- Sam Raimi Wants to 'Get Back to the Basics' on Spider-Man 4 (111 Comments)
- Must Watch: Teaser Trailer for A Nightmare on Elm Street! (109 Comments)
- Must Watch: Intense Trailer for Mel Gibson's Edge of Darkness (81 Comments)
- Must Watch: Second Official Trailer for Lee Daniels' Precious (78 Comments)
- Check These Out: High Res New Na'vi Photos from Avatar! (77 Comments)
- Paul Blart Director Steve Carr Hired for the Short Circuit Remake (Oct 27, 2009)
- Hitman's Xavier Gens Set to Direct Action Thriller 'The Fallout' (Oct 27, 2009)
- Bruckheimer & Straczynski Adapting 2K's Shattered Union (Oct 27, 2009)
- Steve Carell on Par for Rick Reilly Golf Comedy 'Missing Links' (Oct 26, 2009)
- Jason Reitman Calls Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim 'Matrix for Love' (Oct 26, 2009)
- Matt Damon & Josh Brolin Joining the Coen Brothers' True Grit (Oct 26, 2009)
- Ricky Gervais to Host the 67th Annual Golden Globe Awards (Oct 26, 2009)
- Woody Allen's New Film Titled 'You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger' (Oct 26, 2009)
| Inglourious Basterds | 10/10 |
| It Might Get Loud | 9/10 |
| Inglourious Basterds | 8.5/10 |
| Star Trek | 9/10 |
| Monsters vs Aliens | 5/10 |
Cameron Says Avatar Won't Be Shown the Same Size Everywhere
May 30, 2009
Source: Ain't It Cool News
by Alex Billington
Most of you may be wondering "what does that mean?" Well, we'll explain exactly what that means. James Cameron recently appeared at a special showing of The Abyss and Aliens in 70mm back-to-back at a theater in Santa Monica last night. I couldn't attend (as I couldn't get tickets), but a scooper over at Ain't It Cool News did and sent over some details from the Q&A with Cameron. The only interesting thing he revealed was that apparently the 3D presentation of Avatar will be shown in 1.78:1 aspect ratio, while the 2D will be in scope, with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. It's sort of half of an IMAX conversion (I'll explain below).
The report says that "Cameron never thought he'd shoot a new movie in 1.85 ratio, but he loves the way 3D looks in that ratio, so audiences seeing the film in 3D will get a 1.78 presentation versus audiences who see the film in scope (widescreen) in 2D." Flat and scope are the two standard aspect ratios in use today. Typically, scope (the wider ratio) is used for action, so that more of it can be captured and it looks much more epic because it's so wide. Flat (the taller ratio) is usually used for close ups and more personal shots. We've included an example photo of the differences in visual size once the image is projected (see below).
The reason I referenced IMAX earlier is because, if you look at that image above, you'll see that you get to see more of the total image when seeing the "flat" or 1.78 aspect ratio version (in 3D). Those of you who saw The Dark Knight know that the screen got much taller when it switched to the scenes that Christopher Nolan shot with IMAX. And it seems like Cameron will be presenting the 3D version in that "taller" format, whereas 2D will most likely be cropped down so that it fits the scope aspect ratio. I'm curious whether this could become controversial again considering the big screen size fiasco with IMAX from a few weeks ago.
In addition to that reveal, Cameron humbly said that Avatar "may not make film history, but there are a few shots in the film that he knows for certain will be quite memorable." He also claims that his CGI special effects "aren't necessarily revolutionary," but rather that the way that he shot the movie, with instant in-camera feedback with a rendered image, "could very well change moviemaking." I don't mind if he's humble about all this, because as long as my expectations stay grounded, then I'm likely to be even more blown away in the end. As for the aspect ratios, this is the one time I'll say that you better see this in 3D!
•  |
Related Articles
- » A Few New Avatar Behind-the-Scenes Photos from Empire
- » First Teaser Poster for James Cameron's Avatar
- » M. Night Shyamalan to Direct Nickelodoen's Avatar Film
- » Cameron's Avatar Gets Revealed in Video Game Screenshots
- » Will You Be Able to Watch Nearly 3 Hours of Avatar in 3D?
- » Ticket Details Announced for Avatar Day on August 21st!
Reader Feedback - 23 Comments »
1
Finally… thank god.
Straight from the man's mouth!
Quite frankly I've become annoyed with all this AVATAR WILL BE REVOLUTIONARY talk from filmmakers and filmgeeks alike.
teyhtr on May 30, 2009
2
Even if they don't have a 3D version on home video for a while, they better put the movie in both Aspect Ratios on the Blu-ray…
AD on May 30, 2009
3
I've literally just come from watching The Abyss. I can't sodding wait. And I'm now distancing myself from as much information about Avatar as possible until December. See you then, Mr Cameron!
Digital Metaphor on May 30, 2009
4
NOW he's saying "Avatar might not make film history…" and "it isn't really revolutionary" only a month after claiming that it'll be the biggest thing since the first moon landing. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in seeing this film for just "a few memorable scenes." I want it to be, well, revolutionary.
Ken on May 30, 2009
5
trailer! trailer! trailer!
Janny on May 30, 2009
6
I hope that the 3d version for the Blu-ray keeps the 1:78:1 just like the Dark Knight Blu-ray, but i hope the glasses or the technology they use are revolutionary. I mean that film with Brendan Frashier (journey to the center of the earth) was great in 3d, but the glasses were not that great.
I just hope his dvd/blu-ray transfer would excel the Imax standard that The Dark Knight achieved, well at least the sound quality would be better no matter what.
Nikhil Hariharan on May 30, 2009
7
Knowing Cameron to be the perfectionist that he is, I'm guessing he's paid attention to detail on both versions, and they are both composed as well as the other. But, given how much 3-D is a part of this movie, the 1.85:1 version will be the preferred version.
BTW Dark Knight's IMAX footage wasn't shot in 1.85:1 like the 3-D version of Avatar. It was shot in real IMAX film, which is about 1.44:1 and on DVD was cropped to 1.78:1 to create the desired effect. Cameron is probably using 1.85:1 on Avatar because it will fill up most of (but not all of) the IMAX screen. There will still be small black bars on the top and bottom, whereas Dark Knight's IMAX footage had no black space at all; it was true IMAX.
Jonathan on May 30, 2009
8
9
Since Cameron is talking about the theater presentation, he is most likley talking about a 1.85 aspect ratio for the 3D viewing.
1.78:1 or 16:9 is more a high definition consumer aspect ratio but not really used when talking in cinematic terms.
"Typically, scope (the wider ratio) is used for action, so that more of it can be captured and it looks much more epic because it's so wide. Flat (the taller ratio) is usually used for close ups and more personal shots."
Beeing a Cinematographer, I find this explanation "very" questionable ;-).
Isaac on May 30, 2009
10
Whatever want a trailer.
cody on May 30, 2009
11
I personally prefer the 2.35:1 scope ratio which looks more pleasing and cinematic.
Don't really care about the 3-D process or the CGI, as long as the story is strong and the characters are good.
avoidz on May 30, 2009
12
3D is a gimmick. give me a great action sci-fi movie and i will be more than happy. nothing beats 2D. i dont care if james cameron himself comes out of the screen and massages my balls. i wont support a gimmick. its like american idol for movies. its been tried before. if i dont have to wear the glasses and its 3D then perfect otherwise i will be watching Days of Heaven. One of the most beautiful things ever captured on film and guess what……. its in 2D.
Matador on May 30, 2009
13
#9: Very nice.
#12: Sure its a gimmick, but hell its another perspective of watching a film, i myself found Coraline to be dull in 2D, but in 3D it was a great film. But hey 3D helps progress technology, and the way the editing/cinematography works while filming in 3D helps this progress.
Nikhil Hariharan on May 31, 2009
14
I just hope this 3D and "new tecnology crap" is not why they hype it.
Shige on May 31, 2009
15
3D is a gimmick. MOST MOVIES ARE A GIMMICK. Please calm down about the 'hating' on 3D everybody. Personally I prefer 3D because it just sucks me into the story so much better than 2D. I literally am not thinking about anything else. 3D is a more pleasurable experience for me, NOT because I'm watching something in 3D, but because I feel totally in the story. Just don't be so harsh about 3D, it's only a gimmick some of the time (just like everything else).
Scott McHenry on May 31, 2009
16
The movie of the year this will be.
The Confrontation Between Avatar and Transformers 2 will be high.
Fisherr on May 31, 2009
17
He made a very good point and Im glad he said it. People are probably expecting some amazing unseen type of visuals. There probably will be some very cool cgi and 3-d in the film. But the visua;s aren't necessarily the revolutionary part. Whats revolutionary is how his new camera system allows one to capture the effect while shooting. It ground breaking technology and will change the way a director can employ effects or 3D into a movie.
JimD on May 31, 2009
18
This isn't going to be a revolution the way Jurassic Park was. If you saw that movie in cinemas back in 1993 you knew a big change had just happened.
avoidz on May 31, 2009
19
Show me something, anything.
Cat on May 31, 2009
20
all i can say is that i hope this doesn't get too overhyped!
As with some people when they listen and read all this positive feedback from a movie their expectations raise astronomically, to an un-realistic level even!
I dont want cameron's masterpeice ruined by un realisitic expectations, after all if its a good film that will be enough for me, the 3D is just a bonus!!!
Voice of reason on May 31, 2009
21
Okay Alex…a couple technicalities here.
1) Just because something is 1.78:1 doesn't mean you see more than a 2.35:1 like your blog says and displays in your convenient picture. If you cut off the sides of a 2.35:1, you can make the image size 1.78:1 and you actually LOSE some of the picture.
2) You must remember how "The Dark Knight" was shot. The reason for the size difference when watching the film in either IMAX or Blu-ray, is because the 1:78:1 ration scenes were shot with an IMAX camera. Remember only 20% of "The Dark Knight" was in IMAX (70mm film). The rest was shot on 35mm film in scope. Obviously the IMAX scenes will be "larger" as it would basically defeat the purpose of IMAX if they were downsized.
Taylor Fenno on May 31, 2009
22
Man, I just wanna see it already.
Andrew on May 31, 2009
23
you would be better seeing Avitar in the format the director as shot it in on most casers if shot in 2.351 which
mr cameron if he shot avitar in. if you having to sqweze the picture into 1.781 or 1.851 it will have to be croped you will loose some of the picture even though imax picture is good im not dismissing that i would rather see the film how it was shoot also in most casers feature film have to be blown up into imax you loose some of the picture clarity.
Allen Reeve on Jun 1, 2009