Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Avatar on Blu Ray

Mark Collins

Mark Collins

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, On
So yes, I'm that guy that went ahead and bought Avatar on Blu Ray knowing full well I'm gonna be re-buying it in a few months with the special features.

Despite that, I have to say that it looks absolutely amazing. It's my personal opinion that it looks better on Blu Ray than in IMAX 3D. Colour is spot on, detail's are vivid, and I didn't notice any artifacting. This would all be because they decided to go with a minimal menu and have just the main feature on the disc, a decision that I strongly support.

Another nice feature is that a DVD version is included with the Blu Ray, meaning that if you buy the Blu Ray without having a Blu Ray player, you can still watch it in Blu Ray when you get one.

So, if you enjoyed Avatar in theatres, well, then definitely pick it up. If you didn't enjoy Avatar well, it's up to you.
 
Well Mark, it is so complex when discussing S3D material and viewing, that I totally understand how some one might like better a non S3D version.

I love BluRay and have a very good player with a 2K system on a 133", had a 300" in the studio, and love the IQ it reproduces thanks to the great job of Blu Ray, and surely look forward to the upcoming full version of AVATAR, especially since my friend Anthony, which we will be soon collaborating in my S3D project with Epic-X, was a Stereographer for VATAR for 3 years, and only got the chance to see what ever He had recorded of the Behind the scenes, and I love that stuff, some time more then the film it self, ha ha.

I was discussing how the TRUE S3D experience can only be provided to the entirety of the Viewers if everything is perfectly coordinated, from capture to post, to screening, including Focusing and Luminance output of the Projection system used, the type of Screen used, and "INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT" but no one is enforcing do to absolute Careless and Shameless interest to fill the Theaters as much as possible, and here is were some of the Viewers really suffer, why?

Well because there is a cone of projected image in which a comfort zone is specifically represented by the Size and distance related to Screen to projector to seats, and if any one is seating outside this comfort zone, either close to the screen on the far edges their experience will be at the worst, if seating distant in the far end or extremely close but in the comfort zone, they will just have a different experience "OFF SCREEN" in "TO THE ROOM" but still a pleasing one.

Assuming that the S3D material comes to the movie Theaters in perfect order, well done by all means, the Theaters do have the Projection system set perfectly and have the right Screen, well there is still the big issue, that they would have to ultimately "LACK OUT" those seats which are in the what I call "S3D NO SEAT ZONE".
 
3D version of the Blu-Ray is due to release July-September-ish... Or at least that is what I have been told from a few different sources. So far, it's not like 3D blu-ray players are flying off the shelves.
 
promotional still vs bluray :)
av1p.jpg
av1bd.png
 
The Bluray looks phenomenal! The best I have ever seen.

But one thing jumps out at you.... all the F950 1920x1080 shots that were done with Sony sensors look like SHIT compared to the computer-generated material. Like night and day. It reminds me of trying to cut Sony EX1 shots up against RAW timelapse... it just can't be done without noticing the massive quality difference. I hope Cameron will take a look at Epic for Avatar 2 or Battle Angel. The F950 simply don't have the imaging quality to match the CGI.
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
S3D
Click to expand...

Hi Ketch, this might be a stupid question, but everyone is talking about 3D, and I see that you always refer to it as S3D, could you enlighten me to what S3D is?
And what is the differnce between 3D and S3D?

Thank you!
 
Eirik Tyrihjel said:
Hi Ketch, this might be a stupid question, but everyone is talking about 3D, and I see that you always refer to it as S3D, could you enlighten me to what S3D is?
And what is the differnce between 3D and S3D?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

3D is any 3D film, S3D refers only to films which used stereoscopic acquisiton, essentially the difference between the processes for Avatar and Clash of the Titans.
 
Not Ketch - But I'm pretty certain the s refers to stereoscopic.

Stereoscopic is not full 3D, because of the obvious fact that it's just a simulation based on just two images/points of view (doesn't change field of view when you move your head etc, like a true 3D display would have to.)
 
Eirik Tyrihjel said:
Hi Ketch, this might be a stupid question, but everyone is talking about 3D, and I see that you always refer to it as S3D, could you enlighten me to what S3D is?
And what is the differnce between 3D and S3D?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

He he, thanks to Kenneth and Craig for answering.

Yes Eirik, since two years ago now, I have been heavily moving towards the study and testing for "S3D" for my upcoming Motion Picture projects, lately having the fortune to make good friends with Anthony which has worked as Stereographer on AVATAR for 3 years, and the reason I refer to as "S3D" instead of 3D, is because I had to make distinctions when talking at meetings with Production houses which mainly do Animation, widely known as 3D for the CG animation work, vs. the intended work I wish to do which is Stereography, not limited to the Parallel rigs but also via the use of Image Splitters, still an image created by use of two lenses, which create Disparities, and when perfectly matched were the disparities create the illusion of a 3D image as perceived by our Visual Cortex, this is called S3D, "S" Stereoscopic "3" Three "D" Dimensional.
 
S3D

S3D

I think the use of the term "S3D" is to define a film that is shot stereoscopic.
Several films out right now did not start as 3D and were not shot 3D(Stereoscopic).

Non-Stereoscopic Examples: "Alice in Wonderland" and "Clash of the Titans".

For these films, they have had a post-process applied to the original 2D camera work and released as a "3D" film. Some/all of the CG work may be S3D in these films as well, just not the camera work. Some of this is just marketing hype to sell a film as "3D" this year. You can release older films in "3D" for theater or home as well that where made only as 2D. But they will never be "S3D" since they were not shot that way.

All the real camera work(non-CG) in "Avatar" was shot stereoscopic 3D or "S3D".
 
I have to say I might get this two. I watched Avatar on a flight back from NAB and it was still very watchable as a movie with zero visual amping.

Noah
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
Well Mark, it is so complex when discussing S3D material and viewing, that I totally understand how some one might like better a non S3D version.

I love BluRay and have a very good player with a 2K system on a 133", had a 300" in the studio, and love the IQ it reproduces thanks to the great job of Blu Ray, and surely look forward to the upcoming full version of AVATAR, especially since my friend Anthony, which we will be soon collaborating in my S3D project with Epic-X, was a Stereographer for VATAR for 3 years, and only got the chance to see what ever He had recorded of the Behind the scenes, and I love that stuff, some time more then the film it self, ha ha.

I was discussing how the TRUE S3D experience can only be provided to the entirety of the Viewers if everything is perfectly coordinated, from capture to post, to screening, including Focusing and Luminance output of the Projection system used, the type of Screen used, and "INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT" but no one is enforcing do to absolute Careless and Shameless interest to fill the Theaters as much as possible, and here is were some of the Viewers really suffer, why?

Well because there is a cone of projected image in which a comfort zone is specifically represented by the Size and distance related to Screen to projector to seats, and if any one is seating outside this comfort zone, either close to the screen on the far edges their experience will be at the worst, if seating distant in the far end or extremely close but in the comfort zone, they will just have a different experience "OFF SCREEN" in "TO THE ROOM" but still a pleasing one.

Assuming that the S3D material comes to the movie Theaters in perfect order, well done by all means, the Theaters do have the Projection system set perfectly and have the right Screen, well there is still the big issue, that they would have to ultimately "LACK OUT" those seats which are in the what I call "S3D NO SEAT ZONE".
Click to expand...

Excellent points. I did see Avatar a total of 6 times I believe, twice in IMAX 3D, once in just a regular RealD theatre, and 3 times through film projection.

The IMAX stuff obviously looked the best, and the 3D was well done in it. I was sitting fairly centred in all the screenings, so I guess my experience was optimal. However, in terms of crispness and colour rendition, I feel the Blu Ray just looks so much better. I wish i could watch it at home, but I don't have the money to shell out for a new 3DTV and 3D Blu Ray player, and especially not active shutter (which I refuse to buy).
 
4k projection is so sharp it hurts, duel 4k simply means my eyes would melt from their sockets! awesome.

and no worries for all the 3d blu ray ppl! Best investment EVER is a playstation 3, future proofed beyond the beyond. firmware updates will let it play 3d no issues. (or so i've read) if ur gonna get a bd player, ps3 is it!
 
Tom.Wong said:
4k projection is so sharp it hurts, duel 4k simply means my eyes would melt from their sockets! awesome.

and no worries for all the 3d blu ray ppl! Best investment EVER is a playstation 3, future proofed beyond the beyond. firmware updates will let it play 3d no issues. (or so i've read) if ur gonna get a bd player, ps3 is it!
Click to expand...

I'm kinda pissed they didn't and aren't going to do that for standalone BD players. Especially since they are still fairly expensive. I bought mine for around $200 after Christmas last year. Combined with the $800 I spent on my TV about a year and a half ago and that's a significant investment for a student. It's paid for itself many times over when testing Blu-Ray and AVCHD burns, but still, to upgrade all of that to go 3D, especially with active shutter being as expensive as it is, that's gonna be even more expensive.
 
The question is, what theaters are really going to be able to project 4K 3D?
 
Tom Lowe said:
The Bluray looks phenomenal! The best I have ever seen.

But one thing jumps out at you.... all the F950 1920x1080 shots that were done with Sony sensors look like SHIT compared to the computer-generated material. Like night and day. It reminds me of trying to cut Sony EX1 shots up against RAW timelapse... it just can't be done without noticing the massive quality difference. I hope Cameron will take a look at Epic for Avatar 2 or Battle Angel. The F950 simply don't have the imaging quality to match the CGI.
Click to expand...
You are not the only one to see that. Other people and myself have really noticed the difference between the image capture and CGI on Bluray. At SD DVD levels of resolution it blends together better. I guess another argument for 4K capture.
I also thought that some action sequences like the thanator chase scene played better in 2D. Of course color is better without the glasses. Though it is still one of the most highly crafted S3D efforts to date and the box office shows it.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top