AVATAR and 3D in general.... — Page 4

TV's Frink said:

Look at me being a busybody! Wheee!

 Fixed. :)

You feeling ok?  You only posted once in a row and only quoted me once.  Ever thought of how your wall of text looks in 3D?

C3PX posted in a way that made everything very easy to read.  Your posts are a pain in the ass to read.  And earlier in the thread you quoted the same way as C3PX, so I know you know how to do it.  Stop being so lazy.

Back on topic, I'm interested in Avatar based on Cameron's track record and the positive buzz, but it doesn't mean it won't be terrible.  And I'm not really interested in 3D.

TV's Frink said:

You feeling ok?  You only posted once in a row and only quoted me once.  Ever thought of how your wall of text looks in 3D?

C3PX posted in a way that made everything very easy to read.  Your posts are a pain in the ass to read.  And earlier in the thread you quoted the same way as C3PX, so I know you know how to do it.  Stop being so lazy.

It's nothing to do with laziness. it's to do with doing what I want to do. I happen to want to double quote, to have the quote as one unified piece (to show the whole post I'm quoting) and later have it as separate pieces to isolate the pieces. I want to do it that way. I'm doing it that way for a reason. And I'm not going to change what I do just because you don't like it. Surely by now you should have figured out that I don't cooperate with people telling me to do things. And my posts are perfectly easy to read. Stop whining about nothing.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I happen to want to double quote, to have the quote as one unified piece (to show the whole post I'm quoting) and later have it as separate pieces to isolate the pieces. I want to do it that way. I'm doing it that way for a reason.

There's no reason to do this unless you are being lazy or trying to be "different" or "special."  Non-word-regardless, I give up.

I agree with Frink, VINH's non-use of quote boxes is confusing.

BTW, I hope Avatar goes down in flames!!

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I happen to want to double quote, to have the quote as one unified piece (to show the whole post I'm quoting) and later have it as separate pieces to isolate the pieces. I want to do it that way. I'm doing it that way for a reason.

There's no reason to do this unless you are being lazy or trying to be "different" or "special."  Non-word-regardless, I give up.

There's plenty reason to do it. Just because you don't see the reason doesn't mean it's not there. I'm glad you give up. I only wonder why you bothered in the first place. Do I pester you about how you post? Let me post how I choose.

Nanner Split said:

You know what's great? VINH has me on ignore, so I can slag him off as much as I want and he'll never know! :D

Don't be sure about it. You were put on ignore for immature lowdown behavior on your part toward me, but ignore has a read-this-post option that allows me to read posts of somebody while having them on ignore. I may well choose to read your posts. Whether I choose to waste my time replying to your garbage is another matter. But one thing you can be sure of: I have zero respect for you.

Although he and I don't see eye to eye at times, Nanner is pretty damn funny and anyone who places him on ignore can potentally deprive themselves of some hilarity.

Nanner Split said:

Since when did I ever have "immature lowdown behavior" toward you? I don't recall ever having spoken to you at all until just now, which is why I thought it was odd that I'd somehow made your ignore list for no apparent reason.

Not that it appears to have been any loss on my part, from the looks of things.

 I find it hard to believe you don't remember posting this post:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Five-live-action-shows/post/379506/#TopicPost379506

Joining in in the general personal attacking and ganging up that was directed at me because I dared to post a thread that wasn't being thrilled about the new live action show. Your contribution was childish mockery and personally insulting. It was low down. It marked you out as troublemaker without scruples. As such, I came to the conclusion that you weren't worth having anything to do with. So I put you on ignore. No loss on my part.

As it stands, there's too much argument and bad blood on this thread, and I don't want to be taking part in that, so I'm going to absent myself from this thread. Feel free to slag me off or discuss 3d or whatever suits you.

xhonzi said:

So... my AMC is showing Avatar in Real-D and IMAX 3D.  From what you know, Chainsawash, are both of those in academy, or just the IMAX one?

Any 3D showing will be in 16:9, or 1.78:1.  The 2D showings of Avatar will be 2.39:1, or anamorphic widescreen/"scope."  I believe the idea is that the 2.39:1 will make it more "epic" in 2D form, whereas the 1.78:1 will fill one's field of vision more for the 3D showings, enhancing the 3D effect.

Based on past James Cameron films, Avatar may have been shot in an aspect ratio similar to Super 35 (though, since it's all digital, it won't technically be "Super 35").  Here's how that works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35.  (I had to remove the T2 image since it wasn't showing up.)

You can see the comparisons on the right-hand side.  The red box is the 2.39:1 theatrical frame, and the green box is the 1.33:1 home video "fullscreen" frame.  Many of Cameron's films (The Abyss, T2, Titanic) were shot this way (Cameron himself has even said that he prefers the fullscreen versions of some of his Super 35 films, including T2, if I remember correctly).

It's my assumption, from everything that I've heard so far, that Avatar is being done one of two ways:

1) Shot full-aperture akin to Super 35, cropped differently for 2.39:1 or 1.78:1.  Effects shots would likely be 1.78:1, cropped on top and bottom for 2.39:1.

2) Shot 1.78:1, cropped on top and bottom for 2.39:1 (also effects shots).

I say that it's likely that the effects shots are all natively 1.78:1 because it's simply cheaper that way.  In the case of most Super 35 films (like T2), the effects shots are done in 2.39:1, and are panned and scanned like normal 2.39:1 films.  So while you're getting more of the original image (in some cases) with the fullscreen version of Super 35 movies, you're getting the exact same cropping for the effects shots that you would if it wasn't shot in Super 35.

For Avatar, I'd say that #2 is probably more likely, simply because it would be easier and cheaper.  This would mean the 3D showings are OAR, and the 2D showings are cropped for 2.39:1.  Any fullscreen version would likely be cropped from the 1.78:1 version.  Either way, since 60% of the movie is completely CGI, 1.78:1 is almost certainly the original intended aspect ratio.

And I have my ticket for Friday at 12:15 PM at the Chicago Navy Pier IMAX.  I'll definitely post my thoughts after I see it.

ChainsawAsh said:

And I have my ticket for Friday at 12:15 PM at the Chicago Navy Pier IMAX.  I'll definitely post my thoughts after I see it.

Thanks for that.  I've heard so much complaining about this movie from people who haven't even seen it yet.

When you crack wise like that I'm tempted to use a non-word.