"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.

Thanks T|M. Excellent info in the first link.



But, what I saw 3D version in 2.35:1.

quotes:


There was a "Making of Avatar" featurette playing on the REEL cable channel during December last year. The movie was shot in 1.78:1 using spherical lenses on the new 3D Fusion camera system. Cameron stated that he preferred 1.78:1 for 3D productions.

He also claimed at the time that he would be releasing both the 3D and 2D theatrical prints in 1.78:1 - which did not happen, actually:

1) 3D Digital Cinema prints were released in 1.78:1 for constant width venues, and 2.35:1 (cropped) for constant height venues, this allowed the maximum image size in both digital theater types.

2) 35mm 2D film prints were all cropped to 2.35:1. Since virtually every 35mm theater is set up for 2.35:1 using anamorphic lenses, this was the correct choice for maximum image size.

3) 70mm 3D film prints were released with 1.78:1 AR, meaning that the IMAX 15/70 film versions were the only venue in which the screen was not completely filled with image (screen masking was used at top/bottom to fit the 1.78:1 image into 1.43:1 IMAX-format screens). In spite of the masking, most IMAX film theaters have HUGE screens, and the 1.78:1 images were 25% larger and more impressive than the usual 'scope film which is made with anamorphic cameras in 2.35:1.

Cameron consistently made the aspect ratio choice for largest image size and thus the most emotional impact for each different theater venue.

When it comes to Home Theater venues, 1.78:1 is definately the OAR, and definately matches most home theater projectors and screens. Only those few who have gone to the trouble of building 'scope home theaters with constant image height projection setups will realize a smaller (narrower) image.

As to the way the movie was framed: of the five times I saw the movie in 3D in theaters (I was comparing the various 3D setups) only the Dolby Digital 3D presentation was 2.35:1 and I felt that was less impressive than the other four theaters (RealD 3D 2K, RealD 3D 4K, 3D IMAX 15/70 DMR film, and IMAX Digital 3D).

So I have to say that if you have a 2.35:1 projection setup, you'd best pull in the side curtains and view the movie in OAR from this first disk. Perhaps Cameron will release a 'scope version for you later. If you try to crop this version yourself, you are definately going to lose parts of the titles and credits, although aside from that I feel the impact of most scenes would not be compromised by cropping.

__________________
Gary McCoy

I mentioned before, there was a "Making of Avatar" feature on the REELZ channel last December. There was an existing 3D technology limitation that prevented Avatar from being captured at the 2.35:1 ratio. The actual choice that Cameron made was an OAR of 1.78:1 with a "keep safe" zone that kept critical image elements out of the area that would be cropped for the 2.35:1 distribution.

Avatar was captured on video at 1.78:1 or 16:9, on a dual Fusion 3D camera setup. There is an adjustment which allows one to vary the distance between lenses and thus the amount of seperation between R and L images, and thus the amount of 3D "pop". This is an important innovation giving the cameraman more control than before. However, this feature does not work properly with anamorphic lenses, only with spherical lenses.

Therefore once an image has been captured at the 2048X1080 resolution in the 1.78:1 format, you cannot crop the image for 'scope without a 25% loss of vertical resolution. Therefore Cameron made the entirely correct choice to capture and master the film at 1.78:1, preserving the full resolution of the live shots.

I understand that there now has just been announced a new 3D camera from Arri which allows the use of anamorphic lenses. I don't know if it preserves the variable seperation feature that the Fusion 3D camera has. No films have yet been made with it.

The other consideration is that modern Digital Cinemas are installed with both CIH (Constant Image Height) configurations (for large venue projection, using anamorphic lenses) and CIW (Constant Image Width) for the common rectangular multiplex theaters. Cameron produced 2.35:1 digital distribution prints for the CIH theaters and 1.78:1 for the CIW venues.

With film distribution he produced 2.35:1 prints for smaller 35mm theaters and 1.78:1 for 70mm IMAX theaters.

In the Avatar premier, he stacked four large venue Christie digital projectors, two for the R and two for the L images, and used the very large screen normally used for the IMAX 15/70 film presentations at the IMAX theater at Leicester Square, London. This was in 1.78:1, using the same linearly polarized glasses used in the IMAX 15/70 two-strip 3D projection.

In every case, he apparently felt that having the largest possible image for the particular theater was the way to go, even though the 'scope prints were compromised in resolution.
Gary McCoy

yes

^ These days 4:3 screens are out of fashion. 16:9 screened TVs, computer screens, etc. are predominant. So I think it's better to have 4:3 Anamorphic DVDs

One could say that DVDs themselves are out of fashion. :p Why not just get blu-rays.

Way out of budget
Having blu-rays can become a good idea once all classics and other films are available on them. But those damaged negatives need restoration.