ChainsawAsh

Seeing as how it was released in 1964, my guess would be that it was shot and intended for a 1.66:1 (or thereabouts) aspect ratio, but shot open-matte (like the Back to the Future films).  Because of the prevalence of 1.33:1 televisions in the past, the "open-matte" version has probably been the only one available until the new DVD restored the 1.66:1 ratio (much like the recent Stanley Kubrick DVDs, like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut).

This would mean that the top and bottom of the screen - which was, from the time it was shot, intended to be masked off when shown in a theater - have been visible when they weren't meant to be from the time it was first released on home video until this new DVD came out.  Which simply means that you got used to the old (incorrect) "unmatted" formatting, and the new (correct) formatting seems wrong to you because you see less information than you did before.

Besides, the current DVD doesn't have a 5.1 soundtrack, it only has stereo.  The Blu-Ray from Canada is the only disc (to my knowledge) that has 5.1 audio.

That's exactly what my problem was after I applied the audio fix, following the instructions exactly as were given in the RAR file.  I'd have figured it out through trial and error by now, but I'm still stuck without a Windows machine until I can get back to school and get Windows 7 reinstalled on my Mac (it was a friend's copy to begin with).

I use Mac OS X Leopard (10.5), because I need to use Final Cut for school (or so I was told when I bought the computer - still haven't touched Final Cut).

I also have Windows 7 installed via Boot Camp, which I like very much, and use for anything I can't use OS X for.

I don't really take a side.  I like OS X a lot, it's very easy to use, but it doesn't have the wide range of programs/applications for it that Windows does.  If I could do everything I can do in Windows on OS X, I would.

But Windows 7 is pretty awesome ...

Yeah, Whiplash and Black Widow.  It's my understanding (note that this is a Batman nerd pretending to know anything about Iron Man beyond the first film) that Black Widow is more of a Catwoman-y type character than anything else.  I COULD BE WRONG THOUGH.

You can see both in the trailer (Whiplash is Mickey Rourke, Black Widow is Scarlett Johansson).

It's not that conservatives are stupid neanderthals, it's that stupid neanderthals have hijacked the Republican party and created a new breed of "conservative" that isn't really conservative.  Blame Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, and the Bushes for the anti-conservative tone of today's media, not David Letterman, Jon Stewart, or SNL.

The standard-def HBO showing definitely uses much more picture information on top and bottom than the Blu-Ray does.  They just cropped the little bit off the sides from the 1.44:1 to get it to 1.33:1, so it shows more than the Blu-Ray's 1.78:1.  I don't know if the fullscreen DVD is the same, but I don't see why they would make a completely separate version from the HBO version.  It makes no sense.

And no, I don't think creating a version for 4:3 TVs is pointless, especially if you want to recreate the IMAX experience of a shift from 2.39:1 to 1.44:1 as closely as possible.  No matter how big your screen, a shift from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1 is nowhere near as dramatic a shift as the original IMAX version was.  And switching from letterbox to pillarbox doesn't give the same feeling as a sheer "opening up" of the aspect ratio to fill the screen entirely.

And Transformers 2 is a different beast entirely, since the IMAX cut actually featured differences in footage (extended fight sequences, I believe), while The Dark Knight's 35mm and IMAX cuts are exactly the same with the exception of aspect ratio.

There are other things to consider, like how the footage that would be restored in a 2.39:1/1.33:1 version would mostly be excess headroom that was cropped for the Blu-Ray.  As awesome as the dramatic aspect ratio shift originally was, the headroom was fine in an IMAX theater where you didn't look much at the top third of the screen anyway.  The Blu-Ray version is better framed, and thus is probably a better home viewing experience than a full-IMAX-ratio version would be.

My point is, it could easily be done, but whether it needs to be or not is up for debate.

I don't have my collection with me, but here's what I know I have:

The Beatles

• Magical Mystery Tour (US stereo version)
• The Beatles (the White album) (first record only, lost the second years ago) (US stereo version)
• Abbey Road (US version)
• Hey Jude (US-only compilation album)
• Love

The Who

• My Generation (mono British version, new pressing)
• Tommy (stereo US version)
• Who's Next
• The Who By Numbers
• Who Are You
• Tommy as performed by the London Symphony Orchestra

The Rolling Stones

• Tattoo You
• Undercover
• Let it Bleed
• Goats Head Soup
  
• Various greatest hits compilations (3, I think?)

The Polyphonic Spree - The Fragile Army

Sadly, that's all I can remember right now.  I know I have more, though.

False.

The Blu-Ray crops the IMAX 1.44:1 scenes to 1.78:1.

The DVD features use the full 1.44:1, but pillarboxed in a 1.78:1 frame.  Also, they don't include every IMAX shot, just the six main "sequences."

I know that the 1.33:1 version shown on HBO (and possibly the fullscreen DVD) uses more picture information on the top and bottom than the Blu-Ray cut does, so my assumption is that they're 1.44:1 cropped to 1.33:1, which is much closer to the original version.

A proper DVD IMAX cut would have to convert the DVD from 16:9 anamorphic to 4:3 letterbox, and the IMAX shots would be replaced with 1.33:1 fullscreen shots from the fullscreen DVD using the Blu-Ray version as a guide (assuming the fullscreen DVD does what the HBO version did).

The DVD special features could be used to add the rest of the 1.44:1 information to the sides of the 1.33:1 version.  This would mean that the major IMAX sequences would be at proper 1.44:1 (with very thin bars on top and bottom), while the random IMAX shots not included in the special features would be 1.33:1.

Doing it in 4:3 letterbox would recreate the IMAX experience more closely than the DVD features format that switches from letterbox to pillarbox.  I would say the Blu-Ray should be the definitive IMAX cut for 16:9 TVs, while this theoretical version would be the definitive IMAX cut for 4:3 TVs.

If that's what the instructional Word file says, too, then I did that.  It would appear that "Supbictures_20.sup" is the full English subtitles, and "Subpictures_22.sup" is blank.  At least the way it was demuxed on my computer (Windows 7).

I can't test it now anyway as my computer's getting fixed.

I'd PM you a link to the restored mono mix WAV file, but my computer that has the links is getting fixed by Apple, and it's likely that they'll have to erase my hard drive.  So it might be lost forever (unless someone saved the links I sent them, or I didn't delete the sent PMs I sent).

I read an interview with Jeff Bridges where he said that the majority of the first Iron Man was improvised, as the script wasn't finished in time for shooting (since they set the release date before the script was written).  I wonder if it's the same for this one.

I really don't understand why the political agenda of a film like Avatar prevents people from liking it.  I love The Dark Knight, and that film had very conservative undertones.  The way I see it, it's there if you want to take it in, but you can ignore it and enjoy the ride if you like.

I also don't understand how environmentalism is "liberal."  It's an issue that affects everyone, and guess what?  If we keep going the way we're going, we ARE going to seriously fuck up our planet.  Just because you don't like that idea doesn't mean you should dislike a movie that says, "Hey, we should probably think a little bit before we do this shit next time.

And I don't see the "This is what humans do!" line as a Bush commentary at all.  That is what humans do.  Look at what we did to the Native Americans, or Alexander's conquests, or the Nazis, or any other part of human history.

By the way, I'm not trying to attack you personally in any way.  I'm just throwing my two cents in the pile.

Alright.  Sorry it's taken me so long to post this.  Thursday (the day before I saw the movie), 45 minutes before my last class of the semester, my computer, WITH MY FINAL ON IT (and no other copies), decided to just stop working.  So I've been without a computer (it's being fixed for free by Apple at the moment - and yes, they were able to get my final off the hard drive in time for me to not fail the class) since Thursday.  I'm using my brother's right now (just got back to Indiana from school today).

Anyway, I saw it in IMAX 3D at Navy Pier on Friday, and it absolutely blew me away.  It's the first movie that's ever truly convinced me that we can now do ANYTHING we want with CG effects, and do it convincingly ... and that, honestly, scares the shit out of me.

It's also the first non-documentary 3D movie I've seen where I felt the 3D actually added to the experience rather than detracting from it.  I have a suspicion that the CG convinced me so much because of the 3D, but I won't be sure of that until I see it in 2D.

Now, many here have been saying that the story is bad.  It's not bad, it's just very derivative.  It feels like Dune and Dances with Wolves mixed with whatever the hell James Cameron was smoking when he wrote it.  And I don't really have a problem with that - the first Terminator was a huge ripoff of (I believe) a Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode, and it's one of my favorite movies.

The action is very well staged, even if I had a bit of trouble figuring out just what the hell was going on in the big, epic aerial battle at the end.  I forgive that for the sheer awesomeness of the film.

Sam Worthington managed to put a very relatable face on what must have been, on paper, a very unrelatable character.  I can feel his disillusionment with the "real" world grow throughout the film.  Zoe Saldana (though we never see her as a human) did a very good job as well, though I'm not sure how much of her performance was CG-enhanced after the fact.

I have two minor problems with the film.  The first is the dialogue.  I know dialogue has never been Cameron's strong point, but almost every word that comes out of that scarred mercenary's or Michelle Rodriguez's mouth sounds ridiculous.

The second is very nitpicky, but it distracted me.  The subtitles don't blend well with the 3D.  It's fine and undistracting most of the time, but once or twice there was something that clearly should have passed in front of the subtitles, but didn't.  It threw the depth perception of the shot off completely every time it happened.

In short, I absolutely loved it.  Seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D felt like what I'd imagine seeing Star Wars for the first time in 70mm would have felt like.  I recommend it to everyone, even VINH (though I doubt he'll see it).

Vaderisnothayden said:

And now he's on [my ignore list], so that problem's solved.

Hopefully this means ChainsawAsh won't be pestering me anymore.

Oh, fuck off.

(I'd like to note that this is the last time I'm going to be engaging in this particular line of conversation.  I don't like where it's going, and I'm putting an end to it here.  The next time I post in this thread will be around this time tomorrow, after I've seen Avatar, and it will be on-topic.)

HotRod said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I think you give up the right to say "don't lecture me" when you've been a giant dick to anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

Indeed he has...But, there's really no point in me replying to his posts as I'm on his ignore list anyway!!

And now he's on mine, so that problem's solved.

And thanks for the support, Frink.

I think you give up the right to say "don't lecture me" when you've been a giant dick to anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

I have a strong feeling that Ady will take a nice long break after ROTJ, to start work on TPM whenever said CG Yoda version is released.  I know I wouldn't mind - it'd probably be good for Ady's sanity, too.

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.

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.

Heh, yeah, sorry about that.  I'm about to delete a bunch right now.

TheBoost said:

Any beef I have with the SEs is based soley on the lack of availability of the OUT. If they were both out and the OUT was restored, I'd probably own the LFL version of both happily.

Thank you!  This is my exact attitude toward the SE/OT debate.  I would like to think that many here agree with us, but I'm not 100% sure that's the case.

Proper DVD cover size is 3240x2165 at 300 dpi, with a 170-pixel-wide spine directly in the center.

Maybe Ady can use something like that for ROTJ: Revisited when he gets around to it.

C3PX said:

I guess the thing that makes cursing "cool" is that it is a "nonconformist" sort of thing to do. Society says swearing is bad, so every would be rebel out there does it.

I've honestly never thought that much about swearing.  I swear because I do.  I'm not trying to be a conformist, or a non-conformist, or cool, or badass, or anything.  I grew up with constant swearing all around me (mainly from my father), so to me, it's just how I talk.

By the way, this thread has veered pretty fucking far away from Avatar and 3D.  (Yes, that was intentional this time.)  So I'll throw my two cents in on this subject as of now:

As I said, I was very underwhelmed by the first trailer.  The second was better, but still not "HOLY SHIT I HAVE TO SEE THIS NOW!!!" by any means.  Now, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive.

So I'm gong to go, with modest expectations, to see it at the Navy Pier IMAX in Chicago on Friday.  I'm not holding my breath for a "revolution in cinema" or whatever the hell Cameron thinks this movie is, but I'm intrigued enough to see it.  I would see it in a regular theater since it wasn't shot in IMAX, but of all types of 3D I've seen, the only one that has ever immersed me properly is IMAX 3D, most likely because the screen envelops your entire field of vision, unlike a regular screen.  So Avatar will be an exception to my usual rule of "see it how it was shot."

If it's good, I'll see it again in 2D to see how that changes things.  The 2D version will also be in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, whereas the 3D version will be 1.78:1, so that should be an interesting comparison (I prefer 2.39:1 generally, but I see how 1.78:1 would be better for 3D).

Ziz said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Bingowings said:

He might end up with two monitors which could be very handy for editing.

Oh my God, yes it is.  This semester was the first semester I was allowed to work on the two-monitor workstations at school (as an Edit II student; in Edit I we had to use single-monitor workstations),

And will you have three monitors when you get to Edit III, and so on up the line?  ;-)

Well, actually, we use three monitors in Edit II - two computer monitors, and one CRT (like these) that's tied to the timeline while you're editing or the input while you're capturing.  I only ever use it to preview a complete cut, though; it's much easier to look at the source/record monitors on the computer screen while editing.