reformat in an attempt to try and replicate a aspect ratio that's not available to you. I'm guessing that they'll eventually release the anamorphic version and get folks to buy more than one copy, which is more than stupid.


If you want to reformat feel free too, just don't claim it's better since you're distorting the original source. This entire discussion reminds me of audiophiles talking about DSP effects or vacuum tubes that modify the original source.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18538146
> 
> 
> Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film. When shooting the movie, he clearly composed the photography for 2.35:1. The decision to make it 16:9 later is a revisionist change by a filmmaker second-guessing himself. There's little difference between this and the way George Lucas has plastered the original Star Wars movies with obnoxious CGI and digital inserts of Hayden Christensen on top of the original actor.
> 
> 
> Filmmakers are not gods. They aren't infallible. Sometimes, they make bad decisions. Cameron's decision to reformat Avatar to 16:9 is a mistake, IMO.
> 
> 
> Zooming the Blu-ray to 2.20:1 is the best available compromise for those of us who'd like to watch Avatar in its original scope composition.




But aren't you adding insult to injury by further altering (cropping) an already altered picture, just to have it fill the screen?



This is not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand all this.



bob


----------



## CAVX

*ATTN: LilGator*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18538146
> 
> 
> Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film. When shooting the movie, he clearly composed the photography for 2.35:1. The decision to make it 16:9 later is a revisionist change by a filmmaker second-guessing himself.



Just thought you might need a 2nd opinion ion the matter.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18538395
> 
> 
> But aren't you adding insult to injury by further altering (cropping) an already altered picture, just to have it fill the screen?
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand all this.
> 
> 
> 
> bob



No I don't believe so. Cameron did use HD cameras which have the same 1920 x 1080 pixel count as the displays we watch HDTV on. What Josh is saying is that the shots were composed as if shooting for scope. If Cameron had released this as Scope, there would be black bars top and bottom that cover the approx 12.5% top and 12.5% bottom of the film.


When Lucas shot SW2 in digital, the HD monitors had "safe action lines" denoting the Scope frame and you can see these in one of the docos on disc 2 of the DVD. Generally, action outside the "safe action lines" is considered not important. However it is still captured during the shoot, so it appears Cameron used the full height of the frame.


It is not like he modded the final cut, just used the full height of the image he captured. Super 35 (which he shot THE ABYSS, T2, TRUE LIES and TITANIC all have a film stock AR of 1.33:1, so conversion to video is easy when using the pan and scan process. So what we are seeing on the 1.78:1 version of the film AVATAR is the full frame of the view finder.


So when I Scale this film for CIH, I will effectively take the centre 75% portion of the frame. What LilGator is having an upset with that he claims Cameron verticall panned and scanned the film to create the Scope version for 2D cinema and that a simple centre crop is not adequate. As I noticed in the full TD trailor that LilGator posted was that there is one or two scenes when Scaling might not work ideally. Yet he stated several times that CIH is a "compromise" and that watching AVATAR in this fashion is "invalid". My copy arrives on the 29th (only buying now due to the debate) so I will not be able to represent my case properly until then when I will capture and post screen shots done each way.


----------



## ilsiu

Thanks Josh! Your opinion is very appreciated. 2.20 sounds like a good compromise. Did you program some weird custom resolution with your VP in order to watch in 2.20 with your lens?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18538146
> 
> 
> Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film. When shooting the movie, he clearly composed the photography for 2.35:1.



Honest question for you: if Cameron framed it for 2.35 from the start, why did he need to vertically pan and scan? Wouldn't it have made more sense to expand for 16:9 evenly on the top and bottom for all scenes, rather than expand just on the bottom for some scenes, then evenly on top/bottom for other scenes?


----------



## bwhitmore

I just watched a few scenes "stretched" to 2:35


good enough for me, it sure seems like it's meant for that AR


it is funny that as CIH guys we think it blasphemy to watch a 2:35 movie on a 16:9 screen but don't mind stretching something the other way to make us happy...










2:35 works for me...basically because I'm not smart enough to setup my Lumagen to 2:20...


----------



## bwhitmore

An interview with one of Avatar's producers here...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...on_Landau/4591 

HDD: What is the aspect ratio on this?


JL: 16x9


HDD: But in terms of the frame, how did you come to that conclusion? Because there was the IMAX version and the regular theatrical presentation


JL: When we made the movie, we finished everything to a 16x9. For the theatrical release of the film we never sacrificed width in the theater. There are theaters, if you wanted to go 16x9, you would have to bring the sides in. So those theaters were 2.35. But wherever we could, get maximum width, and add height. That was in select digital screens and in all IMAX screens.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18538146
> 
> 
> Despite what James Cameron may say about it after-the-fact, Avatar is *not* a 16:9 film. When shooting the movie, he clearly composed the photography for 2.35:1. The decision to make it 16:9 later is a revisionist change by a filmmaker second-guessing himself.



I totally, emphatically disagree. He clearly did NOT compose the photography for 2.35:1. If he did, you could do a center crop for 2.35:1 by cutting out the top and bottom equally. Obviously, this not work well overall. In fact, you are saying a 2.20:1 AR would work better, so clearly you have a problem with the 2.35:1 cropping as well.


In order to make 2.35:1 you would have to constantly pan and scan vertically up and down. The 16:9 AR looks perfectly fine.


As much as you would like Avatar to have been shot in scope to show off your scope screen, it wasn't, and to crop the image to fit your screen is just as wrong as a person with a 16:9 screen cropping a 2.35:1 image to fit his screen. It's exactly the same bastardization, no matter what self-justification you choose to use as an excuse.


And for the record, I have a scope screen, and I viewed Avatar in it's proper original aspect ratio of 16:9.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bwhitmore* /forum/post/18539316
> 
> 
> An interview with one of Avatar's producers here...
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...on_Landau/4591
> 
> HDD: What is the aspect ratio on this?
> 
> 
> JL: 16x9
> 
> 
> HDD: But in terms of the frame, how did you come to that conclusion? Because there was the IMAX version and the regular theatrical presentation
> 
> 
> JL: When we made the movie, we finished everything to a 16x9. For the theatrical release of the film we never sacrificed width in the theater. There are theaters, if you wanted to go 16x9, you would have to bring the sides in. So those theaters were 2.35. But wherever we could, get maximum width, and add height. That was in select digital screens and in all IMAX screens.



More proof of 16:9 OAR. It's the filmmaker's desired aspect ratio. It's been made clear again and again and again that it was shot with 16:9 in mind. Any other ratio and you are not seeing the film in the way it was meant to be seen.


No matter how you slice it, seeing Avatar in anything other than 16:9 is just plain wrong.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18539387
> 
> 
> And for the record, I have a scope screen, and I viewed Avatar in it's proper original aspect ratio of 16:9.



Will be doing the same. I believe we have the best of both worlds.


----------



## taffman

Reading all this you would think we were talking about the bastardization of some masterpiece of a film, like colourizing Casablanca. Avatar got a one star review in my local paper and a lot of critics think it is crap. Like its director, Avatar has a grossly inflated reputation, hardly worthy of the concern of HT presentation method it is getting here.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18538869
> 
> 
> No I don't believe so. Cameron did use HD cameras which have the same 1920 x 1080 pixel count as the displays we watch HDTV on. What Josh is saying is that the shots were composed as if shooting for scope. If Cameron had released this as Scope, there would be black bars top and bottom that cover the approx 12.5% top and 12.5% bottom of the film.
> 
> 
> When Lucas shot SW2 in digital, the HD monitors had "safe action lines" denoting the Scope frame and you can see these in one of the docos on disc 2 of the DVD. Generally, action outside the "safe action lines" is considered not important. However it is still captured during the shoot, so it appears Cameron used the full height of the frame.
> 
> 
> It is not like he modded the final cut, just used the full height of the image he captured. Super 35 (which he shot THE ABYSS, T2, TRUE LIES and TITANIC all have a film stock AR of 1.33:1, so conversion to video is easy when using the pan and scan process. So what we are seeing on the 1.78:1 version of the film AVATAR is the full frame of the view finder.
> 
> 
> So when I Scale this film for CIH, I will effectively take the centre 75% portion of the frame. What LilGator is having an upset with that he claims Cameron verticall panned and scanned the film to create the Scope version for 2D cinema and that a simple centre crop is not adequate. As I noticed in the full TD trailor that LilGator posted was that there is one or two scenes when Scaling might not work ideally. Yet he stated several times that CIH is a "compromise" and that watching AVATAR in this fashion is "invalid". My copy arrives on the 29th (only buying now due to the debate) so I will not be able to represent my case properly until then when I will capture and post screen shots done each way.



Thanks, Mark


I'm starting to get it










Is any type of film/camera native ~2.35? Panavision?



bob


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18539563
> 
> 
> Reading all this you would think we were talking about the bastardization of some masterpiece of a film, like colourizing Casablanca. Avatar got a one star review in my local paper and a lot of critics think it is crap. Like its director, Avatar has a grossly inflated reputation, hardly worthy of the concern of HT presentation method it is getting here.



Sadly I've also lived in places where the local media was in the hands of idiots. A more informed selection of reviews available here...

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/avatar


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18539563
> 
> 
> Reading all this you would think we were talking about the bastardization of some masterpiece of a film, like colourizing Casablanca. Avatar got a one star review in my local paper and a lot of critics think it is crap. Like its director, Avatar has a grossly inflated reputation, hardly worthy of the concern of HT presentation method it is getting here.





Hmmmm,


I guess you and your local paper must be the final word then?


Are the box office numbers a false conspiracy then?


Avatar is a ground breaking masterpiece. Because me and my local paper say so, that's why










bob


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18539563
> 
> 
> Reading all this you would think we were talking about the bastardization of some masterpiece of a film, like colourizing Casablanca. Avatar got a one star review in my local paper and a lot of critics think it is crap. Like its director, Avatar has a grossly inflated reputation, hardly worthy of the concern of HT presentation method it is getting here.



As a film, Avatar is average at best. It's a pretty standard story that's been done many times before.


It is also absolutely gorgeous to watch on Blu-ray. I will be watching it multiple times because it is a fantastic feast for the eyes.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18539624
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mark
> 
> 
> I'm starting to get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is any type of film/camera native ~2.35? Panavision?
> 
> 
> 
> bob



Apparently one company has produced a native 2560 x 1080 imaging chip for digital capture. Film is really about exposing the surface area with light where the larger the area, the better the image (70mm Vs 35mm)


Panavison has camera/lens combos for any AR including Scope.


----------



## dvdvision

 Comparison of both formats using the trailer as reference


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18540179
> 
> Comparison of both formats using the trailer as reference



Cool link, thanks.


Images 1 to 4 appear to be centre crops and it looks like nothing "story telling" is missing, however the next shot is interesting.










The full 16:9 frame









The CinemaScope version









Scaled for CIH


In this shot, the on screen graphics have been relocated for the cinema 2.39:1 version. Scaling for CIH of the BD image will remove part of the on screen graphic.


The next few do show evidence of vertical biased Panning & Scanning.


Scene 8 works as does scene 9. In all honestly, it was the end battle that had me worried about head clips when Scaled for CIH. Of course this shot represents just one frame of many that may or may not work.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18540248
> 
> 
> Cool link, thanks.
> 
> 
> Images 1 to 4 appear to be centre crops and it looks like nothing "story telling" is missing, however the next shot is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full 16:9 frame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CinemaScope version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scaled for CIH
> 
> 
> In this shot, the on screen graphics have been relocated for the cinema 2.39:1 version. Scaling for CIH of the BD image will remove part of the on screen graphic.
> 
> 
> The next few do show evidence of vertical biased Panning & Scanning.
> 
> 
> Scene 8 works as does scene 9. In all honestly, it was the end battle that had me worried about head clips when Scaled for CIH. Of course this shot represents just one frame of many that may or may not work.



Im going to watch it in 16x9. If they release the cinemascope version then I will rebuy ( as long as the movie is good. Yet to see )


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18540179
> 
> Comparison of both formats using the trailer as reference



Nice.


I find I prefer the 1.78:1 images in pretty much every instance.


As much as I love scope, there is something about Avatar that really works in 1.78:1. There was so much attention to detail in creating the environment

that it seems I want to see more of it, and the more of it that is included in a shot, the better. The floating island effect seems stronger in the 1.78:1 framing, with that extra space below the islands. The scope crops look more cramped to me.


Even in a shot like the Navis riding the "horses" (or whatever they are called), if it were just a western taking place on earth that scope framing would probably be fine. But for Avatar the 1.78:1 frame for that shot gives you a bit more of the environment they are riding through, which seems visually and dramatically important in Avatar.


IMO.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/18538905
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh! Your opinion is very appreciated. 2.20 sounds like a good compromise. Did you program some weird custom resolution with your VP in order to watch in 2.20 with your lens?



I programmed a 2.20:1 preset in my VP for 70mm movies like 2001 or Patton. This gives small pillarbox bars on the sides of the frame on my 2.35:1 screen.



> Quote:
> Honest question for you: if Cameron framed it for 2.35 from the start, why did he need to vertically pan and scan? Wouldn't it have made more sense to expand for 16:9 evenly on the top and bottom for all scenes, rather than expand just on the bottom for some scenes, then evenly on top/bottom for other scenes?



From what I can tell, there isn't actually any vertical panning and scanning. At least, none that's noticeable. The movie's 2.35:1 extract was just taken a bit above center. This is pretty common with Super 35 productions, for example. Although the directors compose for 2.35:1, they know that the movies' mattes will be opened for TV broadcast, and plan for that. They raise the topline so that there won't be too much excessive headroom in the open matte transfer. (Extra footroom is less compositionally distracting, in most cases.)


However, Cameron did reposition the on-screen graphics for Jake's diary so that they'd be centered in the 16:9 transfer. Which is why 2.20:1 works best for this Blu-ray.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18540248
> 
> 
> Images 1 to 4 appear to be centre crops and it looks like nothing "story telling" is missing, however the next shot is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CinemaScope version



This example is weird. When I saw the movie projected in scope theatrically, I swear that those diary graphics hugged the top and bottom of the frame. They weren't scrunched down into the middle like that.


I don't know that these screen caps from the trailer are a reliable indicator of the original scope framing.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18539387
> 
> 
> I totally, emphatically disagree. He clearly did NOT compose the photography for 2.35:1. If he did, you could do a center crop for 2.35:1 by cutting out the top and bottom equally. Obviously, this not work well overall. In fact, you are saying a 2.20:1 AR would work better, so clearly you have a problem with the 2.35:1 cropping as well.



I only had a problem zooming to 2.35:1 because the 16:9 Blu-ray has been altered from the original scope theatrical presentation. I saw the movie in scope theatrically, and it was much better composed than the Blu-ray.



> Quote:
> In order to make 2.35:1 you would have to constantly pan and scan vertically up and down.



No, opening to 2.20:1 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.


This is coming from someone who's actually done it. Have you tried it?



> Quote:
> The 16:9 AR looks perfectly fine.



To you, perhaps. I have a different opinion. I find the 16:9 framing very unbalanced. Some scenes are fine, but in other scenes there's far too much dead space at the bottom of the frame. Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.


If you enjoy the movie in 16:9, by all means watch it that way. No one is criticizing you for that. But some of us here would prefer to recreate the original scope theatrical presentation as much as is possible with this Blu-ray.


----------



## gyrfalcon16




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18538869
> 
> 
> No I don't believe so. Cameron did use HD cameras which have the same 1920 x 1080 pixel count as the displays we watch HDTV on. What Josh is saying is that the shots were composed as if shooting for scope...



Cameron could have filmed all the motion capture with compact VHS and it wouldn't really matter as far as aspect ratio is concerned.


The entire movie exists as 3D data can be rendered or re-rendered in any aspect ratio, in any resolution, from any vantage point with any lens effect.


Cameron has basically released two or more different movies, and this entire discussion seems to revolve around people who want to recreate it in a format not available to them.


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18539387
> 
> 
> He clearly did NOT compose the photography for 2.35:1. If he did, you could do a center crop for 2.35:1 by cutting out the top and bottom equally. Obviously, this not work well overall. In fact, you are saying a 2.20:1 AR would work better, so clearly you have a problem with the 2.35:1 cropping as well.
> 
> 
> In order to make 2.35:1 you would have to constantly pan and scan vertically up and down. The 16:9 AR looks perfectly fine.
> 
> 
> As much as you would like Avatar to have been shot in scope to show off your scope screen, it wasn't, and to crop the image to fit your screen is just as wrong as a person with a 16:9 screen cropping a 2.35:1 image to fit his screen. It's exactly the same bastardization, no matter what self-justification you choose to use as an excuse.
> 
> 
> And for the record, I have a scope screen, and I viewed Avatar in it's proper original aspect ratio of 16:9.



+ 1.


Guys, just watched about the 1st 50 mins or so... It looks CLEARLY composed and optimised for 1.85:1.

I think you'd be deluding yourself if you thought otherwise. Yes the subtitles and 'on-screen' graphics look slightly misplaced, but overall, it looks like a very well composed 1.85:1 movie. To crop it, I think you'd maybe do the composition/photography an injustice. I wouldn't do it personally.


Yes you can dig out the odd carefully selected frame/screenshot where there's a little too much headroom above someones head, but the camera is on the move constantly. Static screenshots can't help here- you need to see the movie in motion. And to my eyes it looks very well composed for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. It looks very nicely composed.


I thought you might get away with a 2.20:1 extraction pretty easily. But on viewing the 1st 50 mins or so, I reckon no, it would hamper the composition just way too much. How they extracted a 2.40:1 'scope' aspect ratio I'll never know! (Maybe some shots were even tilted slightly?!)


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541387
> 
> 
> 
> To you, perhaps. I have a different opinion. I find the 16:9 framing very unbalanced. Some scenes are fine, but in other scenes there's far too much dead space at the bottom of the frame. Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.
> 
> 
> If you enjoy the movie in 16:9, by all means watch it that way. No one is criticizing you for that. But some of us here would prefer to recreate the original scope theatrical presentation as much as is possible with this Blu-ray.



Josh, you've been a vocal proponent of both reproducing the original/intended AR of movies as well as being a proponent of CIH for re-creating the "true intent" of how film-makers wish their movies to be seen, cinematically.


But there seems to be a pretty clear tension here between those goals, maintaining a CIH set up, and even in your rationalizations in not viewing the 16:9 image as Cameron intends.


Cameron has been quite clear about what AR he prefers for his movie and how deliberate he has been about his verdict. Here you are clearly re-cropping the movie to your own desires, which in this case I don't view as any great crime to be sure. But it certainly is in tension with much of the rational for OAR arguments and for CIH being the "optimal" way to reproduce the intended ARs of a movie.


Yes Avatar was released in 2:35:1 in some theaters, but it's pretty clear from what Cameron (and his producer) have said that this is because that's what some theaters were best suited for, in terms of making the image as immersive as possible. 16:9 was the preferred AR but a lot of theaters were set up to maximise scope images instead. And in those cases the compromise was to provide a scope extraction

in order to maximise the audience immersion. But those instances are clearly compromises insofar as Cameron clearly preferred the image be maximised for it's intended 16:9 AR.


Cameron has been clear not only on his intended/preferred AR for theatrical presentation: *"The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully."
*


But what he also intends for the home AR:

*"....for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they’re looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height. "*


These aren't just "size" elements he's talking about; they are compositional elements. He thinks that the added information you get within the extra frame better produces the effect he intends. It's a compositional decision, just like how Spielberg felt the added compositional height of 16:9 was useful in portraying the height relationships of dinosaurs to people, in Jurassic Park. And viewing Avatar at home, as well as looking at the cropped vs OAR shots, I find I see what he means. That added space DOES convey useful information or spatial relationships. They guy isn't a fool whose decisions you have to improve on. Even "negative space" is a well known compositional tool, but some of your comments about Cameron's choice of releasing Avatar in 16:9 have been tantamount to "_I don't care for the amount of negative space the artist chose...so I'll crop out the area I don't care for so it will fit the screen shape *I* prefer."_ (That's like people who zoom scope movies to fit their 16:9 wide-screen..."_Ah..that additional info I'm losing doesn't matter, I can still see whatever the actors are doing_").


In your support of OAR articles, the whole rational of the OAR argument is about how the _intended image composition is lost_. Someone with a 4:3 display may "fill their screen" and have a bigger image in buying the cropped 4:3 version, but as _you explain_ the "full-screen 4:3" versions have the negative of _removing portions of the image the director intended you to see_. Keeping the intended image composition, it is argued, trumps simply filling your screen by cropping the image. Yet this is what you are doing (and even more) what CIH folks are doing when you crop out the information Cameron wants you to see in order to make it fill your screen.


I'm curious if you would agree that, in cases like these, a CIH is revealed to be compromised in reproducing films such as Avatar, where the film makers intent is both:


1. That you view the 16:9 image and that:


2. The 16:9 image have *greater* impact than it would in scope, rather than the reverse.


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18541747
> 
> 
> Cameron has been quite clear about what AR he prefers for his movie and how deliberate he has been about his verdict. Here you are clearly re-cropping the movie to your own desires, which in this case I don't view as any great crime to be sure. But it certainly is in tension with much of the rational for OAR arguments and for CIH being the optimal way to reproduce
> 
> the intended ARs of a movie.
> 
> 
> Yes Avatar was released in 2:35:1 in some theaters, but it's pretty clear from what Cameron (and his producer) have said that this is because that's what some theaters were best suited for, in terms of making the image as immersive as possible. 16:9 was the preferred AR but a lot of theaters were set up to maximise scope images instead. And in those cases the compromise was to provide a scope extraction
> 
> in order to maximise the audience immersion. But those instances are clearly compromises insofar as Cameron clearly preferred the image be maximised for it's intended 16:9 AR.
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't just "size" elements he's talking about; they are compositional elements. He thinks that the added information you get within the extra frame better produces the effect he intends. It's a compositional decision, just like how Spielberg felt the added compositional height of 16:9 was useful in portraying the height relationships of dinosaurs to people, in Jurassic Park. And viewing Avatar at home, as well as looking at the cropped vs OAR shots, I find I see what he means. That added space DOES convey useful information or spatial relationships. They guy isn't a fool whose decisions you have to improve on. (That's like people who zoom scope movies to fit their wide-screen..."Ah..that additional info I'm losing doesn't matter, I can still see whatever the actors are doing").
> 
> 
> In your support of OAR articles you talk about how cropping of scope movies removes portions of the image the director intended you to see. Yet this is what you are doing (and even more) what CIH folks are doing when you crop out the information Cameron wants you to see in order to make it fill your screen.



Superb post. I wholeheartedly aggree with everything you have to say there....


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18541747
> 
> 
> Josh, you've been a vocal proponent of both reproducing the original/intended AR of movies as well as being a proponent of CIH for re-creating the "true intent" of how film-makers wish their movies to be seen, cinematically.
> 
> 
> But there seems to be a pretty clear tension here between those goals, maintaining a CIH set up, and even in your rationalizations in not viewing the 16:9 image as Cameron intends.
> 
> 
> Cameron has been quite clear about what AR he prefers for his movie and how deliberate he has been about his verdict. Here you are clearly re-cropping the movie to your own desires, which in this case I don't view as any great crime to be sure. But it certainly is in tension with much of the rational for OAR arguments and for CIH being the "optimal" way to reproduce the intended ARs of a movie.
> 
> 
> Yes Avatar was released in 2:35:1 in some theaters, but it's pretty clear from what Cameron (and his producer) have said that this is because that's what some theaters were best suited for, in terms of making the image as immersive as possible. 16:9 was the preferred AR but a lot of theaters were set up to maximise scope images instead. And in those cases the compromise was to provide a scope extraction
> 
> in order to maximise the audience immersion. But those instances are clearly compromises insofar as Cameron clearly preferred the image be maximised for it's intended 16:9 AR.



I believe in rules, but I also believe in exceptions to rules when they're merited. Avatar is an exception.


As for Cameron's intent, I have to take anything he says about the movie after-the-fact with a grain of salt. First he said that he composed the movie for 2.35:1 in 2-D, and only likes 1.85:1 for 3-D. Then he said that he likes 16:9 for both 2-D and 3-D. And *then* he even said that he likes the movie in 2-D more than 3-D.


What he'll say about the movie when the 3-D Blu-ray release hits next year, I can only imagine.


I watched the movie in full at 16:9. I didn't just test a few selected scenes. It looked unbalanced to my eye. The extra space at the bottom was effective in the flying sequences, but was not nearly as effective in scenes on the ground. And those flying sequences work perfectly well in scope.


I'm curious what you think of Vittorio Storaro cropping his older movies like Apocalypse Now and The Last Emperor to 2:1. He claims that he originally composed them that way, and always intended them to be seen at that ratio. But these claims are belied by actually watching the movies and seeing how mangled they look at the new ratio.


Are we not allowed to question filmmakers whose artistic decisions don't make sense to us?


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541387
> 
> 
> I only had a problem zooming to 2.35:1 because the 16:9 Blu-ray has been altered from the original scope theatrical presentation. *I saw the movie in scope theatrically, and it was much better composed than the Blu-ray.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, opening to 2.20:1 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone who's actually done it. Have you tried it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To you, perhaps. I have a different opinion. *I find the 16:9 framing very unbalanced. Some scenes are fine, but in other scenes there's far too much dead space at the bottom of the frame.* Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.
> 
> 
> If you enjoy the movie in 16:9, by all means watch it that way. No one is criticizing you for that. But some of us here would prefer to recreate the original scope theatrical presentation as much as is possible with this Blu-ray.



I think these are fair comments and I agree. From my viewing of the Blu-ray, it's obvious that while the movie maybe shot for 16x9, the major composition of the story is within a 2:35 inner rectangle with center points for both aspects aligned. For me at least, this accounts for some of the awkward, unbalanced scenes. I believe this initial release is more about optimization for the installed HDTV population. It makes a good deal of sense to use all of the screen for peoples HD TV's.


I found this second viewing at home vs. the theater a little boring from a story line POV. The video, however, is some of the best I've seen. I did enjoy the view "without 3D" much more. The colors really pop without the veil of 3D glasses.


That said, I really don't see any point in viewing this release of the movie zoomed or with an A-lens. Full disclosure; I have a lens.


----------



## hconwell

This debate just keeps on keepin' on. The passion is, to me, amazing.


But I digress ...


Mr. Harkness, you've used the words "Clear" and "Clearly" a whole lot here. That has to be ... it must be ... simply your opinion ... because it is not at all clear to me. Filmmaking is like war ... things frequently change after the first shot. I'm sure there are many people here with much more illustrious film careers than mine ... but I've been on location in charge of large crews shooting 35mm Steadicam ... producing content for customers who were paying a great deal of money for the work. No matter how you plan, storyboard, scout ... things sometimes end up in ways you didn't anticipate.


Yes, Mr. Cameron's comments about how he feels this disc should be viewed were clear ... but they were also very much "after the fact". And, I believe, somewhat tainted with an eye toward marketing the disc. You say the film was released in 'Scope "in some theaters". I don't have the facts on this ... but I'm going to guess it was released in more than just "some" theaters. I'll guess it was released in 'Scope in a majority of its exhibition venues.


So what's clear to me is that this production was shot and posted in a way that enabled them to straddle the challenges of its distribution & exhibition ... almost as though it never actually had an OAR.


Now, I don't think it's blasphemous if someone wants to watch this disc at 1.78 ... so please, no one should think that of me if I want to watch it at 2.37. In my theater, with my screen, 'Scope is very much closer to the experience I had when I saw it in a commercial theater.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> I believe in rules, but I also believe in exceptions to rules when they're merited. Avatar is an exception.



Hmmm...


Well it depends on what you mean by "merited." If by "merited" you mean that you've got a system that reduces the impact of the 16:9 version relative to a 2:35:1 presentation, then it could be argued that your compromise of viewing it in scope is a compromise that the film-makers went along with when presented with a movie theater that suffered the same issue.


But, that would still seem to be a compromise to the vision and full intent of the film-makers.


But if you want to say that re-cropping the image is "merited" by your dislike of the Cameron's choice of frame composition, then I can't go along with that and it seems against the spirit of what you and many other OAR proponents have argued.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> As for Cameron's intent, I have to take anything he says about the movie after-the-fact with a grain of salt. First he said that he composed the movie for 2.35:1 in 2-D, and only likes 1.85:1 for 3-D. Then he said that he likes 16:9 for both 2-D and 3-D.



That's entirely consistent with a film-maker's evolving aesthetic decisions. Happens all the time in movie making. Movies almost always are the result of original intentions dropped, altered, molded, compromised, evolved as the production went on, right up until they hit the theaters.


Take famous examples like the music for 2001. Kubrick didn't film the movie with the intent of marrying it with existing classical pieces; his original intent was to do as he'd done in previous movies: he had commissioned a score from Alex North. The use of existing pieces like Also sprach Zarathustra was originally intended only as temp tracks. But as the editing process went on and showreels were made, the intent changed: it turned out in the end that Kubrick preferred the temp track pieces and so, famously, released the film with those in place of North's score.


So this type of thing happens all the time. Are you not going to allow Kubrick to have changed his mind along the way? "No no...you clearly shot your film with the intention of proceeding as usual with an original score accompaniment...so on those grounds I determine that I don't have to honour your last minute change of mind!"


Of course not. And yet, for some reason, you seem to be implying just such reasoning in allowing yourself to deny Cameron the same process, and allow yourself the excuse that Cameron's "original intent" was to have Avatar in scope.


It doesn't matter what a film-maker starts off intending...that often changes. What matters is the culmination of that film-maker's journey and the end result of all those artistic decisions. The end result of Cameron's process in making Avatar is that the 16:9 image is the image he prefers and it's the one he intends for the audience. Cameron knows the 2:35:1 version, he knows the 16:9 version, he knows where he started and where he ended up in terms of crafting his movie, and he's stated unequivocally that the 16:9 framing represents his artistic decisions.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> And *then* he even said that he likes the movie in 2-D more than 3-D.



Really? I haven't read Cameron saying that. I have read him talking about some of the benefits of the Blu-Ray, insofar as it's much easier to get greater brightness and vividness from a home display vs the theaters. And that ensuring proper brightness was an issue in theaters. But that doesn't equate to Cameron saying he likes Avatar in 2D over 3D! So long as Avatar can be shown with adequate brightness Cameron surely intends the 3D version for the audience, which is why he *shot in 3D*, *released it in 3D*, and intends to *release a 3D Blu-Ray* when the time is right.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> What he'll say about the movie when the 3-D Blu-ray release hits next year, I can only imagine.



He'll probably say "Now you can experience Avatar in 16:9 3D, to get the full intended experience (outside of seeing it at a huge movie theater)."


Which will be quite consistent with what he's been saying so far.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> I watched the movie in full at 16:9. I didn't just test a few selected scenes. It looked unbalanced to my eye. The extra space at the bottom was effective in the flying sequences, but was not nearly as effective in scenes on the ground. And those flying sequences work perfectly well in scope.



So you are re-formatting the movie to your own aesthetic tastes, rather than Cameron's. That's what it boils down to.


I was watching Pulp Fiction a while back and some of the framing struck me as almost hilariously odd, with some characters awkwardly stuck right to the edge of the frame. But this compelled in me no urge to re-crop the movie to suit my aesthetic decisions over Tarantino's.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541999
> 
> 
> Are we not allowed to question filmmakers whose artistic decisions don't make sense to us?



We can always argue about or question the decisions of film-makers or artists. But it's one thing to criticise an artist's decision; it's quite another to alter his work to suit your criticisms. Just imagine if that were the norm. At least for OAR advocates, it seems a slippery slope. After all, don't we both experience eye-strain from the eye-rolling incurred when "black bar haters" rail about how the artistic decisions don't make sense to them? They rail about how it "doesn't make sense" that there be all these different ARs and how the film-makers should just choose the one that actually fits 16:9 widescreen TVs.


We try to explain to them that it's a great thing that the film-makers have the options they do, to choose the ARs and image composition that best serves their vision and that a film is best experienced by honoring those decisions.


But then you want to start saying "Well, I don't like how Cameron has framed

Avatar in 16:9, so I'm going to crop it my own way." It seems a bit harder to hold on to the strength of the OAR arguments when you start doing things like that.


----------



## R Harkness

See my reply to Josh.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hconwell* /forum/post/18542114
> 
> 
> Now, I don't think it's blasphemous if someone wants to watch this disc at 1.78 ... so please, no one should think that of me if I want to watch it at 2.37. In my theater, with my screen, 'Scope is very much closer to the experience I had when I saw it in a commercial theater.



Oh I don't think it's blasphemous either way, at least in this case. I'm just pointing out that trying to juggle being a proponent of OAR, and of CIH as being the "right" way to reproduce movies, while also trying to justify cropping the intended AR of Avatar seems to be a case of trying to "eat one's cake and have it too." All them thar pieces don't quite fit together.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541387
> 
> 
> I only had a problem zooming to 2.35:1 because the 16:9 Blu-ray has been altered from the original scope theatrical presentation. I saw the movie in scope theatrically, and it was much better composed than the Blu-ray.



...but the 16:9 was not altered from the scope presentation. The film was shot in 16:9 and the scope presentation was panned and scanned from that. This is not the usual case where an open matte version is 16:9 and the shots are composed using the 2.35:1 markings in the view finder. This is obvious from the center crop screenshot we've been seeing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541387
> 
> 
> No, opening to 2.20:1 is an acceptable compromise, IMO.
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone who's actually done it. Have you tried it?.



The 2.20:1 screenshots you've displayed we're enough to discourage me from trying. They all look far too cramped. Not as bad as the 2.35:1, but still cramped nevertheless. In all the screenshots I've seen, the 16:9 shots look best by a wide margin.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18541387
> 
> 
> To you, perhaps. I have a different opinion. I find the 16:9 framing very unbalanced. Some scenes are fine, but in other scenes there's far too much dead space at the bottom of the frame. Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.
> 
> 
> If you enjoy the movie in 16:9, by all means watch it that way. No one is criticizing you for that. But some of us here would prefer to recreate the original scope theatrical presentation as much as is possible with this Blu-ray.



I'd be willing to bet that in the end, all you really want is to have as much of your scope screen filled as possible so that the image for you is bigger and more immersive. Much like people who blow up 2.35:1 images to fill their 16:9 displays. Because of your setup, 16:9 is smaller, in the same way that on a 16:9 setup, 2.35:1 is smaller. You are doing exactly what we all criticize the people who crop 2.35:1 films for 16:9 displays do.


This Blu-ray was released in 16:9 because the filmmakers want you to see it in 16:9. None of the chopped 2.XX:1 look better than 16:9. NONE of them. They all look cramped and zoomed, with no breathing room at all.


I should add that I love the 2.35:1 ratio. But, when a film is shot and composed for a different ratio, then I will watch it in that ratio.


...and that goes for Apocalypse Now as well.


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542400
> 
> 
> See my reply to Josh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think it's blasphemous either way, at least in this case. I'm just pointing out that trying to juggle being a proponent of OAR, and of CIH as being the "right" way to reproduce movies, while also trying to justify cropping the intended AR of Avatar seems to be a case of trying to "eat one's cake and have it too." All them thar pieces don't quite fit together.



Well, perhaps we agree more than one might expect ... since my preference to watch the disc in 'Scope is precisely because seeing it that way is much closer to the presentation that I experienced (call that OAR if you want ... it was for me and everybody else in that theater) at my local Regal.


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542379
> 
> 
> ...Really? I haven't read Cameron saying that. I have read him talking about some of the benefits of the Blu-Ray, insofar as it's much easier to get greater brightness and vividness from a home display vs the theaters. And that ensuring proper brightness was an issue in theaters. But that doesn't equate to Cameron saying he likes Avatar in 2D over 3D!...



Cameron seems to offer a few more superlative's than you suggest here.


----------



## Erik Garci

Would these work for watching Avatar in Scope?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b curry* /forum/post/18542513
> 
> 
> Cameron seems to offer a few more superlative's than you suggest here.



That's what I said.










Cameron talks about how "monitors" will produce the image with greater brightness and that this can bring things to the table a darker 3D cinema image might subdue. So it's not all loss seeing the Blu-Ray on a TV screen; there are some gains to be had as well. (Although people with projectors may or may not realise those gains, given that the typical projected image is well below the brightness of the typical TV/Flat Panel/Monitor. But even so, I think some of us project somewhat brighter than many cinemas).


But he still plans on releasing it in 3D on Blu-ray, doubtless in 16:9, so I don't see how any of this affects the central issue.


Also note from the link you gave:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msnentertainment site* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> And unlike true CinemaScope productions, where the sides of the frame must be cropped out to fit a 16:9 window, "*Avatar" was shot with 16:9 in mind.*
> 
> 
> "Basically," Cameron said, "what we did was we finished the picture in 16:9, and then we extracted the CinemaScope (version). This was when we were mastering the film for the theatrical release." When it came time to create the video version, "we didn't do pan-scan or blowups or anything; we just went straight back to the 16:9 master."



Someone mentioned a debate raging on about the Avatar AR, but it seems most of this debate is coming from CIH devotees who realise that Avatar in 16:9 isn't going to have the impact they'd prefer on their 2:35:1 screen.

For other folks with regular 16:9 screens or more flexible masking systems, I don't see a lot of debate or hand-wringing going on.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18541747
> 
> 
> Cameron has been quite clear about what AR he prefers for his movie and how deliberate he has been about his verdict.



IMO, from what I've read of all Cameron's comments, the only constant in his intent for Avatar, is that it be shown as wide (first) and tall (second) as possible.


As near as I can tell, Avatar was show as scope everywhere _except_ where 16:9 would be the same width but taller. AFAIK I saw it in scope (and 3D) when I saw it at the local cinema.



> Quote:
> Here you are clearly re-cropping the movie to your own desires, which in this case I don't view as any great crime to be sure. But it certainly is in tension with much of the rational for OAR arguments and for CIH being the "optimal" way to reproduce the intended ARs of a movie.



The argument is that CIH is optimal for _most_ movies. But certainly not all.



> Quote:
> Yes Avatar was released in 2:35:1 in some theaters, but it's pretty clear from what Cameron (and his producer) have said that this is because that's what some theaters were best suited for, in terms of *making the image as immersive as possible*.



I bolded the last part because I think that is truly the driving factor in Cameron's choice of presentation. The only constant is that it be show as wide/large as possible.



> Quote:
> 16:9 was the preferred AR but a lot of theaters were set up to maximise scope images instead. And in those cases the compromise was to provide a scope extraction
> 
> in order to maximise the audience immersion. But those instances are clearly compromises insofar as Cameron clearly preferred the image be maximised for it's intended 16:9 AR.



IMO it's not nearly that clear. Before the Blu-ray, Cameron's first comments were that scope was the best reproduction for 2D, that 1.78 really only worked well for 3D.



> Quote:
> Cameron has been clear not only on his intended/preferred AR for theatrical presentation: *"The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully."
> *



I thought that quote was talking about the Blu-ray.



> Quote:
> But what he also intends for the home AR:
> 
> *"....for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they're looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height. "*
> 
> 
> These aren't just "size" elements he's talking about; they are compositional elements. He thinks that the added information you get within the extra frame better produces the effect he intends.



Here's my question for you, accepting (like Cameron did for Cinemas) that there are scope screen in homes, and nothing can be done about that (it's just as ridiculous to expect HT's to be reformatted for one film as it is for Cinemas), why should home presentation be handled any differently than the cinema presentation?


Cameron made a specific, conscious decision to maximize the width by cropping in scope cinemas. Be it a "compromise" or not, it's one that Cameron himself made for cinemas, what makes home different?


If it's true, as Josh's observations indicate, that the scope crop is constant, but just above center, and one has the equipment crop the same way, what is more correct? To crop the same way Cameron did in scope cinemas on your scope screen at home, or to show it pillarboxed and much smaller (a way it was never shown in theaters)?



> Quote:
> It's a compositional decision, just like how Spielberg felt the added compositional height of 16:9 was useful in portraying the height relationships of dinosaurs to people, in Jurassic Park. And viewing Avatar at home, as well as looking at the cropped vs OAR shots, I find I see what he means. That added space DOES convey useful information or spatial relationships. They guy isn't a fool whose decisions you have to improve on. Even "negative space" is a well known compositional tool, but some of your comments about Cameron's choice of releasing Avatar in 16:9 have been tantamount to "_I don't care for the amount of negative space the artist chose...so I'll crop out the area I don't care for so it will fit the screen shape *I* prefer."_ (That's like people who zoom scope movies to fit their 16:9 wide-screen..."_Ah..that additional info I'm losing doesn't matter, I can still see whatever the actors are doing_").



If the height was _compositionally_ that important, then why did Cameron crop avatar for scope cinema screens?


Given that he did crop it for scope cinemas, I'm forced to conclude that while it may well have been a compositional compromise, Cameron viewed it as a smaller compromise that the dramatically reduced impact immersion of pillarboxing it while retaining the composition.



> Quote:
> In your support of OAR articles, the whole rational of the OAR argument is about how the _intended image composition is lost_. Someone with a 4:3 display may "fill their screen" and have a bigger image in buying the cropped 4:3 version, but as _you explain_ the "full-screen 4:3" versions have the negative of _removing portions of the image the director intended you to see_. Keeping the intended image composition, it is argued, trumps simply filling your screen by cropping the image. Yet this is what you are doing (and even more) what CIH folks are doing when you crop out the information Cameron wants you to see in order to make it fill your screen.



The problem with that argument (the comparison to 4:3 P&S), is that those 4:3 P&S version were never shown in theaters. Avatar was shown in a significant, if not majority of theaters in scope.



> Quote:
> I'm curious if you would agree that, in cases like these, a CIH is revealed to be compromised in reproducing films such as Avatar, where the film makers intent is both:
> 
> 
> 1. That you view the 16:9 image and that:
> 
> 
> 2. The 16:9 image have *greater* impact than it would in scope, rather than the reverse.



I agree with that, but frankly I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is, what do you do with a film like this, given that this is the CIH forum, that we have CIH/scope screens, and that the film was shown in a significant/majority of theaters in scope format, but released in 16:9 for home setups with different limitations than our scope HTs.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18542925
> 
> 
> IMO, from what I've read of all Cameron's comments, the only constant in his intent for Avatar, is that it be shown as wide (first) and tall (second) as possible.



Nope it was the opposite. Cameron says 16:9 is the native format of the movie and it's preferred presentation AR. 2:35:1 extractions were done for theaters that couldn't do 16:9 as significantly taller:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James Cameron* /forum/post/0
> 
> _For Avatar *we’re shooting in a 16:9 ratio*, we’re extracting a cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will do, *in the theaters that can, we’ll be in the 16:9 format* and the theaters *that can’t* we’ll be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D._



It seems Cameron's thoughts on the 2D presentation evolved as well, given

he is releasing it in 16:9 for the 2D home presentation and has talked about how the extra frame area aids in producing the effects he wants.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18542925
> 
> 
> I agree with that, but frankly I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is, what do you do with a film like this, given that this is the CIH forum, that we have CIH/scope screens, and that the film was shown in a significant/majority of theaters in scope format, but released in 16:9 for home setups with different limitations than our scope HTs.



I agree that's an issue with a CIH set up. It's an issue of compromise.

As much as CIH folks have sometimes said they are fine with their 16:9 image size, it doesn't seem to be the case here. Avatar too obviously benefits by being immersive as possible. Despite that Cameron has released it in 16:9 with his blessing for that AR as the correct AR, CIH enthusiasts want more immersion. Understandably.


The problem is juggling this with strong stances about respecting OAR in our home theaters. It's clear that even in the theaters 2:35:1 was seen as the compromise and that Cameron's desire was for the film to be experienced in a giant 16:9 format when possible. It's also clear Cameron endorses the 16:9 version for home viewing as well.


A CIH owner may have to compromise Cameron's vision to some degree and do their own "scope extraction." The theatrical releases provide precedent for going with that compromise in the same scenarios.


But what we are also seeing here is, at least from Josh, an argument based on "original intentions for scope" and an argument that he disagrees with Cameron's choice of 16:9 AR as the preferred AR an aesthetic grounds. And using those kind of grounds to alter the intended image is dubious if you are going to rail against other people doing similar things to fill their TV screen to get the most immersion, or because someone "doesn't like the choice made by the film-maker."


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542379
> 
> 
> ...Really? I haven't read Cameron saying that. I have read him talking about some of the benefits of the Blu-Ray, insofar as it's much easier to get greater brightness and vividness from a home display vs the theaters. And that ensuring proper brightness was an issue in theaters. But that doesn't equate to Cameron saying he likes Avatar in 2D over 3D! So long as Avatar can be shown with adequate brightness Cameron surely intends the 3D version for the audience, which is why he *shot in 3D*, *released it in 3D*, and intends to *release a 3D Blu-Ray* when the time is right.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542828
> 
> 
> That's what I said.



I think that most reading the article, including the author of the article, interpret the following quotes from Cameron as indicating that 3D maybe something less than the "best". Cameron even goes on to explain what "you don't get in 3D" or what you do get with 2D; like "...visuals spring back to life, with colours and shades that simply weren't discernable from behind dark polarized glasses."


Understanding that 2D is the other choice, it would seem Cameron has stated preferences for 2D over 3D or why he likes 2D over 3D.


*"Everybody thought that the highest and best viewing conditions for this movie were in 3D," Cameron explained, "but in 3D, what we struggle with is light levels. The polarized filtration of the projector cuts the light in half, and the 3D glasses cut it in half again. Everybody loves the stereoscopic illusion, so that's our trade-off. But part of the reason you're getting such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture here is because of the extra dynamic range you get with the brightness coming off the monitors. So there's something that actually comes back into the viewing experience - the vividness of the colours, the strength of the contrast - that you don't get in 3D."


"On Blu-ray (and, to a lesser extent, on standard-definition DVD), those visuals spring back to life, with colours and shades that simply weren't discernable from behind dark polarized glasses. And it's not some post-facto trickery, either; it's the way "Avatar" has always looked.*"


----------



## R Harkness

Again...that's just repeating what I already said:


"But part of the reason you're getting such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture here is because of the extra dynamic range you get with the brightness coming off the monitors."


It's not like Cameron never saw Avatar on a monitor before releasing it in 3D! He is extolling what he can about the 2D version, to address the fact the 3D effect will be lost in the 2D version.


Cameron is obviously talking to the question of "Since Avatar was presented in 3D in the theaters, why buy the 2D version?" Obviously Cameron thinks 3D brings something to the table that 2D does not, which is why, again, *he shot it in 3D*, *released it in 3D*, *extolled the use of 3D* and *plans to release Avatar in 3D* once the technology has made some inroads with consumer technology.


But he can point out there is at least some benefits to viewing the current Avatar release, which comes from the brightness of TV displays.


Seriously, what do you think Cameron is going to say once He releases it in 3D for consumers? He's going to say "Now we are closer to giving you the whole Avatar experience" isn't he? And it will be entirely consistent with the comments he's made about the theatrical presentation and the current home version.


And, of course, none of this counteracts the main points I've been arguing anyway.


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18543395
> 
> 
> Again...that's just repeating what I already said:....
> 
> 
> ..."And, of course, none of this counteracts the main points I've been arguing anyway.



Right, you do continue to ramble on.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18543102
> 
> 
> Nope it was the opposite. Cameron says 16:9 is the native format of the movie and it's preferred presentation AR. 2:35:1 extractions were done for theaters that couldn't do 16:9 as significantly taller:



I think we're saying the same thing. Essentially Cameron was unwilling to sacrifice width to maintain the compositional "height". Overall size was the most important criteria (more important than compositional height).



> Quote:
> It seems Cameron's thoughts on the 2D presentation evolved as well, given
> 
> he is releasing it in 16:9 for the 2D home presentation and has talked about how the extra frame area aids in producing the effects he wants.



But it's consistent with the theatrical precedent when you consider that 99.999% of home viewers have 16:9 displays and thus a scope release would be _smaller_ than a 16:9 one. The way I see it, nothing has really changed from his original comments, he consistently chooses to present Avatar in the way it will be largest.



> Quote:
> I agree that's an issue with a CIH set up. It's an issue of compromise.
> 
> As much as CIH folks have sometimes said they are fine with their 16:9 image size, it doesn't seem to be the case here. Avatar too obviously benefits by being immersive as possible. Despite that Cameron has released it in 16:9 with his blessing for that AR as the correct AR, CIH enthusiasts want more immersion. Understandably.



Likewise following Cameron's own precedent, I'd bet that if you were to ask Cameron how best to show Avatar on a scope HT setup, he'd go scope, just like he did in the cinema because it would be bigger and more immersive.



> Quote:
> The problem is juggling this with strong stances about respecting OAR in our home theaters. It's clear that even in the theaters 2:35:1 was seen as the compromise and that Cameron's desire was for the film to be experienced in a giant 16:9 format when possible.



But it's also clear that he viewed cropped scope as less of a compromise than pillarboxing.



> Quote:
> It's also clear Cameron endorses the 16:9 version for home viewing as well.



The "problem" is that CIH is too small of a market for Cameron to even consider (at least in public). What I find very interesting is that the subs are placed such that they are in the CIH "safe" area even though the BD is 16:9. Was that an intentional choice to make the 16:9 BD CIH crop safe? If not was there another reason for placing the subs that high? Why are they so much higher than in almost any other film?



> Quote:
> A CIH owner may have to compromise Cameron's vision to some degree and do their own "scope extraction." The theatrical releases provide precedent for going with that compromise in the same scenarios.



Yes, but Cameron "compromised" his own vision for scope cinemas.



> Quote:
> But what we are also seeing here is, at least from Josh, an argument based on "original intentions for scope" and an argument that he disagrees with Cameron's choice of 16:9 AR as the preferred AR an aesthetic grounds.



My big problem with the whole "it's meant to be 16:9, so watch it that way no matter what" argument is that Cameron himself chose cropping over pillarboxing. So it's not like those who crop for home CIH are doing anything without precident.


The problems with cropping for CIH are techinical IMO, not philosophical. We have cinematic precedent so that validates the theory. The question is can it be cropped in an essentially identical way to the way it was shown in the theaters. It seems from Josh's experiment that it's possible but perhaps semi-difficult.



> Quote:
> And using those kind of grounds to alter the intended image is dubious if you are going to rail against other people doing similar things to fill their TV screen to get the most immersion, or because someone "doesn't like the choice made by the film-maker."



I agree that if it's not possible to crop in an essentially identical way to the theatrical release that it's not right, but if you can, there is, IMO, nothing wrong as far as "OAR" goes based on theatrical precedent and Cameron's own choices.


----------



## R Harkness

stanger89,


I've been in agreement with most of that from the beginning, actually, as you can see even from my earlier post in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=108 


So a CIH owner can find some wiggle room to follow Cameron's precedent in finding a compromise to the situation. But it is a compromise in terms of the OAR and the intent stated by Cameron for the optimum presentation of his film. I'm certainly not waging any war against a CIH owner who does so, as indicated in my past post.


But it does leave a tension with the goal of respecting the Director's OAR. And I've been addressing Josh's stance in particular where Josh actually invokes arguments about _Cameron's original AR intentions_ and _The fact Cameron changed his mind at some point_ and that Josh _doesn't like the framing of Cameron's preferred AR_. He has invoked such concepts in his justifications for why he is re-framing Avatar on his system, and I'm just pointing out they are dubious premises on which to base his choice. Along with the issue that it seems somewhat at odds with a respect for seeing all the content in the image that the director wishes you to see.


----------



## dvdvision

Here's Cameron's viewfinder, hopefully this will clear a few things up. Or not. I love this thread LOL












> Quote:
> This example is weird. When I saw the movie projected in scope theatrically, I swear that those diary graphics hugged the top and bottom of the frame. They weren't scrunched down into the middle like that.



I checked out a mysterious source that is a preservation of the theatrical 2.35 version, and they are exactly in the same place (except this "preservation" is somewhat cropped at the bottom).


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18543676
> 
> 
> Here's Cameron's viewfinder, hopefully this will clear a few things up. Or not. I love this thread LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



It seems to me that photo could be very helpful for someone trying to set up the right masking for the 2:35:1 image at home.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18543675
> 
> 
> stanger89,
> 
> 
> I've been in agreement with most of that from the beginning, actually, as you can see even from my earlier post in this thread:



And I'm not really trying to argue with you, but you bring up a number of the "points" in a calm and reasonable manner that makes it easy to bounce "counterpoints" off of











> Quote:
> So a CIH owner can find some wiggle room to follow Cameron's precedent in finding a compromise to the situation. But it is a compromise in terms of the OAR and the intent stated by Cameron for the optimum presentation of his film.



The issues is, IMO, that the "OAR" of Avatar isn't really 2.35:1 or 1.78:1, it's "huge", probably more so than any other movie in recent memory. We on this forum are some of the few people who can actually achieve that (be it by projecting 1.78:1 or 2.35:1).



> Quote:
> But it does leave a tension with the goal of respecting the Director's OAR.



I guess that's my problem. What is the OAR, really? It was shot using 16:9 cameras, but AFAIK composed for scope. This is really no different than many other movies which are shot using a recording medium aspect ratio different than the final result.


What's different is recently Avatar and a couple other notable movies (TDK/TF2) which in reality have more than one "OAR" depending on where they are shown (IMAX vs "normal" theater). So what do we do with these at home? We lucked out with TDK/TF2 in that the "extra tall" scenes were scattered throughout so thought had to be given to how they'd be displayed on BD and not look weird.


Avatar isn't really any different except it's "extra tall" scenes are the whole movie. So the question is down to is the BD formatted in a similar way. The subtitles jacked up in the middle of the frame suggest similar planning may have been put into Avatar that went into TDK/TF2...



> Quote:
> And I've been addressing Josh's stance in particular where Josh actually invokes arguments about _Cameron's original AR intentions_ and _The fact Cameron changed his mind at some point_ and that Josh _doesn't like the framing of Cameron's preferred AR_. He has invoked such concepts in his justifications for why he is re-framing Avatar on his system, and I'm just pointing out they are dubious premises on which to base his choice. Along with the issue that it seems somewhat at odds with a respect for seeing all the content in the image that the director wishes you to see.



They are little more dubious than Cameron's reasons for re-framing Avatar. The choice of 16:9 for the BD release is clearly based on the (very logical) assumption that it will be viewed on a screen where 16:9 is the largest size possible.


I still pose the question, say you had the capability of playing DCI content at home and had a CIH setup. Which DCI version would be the "right" one, the scope, or the 16:9 version?


Should Blu-ray be different? If so, why?


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542828
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cameron talks about how "monitors" will produce the image with greater brightness and that this can bring things to the table a darker 3D cinema image might subdue. So it's not all loss seeing the Blu-Ray on a TV screen; there are some gains to be had as well. (Although people with projectors may or may not realise those gains, given that the typical projected image is well below the brightness of the typical TV/Flat Panel/Monitor. But even so, I think some of us project somewhat brighter than many cinemas).
> 
> 
> But he still plans on releasing it in 3D on Blu-ray, doubtless in 16:9, so I don't see how any of this affects the central issue.
> 
> 
> Also note from the link you gave:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone mentioned a debate raging on about the Avatar AR, but it seems most of this debate is coming from CIH devotees who realise that Avatar in 16:9 isn't going to have the impact they'd prefer on their 2:35:1 screen.
> 
> For other folks with regular 16:9 screens or more flexible masking systems, I don't see a lot of debate or hand-wringing going on.



What's funny is that I have a 50" Kuro and was initially disappointed at the lack of "black bars"











An internet search of Avatar, 2.35:1, etc brought me here and I *think* I get it now, LOL


bob


----------



## blastermaster

I have a scope setup and I don't really get what all the fuss is about. I went with this setup partially because of height limitations to my room, but also because I hated horizontal black bars. CIH gave me the ideal situation because when I'm watching 1.78 films, they are as big as they can be and I'm sitting as close as I can before the image begins to deteriorate for my eyes. That, and I don't get black bars for 2.35 stuff - it just gets wider. Bonus! So, as much as I would love for this movie (and all movies) to be scope (to suit my setup) I am not willing to chop heads off in order to get it. I did try, though, to watch the movie in scope and I gave up after 5 minutes - it just didn't work for me. Who knows, maybe Cameron has a scope setup himself and didn't want to piss around with his Oppo to move the subtitles so he just set the text higher up in the movie from the get go?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18544826
> 
> 
> I have a scope setup and I don't really get what all the fuss is about.



How wide is your screen?


My screen is just 8 feet wide, and the way I have my system setup, I can switch ARs on the fly so can go from left image to right image at the press of a button. My BD copy arrives tomorrow, however just looking at the images below, I would take 8 feet of AVATAR over 6 feet.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18545091
> 
> 
> How wide is your screen?
> 
> 
> My screen is just 8 feet wide, and the way I have my system setup, I can switch ARs on the fly so can go from left image to right image at the press of a button. My BD copy arrives tomorrow, however just looking at the images below, I would take 8 feet of AVATAR over 6 feet.



Cramped, cramped, and....definitely cramped. How can that guy breathe stuffed into that puny cockpit?

And why isn't the floating mountain floating?


So, you would take 66% of Avatar over 100%? Honestly, you should make the shots on the left equally as wide as the ones on the right. They were intended to be bigger anyway.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18545360
> 
> 
> So, you would take 66% of Avatar over 100%?



Its actually 75% not 66% and yes I would take the wider Scope image (I saw it in Scope in the cinema) over a smaller 16:9 image.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18545379
> 
> 
> Its actually 75% not 66% and yes I would take the wider Scope image (I saw it in Scope in the cinema) over a smaller 16:9 image.



So you would also agree with those who chop 2.35:1 images to fit their 16:9 displays? Because what you're doing is exactly the same thing.


Too bad you had to watch it in a scope theater. You should have seen it in a larger 16:9 theater, since with Avatar, 16:9 is the larger aspect ratio.


----------



## Kilgore

Here's a question, CAVX....if you had a 16:9 display only, would you watch Ben-Hur in 2.70:1? Or would you blow it up to fit your screen to make it more "immersive"?


EDIT: When watching Ben-Hur, do you scale it to fit your scope screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18545396
> 
> 
> So you would also agree with those who chop 2.35:1 images to fit their 16:9 displays? Because what you're doing is exactly the same thing.



No its not. Like as in all cinemas that projected this film in Scope, I am keeping the full width, not chopping it off as you do when filling the screen of a flat panel by zooming a letter boxed image.



> Quote:
> Too bad you had to watch it in a scope theater. You should have seen it in a larger 16:9 theater, since with Avatar, 16:9 is the larger aspect ratio.



I am not sorry at all. In fact, just one cinema chain has CIW (a total of 24 screens over 2 complexes) and I avoid them like the plague. The amount of IMAX screens in Australia that would have played AVATAR can virtually be counted on hand. Everywhere else would have been CinemaScope.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18545404
> 
> 
> Here's a question, CAVX....if you had a 16:9 display only, would you watch Ben-Hur in 2.70:1? Or would you blow it up to fit your screen to make it more "immersive"?
> 
> 
> EDIT: When watching Ben-Hur, do you scale it to fit your scope screen?



If I had 16:9, I grin and bear the black bars. Not actually watched BEN HUR on my Scope set up. The answer is no regardless. I would not zoom it to fit the screen as I would not be able to even if I wanted to. Again, I am not into chopping off the sides of the image either. AVATAR will KEEP its full width.


----------



## cal87

Let me add another option. I was playing around with my VP last night.


I started with the 2.2 framing as suggested by Josh Z. Looks pretty good. This left about 3" on the sides of my 10ft 2.35 screen. Then, I figured why bother leaving the small pillars and changed it to let it horizontally fill my screen. This eliminates any horizontal scaling. It is a small enough change that I do not notice any distortion of the geometry. The planets still look circular.


Changed the subtitles in the Oppo to -3, and overall looks pretty darned good. I think if you have independent vertical and horizontal scaling from a VP and want to fill a scope screen, this is the way to go.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/18545842
> 
> 
> Let me add another option. I was playing around with my VP last night.
> 
> 
> I started with the 2.2 framing as suggested by Josh Z. Looks pretty good. This left about 3" on the sides of my 10ft 2.35 screen. Then, I figured why bother leaving the small pillars and changed it to let it horizontally fill my screen. This eliminates any horizontal scaling. It is a small enough change that I do not notice any distortion of the geometry. The planets still look circular.
> 
> 
> Changed the subtitles in the Oppo to -3, and overall looks pretty darned good. I think if you have independent vertical and horizontal scaling from a VP and want to fill a scope screen, this is the way to go.



Cal87: What VP are you currently using?


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/18545961
> 
> 
> Cal87: What VP are you currently using?



Radiance


----------



## Franin

I finished watching it and I thought 16x9 was perfect.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18546880
> 
> 
> The CIH crowd never ceases to amuse.



So that explains why you are here in the CIH forum so much despite the fact that you aren't a CIH guy ?


Art


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18547005
> 
> 
> So that explains why you are here in the CIH forum so much despite the fact that you aren't a CIH guy ?
> 
> 
> Art



Art: I'd recommend using the report post function, instead of responding to him. Let's let the moderators address any issues.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/18547103
> 
> 
> Art: I'd recommend using the report post function, instead of responding to him. Let's let the moderators address any issues.



Got it.


Art


----------



## MoFoHo

Guys, lets be nice about all this. Petty arguments, nasty posts and insults add NOTHING to a really meaningful, and interesting debate. The last thread got closed down because of that.


It IS only a movie after all....;-)

Steve.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> How wide is your screen?
> 
> 
> My screen is just 8 feet wide, and the way I have my system setup, I can switch ARs on the fly so can go from left image to right image at the press of a button. My BD copy arrives tomorrow, however just looking at the images below, I would take 8 feet of AVATAR over 6 feet.



My scope screen is 143" diagonal, so it's not to big of a fuss for to watch Avatar at 1.78. If I had a smaller scope screen I would still be hesitant to go scope with this movie (not because of your first two pictures, but the third). If I had a scaler to do something like 2.2 as Josh has, I think I would go that route for sure. That said, I did watch Rescue Dawn thinking it was scope (it isn't) and didn't feel like I missed anything, so...


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18545572
> 
> 
> No its not. Like as in all cinemas that projected this film in Scope, I am keeping the full width, not chopping it off as you do when filling the screen of a flat panel by zooming a letter boxed image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sorry at all. In fact, just one cinema chain has CIW (a total of 24 screens over 2 complexes) and I avoid them like the plague. The amount of IMAX screens in Australia that would have played AVATAR can virtually be counted on hand. Everywhere else would have been CinemaScope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had 16:9, I grin and bear the black bars. Not actually watched BEN HUR on my Scope set up. The answer is no regardless. I would not zoom it to fit the screen as I would not be able to even if I wanted to. Again, I am not into chopping off the sides of the image either. AVATAR will KEEP its full width.



I think this shows a much better representation of what you're doing.











You may not be chopping off any width, but you're definitely chopping height.

Height? Width? It's still choppng.


----------



## WillyGib




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18547773
> 
> 
> I think this shows a much better representation of what you're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not be chopping off any width, but you're definitely chopping height.
> 
> Height? Width? It's still choppng.



I think you have this forum mixed up with the constant width. The images that CAVX show are what I see on my 118 X 50 scope screen if I show it in 2.35. Our height stays the same the width gets bigger. What you show above is what you will see on a 16X9 TV.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WillyGib* /forum/post/18547921
> 
> 
> I think you have this forum mixed up with the constant width. The images that CAVX show are what I see on my 118 X 50 scope screen if I show it in 2.35. Our height stays the same the width gets bigger. What you show above is what you will see on a 16X9 TV.



What you are saying is normally the truth.


However, in the case of Avatar there are four factors to consider:


1: With Avatar, 16:9 is the LARGER aspect ratio, not 2.35:1. In the vast majority of cases, 2.35:1 is the larger....not so with Avatar.


2: CIH is not about hacking and chopping a film to fit our screens. That's what the unwashed masses do when they chop up a 2.35:1 film to fit a 16:9 display. What CAVX is doing is no different and should be shunned as well.


3: You choose to have a constant height setup (as do I). In such a setup, 2.35:1 films are displayed larger than 16:9 in such a setup. When a film is released in 16:9, it will be smaller on a CIH setup. Unfortunately, that means that Avatar will be smaller. Such is life. I'd rather watch a film in the OAR that the filmmaker recommends than manipulate an image to suit my setup.


4: Avatar was shot in 16:9, not 2.35:1. Even if you scrunch the image down, the shot composition goes awry. 16:9 is the best ratio for Avatar, and it was intentionally shot that way.


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> What you are saying is normally the truth.
> 
> 
> However, in the case of Avatar there are four factors to consider:
> 
> 
> 1: With Avatar, 16:9 is the LARGER aspect ratio, not 2.35:1. In the vast majority of cases, 2.35:1 is the larger....not so with Avatar.



You could say that about any Super 35 production that was ever presented "open matte".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> 2: CIH is not about hacking and chopping a film to fit our screens. That's what the unwashed masses do when they chop up a 2.35:1 film to fit a 16:9 display. What CAVX is doing is no different and should be shunned as well..



It's what Mr. Cameron did for the release I saw in a commercial theater. And advocating someone's actions be "shunned" for using their theater to most closely reproduce a previous cinema experience? Shall we also shun Mr. Cameron?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> 3: You choose to have a constant height setup (as do I). In such a setup, 2.35:1 films are displayed larger than 16:9 in such a setup. When a film is released in 16:9, it will be smaller on a CIH setup. Unfortunately, that means that Avatar will be smaller. Such is life. I'd rather watch a film in the OAR that the filmmaker recommends than manipulate an image to suit my setup..



How do you define OAR? I believe more people saw this film in 'Scope in theaters than in any other presentation format.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> 
> 4: Avatar was shot in 16:9, not 2.35:1. Even if you scrunch the image down, the shot composition goes awry. 16:9 is the best ratio for Avatar, and it was intentionally shot that way.



Then why did Mr. Cameron "scrunch it down" for the release I saw at my local Regal Theater?


I say again, there's no pure and simple answer to this ... but exhibiting this disc CIH taking a slightly northernly "center slice" as a source is the closest thing to the way I and most others experienced it in the cinema.


----------



## taffman

Quote from Arts many posts:

'No technology is without flaw having been built by humans and human error"


Hugo Eckener


Just curious here Art, but is that quote from the Hugo Eckener that captained the ill fated Hindenburgh?


I am going out tonight to rent the Avatar BD and see what all the fuss is about! I will watch it at 16:9 , as intended by Mr. Cameron, then I will play around with projecting at 2.35 with cropping to see what CAVX is up to.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This example is weird. When I saw the movie projected in scope theatrically, I swear that those diary graphics hugged the top and bottom of the frame. They weren't scrunched down into the middle like that.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18543676
> 
> 
> I checked out a mysterious source that is a preservation of the theatrical 2.35 version, and they are exactly in the same place (except this "preservation" is somewhat cropped at the bottom).



Hmmm... I suppose that since the theatrical version was 3-D and those graphics extended outwards from the screen, they may have seemed closer to the top and bottom from the POV of sitting in the audience.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> What you are saying is normally the truth.
> 
> 
> However, in the case of Avatar there are four factors to consider:
> 
> 
> 1: With Avatar, 16:9 is the LARGER aspect ratio, not 2.35:1. In the vast majority of cases, 2.35:1 is the larger....not so with Avatar.



Yes, but in a CIH Home Theater (just like a CIH cinema) 16:9 is much smaller than 2.35:1.



> Quote:
> 2: CIH is not about hacking and chopping a film to fit our screens. That's what the unwashed masses do when they chop up a 2.35:1 film to fit a 16:9 display. What CAVX is doing is no different and should be shunned as well.



It is different, because unlike 4:3 Pan & Scan or zooming scope to fit a 16:9 TV, cropping Avatar has theatrical precedent, it's the way Cameron chose to show Avatar in CIH cinemas.


This is no different than what was done with TDK or TF2.



> Quote:
> 3: You choose to have a constant height setup (as do I). In such a setup, 2.35:1 films are displayed larger than 16:9 in such a setup. When a film is released in 16:9, it will be smaller on a CIH setup. Unfortunately, that means that Avatar will be smaller. Such is life. I'd rather watch a film in the OAR that the filmmaker recommends than manipulate an image to suit my setup.



As we've discussed, what's OAR? Avatar was shown in both 16:9 and scope (but only scope for 2D presentations). One thing was always consistent in Avatar theatrical presentations, width was always maximized, even if it cost height.



> Quote:
> 4: Avatar was shot in 16:9, not 2.35:1. Even if you scrunch the image down, the shot composition goes awry. 16:9 is the best ratio for Avatar, and it was intentionally shot that way.



If it is _compositionally_ that important, why did Cameron choose to present Avatar in Scope in CIH cinemas? Why is width the one thing that Cameron never compromised on in the theater?


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18548603
> 
> 
> As we've discussed, what's OAR? Avatar was shown in both 16:9 and scope (but only scope for 2D presentations).



Just FYI, I saw it in 'Scope Real3D in auditorium 11 at the Warrington Regal 22 Theaters in suburban Philly. So there were also 3D 'Scope presentations.


----------



## stanger89

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw it in scope 3D too, at a local Carmike.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18542379
> 
> 
> That's entirely consistent with a film-maker's evolving aesthetic decisions. Happens all the time in movie making. Movies almost always are the result of original intentions dropped, altered, molded, compromised, evolved as the production went on, right up until they hit the theaters.
> 
> 
> Take famous examples like the music for 2001. Kubrick didn't film the movie with the intent of marrying it with existing classical pieces; his original intent was to do as he'd done in previous movies: he had commissioned a score from Alex North. The use of existing pieces like Also sprach Zarathustra was originally intended only as temp tracks. But as the editing process went on and showreels were made, the intent changed: it turned out in the end that Kubrick preferred the temp track pieces and so, famously, released the film with those in place of North's score.
> 
> 
> So this type of thing happens all the time. Are you not going to allow Kubrick to have changed his mind along the way? "No no...you clearly shot your film with the intention of proceeding as usual with an original score accompaniment...so on those grounds I determine that I don't have to honour your last minute change of mind!"



First off, Rich, you're just plain wrong in your 2001 example. Kubrick always intended to use classical music. The Alex North score was commissioned by MGM. Kubricked agreed to give it a shot, but ultimately decided to stick with his original plan. The studio relented to his wishes.


But that's neither here nor there.


There's a distinction to be made between filmmakers changing their plans while making a movie, and those who make revisionist changes after the movie was completed and released to the public.


You've ignored my question about Vittorio Storaro cropping Apocalypse Now and The Last Emperor. Do you support him in that?


Do you believe that William Friedkin was right to tint The French Connection purple three decades after its release? Friedkin claims that he always wanted it that way, but his own cinematographer says that he's full of it. I suppose we should just believe him. Because directors can never make mistakes, right?


And George Lucas must have done the right thing by plastering CGI crap all over the original Star Wars movies, too. If you ask him today, he'll tell you that it was always his plan all along to digitally insert Hayden Christensen's face over the original actor. Even back in 1983, he wanted to do that, but just didn't have the technology.



> Quote:
> It doesn't matter what a film-maker starts off intending...that often changes. What matters is the culmination of that film-maker's journey and the end result of all those artistic decisions. The end result of Cameron's process in making Avatar is that the 16:9 image is the image he prefers and it's the one he intends for the audience. Cameron knows the 2:35:1 version, he knows the 16:9 version, he knows where he started and where he ended up in terms of crafting his movie, and he's stated unequivocally that the 16:9 framing represents his artistic decisions.



That depends entirely on what day you ask him about it.

*James Cameron on Avatar: "I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."*

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...-aspect-ratios


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18548008
> 
> 
> What CAVX is doing is no different and should be shunned as well.



If anything should be shunned, it is the release of just the 16:9 version on Blu-ray, instead of releasing both the 16:9 and the Scope versions.


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/18548810
> 
> 
> If anything should be shunned, it is the release of just the 16:9 version on Blu-ray, instead of releasing both the 16:9 and the Scope versions.



Bingo! Absolutely! There's the problem. Because the theatrical 'Scope experience is not "exactly" duplicatable with what's been released. Yet that's what most people saw.


But you can get close ...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18545091
> 
> 
> 
> My images show the FULL width and are presented at the same height. The beauty of CIH (when using a lens) is that I can CHOOSE to watch the film in either format.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18547773



These images DO NOT represent the point of discussion so far as CIH is concerned. The film DOES NOT have (even though many think it should) have black bars top and bottom. Scaling for CIH will treat the program as if it does, hence removing 12.5% off the top and 12.5% off the bottom of the image. Optical expansion by the Anamorphic Lens will then present this film W I D E R than 16:9 on my system, making it the largest presentation possible which is ALSO Cameron's vision and why a CinemaScope version was release to more cinemas (at least in Australia) than 16:9 versions.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18549474
> 
> 
> These images DO NOT represent the point of discussion so far as CIH is concerned. The film DOES NOT have (even though many think it should) have black bars top and bottom. Scaling for CIH will treat the program as if it does, hence removing 12.5% off the top and 12.5% off the bottom of the image. Optical expansion by the Anamorphic Lens will then present this film W I D E R than 16:9 on my system, making it the largest presentation possible which is ALSO Cameron's vision and why a CinemaScope version was release to more cinemas (at least in Australia) than 16:9 versions.



Firstly, this is the first time in my entire life that I have ever posted any kind of graphic image to a website forum. I do not use Photoshop, or any other fancy graphics program. I did this with Microsoft Paint for God sake! The black bars were not there for any reason other than to separate the images, otherwise the backgrounds would have been white. I colored the backgrounds black by hand.


Secondly, the black bars aren't even the point. The point is that the 16:9 image of Avatar is supposed to be BIGGER than your typical 2.35:1 image, not the other way around.


Thirdly, it was to show that the images are correctly composed for 16:9 and that you're lopping the top and bottom off of them to make them fit your 2.35:1 screen, regardless of whether or not your scope screen is the size of the Grand Canyon. The shot composition of these 2.35:1 images of yours are cramped and, frankly, totally inferior to the ones on the Blu-ray. You're removing information that BELONGS there.


Much like a 16:9 display owner who lops the sides off a 2.35:1 image to fit his screen, you are lopping the top and bottom off a 16:9 image to fit your 2.35:1 screen. You are no different. At all.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18549474
> 
> 
> Optical expansion by the Anamorphic Lens will then present this film W I D E R than 16:9 on my system, making it the largest presentation possible which is ALSO Cameron's vision and why a CinemaScope version was release to more cinemas (at least in Australia) than 16:9 versions.



And lastly, yours is categorically NOT the largest presentation possible, except at YOUR house.


Your scope butchering of the Blu-ray is NOT Cameron's vision. Cameron's vision involves HEIGHT. You're hacking the height off. Nav'i's are 10 feet tall, not 10 feet wide.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18550284
> 
> 
> Secondly, the black bars aren't even the point. The point is that the 16:9 image of Avatar is supposed to be BIGGER than your typical 2.35:1 image, not the other way around.



What you're missing is that that can't possibly happen on a CIH theater. This is (likely) why Cameron himself chose cropping for CIH cinemas vs pillarboxing.



> Quote:
> Thirdly, it was to show that the images are correctly composed for 16:9 and that you're lopping the top and bottom off of them to make them fit your 2.35:1 screen, regardless of whether or not your scope screen is the size of the Grand Canyon. The shot composition of these 2.35:1 images of yours are cramped and, frankly, totally inferior to the ones on the Blu-ray. You're removing information that BELONGS there.



I'll pose the question again, if the composition is that important, that critical to the framing of the film, why did James Cameron choose to crop Avatar for CIH cinemas?



> Quote:
> Much like a 16:9 display owner who lops the sides off a 2.35:1 image to fit his screen, you are lopping the top and bottom off a 16:9 image to fit your 2.35:1 screen. You are no different. At all.



It is in fact, quite different. The "lop[ing] the sides off a 2.35:1 image" has no theatrical precedent. Cropping Avatar is (approximately at least) exactly how the majority of us saw it at the theater.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18550320
> 
> 
> What you're missing is that that can't possibly happen on a CIH theater. This is (likely) why Cameron himself chose cropping for CIH cinemas vs pillarboxing.



I'm not missing that point at all. I HAVE a CIH setup. And I watched Avatar at 16:9, what I believe is the optimum aspect ratio.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18550320
> 
> 
> I'll pose the question again, if the composition is that important, that critical to the framing of the film, why did James Cameron choose to crop Avatar for CIH cinemas?



Because if he didn't, then in a large CIH theater that seats hundreds of people, the 16:9 image would have not have been optimal for the size of the room. Plus, he didn't want to alienate those theaters, and possibly lose revenue. He has said on record that this is not the optimal way to watch the film.


Additionally, the cropping that was done was not just a simple center crop. The 2.35:1 version shown in theaters was created specifically for that environment. Try it with the Blu-ray. You'll see pretty quickly that the framing sucks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18550320
> 
> 
> It is in fact, quite different. The "lop[ing] the sides off a 2.35:1 image" has no theatrical precedent. Cropping Avatar is (approximately at least) exactly how the majority of us saw it at the theater.



As I said, you would have to manipulate the image in a much more complicated way to recreate what was seen in the theater, panning and scanning up and down.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18550317
> 
> 
> And lastly, yours is categorically NOT the largest presentation possible, except at YOUR house.



And with this kind of reasoning, no wonder you are not understanding what is being said.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18550317
> 
> 
> Your scope butchering of the Blu-ray is NOT Cameron's vision. Cameron's vision involves HEIGHT. You're hacking the height off. Nav'i's are 10 feet tall, not 10 feet wide.



2005 King Kong was 25 feet tall and was presented in scope, so what does that prove? What is your point about how tall the characters were?


Your argument is moot, b/c from what I have researched here in Japan, 2D was all done in scope and 3D was done in 1.78 at IMAX theaters and everywhere else was done in scope for 3D. Considering there are only a bunch of cinemas that are IMAX, the rest was done in scope. Cameron must have not had the final word on what was show here if he really wanted people to see it in 16.9...


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/18550489
> 
> 
> And with this kind of reasoning, no wonder you are not understanding what is being said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2005 King Kong was 25 feet tall and was presented in scope, so what does that prove? What is your point about how tall the characters were?
> 
> 
> Your argument is moot, b/c from what I have researched here in Japan, 2D was all done in scope and 3D was done in 1.78 at IMAX theaters and everywhere else was done in scope for 3D. Considering there are only a bunch of cinemas that are IMAX, the rest was done in scope. Cameron must have not had the final word on what was show here if he really wanted people to see it in 16.9...



and the interview i saw with Cameron,after he saw the 1.78.1,he liked it.whats the big deal the director liked it. is this all about what certain people want and are not getting! welcome to life my freinds ,thats the way it goes. this thread most of it is a bunch of cry babies wanting there scope and not getting it.how about something more interesting.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18550428
> 
> 
> I'm not missing that point at all. I HAVE a CIH setup. And I watched Avatar at 16:9, what I believe is the optimum aspect ratio.



Fair enough, I haven't seen it yet at home (stupid 28 day delay, thank you Netflix), I too may watch it that way.



> Quote:
> Because if he didn't, then in a large CIH theater that seats hundreds of people, the 16:9 image would have not have been optimal for the size of the room.



How is that different from a home CIH theater?



> Quote:
> Plus, he didn't want to alienate those theaters, and possibly lose revenue.



How would releasing it 16:9 alienate any theaters? Plenty of 16:9 movies come out each year that these theaters must handle.



> Quote:
> He has said on record that this is not the optimal way to watch the film.



And yet he chose "it" (cropping) over pillarboxing. Why should home be different?



> Quote:
> Additionally, the cropping that was done was not just a simple center crop.



Right, it seems it's a consistent, slightly above center crop.



> Quote:
> The 2.35:1 version shown in theaters was created specifically for that environment.



And it's unfortunate the 2D home release isn't the same as the 2D theatrical release.



> Quote:
> Try it with the Blu-ray. You'll see pretty quickly that the framing sucks.



I plan to, I haven't made up my mind yet how I'll handle it, I'll experiment and decide for myself.



> Quote:
> As I said, you would have to manipulate the image in a much more complicated way to recreate what was seen in the theater, panning and scanning up and down.



Is there any evidence of a vertical P&S? It seems reality is more of just an off-center crop, which isn't that difficult to do at home.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18550547
> 
> 
> and the interview i saw with Cameron,after he saw the 1.78.1,he liked it.whats the big deal the director liked it. is this all about what certain people want and are not getting! welcome to life my freinds ,thats the way it goes. this thread most of it is a bunch of cry babies wanting there scope and not getting it.how about something more interesting.



Don't say that, I am just about to burst into tears...LOL or should I say 'Crying Out Loud'


Still doesn't answer why he used scope for 2D, but don't you worry yourself about answering that b/c some of us may just commit suicide if it is not the answer we want to hear.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/18550547
> 
> 
> and the interview i saw with Cameron,after he saw the 1.78.1,he liked it.whats the big deal the director liked it. is this all about what certain people want and are not getting! welcome to life my freinds ,thats the way it goes. this thread most of it is a bunch of cry babies wanting there scope and not getting it.how about something more interesting.



everyone has a right to an oponion and if your not happy with what you read an easy solution - dont visit the thread!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18550284
> 
> 
> Firstly, this is the first time in my entire life that I have ever posted any kind of graphic image to a website forum. I do not use Photoshop, or any other fancy graphics program. I did this with Microsoft Paint for God sake! The black bars were not there for any reason other than to separate the images, otherwise the backgrounds would have been white. I colored the backgrounds black by hand.



I used the same program. My original versions did have black bars too. I re-did them as I did not feel the black bars showed what I intended to show.



> Quote:
> Secondly, the black bars aren't even the point. The point is that the 16:9 image of Avatar is supposed to be BIGGER than your typical 2.35:1 image, not the other way around.



In IMAX, not conventional cinema. Scope was the largest format there and why it was used for the 2D and some 3D screenings.



> Quote:
> Thirdly, it was to show that the images are correctly composed for 16:9 and that you're lopping the top and bottom off of them to make them fit your 2.35:1 screen, regardless of whether or not your scope screen is the size of the Grand Canyon. The shot composition of these 2.35:1 images of yours are cramped and, frankly, totally inferior to the ones on the Blu-ray. You're removing information that BELONGS there.



If you look at my images, they too show that some of the original frame is missing off the top and bottom. I didn't feel that black bars were needed here. Also my images show that on a CIH system, the Scope image is larger, just like it was in the cinema.



> Quote:
> Much like a 16:9 display owner who lops the sides off a 2.35:1 image to fit his screen, you are lopping the top and bottom off a 16:9 image to fit your 2.35:1 screen. You are no different. At all.



I am totally different. I am not losing the width of the image.


I just finished watching this in Scope and this what makes this image work is that it was not shot to TV, it was shot for IMAX 3D. The placement of characters are almost always placed as if it was shot for Scope (hence Josh's comments that this film was composed for CinemaScope).


This movie works on a CIH system when Scaled for Scope, period, end of story. The subtitles are placed high enough into the image that if someone didn't know that film was 16:9 and not letterboxed for the BD, none would be the wiser.


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18551166
> 
> 
> I just finished watching this in Scope and this what makes this image work is that it was not shot to TV, it was shot for IMAX 3D. The placement of characters are almost always placed as if it was shot for Scope (hence Josh's comments that this film was composed for CinemaScope).
> 
> 
> This movie works on a CIH system when Scaled for Scope, period, end of story. The subtitles are placed high enough into the image that if someone didn't know that film was 16:9 and not letterboxed for the BD, none would be the wiser.



Well put. I agree completely. Now Mark, if you could just please lock the thread ...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hconwell* /forum/post/18551455
> 
> 
> Well put. I agree completely. Now Mark, if you could just please lock the thread ...



If the mods want to lock it off, OK, just let me post some screen caps first










The point of these shots is simply show that a Scaling the film for CIH works. So for those of us that would like to watch this film in Scope, I hope this better shows how it could look on your system.


I purposely over exposed the shots so that the side pillars of unused screen on the 16:9 shots could be seen. I did a very crude white balance and my PC monitor is way too hot, so sorry if the images look blue.


You may also notice that the Scope shots do not quite fit the 2.37:1 screen. This is due to the fact that cylindrical lens's astigmatism adjustment is based on the actual distance from the lens to the screen, not just the throw ratio, so based on the actual projection distance, the lens spacing creates an image slightly less than 2.37:1.


I've posted this shot as it was brought up in regards to the so called "vertical panning and scanning process" supposedly used by Cameron for the CinemaScope version of the film. As you can see, you don't loose the top of Jake's head, so I see no reason why the claim of a VP&S was even needed and virtually the whole film is like this. I am limited to the number of images I can attach per post, however if required, I have plenty more.


















What is extremely interesting to me is how great this same shot looks in Scope. If this shot was not composed for Scope nothing was.


----------



## MoFoHo

As I said before, simply picking out frames to prove a point simply doesn't suffice really, the camera is always 'hovering', always moving. It's easy to simply pick a perfect frame example to prove a point: both campers in this argument could spend a lifetime going frame by frame for examples to prove their point/cause.


I originally thought you may get away with a 2.20:1 ratio extraction (if you really NEEDED) to use your CIH rig to its fuller potential, thanks to Josh's examples. But even then, it's a close call.


But 2.40:1? No way, just...no way. There would be MANY times where people would loose the tops off their heads, where your eye would be lead to something now off-screen. It would look stupid I think. It's too cramped, and you'd ruin the composition I think, which is (the composition) a fundamental part of the cinematography itself.


In all this arguing back and forth, has no-one mentioned that at least with a 1.78:1 presentation (of Avatar), you have the FULL Blu-ray resolution to hand? All 2 million+ pixels worth!! You'd be doing no additional scaling or whatever. Isn't THAT a nice bonus to have?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18551745
> 
> 
> As I said before, simply picking out frames to prove a point simply doesn't suffice really, the camera is always 'hovering', always moving. It's easy to simply pick a perfect frame example to prove a point: both campers in this argument could spend a lifetime going frame by frame for examples to prove their point/cause.



Not really. I went for scenes that the anti-Scope camp said would not work.

I now want to know where some of the screen caps before the BD actually came?


Check this out.









This shot was discussed earlier as being "too cramped" in Scope. My question is, when exactly was it used in the film? I did frame by frame tonight and did not find it.

















You might see him raise the cup slightly higher, however it is not framed like the top shot.



> Quote:
> But 2.40:1? No way, just...no way.



Well I beg to differ.


----------



## Franin




MoFoHo;18551745In all this arguing back and forth said:


> Well being someone who hasnt had CIH that long(Just last year) and a previous owner to 16x9 screen I have no problems with watching material in it OAR. It doesnt bother me. I still say CIH owners have the best of both worlds we can watch 1:78:1 material and still experince full HD (1080p) and watch CIH movies and again experince full 1080P.
> 
> 
> Its a win win situation.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18551865
> 
> 
> I still say CIH owners have the best of both worlds we can watch 1:78:1 material and still experince full HD (1080p) and watch CIH movies and again experince full 1080P.
> 
> 
> Its a win win situation.



And I think that is some of what urks these guys. We can watch a film like AVATAR in two ways, they can't. For them it is 16:9 or nothing.


----------



## markrubin

Moderator


lets keep it friendly so the thread can stay open


Thanks


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18551852
> 
> 
> Well I beg to differ.



How does the opening 20th Century Fox logo look cropped to 2.40:1?


I guess we'll have to aggree to disaggree on this. I'm all for what JC wants, it's his movie, his artistic decisions...


By the way, the bad guy, (Stephen Lang, is it?), he is just EVERYWHERE here in the UK at the moment...!


----------



## mike2060

JC wants 16:9 because it has the highest resolution, it was released theatrically that way (along with a scope version), and most peoples display's are 16:9 so it makes complete sense. It wouldn't make sense if Ridley Scott released Gladiator in open matte 16:9 because it wasn't shot with that in mind and was never released in theaters in that AR.


The Fox logo doesn't work in scope as there are probably 2 versions of it, one for scope discs, one for non scope discs.


----------



## mike2060

Avatar seems to work fairly well in scope by chopping off the top 80 pixels:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


----------



## dvdvision

Duh ? I'm reposting this, if you must do a custom chop of Avatar, at least someone calculate the exact framing as Cameron was viewing in his monitor, and replicate it. I'm guessing it's not that hard, it's a good bunch on bottom, and a small bunch on top.











Enough "I'm chopping off xx pixels and it works" or "Middle extraction in 2.20". If you want to do this, at least do it properly replicating the intended framing during the whole shoot.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> First off, Rich, you're just plain wrong in your 2001 example. Kubrick always intended to use classical music. The Alex North score was commissioned by MGM. Kubricked agreed to give it a shot, but ultimately decided to stick with his original plan. The studio relented to his wishes.



Virtually every reference I've been able to find, including within Making-Of-2001 books, have had Kubrik commissioning North. North himself says he was phoned by Kubrik and asked if he was available to do the score.

North said Kubrik did say he wanted to keep _some_ of the temp track.

And many accounts I've read have Kubrik presenting a cut of 2001 with the temp tracks and MGM responding enthusiastically.


Perhaps you have some quote elsewhere that supports the way you've characterised it, but there seems to be a lot of references describing it as the above. (And I'd be quite happy if some solid information points to the standard story being wrong. I'm interested in what really went down).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> But that's neither here nor there.



Agreed. It's only one possible example. Even if it weren't true at all I'm sure you must be aware of how many changes of minds occur during the process of making a movie. I've been in the film business for around 25 years in pre production, production and post production and changes are often going on right up until the release of a film (or air date). I'm acutely aware of this because, as a sound effects editor/designer I'm near the last link in the chain, so last minute decisions always affect my schedule.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> There's a distinction to be made between filmmakers changing their plans while making a movie, and those who make revisionist changes after the movie was completed and released to the public.



But Cameron has made it clear he fell in love with the 16X9 aspect ration DURING the making of Avatar. That has always been his preferred way for you to see it: 16:9 as big as possible. However, some theater masking systems (e.g. CIH systems) couldn't take advantage of the full desired height, couldn't open up top/bottom masks, to expand the size of 16:9 as desired. So for those theaters optimized for producing a bigger image via scope, they were provided with scope prints. But the logical inference from Cameron's stating that he preferred the 16:9 version entails that those were compromises. As Cameron says following his discussion of why Avatar was sometimes seen in scope: "For home obviously we want to go with the _full [16:9] picture_."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> You've ignored my question about Vittorio Storaro cropping Apocalypse Now and The Last Emperor. Do you support him in that?



Sure.


I did love the cinema scope version. But I've also been quite happy with the AR of the DVD as well. Just like I'm in full support of Cameron's choice of 16:9 for Avatar.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> Do you believe that William Friedkin was right to tint The French Connection purple three decades after its release? Friedkin claims that he always wanted it that way, but his own cinematographer says that he's full of it. I suppose we should just believe him. Because directors can never make mistakes, right?



I haven't seen the new print of TFC, but if it's as bad as everyone says I'm likely to agree it was an idiotic choice. Quite obviously directors can make idiotic choices. They do it all the time.


I may wish Friedkin didn't make the bad choice, tut I'm not going to alter his work and re-colorize TFC.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> And George Lucas must have done the right thing by plastering CGI crap all over the original Star Wars movies, too. If you ask him today, he'll tell that that it was always his plan all along to digitally insert Hayden Christensen's face over the original actor. Even back in 1983, he wanted to do that, but just didn't have the technology.



Hmm, that last line sounds a tad exaggerated...but yeah I'm one who thinks Lucas' additions to the original SW movies suck and besmirch the experience. I think that once a movie has become so beloved by so many people in it's original form, it sort of becomes a bit of "public property" to some degree, insofar as the public has some reason to promote the preservation of the original film everyone fell in love with. If a director wants to change a movie that has become such a cultural touchstone I think he ought to be sensitive to this fact and at least allow the original version to be available.


I deride Lucas for being insensitive to this issue in the case of Star Wars.


But of course Avatar is hardly in the same situation. It's still in the theaters and these days the home viewing experience is as big a part of a movie's legacy as the theatrical. The initial Avatar story is still happening as we speak. A tiny cadre of disappointed CIH devotees can hardly be a comparable justification for any claims on Cameron's work or intent for his work.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18548707
> 
> 
> That depends entirely on what day you ask him about it.
> 
> *James Cameron on Avatar: "I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."*
> 
> http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...-aspect-ratios



But not for Avatar. He has been very clear that his attitude toward 16:9 changed _while making Avatar_. He has stated that the "best" AR for theatrical presentation was 16:9 and he has stated clearly that 16:9 is the the intended, proper AR for home presentation. Go to youtube, search "all versions 16X9." The questioner talking to Cameron brings up JUST the discussion we are having here, saying that because some people saw Avatar in scope in the theaters and some saw it in 16:9, there are arguments and confusion about "_what should be the right way for home video._" Cameron answers firmly "*16:9*."


And Cameron emphasises that there will be no scope version either for the flat or the 3D home version.


I mean, jeeze, the guy has said he fell in love with 16:9 for Avatar, endorsed it as the best theatrical version. The fact is that he endorses it also for the "flat" home version as well. If he preferred it be experienced in scope for the flat version he could have released it that way on Blu-Ray. It's not like there aren't a great many scope AR Blu-Rays already. And he could follow up with a 16:9 3D version later. But Cameron obviously thinks 16:9 is the right way to go even with the current flat version, which is why he chose to release it 16:9.


It seems at this point your antipathy for the 16:9 version just won't let you acknowledge the obvious. It's mostly only some CIH folks (or someone like you who doesn't like the 16:9 framing) who are still acting confused about this and looking for justifications to zoom it larger to fill their screen.


As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if someone wants to justify viewing it in scope on their CIH I agree they can appeal to the precedent of the 2 theatrical versions. That is after all the compromise Cameron made in such situations theatrically.

And a home CIH set up accurately reproduces those theaters which had those limitations.







But I think some of the reasoning you've offered goes beyond that and seems to be grasping at straws - especially appeals to Cameron "making mistakes" and seemingly portraying Cameron as irrational and incoherent on the subject. If you approach it without an agenda of wanting the scope version (for CIH) or "I like the scope version better" it's not hard to make sense of Cameron's position on Avatar. The guy just prefers his movie in 16:9 wherever possible.


BTW, although I may find some minor disagreement with you here, I want to point out that I really enjoy your contributions on this forum and I applaud your your articles on CIH and explaining issues like "black bars" and OAR.


Cheers,


----------



## mike2060




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdvision* /forum/post/18552611
> 
> 
> Duh ? I'm reposting this, if you must do a custom chop of Avatar, at least someone calculate the exact framing as Cameron was viewing in his monitor, and replicate it. I'm guessing it's not that hard, it's a good bunch on bottom, and a small bunch on top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough "I'm chopping off xx pixels and it works" or "Middle extraction in 2.20". If you want to do this, at least do it properly replicating the intended framing during the whole shoot.



Based on that image it's about 92 pixels chopped off of the top.


----------



## Erik Garci

Here's another framing pic. Approximately 7.4% on top and 16.4% on bottom.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18552865
> 
> 
> But Cameron has made it clear he fell in love with the 16X9 aspect ration DURING the making of Avatar.



You use the words "clear" and "clearly" a lot in this discussion. Where exactly does Cameron clearly state that his preference for 16:9 happened during production of the movie? Everything I've read and seen from him shows that he preferred scope for the 2-D version of this movie during production and through its theatrical release. He only changed his mind to preferring 16:9 even for 2-D later, when working on the video transfer.



> Quote:
> *You've ignored my question about Vittorio Storaro cropping Apocalypse Now and The Last Emperor. Do you support him in that?*
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> I did love the cinema scope version. But I've also been quite happy with the AR of the DVD as well. Just like I'm in full support of Cameron's choice of 16:9 for Avatar.



We will never see eye-to-eye on this. There is just no way in hell that either Apocalypse Now or The Last Emperor were composed for 2:1. The framing looks terrible. Storaro's claims about always framing the movies this way are straight-up nonsense.



> Quote:
> *James Cameron on Avatar: "I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."
> 
> http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...-aspect-ratios *
> 
> 
> But not for Avatar. He has been very clear that his attitude toward 16:9 changed _while making Avatar_.



Where are you getting this from? He was talking *about Avatar* in the interview that quote comes from. He was asked specifically about the aspect ratio *for Avatar*, and he very clearly said, *"I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."*



> Quote:
> He has stated that the "best" AR for theatrical presentation was 16:9 and he has stated clearly that 16:9 is the the intended, proper AR for home presentation.



Again, he only starting saying that after-the-fact.



> Quote:
> I mean, jeeze, the guy has said he fell in love with 16:9 for Avatar, endorsed it as the best theatrical version.



James Cameron: *"But only for 3-D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."*



> Quote:
> It seems at this point your antipathy for the 16:9 version just won't let you acknowledge the obvious. It's mostly only some CIH folks (or someone like you who doesn't like the 16:9 framing) who are still acting confused about this and looking for justifications to zoom it larger to fill their screen.



I have no problem watching movies and TV shows that were genuinely composed for 16:9 or 1.85:1 at those ratios pillarboxed on my CIH screen. In fact, because I manually move my lens in and out of place, it's more of a pain in the neck to set up my screen for scope. I was up until 3AM that night comparing scenes from the movie in multiple aspect ratios, some with the lens and some without. It was a lot of work that I'd have preferred not to bother doing.


If, at the end of all that, I'd come to the conclusion that the movie was composed for 16:9, I would be here advocating that it be watched that way.


But that's just not what I see. Aesthetically, the scope theatrical screening I saw was much better composed than the 16:9 Blu-ray. If I'd just wanted to justify cropping the Blu-ray to 2.35:1 at all costs, I would tell people that it looked best that way (and try to convince myself of the same). But that's not the case either.


To my eye, 2.20:1 is the best compromise for the Blu-ray. It still doesn't quite fill my CIH screen, but it's *clearly* (to me) better framed than the 16:9 version of the movie.



> Quote:
> BTW, although I may find some minor disagreement with you here, I want to point out that I really enjoy your contributions on this forum and I applaud your your articles on CIH and explaining issues like "black bars" and OAR.



Likewise, I have nothing against you personally, Rich. You're a valuable contributor to these forums. We just disagree on this issue.


----------



## mike2060




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/18553523
> 
> 
> Here's another framing pic. Approximately 7.4% on top and 16.4% on bottom.



7.4% on top would be about 80 pixels for a 1080 image.


----------



## mike2060

We could almost compare this image (from some UK site) to the one from the Bluray:


----------



## LilGator

Josh, you seem adamant that Cameron, despite what he actually says, prefers the 2.39 presentation of this film in 2D; but can you explain where Cameron ever preferred 2.20 over the other two presentations of this film? Can you explain where Cameron ever saw a 2.20 presentation, much less approved it?


If not, how do you justify people cropping a film to an AR never shot, produced or seen by anyone involved in making the film?


How is this not hypocritical, when you would argue that scope films should not be cropped on HBO or plasmas/LCDs (which are always crops taken into consideration for scope films, though not preferred OAR), to crop a film down to a framing you have yourself invented?


What is *clear* here, is that you are choosing not to display this film in a valid presentation provided by the director, and instead choosing to display it the way you feel you like it best, and how you feel it fits your screen.


If you believe films are open to viewer interpretation in this manner, your credibility is in question.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Not to disrupt this engrossing argument but...


I watched Avatar at 2.0 and the presentation lost nothing compared to watching at 1.78 (granted my 'crop' is not as severe as 2.35 or even 2.20 but it works and is not the directors intent, or is it...







).


Seriously though who really cares, enjoy it however you choose, that's the beauty of HOME THEATER, it's in *your* HOME







.


Jason


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18552264
> 
> 
> How does the opening 20th Century Fox logo look cropped to 2.40:1?



It is a nice new logo, however you can see that it has been cropped when watching this BD in Scope. If presenting this for friends, I would probably start off in 16:9 mode and switch to scope as soon the logo faded.



> Quote:
> I guess we'll have to aggree to disaggree on this. I'm all for what JC wants, it's his movie, his artistic decisions...



JC himself wanted AVATAR to be displayed (projected) as large as possible. So I fully get why he chose 1.78:1 for the IMAX and the BD. IMAX is the largest theatrical presentation and and most people will have a 16:9 HDTV at home. It makes sense. For me, Scope IS the larges possible image at 33% larger than 16:9.



> Quote:
> By the way, the bad guy, (Stephen Lang, is it?), he is just EVERYWHERE here in the UK at the moment...!



I kind of liked his character in this film.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18554884
> 
> 
> JC himself wanted AVATAR to be displayed (projected) as large as possible. So I fully get why he chose 1.78:1 for the IMAX and the BD. IMAX is the largest theatrical presentation and and most people will have a 16:9 HDTV at home. It makes sense. For me, Scope IS the larges possible image at 33% larger than 16:9.



What you are arguing would be accurate if the 2.39 presentation was provided on BD as an alternative.


Center cropping the BD and chopping foreheads is not preferred by Cameron regardless of the size advantage, and you can bank on it.


Now, I think the image Erik Garci produced is the closest you have to presenting an accurate/valid 2.39 frame- if your scaler can do a vertically offset crop and scale for your lens.


I will try this and compare it to the mysterious copy of the 2.39 theatrical presentation and see if it jives.


----------



## LilGator

Looks good from what I've looked at.


Based on the shot Erik provided, those with flexible scalers and an A-lens setup will want to do this:


1. Vertical shift (offset) the image 50 pixels higher.

2. Perform vertical 1.33x stretch.


You still have the GUI elements being chopped, but the rest follows the 2.39 theatrical presentation right on from what I can tell.


I still feel it's cramped, but agree it's the best compromise for 2.35 screens who can't project a taller image.


I would most definitely stay away from a center crop and display 1.78 if you don't have a scaler flexible enough to perform the shift.


For those that don't, it may be advantageous to perform a dump of the Blu-ray and an encoding that shifts the image 50 pixels. You could then play back on a PS3 or Popcorn Hour or similar. You may even be able to perform this losslessly via an Avisynth script or something. Of course you could then encode the 1.33x stretch and create an anamorphic Blu-ray to view, likely better quality than the scaler would accomplish.


Just some ideas.


----------



## CAVX

My projector (BenQ W5000) has an image position feature, however at this time, it is grey'd out and I am not sure what code is needed to access that. I guess once I work that out, I can bring the image down to free up some head space, not that there is much head cropping going on.


I also just finished watching this in 1.78:1 and I prefer the wider look. The bit of extra height is useful, however I do not feel needed to tell the story.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556155
> 
> 
> I also just finished watching this in 1.78:1 and I prefer the wider look. The bit of extra height is useful, however I do not feel needed to tell the story.



No way!! Really? I'm shocked you feel that way!!










I feel the extra height is needed to display Cameron's vision and actual shot composition, but that should be no surprise either.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556211
> 
> 
> No way!! Really? I'm shocked you feel that way!!



Well at least I have watched it both ways and not simply gone, well this film is 1.78:1 and therefore anything else is wrong.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556220
> 
> 
> Well at least I have watched it both ways and not simply gone, well this film is 1.78:1 and therefore anything else is wrong.



This is true (kudos for that, honestly). However, I trusted the desire of the filmmaker in that I watched the film in the aspect ratio that was presented on the Blu-ray. Additionally, the majority of the 2.35:1 screenshots I've seen here looked cramped and ill-composed, so I saw no reason to watch it in that ratio (admittedly, a few looked decent, at least).


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556155
> 
> 
> My projector (BenQ W5000) has an image position feature, however at this time, it is grey'd out and I am not sure what code is needed to access that. I guess once I work that out, I can bring the image down to free up some head space, not that there is much head cropping going on.
> 
> 
> I also just finished watching this in 1.78:1 and I prefer the wider look. The bit of extra height is useful, however I do not feel needed to tell the story.



The same option is greyed out on my W6K- I believe it is unavailable for HDMI source.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556155
> 
> 
> I also just finished watching this in 1.78:1 and I prefer the wider look. The bit of extra height is useful, however I do not feel needed to tell the story.



What you're missing of course is comparing the 1.78 frame to the 2.37 crop with both at full width as they should be presented relatively. Comparing they way you have, you're changing the size of everyone in the film (your infamous "spiderman" point you always refer to).


I have compared the full 1.78 frame, a 2.37 center crop, and a 2.35 framing (as shown by the masking in the Cameron viewfinder pics) all at identical widths (11.5ft) as they were shot and intended to be relative to one another. Nothing changes size when I make this switch (HTPC, with FFDShow allowing me to shift and crop on the fly).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556329
> 
> 
> This is true (kudos for that, honestly). However, I trusted the desire of the filmmaker in that I watched the film in the aspect ratio that was presented on the Blu-ray. Additionally, the majority of the 2.35:1 screenshots I've seen here looked cramped and ill-composed, so I saw no reason to watch it in that ratio (admittedly, a few looked decent, at least).



That would summarize my feeling in the comparison I did:

*2.35*, as framed the way the viewfinder showed, and matched up with the theatrical "scope" presentation, is cramped, very tight, and doesn't feel right. It is passable, and a workable compromise for those with short and wide screens.

*2.37*, as center cropped via 1.33x stretch and A-lens was terrible. Lots of head chopping, very awkward framing. I would go insane if this was my only option. Inferior presentation of the film, period.

*1.78*, straight from the source, full frame. Perfect. Everything had proper spacing. Things felt tall when they needed to feel tall. Things that needed to float, floated. And things that needed to feel small in a vastly larger area felt as such.


There are many shots you can pull from the film and prove this point or that- the camera is always moving. But this shot of all three methods provides a visual explanation of what I felt throughout the film for each (I did this in Photoshop from Xylon's capture to have a pixel accurate example):



http://imgur.com/p0rGz.jpg%5B/IMG%5D


----------



## Kilgore

Well demonstrated, LilGator!


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18556419
> 
> 
> What you're missing of course is comparing the 1.78 frame to the 2.37 crop with both at full width as they should be presented relatively. Comparing they way you have, you're changing the size of everyone in the film (your infamous "spiderman" point you always refer to).
> 
> 
> I have compared the full 1.78 frame, a 2.37 center crop, and a 2.35 framing (as shown by the masking in the Cameron viewfinder pics) all at identical widths (11.5ft) as they were shot and intended to be relative to one another. Nothing changes size when I make this switch (HTPC, with FFDShow allowing me to shift and crop on the fly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would summarize my feeling in the comparison I did:
> 
> *2.35*, as framed the way the viewfinder showed, and matched up with the theatrical "scope" presentation, is cramped, very tight, and doesn't feel right. It is passable, and a workable compromise for those with short and wide screens.
> 
> *2.37*, as center cropped via 1.33x stretch and A-lens was terrible. Lots of head chopping, very awkward framing. I would go insane if this was my only option. Inferior presentation of the film, period.
> 
> *1.78*, straight from the source, full frame. Perfect. Everything had proper spacing. Things felt tall when they needed to feel tall. Things that needed to float, floated. And things that needed to feel small in a vastly larger area felt as such.
> 
> 
> There are many shots you can pull from the film and prove this point or that- the camera is always moving. But this shot of all three methods provides a visual explanation of what I felt throughout the film for each (I did this in Photoshop from Xylon's capture to have a pixel accurate example):
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/p0rGz.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



Umm.... this constant "height" forum , not constant "width" forum.










All examples of the crops are modified for CIH and that is what people watch who have CIH setups, so of corse the image will appear larger, that is whole idea. All this time and you still have not figured that out?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/18556571
> 
> 
> Umm.... this constant "height" forum , not constant "width" forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All examples of the crops are modified for CIH and that is what people watch who have CIH setups, so of corse the image will appear larger, that is whole idea. All this time and you still have not figured that out?



Avatar 1.79->2.39 is CIW, and thus the reason it doesn't jive well with CIH setups.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/18556571
> 
> 
> Umm.... this constant "height" forum , not constant "width" forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All examples of the crops are modified for CIH and that is what people watch who have CIH setups, so of corse the image will appear larger, that is whole idea. All this time and you still have not figured that out?



I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can.


Since the dawn of Cinemascope, 2.35:1 were intended to be larger and wider than 16:9. Hence the development of CIH (of which I am a devotee). In virtually every single case, 2.35:1 images are meant to be wider.


Avatar is a different case altogether. In the caseof Avatar, it's 16:9 AR is meant to be at least as wide as your typical 2.35:1 film, only MUCH HIGHER.


Hence the shots LilGator posted are accurate when seeing Avatar the way it was meant to be seen.


Unfortunately, this means that for CIH aficianados, the proper 16:9 ratio will be smaller than their screens are capable. For some, they feel cheated. Therefore, much like a person with a 16:9 display who feels that chopping a 2.35:1 image to fit their screen makes the film more immersive, some people, like CAVX, feels that chopping Avatar's 16:9 image to fill his 2.35:1 screen makes for a more immersive experience. Both these approaches, IMHO, is wrong.


CAVX argues that because he's not losing any width, he is justified in hacking up the image. The truth is that he's hacking off the top and bottom of a well proportioned 16:9 image and creating a cramped, inferiorly composed image just so that he can fill his "larger" screen.


In my case, I feel it is more important to maintain Avatar's original, superior aspect ratio, even though it is "smaller" in my home. In a perfect world, I would live in an IMAX theater, and could watch Avatar as huge as it deserves to be. I don't, so I at least want to see every single pixel of this gorgeous image, and not chop it up just to make it "bigger".


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18556341
> 
> 
> The same option is greyed out on my W6K- I believe it is unavailable for HDMI source.



Bugger. Thanks for that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18556419
> 
> 
> What you're missing of course is comparing the 1.78 frame to the 2.37 crop with both at full width as they should be presented relatively. Comparing they way you have, you're changing the size of everyone in the film (your infamous "spiderman" point you always refer to).



Yeah and whilst these characters do change size, Spider man should not change size between SM1 and SM2/SM3.


> Quote:
> I have compared the full 1.78 frame, a 2.37 center crop, and a 2.35 framing (as shown by the masking in the Cameron viewfinder pics) all at identical widths (11.5ft) as they were shot and intended to be relative to one another. Nothing changes size when I make this switch (HTPC, with FFDShow allowing me to shift and crop on the fly).



So an even better idea would be to provide the exact time stamp from the film and I'll photograph both the 16:9 and Scope versions. Being 1080/24P means that both a US and Oz versions will be identical where PAL/NTSC have time sync issues of some 4%.




http://imgur.com/p0rGz.jpg%5B/IMG%5D


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556698
> 
> 
> Yeah and whilst these characters do change size, Spider man should not change size between SM1 and SM2/SM3.



Damn! Don't tell me you've been hacking Spiderman 1 from 16:9 to 2.35:1 too!? I thought this was a one-time deal with Avatar!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556698
> 
> 
> So an even better idea would be to provide the exact time stamp from the film and I'll photograph both the 16:9 and Scope versions. Being 1080/24P means that both a US and Oz versions will be identical where PAL/NTSC have time sync issues of some 4%.



Why should your photographs be any different? The 16:9 shot was originally posted by Xylon...are you doubting his ability to take accurate screenshots?? These look totally genuine, and Gator's reframed images look perfect with respect to the 16:9 shot.


Surely you're not insinuating that they're faked?


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18554462
> 
> 
> Josh, you seem adamant that Cameron, despite what he actually says, prefers the 2.39 presentation of this film in 2D; but can you explain where Cameron ever preferred 2.20 over the other two presentations of this film? Can you explain where Cameron ever saw a 2.20 presentation, much less approved it?
> 
> 
> If not, how do you justify people cropping a film to an AR never shot, produced or seen by anyone involved in making the film?
> 
> 
> How is this not hypocritical, when you would argue that scope films should not be cropped on HBO or plasmas/LCDs (which are always crops taken into consideration for scope films, though not preferred OAR), to crop a film down to a framing you have yourself invented?
> 
> 
> What is *clear* here, is that you are choosing not to display this film in a valid presentation provided by the director, and instead choosing to display it the way you feel you like it best, and how you feel it fits your screen.
> 
> 
> If you believe films are open to viewer interpretation in this manner, your credibility is in question.



A quote from James Cameron:

_For Avatar *we’re shooting in a 16:9 ratio*, *we’re extracting a cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition*, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will do, in the theaters that can, we’ll be in the 16:9 format and the theaters that can’t we’ll be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I’m actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the kind of 1.85 format, now saying 1.85 - or actually, it’s 1.78:1 - actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. *I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection*._


Source:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/...aspect-ratios/ 



> Quote:
> If you believe films are open to viewer interpretation in this manner, your credibility is in question.



What are you - the Home Theatre Police? Try dictating and enforcing that maxim in my Home Theatre and see how far you get....


As far as I'm concerned I bought the movie, I own it and I'll view it exactly how I please on whatever equipment I so desire. The movie studio has benefited monetarily via my outlay on the media so if I want to put it in a blender then thanks - I will. If I want to watch it via an Anamorphic Lens then I'll certainly do that to.


We've already got Governments that dictate/determine how we live and in some cases think. We certainly don't need annoying little prats like you telling us how to enjoy our hobbies too.


Just unbelievable arrogance on your part to even contemplate dictating to others "How" Avatar must be seen. You would have had a sterling career in Germany circa 1939.


Blade


----------



## Kilgore

"What do you think the best format is to view this film in?


Cameron: The film was released in two formats. We released it in 16×9 and cinemascope aspect ratio. Obviously, the 35 mm prints were all in the scope ratio and with the IMAX stuff, we tried to take advantage of the height. *The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully.* We finished the picture in 16×9 and then we vertically extracted the cinemascope when we were mastering the film for theatrical release.


In the theatrical release of the movie, it played in 3-D in non-IMAX digital theaters in both formats. We did that by selecting whichever theater was going to look best in which format. *But, for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they’re looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height.*

Even though I love the cinemascope ratio compositionally, *I actually found myself falling in love with the movie in 16×9, as we went along, and I prefer to watch it in that.* Everyone thought the best viewing conditions for the movie were in 3-D, but in 3-D what we struggled with was the light levels. We struggled to get the light levels up, in the theaters. You get such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture on the DVD and Blu-ray. Something actually comes back to the viewing experience that you don’t get in the theaters, with the colors and the strength of the contrast."



Source: http://www.collider.com/2010/03/24/j...-and-avatar-2/ 


BladeRnR, my source is more recent and directly addresses the Blu-ray. Cameron's clear and obvious chioce for home viewing is 16:9.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556933
> 
> 
> "What do you think the best format is to view this film in?
> 
> 
> Cameron: The film was released in two formats. We released it in 16×9 and cinemascope aspect ratio. Obviously, the 35 mm prints were all in the scope ratio and with the IMAX stuff, we tried to take advantage of the height. *The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully.* We finished the picture in 16×9 and then we vertically extracted the cinemascope when we were mastering the film for theatrical release.
> 
> 
> In the theatrical release of the movie, it played in 3-D in non-IMAX digital theaters in both formats. We did that by selecting whichever theater was going to look best in which format. *But, for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they're looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height.*
> 
> Even though I love the cinemascope ratio compositionally, *I actually found myself falling in love with the movie in 16×9, as we went along, and I prefer to watch it in that.* Everyone thought the best viewing conditions for the movie were in 3-D, but in 3-D what we struggled with was the light levels. We struggled to get the light levels up, in the theaters. You get such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture on the DVD and Blu-ray. Something actually comes back to the viewing experience that you don't get in the theaters, with the colors and the strength of the contrast."
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.collider.com/2010/03/24/j...-and-avatar-2/
> 
> 
> BladeRnR, my source is more recent and directly addresses the Blu-ray. Cameron's clear and obvious chioce for home viewing is 16:9.



Is it just me or is Cameron talking about the masses here? When he speaks of the people at "home" , I don't think he is dirrecting his comments to a very , very small pecentage of the population who have home theaters and use scope.


This quote of his is more constant with his thoughts on if ultimately in Cameron's mind, scope is a better format for 2D, for the big screen.


> Quote:
> For Avatar we're shooting in a 16:9 ratio, we're extracting a *cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition*, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will do, in the theaters that can, we'll be in the 16:9 format and the theaters that can't we'll be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I'm actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the kind of 1.85 format, now saying 1.85 - or actually, it's 1.78:1 - actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.



How can you assume that everyone has a scope presentation to choose from, clearly Cameron wanted the masses to veiw Avatar in 16:9 b/c the majority of the people have 16:9 screens.


I mean , before I got into HT I didn't even realize there was black bars on the TV when I watched some movies. For certain this is another marketing decision so that they can sell more Bluray's, and that is it in eyes.


----------



## mike2060

If you asked James Cameron which version you should watch on a scope screen, he'd say the scope version (done with the correct cropping of course).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556716
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you're not insinuating that they're faked?



So your saying that the cropped for scope images are real?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556698
> 
> 
> Yeah and whilst these characters do change size, Spider man should not change size between SM1 and SM2/SM3.



If you believe that, how can you defend CIH NOT being a compromised setup with respect to Avatar. Two valid presentations of the film, 1.78 and 2.35 displayed on the same screen have things changing size when the conversion is clearly CIW.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18556698
> 
> 
> So an even better idea would be to provide the exact time stamp from the film and I'll photograph both the 16:9 and Scope versions. Being 1080/24P means that both a US and Oz versions will be identical where PAL/NTSC have time sync issues of some 4%.



No, this wouldn't be a better idea because you aren't showing us the true 2.35 framing, you'd be showing us a center crop.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BladeRnR* /forum/post/18556901
> 
> 
> What are you - the Home Theatre Police? Try dictating and enforcing that maxim in my Home Theatre and see how far you get....
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned I bought the movie, I own it and I'll view it exactly how I please on whatever equipment I so desire. The movie studio has benefited monetarily via my outlay on the media so if I want to put it in a blender then thanks - I will. If I want to watch it via an Anamorphic Lens then I'll certainly do that to.
> 
> 
> We've already got Governments that dictate/determine how we live and in some cases think. We certainly don't need annoying little prats like you telling us how to enjoy our hobbies too.
> 
> 
> Just unbelievable arrogance on your part to even contemplate dictating to others "How" Avatar must be seen. You would have had a sterling career in Germany circa 1939.
> 
> 
> Blade



Someone just got defensive.










How can I possibly force you to do anything? If you don't like the technical discussion, move on.


It's obvious you feel insecure with your home theater though- maybe tone that down next time.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/18557026
> 
> 
> How can you assume that everyone has a scope presentation to choose from, clearly Cameron wanted the masses to veiw Avatar in 16:9 b/c the majority of the people have 16:9 screens.
> 
> 
> I mean , before I got into HT I didn't even realize there was black bars on the TV when I watched some movies. For certain this is another marketing decision so that they can sell more Bluray's, and that is it in eyes.



If this is so "clear", why hasn't he said that? Instead he has said that he fell in love with the 16:9 version of the film, and it's the "highest and best" for Avatar.


If a director prefers his film in 2.35, you better believe he'll make it happen. Especially Cameron.


I still maintain, 1.78 is preferred and superiour. 2.35 is a compromise for theaters not capable of displaying a large enough 1.78 image.


This is not the film's fault, or the director's fault- it's the fault of the limitations of CIH.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike2060* /forum/post/18557097
> 
> 
> If you asked James Cameron which version you should watch on a scope screen, he'd say the scope version (done with the correct cropping of course).



This would depend solely on whether seating distance could be pulled forward or not.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18557204
> 
> 
> So your saying that the cropped for scope images are real?



The 2.35 suspected framing is fairly accurate to the theatrical presentation- but it's hard to say what Cameron would have provided on the BD down to the pixel. We can only surmise.


The 2.37 framing I posted is exact, down to the pixel, how a 1.33x scaler and A-lens would show this film.


What exactly are you questioning here?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18557279
> 
> 
> If you believe that, how can you defend CIH NOT being a compromised setup with respect to Avatar. Two valid presentations of the film, 1.78 and 2.35 displayed on the same screen have things changing size when the conversion is clearly CIW.



The characters in AVATAR do get larger in Scope and that's actually a good thing. Watching the 16:9 version today and I could not help but to think how small some of the (shots clearly composed for IMAX) characters are in reference to the height of image might look on a 50" screen.


We did Spiderman already. What I asked last time was - why would Spiderman need to be shown larger in the first film than he appear in 2 and 3? In the end, Toby is x feet tall. Why does he suddenly shrink for 2 and 3? At some point in all three films, there is a shot of him captured at the exact same height in reference to the top/bottom masks. ONLY on a CIH system, will he remain the SAME size!




> Quote:
> No, this wouldn't be a better idea because you aren't showing us the true 2.35 framing, you'd be showing us a center crop.



Yes I am wanting to show a centre crop on a REAL CIH system, not a paint shopped version that only simulated what might be seen. Your reservation here almost suggests your last desparate attempt before admitting defeat LilGator.



> Quote:
> The 2.37 framing I posted is exact, down to the pixel, how a 1.33x scaler and A-lens would show this film.
> 
> 
> What exactly are you questioning here?



What I am questioning is how it actually looks on screen. You don't own a lens, so you can't provide the true real image, only a doctored simulation. I am prepared to capture an actual projected image.


Someone (possibly yourself) posted images of centre cropping THE DARK NIGHT's IMAX scenes too. I bought the film and when I watched the Joker walking away from the hospital there was sky above his head. The posted photos showing the same scene had the top of the head slightly clipped. That is the difference and what I am questioning.


----------



## hconwell

My God! Y'All still talking about this?


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18557383
> 
> 
> We did Spiderman already. What I asked last time was - why would Spiderman need to be shown larger in the first film than he appear in 2 and 3? In the end, Toby is x feet tall. Why does he suddenly shrink for 2 and 3? At some point in all three films, there is a shot of him captured at the exact same height in reference to the top/bottom masks. ONLY on a CIH system, will he remain the SAME size!



I'm sorry, I totally don't understand this 'Spiderman' talk in this thread...

The first film is in 1.85:1 right? So you show it as you would Avatar in its uncropped-unextracted ratio right? Yes on your system, Spidey will probably appear the same size, relatively. On a CIW system, it will be a taller image.


----------



## MoFoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18557383
> 
> 
> Someone (possibly yourself) posted images of centre cropping THE DARK NIGHT's IMAX scenes too. I bought the film and when I watched the Joker walking away from the hospital there was sky above his head. The posted photos showing the same scene had the top of the head slightly clipped. That is the difference and what I am questioning.



Yea aspect ratio changing films can be (in my opinion) a nightmare for people using ANY type of projection technology, ESPECIALLY when the aspect ratio changes are relative to the height of the image. I remember a lot of people getting upset with The Dark Knights changing aspect ratio shenanigens...


On the other hand, I bet Enchanted looks pretty wicked on your scope screen!


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556329
> 
> 
> This is true (kudos for that, honestly). However, I trusted the desire of the filmmaker in that I watched the film in the aspect ratio that was presented on the Blu-ray. Additionally, the majority of the 2.35:1 screenshots I've seen here looked cramped and ill-composed, so I saw no reason to watch it in that ratio (admittedly, a few looked decent, at least).



I will ask the question again:


If the 16:9 height is so critical to the _composition_ of the film, why did Cameron choose cropping over pillarboxing for scope cinemas?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18556615
> 
> 
> Avatar 1.79->2.39 is CIW, and thus the reason it doesn't jive well with CIH setups.



Yeah, but this is the CIH forum and we're trying to find the _best compromise_ for displaying this movie in a CIH theater (since it's impractical if not impossible to redesign an HT for this movie).


It's the exact same dilemma Cameron had to sort out with the theatrical release for 2D and scope 3D presentations.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18556667
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of Cinemascope, 2.35:1 were intended to be larger and wider than 16:9. Hence the development of CIH (of which I am a devotee). In virtually every single case, 2.35:1 images are meant to be wider.
> 
> 
> Avatar is a different case altogether. In the caseof Avatar, it's 16:9 AR is meant to be at least as wide as your typical 2.35:1 film, only MUCH HIGHER.



Yes, something which is clearly impossible in a CIH system. So as I said above, we're faced with a dilemma, the same one Cameron was faced with when was preparing avatar for release in 2D and scope 3D cinemas.



> Quote:
> Hence the shots LilGator posted are accurate when seeing Avatar the way it was meant to be seen.



Nobody has ever questioned that. If this were a "CIW"/standard 16:9 theater area this discussion would not even be happening. I'm certain nobody here would crop off Avatar if they had the height necessary.


But this is the *CIH* forum and we have to decide which is closer to Cameron's vision, cropping but retaining the full cinemascope width, or pillarboxing and making the movie artificially small, but retaining the composition.


Cameron faced the same decision for the 2D and scope 3D theatrical release.



> Quote:
> Unfortunately, this means that for CIH aficianados, the proper 16:9 ratio will be smaller than their screens are capable. For some, they feel cheated.



It's got nothing to do with feeling cheated, it has to do with what's the closest to ideal representation of Avatar we can achieve. Pillarboxing is a presentation of Avatar that never happened in the theater. Avatar was only shown two ways in the theater, "full" frame in 16:9/IMAX theaters and cropped in scope theaters.


Since we, in the CIH forum, have scope home theaters, the question/discussion is how best to achieve the same (or as close to the same as possible) result in our scope HTs as was shown in the 2D and scope 3D theatrical release.



> Quote:
> Therefore, much like a person with a 16:9 display who feels that chopping a 2.35:1 image to fit their screen makes the film more immersive...



Again, it is NOTHING like that. People who zoom/crop scope to fit a 16:9 screen do so with no theatrical precedent. On the contrary with Avatar, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in hundred or thousands of screens around the world saw Avatar *cropped in the theater*.



> Quote:
> ...some people, like CAVX, feels that chopping Avatar's 16:9 image to fill his 2.35:1 screen makes for a more immersive experience.



Two things, yes it is a more immersive experience, but second _and more importantly, it is closer to what we saw in the theater_.




> Both these approaches, IMHO, is wrong.[/UQOTE]
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to crop the IMAX scenes of TDK? What about TF2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> CAVX argues that because he's not losing any width, he is justified in hacking up the image. The truth is that he's hacking off the top and bottom of a well proportioned 16:9 image and creating a cramped, inferiorly composed image just so that he can fill his "larger" screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, (though I'm sure you'll not answer the question) if the 16:9 height is that critical to the composition of the film, more important than raw size, why did _Cameron_ choose cropping over pillarboxing for the 2D theatrical release.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> In my case, I feel it is more important to maintain Avatar's original, superior aspect ratio, even though it is "smaller" in my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is a quite fair, and reasonable opinion, however all of your arguments against cropping at home (composition) apply equally to Cameron's choice to crop Avatar in the theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> In a perfect world, I would live in an IMAX theater, and could watch Avatar as huge as it deserves to be. I don't, so I at least want to see every single pixel of this gorgeous image, and not chop it up just to make it "bigger".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just in case you missed the question:
> 
> If the 16:9 height is so critical to the composition of Avatar, why did Cameron choose cropping over pillarboxing for the 2D and scope 3D theatrical releases?
Click to expand...


----------



## R Harkness

http://imgur.com/p0rGz.jpg%5B/IMG%5D



That is something like what I can achieve on my system when I open up my top/bottom masks. Although not exactly because my actual screen area is not quite as tall as a 16:9 screen. I have up to 124" width of usable screen area and between 61 and 64" of height. (Depending on how I adjust my masks).


I tend to prefer my scope images to be a max of around 120" wide (from my 10 - 11 foot seating distance). So instead of a 104" diag 16:9 image I can do a 124" diagonal and up to 130" diagonal 16:9 image. But I find 120" diag 16:9 plenty big and immersive.


One issue for me is sometimes the "bigger more cinematic" vs "smaller more dense/sharper" image decision. It's just the case that a smaller image is going to tend to be sharper and more "punchy" looking and more solid looking. To some degree pumping up the light output helps with this.

When I watch Avatar at 120" diagonal I put my JVC RS20 into high bulb and the image looks fantastic. At the same time, if I take the same image (in high bulb) and shrink it to, say, a 110" diagonal, the image takes on a clarity and density, an over all "wow" factor in terms of sheer image quality, that exceeds the larger image. When I blow up the image I get a "wow" from the immersion and size impact. When I shrink it I get a "wow" from the vividness and reach-in-and touch it solidity of the image.


This trade off happens with any projector. A super high end, really bright projector can have a much larger image than mine (I've seen some of the best), but it's still the case that if you take the same image and zoom it smaller you are squeezing more picture information into a smaller area, making it denser with picture information, and this tends to sharpen the image and make it look more solid.


So I'm still not settled on which size I'm going to project Avatar for our

upcoming Avatar night get together. I'll probably go big...that's always a wow factor for the crowd.


But these issues are why I like varying the image size, because sometimes I appreciate what I get out of an immersively big image, other times I appreciate what I get out of a smaller, denser image.


I know that many people are "go big or go home" though.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18557614
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I totally don't understand this 'Spiderman' talk in this thread...
> 
> The first film is in 1.85:1 right? So you show it as you would Avatar in its uncropped-unextracted ratio right? Yes on your system, Spidey will probably appear the same size, relatively. On a CIW system, it will be a taller image.



Spiderman 1 is 1.85:1, and I would show it that AR with no issue simply because it was shown in CIH cinema as 1.85:1. AVATAR was shown as 2.39:1 in CIH cinemas and why I want to show it in Scope in my own home.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MoFoHo* /forum/post/18557638
> 
> 
> Yea aspect ratio changing films can be (in my opinion) a nightmare for people using ANY type of projection technology, ESPECIALLY when the aspect ratio changes are relative to the height of the image. I remember a lot of people getting upset with The Dark Knights changing aspect ratio shenanigens...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I bet Enchanted looks pretty wicked on your scope screen!



THE DARK NIGHT was shown as 2.40:1 in all cinemas so it works in CIH in the home. It was shown as VAR 2.40/1.44:1 only in IMAX. Same as TF2. AVATAR is different here as it was shown in both 2D and some 3D as Scope. Its IMAX screening were 1.78:1. If you look at the framing, there are more scenes that suggest the large screen will make the actor look large enough as some scenes, the are are pretty small, so enlarging them by 78% (33%V + 33% H) is actually pretty good and there is no chance of clipping in these scenes.


Don't think I've watch ENCHANTED on my system yet.


----------



## Erik Garci

Here's the framing pic at slightly higher resolution. This one has about 8% on top. Basically, the top bar is about half the height of the bottom bar.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Erik Garci* /forum/post/18558109
> 
> 
> Here's the framing pic at slightly higher resolution. This one has about 8% on top. Basically, the top bar is about half the height of the bottom bar.



In terms of composition for scope that image seems fine to me.


But in terms of composition for Avatar specifically, I prefer the 16:9. You see more of Pandora in each 16:9 shot. Pandora itself is such a major "character" in the film that it makes sense to me to see more of it and to high-light the character's immersion in the environment.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/18558195
> 
> 
> You have quickly become insufferable in this forum. Perhaps you should attempt to actually read some of the posts in this thread before responding. This has all been discussed before, which you might realize if you'd take a breath from incessantly hammering your same talking points over and over and over again.
> 
> *In my opinion*, 2.20:1 is the best compromise for the Blu-ray because the 16:9 transfer we're provided with has been altered from the original 2.35:1 theatrical version. Those on-screen graphics such as Jake's video diary have been repositioned to push outward higher and lower than they appeared in scope theaters.
> 
> 
> If that hadn't been done, I'd recommend projecting the disc at 2.35:1 with a bit of a vertical pan downwards (because the scope extract was originally taken from higher in the frame). However, because of the alterations, zooming to 2.35:1 (with or without a pan) cuts off the graphics. Zooming instead to 2.20:1 solves both these problems. The graphics are fully visible, and the small bit of extra height restores the original topline of the scope frame.
> 
> 
> It's not exactly what was seen in theaters. That can't be achieved on home video due to the changes imposed. But it's much closer than the awkward 16:9 framing authored on the disc.



I should read some of the posts?


If you paid attention, you'd have realized that I posted screencaps pointing out the adjusted GUI overlays in those scenes you reference WEEKS ago. This is very old news to me and anyone halfway paying attention.


Regardless, 2.20 is not OAR. Period. No one involved in making this film every saw or intended anyone to see the film this way as they did with 2.35 and 1.78. No amount of justification makes it a valid presentation of the film.


The 16:9 framing is the "highest and best" for Avatar per the director. People may prefer 2.35 on their 2.35 screens as a compromise and that's fine, but 2.20 is BS.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Holy Sheep **** guys, come on... why in the heck are you STILL beating this issue to death??? I am at a loss as I am sure most others on these boards are as to what either group hopes to achieve here







. Simply accept that you disagree and move on... Wow, and I thought I was bull headed!


Jason


----------



## Nasty N8

GamePimp I was just about to post the same exact thing


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18557279
> 
> 
> Someone just got defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I possibly force you to do anything? If you don't like the technical discussion, move on.
> 
> 
> It's obvious you feel insecure with your home theater though- maybe tone that down next time.



*shrugs* No - I take offense at you dictating to others how Avatar "should" be viewed - in your opinion. Feel free to have that opinion but dont foist it on others so vigourously.


If you saw my HT I very much doubt you'd think I was insecure about it but that's neither here nor there and is nothing more than a meaningless jibe and/or assumption on your part. Clearly I hit the mark though so thanks for confirming it for me.


This is a dedicated 2:35.1 CIH Forum. Feel free to ask the Mods to create a 1:78.1 or 1:85.1 forum and do everyone a favour and stay there.


I'm well versed in _Anti-Scope_ rhetoric given we (Australia) have it's very own version of you over on DTV Forum (HJ).


And tone it down? People in glass houses and all that. Anyone would think people watching the movie cropped/with a lens were committing genocide reading some of your posts.


It's 1 film and people will watch it how they want to watch it. Get over it and get over yourself.


Blade


----------



## tbase1

I don't mean any harm, but I'm just happy to be able to play the movie on my samsung up5000( hd-dvd/blu-ray ) player. Thanks to samsungs new firmware (1.5) for the

5k....I"M GOLDEN!


----------



## Talontsi96

Interesting thread and I must say quite entertaining... I previewed Avatar today in both 16:9 and 2:35 and I must say I personally will watch it in 16:9 although I love scope presentations much more than 16:9... however, I was getting too much of cutting off heads and cramped improper composition to live with a center crop of the 16:9 original and I don't have the equipment to adjust the crop location...


----------



## Kilgore

Hey, BladeRnR, I see you're from Australia. Do you know CAVX? He's a home theater enthusiast from Australia as well. Maybe you know him from some Australian forum.


EDIT: nevermind. I see that CAVX is on DTV forum. Yo probably know him from there.


EDIT 2: Ahhhhhh....here's good thread on DTV Forum. Both BladeRnR and CAVX (mark Techer) are in it:

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s...c=87152&st=240 

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s...c=87152&st=260


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/18561967
> 
> 
> Hey, BladeRnR, I see you're from Australia. Do you know CAVX? He's a home theater enthusiast from Australia as well. Maybe you know him from some Australian forum.
> 
> 
> EDIT: nevermind. I see that CAVX is on DTV forum. Yo probably know him from there.
> 
> 
> EDIT 2: Ahhhhhh....here's good thread on DTV Forum. Both BladeRnR and CAVX (mark Techer) are in it:
> 
> http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s...c=87152&st=240
> 
> http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s...c=87152&st=260



Indeed Kilgore CAVX (Mark Techer) is a very good forum mate of mine and I have the highest respect for his technical prowess, logic and opinion. I don't know too many people who have successfully designed, engineered, manufactured and sold Anamorphic Lens's (Most recently his astounding Aussiemorphic MKIV) outside of a large company. He's done more for the Scope community than just about anyone I know and besides that is a passionate movie aficionado. And he's an absolute gentleman.


Best regards


Blade


Edit - I wonder if Avatar will ever be released in a genuine 2:35.1 format given that is how I first saw it (And later experienced it in 3D which is just a headache inducing gimmick to me). Alas I think we'll be waiting a while.


----------



## Highjinx

Undoubtedly the most effective way to view this film is with a large 16:9 screen as wide as the scope screen of choice.


But for those who don't have that capability and are restricted to a 2.35:1 screen, cropping the film may for them be a better choice than watching a reduced sized 16:9. A 16:9 screen with masking capability as wide as the room/seating distance dictates give one greater versatility.


I think the 'idea' that both AR's MUST be the same height is the stumbling block for many.........let that idea go and digital will be able to be viewed at the optimal image quality....be it 16:9 or 2.35:1.........5min into the movie and size difference becomes irrelevant.


DCI specs: No A-Lens...16:9 is 1998x1080 and 2.35:1 is 2048x858, based on data density and sitting distance for resolving the detail, CIH is not catered for.


Is CIH really most suitable for anamorphically shot film, than digital?.....seems so.


Interesting look here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post18537643


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18562542
> 
> 
> 
> DCI specs: No A-Lens...16:9 is 1998x1080 and 2.35:1 is 2048x858, based on data density and sitting distance for resolving the detail, CIH is not catered for.
> 
> 
> Is CIH really most suitable for anamorphically shot film, than digital?.....seems so.
> 
> 
> Interesting look here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post18537643



As fascinating and desirable a technology as DCI is HJ (And I agree it is) lets take a "Man in the street" view of it for a second shall we? Entry Level DCI costs *$150,000USD*. Whilst you love quoting it's specifications (And who wouldn't) for (Let's take a guess) 98% of HT aficionados it is nothing more than a pipe dream. I watched an interview with the engineers behind it this week and the AVS Forum guy who started it (You'd know his name no doubt - Cineramax? - Oh he's a Salesman too...) on Home Theatre revealed VI or VII (Cant remember exactly) and that's where the entry level figure was quoted. And that's just for the entry level DCI Projector (Not their highest end) - we're not even talking about their "recommended" Audio system who's prices were equally absurd (Their best speakers were something like $300,000 a PAIR).


DCI is nothing more than a system designed for the extremely well-heeled and a noble Audio/Video engineering demonstration of what is possible when money is no object and a possible peak into the future of HT for the "rest" of us.


Blade


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaGamePimp* /forum/post/18560602
> 
> 
> Holy Sheep **** guys, come on... why in the heck are you STILL beating this issue to death??? I am at a loss as I am sure most others on these boards are as to what either group hopes to achieve here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Simply accept that you disagree and move on... Wow, and I thought I was bull headed!
> 
> 
> Jason



Here is the problem ; it has become the defacto standard on these boards to call the last man standing the winner in a debate. As crappy as that is that is what this place has become.


Art


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18562823
> 
> 
> Here is the problem ; it has become the defacto standard on these boards to call the last man standing the winner in a debate. As crappy as that is that is what this place has become.
> 
> 
> Art



I rarely post on AVS Forum but the same can be said for DTV Forum in Australia. It's just endemic I suppose to the nature of forums in general and I don't only post on stereo related ones.


btw love your HT Art - it's inspirational. I run Seaton speakers too.


Blade


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BladeRnR* /forum/post/18562821
> 
> 
> DCI is nothing more than a system designed for the extremely well-heeled and a noble Audio/Video engineering demonstration of what is possible when money is no object and a possible peak into the future of HT for the "rest" of us.



FWIW, DCI is far from what you describe, DCI stands for Digital Cinema Initiatives:


> Quote:
> Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) was created in March, 2002, and is a joint venture of Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios. DCI's primary purpose is to establish and document voluntary specifications for an open architecture for digital cinema that ensures a uniform and high level of technical performance, reliability and quality control.



DCI is "intended" to be applied to commercial cinemas/theaters. It's expensive largely for that reason, DCI products are commercial products for commercial applications. The confusion comes because some have realized they can, and have decided to, start adopting DCI products/technologies in the home market.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BladeRnR* /forum/post/18562844
> 
> 
> I rarely post on AVS Forum but the same can be said for DTV Forum in Australia. It's just endemic I suppose to the nature of forums in general and I don't only post on stereo related ones.
> 
> 
> btw love your HT Art - it's inspirational. I run Seaton speakers too.
> 
> 
> Blade



Thanks, literally, it is how I keep my sanity (debatable if I am sane). I go in there and the rest of the world disappears.


Art


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18562823
> 
> 
> Here is the problem ; it has become the defacto standard on these boards to call the last man standing the winner in a debate. As crappy as that is that is what this place has become.
> 
> 
> Art



Exactly! The thing is there is no winner in this debate.


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18563042
> 
> 
> FWIW, DCI is far from what you describe, DCI stands for Digital Cinema Initiatives:
> 
> 
> 
> DCI is "intended" to be applied to commercial cinemas/theaters. It's expensive largely for that reason, DCI products are commercial products for commercial applications. The confusion comes because some have realized they can, and have decided to, start adopting DCI products/technologies in the home market.



Clearly I was referencing it's adaptation for the "HT" Market - not commercial ventures or corporate implementation - I know what DCI is but appreciate the verbose description of it's "official" context/intent. I apologise if my usage was somewhat out of context with that official understanding. HJ (Consider him Lilgator but an Australian version); likes to bandy DCI around as if you can walk into your local Big Picture People/Harvey Norman (Let's say WallMart for you blokes) and pick it up along with the milk & bread on the way home. I was highlighting that is clearly not the case and it is a very expensive venture for those that wish to implement it in their own HT.


Best regards


Blade


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18562542
> 
> 
> DCI specs: No A-Lens...16:9 is 1998x1080 and 2.35:1 is 2048x858, based on data density and sitting distance for resolving the detail, CIH is not catered for.



Anamorphic CIH certainly is catered for, and the PJs retain the ability to do so when equipped with an Anamorphic lens. I have direct experience of their use in industry screening rooms, and a number commercial cinemas. In every case, they are favoured by projectionists over the zoom option. The following advice, from the leading digital cinema consultancy firm, is given to theatre owners regarding technical issues in digital cinema.....

_Note that an anamorphic lens in digital cinema does not rely on the distribution of anamorphically squeezed images, as with film. In digital cinema, the projector can electronically perform an anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device, requiring an anamorphic lens to correctly display the image. The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available. Images projected with an anamorphic lens can light up larger screens than in non-anamorphic installations. The anamorphic projection technique has proven useful for large screen 3-D presentations._


You should also be careful when discussing the resolving of detail and seating distance with DCI machines. I would also not rely on digital cinema as a means to support the case for zooming. Anyone with any DCI experience, or insight, knows exactly why....particularly the projectionists.


Hope this helps.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BladeRnR* /forum/post/18562821
> 
> 
> DCI is nothing more than a system designed for the extremely well-heeled and a noble Audio/Video engineering demonstration of what is possible when money is no object and a possible peak into the future of HT for the "rest" of us.



I have to disagree. I know you qualified your position(post#291) to Stranger89, but I'd like to make a few points as some of the crop up regularly. Please dont misunderstand me, Im not having a pop at you.


As a "_demonstration of what is possible when money is no object_" they make a poor case indeed. They represent neither the pinnacle of technology nor image quality. There are many high end units that significantly outperform DCI units


There are a number of "_money no object_" HTs on AVS and very few use a DCI machines. I also know colleagues who have swapped out DCI units for a superior imaging domestic alternative. Some people use them simply because they require the light output for a large screen.


The advantage that DCI enjoys, that is NOT available to domestic DCI users, is the DCI content......NOT the projectors. Even then, this is not readily apparent in a commercial cinema, where a number of factors (technical and environmental) rob us of the full impact of a DCP. Outside of a screening room, its almost impossible to experience the full advantage of a DCP.


Hope this helps.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/18563547
> 
> 
> ...anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device[/i]



I like that phrasing


----------



## taffman

Yes that is a great phrase - obviously written by a marketing guy!

Can we now refer to zooming as " Continuously variable magnification of the optical image"!


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18565162
> 
> 
> I like that phrasing



I do too, its elegant and accurate, but Im sure someone will embarrass themselves over it.










Its actually part technical and part legal.


"remapping" is used as there can be far more involved than just a simple linear scaling operation.


"imaging device" is intended to be technology neutral, and avoids any bias towards either DMD or LC based DCI solutions.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/18566131
> 
> 
> I do too, its elegant and accurate, but Im sure someone will embarrass themselves over it.



Which will probably be me in this post. So is the term "Scaling for CIH" the same thing?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18565590
> 
> 
> Yes that is a great phrase - *obviously* written by a marketing guy!"!



Absolutely no marketing involved in any way.


The only thing thats obvious is your continued, and wholly unwarranted, sniping negativity.


Try actually contributing something of worth, or simply allow others to do so.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18566511
> 
> 
> Which will probably be me in this post. So is the term "Scaling for CIH" the same thing?



My comment was aimed type of poster who attempts to smother everything in ill informed negativity.


It certainly was not aimed at outstanding posters such as yourself.


As to your question.....essentially, yes.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/18563547
> 
> 
> Anamorphic CIH certainly is catered for, and the PJs retain the ability to do so when equipped with an Anamorphic lens. I have direct experience of their use in industry screening rooms, and a number commercial cinemas. In every case, they are favoured by projectionists over the zoom option. The following advice, from the leading digital cinema consultancy firm, is given to theatre owners regarding technical issues in digital cinema.....
> 
> _Note that an anamorphic lens in digital cinema does not rely on the distribution of anamorphically squeezed images, as with film. In digital cinema, the projector can electronically perform an anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device, requiring an anamorphic lens to correctly display the image. The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available. Images projected with an anamorphic lens can light up larger screens than in non-anamorphic installations. The anamorphic projection technique has proven useful for large screen 3-D presentations._
> 
> 
> You should also be careful when discussing the resolving of detail and seating distance with DCI machines. I would also not rely on digital cinema as a means to support the case for zooming. Anyone with any DCI experience, or insight, knows exactly why....particularly the projectionists.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



I was going by the post where one of the posters mentioned than Anamorphic lens use is not recomended by DCI. Also read that some studios 'forbid' the use of anamprphic lences with their DCI material.


Agree resolving of detail with DCI with 6x max bit rate of BluRay?


Was watching a 1080 FTA broadcast over here the other day('V') the bitrate was so dismal I had to shrink the image in half for it to become what I considered acceptable.


My personal opinion is H/V scaling and using a higher resolution projector is prefferable to horizontal squeeze/vertical stretch and using an anamorphic lens, if interpixel gap/pixel structure/panel noise is getting in the way.


Edit CM you left out this bit:

*"While anamorphic lenses are the best way to make efficient use of the light available to the projector, not all studios may accept their use. (See the discussion on Single Lens above.)*


Note that an anamorphic lens in digital cinema does not rely on the distribution of anamorphically squeezed images, as with film. In digital cinema, the projector can electronically perform an anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device, requiring an anamorphic lens to correctly display the image. The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available. Images projected with an anamorphic lens can light up larger screens than in non-anamorphic installations. The anamorphic projection technique has proven useful for large screen 3-D presentations."


----------



## stanger89

Back OT...


I just popped Avatar in, haven't watched it yet, just played, but anyone else notice that the BD-J progress bar is way, way high in the frame? Well up into the 2.35:1 "safe" area.


So that's the subtitles, and the BD-J progress bar, both placed abnormally high in the frame for a "16:9" film, far higher than I've ever seen before.


----------



## Tom Monahan

I watched this in scope last night and much prefered it over 16x9.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18567090
> 
> 
> Back OT...
> 
> 
> I just popped Avatar in, haven't watched it yet, just played, but anyone else notice that the BD-J progress bar is way, way high in the frame? Well up into the 2.35:1 "safe" area.
> 
> 
> So that's the subtitles, and the BD-J progress bar, both placed abnormally high in the frame for a "16:9" film, far higher than I've ever seen before.



Yes and I have even suggested that this film be added to the CIH safe list in the subtitle thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/18567103
> 
> 
> I watched this in scope last night and much prefered it over 16x9.



Exactly. I watched this in 16:9 after watching in Scope, and I much prefer the Scope image. Sure there is some "head clipping", however I found the framing to be very Scope friendly way more scenes than it is not. Besides, Michael Bay crams more in to his frames than is process does.


----------



## CAVX

So AVATAR is intended to always be shown in 16:9?


Someone please explain THIS ?


----------



## MoFoHo

I'm guessing any 2.40:1 screen shots are taken from the 'scope extraction of the original 16:9 photography.


Me and my son watched this last night, BIG movie!


----------



## hconwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18567198
> 
> 
> I watched this in 16:9 after watching in Scope, and I much prefer the Scope image. Sure there is some "head clipping", however I found the framing to be very Scope friendly way more scenes than it is not. Besides, Michael Bay crams more in to his frames than is process does.



Since my projector(s) are 720p (IN76 and IN78) with very good internal deinterlacing, I usually feed them 1080i (it looks just great, thanks) ... and to enable faster synching and no HDCP, I have my Panasonic BD50 feeding them component. With the IN76's using component, these projectors allow for vertical repo of the image. For Avatar, I force that repo as far south as possible ... raising the "center slice" to "upper center slice". It's not a huge amount ... but my point is that it really makes the 2.37 presentation just fine.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/18567103
> 
> 
> I watched this in scope last night and much prefered it over 16x9.



Were both the 2.35:1 and 16:9 the same width?


BTW does anyone know if both the US & Australian versions of the BluRay presentation are identical?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18569993
> 
> 
> Were both the 2.35:1 and 16:9 the same width?



The only way that question could be answered is if a cinema had 2 screens the same width, one CIH and the other CIW. Usually, a cinema has one style ir the other, not a combination of both.





> Quote:
> BTW does anyone know if both the US & Australian versions of the BluRay presentation are identical?



With the exception of a B on my copy's jacket, the contents on the disc should be the same.


----------



## Ian Wilson

Don't know what all the fuss is about. Yes it was a much hyped release. But.... On my 130' cinemascope screen fed with a Panny AE-4000 (in 16:9 I might add). Oh dear - here's a movie that for large sections can't decide if it's animation or 'real life'. The problem is blu-ray is just to revealing, it exposes the underlying CGI technology. I was constantly reminded much of what I was watching was animation - which is fine when I watching an animated movie, not when I'm supposed to be immersed in a 'regular' movie. I was much more impressed at the cinema, big screen and 3d googles helped to soften the CGI.


Cameron was wise to wait as long as he did, but maybe a few more years was required. It's probably better as a DVD to dirty up the image a touch. End of the day there's no point in throwing your toys out of the box on this one (and I'm a sci-fi nut), there's plenty of better movies in 16:9 you should be arguing about cropping. Yes, I was disappointed big time that it didn't come out as at least a flipper, but having watched it last night, I'm not so bothered (although gutted it didn't match up to the cinema experience).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian Wilson* /forum/post/18571289
> 
> 
> it didn't match up to the cinema experience).



So was your cinema experience 16:9 or CinemaScope?


----------



## Ian Wilson

3D so I'm presuming it was 16:9 (don't remember it was a while back). The point was at home with Blu-ray it looked like a half-way house between animation and 'real life' for to much of the time.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian Wilson* /forum/post/18571317
> 
> 
> 3D so I'm presuming it was 16:9 (don't remember it was a while back). The point was at home with Blu-ray it looked like a half-way house between animation and 'real life' for to much of the time.



I agree. When I saw this film in the cinema, I thought it was hard to tell what was CG and what was a live action model given the actors are real. Now that I have watched it few times on BD, it pretty much all looks CG.


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/18565059
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. I know you qualified your position(post#291) to Stranger89, but I'd like to make a few points as some of the crop up regularly. Please dont misunderstand me, Im not having a pop at you.
> 
> 
> As a "_demonstration of what is possible when money is no object_" they make a poor case indeed. They represent neither the pinnacle of technology nor image quality. There are many high end units that significantly outperform DCI units
> 
> 
> There are a number of "_money no object_" HTs on AVS and very few use a DCI machines. I also know colleagues who have swapped out DCI units for a superior imaging domestic alternative. Some people use them simply because they require the light output for a large screen.
> 
> 
> The advantage that DCI enjoys, that is NOT available to domestic DCI users, is the DCI content......NOT the projectors. Even then, this is not readily apparent in a commercial cinema, where a number of factors (technical and environmental) rob us of the full impact of a DCP. Outside of a screening room, its almost impossible to experience the full advantage of a DCP.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



Thanks for the reply Coldmachine - I have a great deal of respect for your comments and commentary (In other threads and posts). I'm assuming by content you mean true 2K & 4K source (Do I have that right?) that can be shown natively through DCI Projectors. I wouldn't have the first clue who even makes this kind of source let alone where you would obtain it.


Anyway happy to be corrected in the context of DCI Projectors vs DCI Content.


Best regards


Blade


----------



## taffman

I watched about 10 minutes of Avatar at my local Best Buy yesterday. I agree with what Ian and CAVX have written, the whole thing looks very artificial. My conclusion was that the movie is just another run of the mill CGI exercise, aimed primarily at the adolescent market. A year from now, this much over-hyped film will be forgotten. So show it any way you want, nothing will make it a great movie.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18571372
> 
> 
> I agree. When I saw this film in the cinema, I thought it was hard to tell what was CG and what was a live action model given the actors are real. Now that I have watched it few times on BD, it pretty much all looks CG.



Damn good though!


----------



## R Harkness

I agree Avatar for the most part looks quite artificial. Very CGI. I'm never fooled into thinking "This looks real." There are some exceptions where a close up of a Navi face looks pretty extraordinary, or certain shots of the environment. I think it all works together in terms of the detail given to the images to suck me into the world, though.


I'm still thoroughly enjoying it in 16:9. Haven't once noticed a shot looking "off."


----------



## Talontsi96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18571801
> 
> 
> I watched about 10 minutes of Avatar at my local Best Buy yesterday. I agree with what Ian and CAVX have written, the whole thing looks very artificial. My conclusion was that the movie is just another run of the mill CGI exercise, aimed primarily at the adolescent market. A year from now, this much over-hyped film will be forgotten. So show it any way you want, nothing will make it a great movie.



Wow... you watched 10 minutes of Avatar at Best Buy ( I guess a bit better than watching it at Walmart) and reached a conclusion that the movie is "much over-hyped and nothing will make it a great movie"... Please do us all a favor and don't become a movie critic...


I watched it twice (in full) on the big screen in 3D and I, and pretty well everyone I talked to, think its a great movie...including my step father who went to see it twice in the theater (second time to show it to my mom) and he absolutely never goes to see a movie twice in the theater... lets say that neither I nor my parents are adolescent.... (although sometimes I wish I still was...







)


----------



## CAVX

Ahh bring back the golden years of cinema, hey taffman? Sorry, those days are well and truly over.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Talontsi96* /forum/post/18572023
> 
> 
> Wow... you watched 10 minutes of Avatar at Best Buy ( I guess a bit better than watching it at Walmart) and reached a conclusion that the movie is "much over-hyped and nothing will make it a great movie"... Please do us all a favor and don't become a movie critic...
> 
> 
> I watched it twice (in full) on the big screen in 3D and I, and pretty well everyone I talked to, think its a great movie...including my step father who went to see it twice in the theater (second time to show it to my mom) and he absolutely never goes to see a movie twice in the theater... lets say that neither I nor my parents are adolescent.... (although sometimes I wish I still was...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I agree fantastic film







well done too!


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18575300
> 
> 
> Ahh bring back the golden years of cinema, hey taffman? Sorry, those days are well and truly over.



Unfortunately you are right.

I read an article in the paper today where the writer states that there is now little interest by the major studios to make any films unless they are in 3D.

This limits the scope of the films severely, and he says we can now expect a saturation of 3D spectacle and fantasy type movies, and very few drama and other genre films. This will pretty well kill off any future visits to the movies for me.

So, thank God for my collection of old 4:3 Film Noirs, Westerns, and Musicals.

Now THAT'S entertainment!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18579186
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you are right.
> 
> I read an article in the paper today where the writer states that there is now little interest by the major studios to make any films unless they are in 3D.
> 
> This limits the scope of the films severely, and he says we can now expect a saturation of 3D spectacle and fantasy type movies, and very few drama and other genre films. This will pretty well kill off any future visits to the movies for me.
> 
> So, thank God for my collection of old 4:3 Film Noirs, Westerns, and Musicals.
> 
> Now THAT'S entertainment!



Most of those movies are in 4:3 material taffman?


----------



## Talontsi96

Taffman watch some Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, and other silent movies while your at it... Now THAT was real entertainment...!!! Nothing like the good old days....


----------



## blastermaster

There is nothing wrong with lamenting the possible demise of film as we know it whilst Hollywood favors the new flavor-of-the-month 3D technology - incorporating it into all manner of craptacular action films. I really hope that the technology is used in such a say that it acts as a supplement to the film as opposed to the reason for making the film. But this has been said before...

But back OT, I watched Avatar in scope and it is definitely watchable and almost seems to have CIH users in mind. I still like watching it in 16:9, though. as all the information is presented...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18580550
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with lamenting the possible demise of film as we know it whilst Hollywood favors the new flavor-of-the-month 3D technology - incorporating it into all manner of craptacular action films. I really hope that the technology is used in such a say that it acts as a supplement to the film as opposed to the reason for making the film. But this has been said before...
> 
> .



The more 3D I see, the more I like it, however I also think it is a gimmick designed to get people to spend.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18579239
> 
> 
> Most of those movies are in 4:3 material taffman?



No Frank, many are of course in CinemaScope and they are great. But I have to say that the vast majority are 4:3, mainly because of the time period in which they were made. I did not intend to detract from CIH in that post. I love scope movies (watched the new BD release of 'The Robe ' last night and it was an incredible 2.6:1 picture).


----------



## bobbijean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18580954
> 
> 
> The more 3D I see, the more I like it, however I also think it is a gimmick designed to get people to spend.



Many of us enjoy the 3D affect. For me, the glasses have to go to really feel the comfort. As an added note; Avatar is an awesome movie. It really wowed me. However I will always have fond memories of Shirley Temple. Thank heaven there is no right or wrong. Personal preference, gotta love it.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18581481
> 
> 
> No Frank, many are of course in CinemaScope and they are great. But I have to say that the vast majority are 4:3, mainly because of the time period in which they were made. I did not intend to detract from CIH in that post. I love scope movies (watched the new BD release of 'The Robe ' last night and it was an incredible 2.6:1 picture).



Actually i was very intrested to know to be honest. I'm not very familiar with the golden oldies as it's been called. It doesn't matter if it's scope or 4x3 I've never had problem watching eithier AR.


----------



## CAVX

I've been playing around with NVIDIA on my PC and it has options to shift the image UP, DOWN, LEFT or RIGHT, so given the UP option, puts an end to issues with AVATAR and CIH. I just need to get my copy from disc to my PC.


"Scale to fit a 16:9 TV" is really cool for CIH as this means the vertical stretch (Scaling for CIH) is now done at the source, so any possible scaling artifacts introduced by the projector are eliminated and the Scaled image can be mapped 1:1 on REAL mode.


----------

