Avatar! Avatar! Avatar!

[KonfuSed]

Watching you.....:lol:

ROFL, I know srini, seems like I'm gonna break all the promises I made and prove myself wrong ;-) Even now getting tempted to buy the LOTR too. Let's see how much I can resist myself. Anyone planning to rent it out to me? I mean Avatar he he..

 

[rajivrao]

Guys, just got the avatar bd today evening and watched it. This is by far the best movie on BD till date. Amazing PQ and IQ. And the sound quality is something else... Fantastic...Stupendous, Mind blowing, Stunning are some of the adjectives that come easily to my mind.
Also would recommend buying the BD now instead of November as this disc has been packed with the movie.... Totally lossless image and sound.
:clapping::clapping:

 

[subhash]

Guys, just got the avatar bd today evening and watched it. This is by far the best movie on BD till date. Amazing PQ and IQ. And the sound quality is something else... Fantastic...Stupendous, Mind blowing, Stunning are some of the adjectives that come easily to my mind.
Also would recommend buying the BD now instead of November as this disc has been packed with the movie.... Totally lossless image and sound.
:clapping::clapping:

got my copy of the avtaar BD too , and totally agree with your views

wonder why they dint include the 3D version in it , may be the 3D version cud release seperately

 

[skdMrk]

Also would recommend buying the BD now instead of November as this disc has been packed with the movie.... Totally lossless image and sound.
:clapping::clapping:

I dont think so, as the November release would be a 4 disc pack so the first disc would just be the movie only & the rest 3 disc would be whatever bonus content they want to include!!!

wonder why they dint include the 3D version in it , may be the 3D version cud release seperately

I think the hardware required for the 3D version has not become mainstream yet.

Q - Why not do a 3D Blu-ray right away?

A - We will, we will. That technology is out now and we just need more people to buy the players. We are not ready to announce exactly when we're going to do it, but we will be doing it. We haven't done the 3D master for it, although that will only take a day or two.

From a recent interview by James Cameron

They are also planning to re-release in the theaters with additional scenes in August.

 

[svenkateshsmart]

They are also planning to re-release in the theaters with additional scenes in August.

Hi,

Hey what are the "Additional scenes":cheers::cheers::cheers: I have read it somewhere that they have included some "worthy additional scenes" in the "blu"-ray. Now, I know why you guys are giving positive comments about the BDhyeah:hyeah:hyeah:

Cheers!

 

[svenkateshsmart]

Hi,

Just a small thought! I am no expert than you guys are, as my main priority for movies will be for characters, screen play, etc. so I watch some unassorted bunch of movies every week.

I think one should not take a movie comprised of more graphics/animations as a reference disc. For that matter, Avatar has 94% of GFX ingredient.

Cheers!

 

[sam9s]

Hi,

Just a small thought! I am no expert than you guys are, as my main priority for movies will be for characters, screen play, etc. so I watch some unassorted bunch of movies every week.

I think one should not take a movie comprised of more graphics/animations as a reference disc. For that matter, Avatar has 94% of GFX ingredient.

Cheers!

Characterization, Screenplay are all part of how good a movie is, not necessarily how good the BR A/V is..............94% GFX for AVATAR might be a bit exaggerate. 75-80% is a much more realistic figure, but even with that the rest 25% of non GFX part is easily a reference material. And not to forget the Audio, which is way beyond anything I have heard on BR, even on an avg system like mine.......

 

[venkatcr]

I think one should not take a movie comprised of more graphics/animations as a reference disc. For that matter, Avatar has 94% of GFX ingredient.

When you shoot with a camera there is limit to which you can go in terms of picture quality. The current cameras have a limit of some roughly 7000P. This, during transfer to digital medium is actually cut down in terms of resolution.

Animation have the distinct advantage of endless manipulation on the computer. Each scene can be edited the way the director wants in terms of clarity, colors, etc. The strange thing is that computer graphics have not yet reached 7000P, so a well shot regular movie should really have better PQ if you can do a good transfer to digital format!!

Cheers

 

[vramak]

When you shoot with a camera there is limit to which you can go in terms of picture quality. The current cameras have a limit of some roughly 7000P. This, during transfer to digital medium is actually cut down in terms of resolution.

Animation have the distinct advantage of endless manipulation on the computer. Each scene can be edited the way the director wants in terms of clarity, colors, etc. The strange thing is that computer graphics have not yet reached 7000P, so a well shot regular movie should really have better PQ if you can do a good transfer to digital format!!

Cheers

Venkat, if you meant 7000p as in 1080p and 720p, I would like to clarify that 35mm film is only 2160p and is nowhere close to 7000p.

Back on topic, objectively speaking, the best *visual* reference material for blu ray is actually,

1. Visually good movies shot on 70mm film or IMAX format. (Eg: 2001, Baraka, IMAX scenes from The Dark Knight.) - if you dislike CGI.
2. CGI movies. Eg: Pixar movies, CGI parts of Avatar. - if you don't dislike CGI.
3. Movies shot on digital HD cams. Eg: Zodiac, Crank - if you dislike CGI but also dislike film noise.

Here's an explanation if you wanna know some technical details.

Three factors that decide the quality of the video capture are 1. Resolution 2.Dynamic Range 3. Noise

35mm film has an average resolution of 10 megapixels, which translates to a resolution of 3648x2736 or 2736p. Because most films are shot with the anamorphic 2.40:1 aspect ratio, this resolution effectively translates to Cinema 4K resolution or 4096x2160 or 2160p. 35mm film has high dynamic range but it also has lots of noise.

Digital HD cameras like Red One have the same 4K resolution or 2160p resolution. Digital HD has lower dynamic range than film but also has very little noise. This is why films like Zodiac, Crank etc. have a very clean look.

70mm and IMAX have less noise, more dynamic range and more resolution than both 35mm and digital HD. Baraka, 2001 etc look great on blu ray but the quality of the source is much higher than what blu ray is capable of. The source print for these films is much higher in quality than any film captured on 35mm film.

CGI on the other hand has no limitation on any of these aspects. Resolution is not limited to 2160p or 7000p or even 1000000p. (The final print of Avatar runs to about 17GB per minute, so, it's certainly much higher than 2160p or 7000p.) Dynamic range and noise are non-issues when it comes to CGI. With CGI, the only limitation is how realistically the CGI artist can paint the CGI picture.

So, if you don't dislike CGI, Avatar and Pixar movies are technically much better reference material than any live action film.

If you dislike CGI, then 70mm/IMAX movies are the best reference material.

Disclaimer: All this is assuming, the blu ray transfer was perfectly done.

References:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k_RED_CAMERA.png
The Data-Crunching Powerhouse Behind Avatar Data Center Knowledge
Film Technical Conclusions

 

[venkatcr]

Venkat, if you meant 7000p as in 1080p and 720p, I would like to clarify that 35mm film is only 2160p and is nowhere close to 7000p.

There are special films available that are close to 7000P. Yes stock films are in the 2000p range.

The finest of films from companies such as Kodak have very fine grain and are actually limited by the camera lenses that tend to blur the image. These films with good lenses are capable of resolving as much as 20 million pixels in each 35mm frame. This works out to something like 7000 pixels per line over the width of a 35mm frame, assuming a 35mm as 3500 line pairs.

Cheers

 

[vramak]

There are special films available that are close to 7000P. Yes stock films are in the 2000p range.

The finest of films from companies such as Kodak have very fine grain and are actually limited by the camera lenses that tend to blur the image. These films with good lenses are capable of resolving as much as 20 million pixels in each 35mm frame. This works out to something like 7000 pixels per line over the width of a 35mm frame, assuming a 35mm as 3500 line pairs.

Cheers

True, there are fine grain films with resolution up to 24MP. But as far as I have read, due to film noise the usable resolution will be less than 16MP at best, irrespective of the resolving power of the lens used.

Even considering the theoretical (but practically impossible) 24MP, the resolution comes to 7576x3168 for 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Isn't this 3168p ? Or am I missing something important here ?

Also, I didn't understand the part about 3500 line pairs. I thought each frame in a 35mm video is a single 35mm film.

Btw, I'm no professional in this field. I'm just a photography hobbyist and most of my knowledge comes from the internet and a little from personal experience.

 

[venkatcr]

Even considering the theoretical (but practically impossible) 24MP, the resolution comes to 7576x3168 for 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Isn't this 3168p ? Or am I missing something important here ?

Also, I didn't understand the part about 3500 line pairs. I thought each frame in a 35mm video is a single 35mm film.

It is not possible to represent a single film frame in digital terms. That is why a rough methodology is used. When you convert a film into digital format, each frame is scanned. During scanning an interlace method is used that is common for TV. The lines are scanned first in even numbers than in odd numbers. That is why it is called line pairs. The digital convertors scans the film from top to bottom. Depending upon dots per inch and the max resolution of the convertor, the number of lines scanned is arrived at.

Using modern scanners, these high grain films on a 1.33:1 aspect ratio can deliver close to 7000P. Of course as you convert, the aspect ratios and color bits are changed to fit a TV. But looked at purely in their original negative format used in cinema halls, these films can deliver what can be called close to 7000p. Since modern TV can display a full frame at a time, technology is now working to see how close can digital images be brought to the film's resolution.

Cheers

 

[vramak]

It is not possible to represent a single film frame in digital terms. That is why a rough methodology is used. When you convert a film into digital format, each frame is scanned. During scanning an interlace method is used that is common for TV. The lines are scanned first in even numbers than in odd numbers. That is why it is called line pairs. The digital convertors scans the film from top to bottom. Depending upon dots per inch and the max resolution of the convertor, the number of lines scanned is arrived at.

Using modern scanners, these high grain films on a 1.33:1 aspect ratio can deliver close to 7000P. Of course as you convert, the aspect ratios and color bits are changed to fit a TV. But looked at purely in their original negative format used in cinema halls, these films can deliver what can be called close to 7000p. Since modern TV can display a full frame at a time, technology is now working to see how close can digital images be brought to the film's resolution.

Cheers

I'm wondering where you got this info from. It'd be great if you could point out a source for this info.

I get a strong feeling you're mixing things up. Firstly, the highest resolution scanner available for 35mm films is only 4K or 2160p. The bigger 8K scanners are used only for 70mm films and medium format photography and the only 8K scanned film available now is Baraka.

Secondly, 7000p roughly translates to a 65 megapixels. If 35mm film was capable of this much resolution, it would've not got obsolete by now in the field of photography. Photographers switched from 35mm film to DSLRs when 8MP cams became available. Nowadays pro's use either full frame DSLRs or medium format. 35mm film is dead in the field of photography.

Of course, it will be possible to scan 35mm film at 7000p but then the usable resolution will only be in the range of 2160p.

What we see in theatres is actually quite low res. If the same resolution image was put up as a billboard it would look really crappy.

 

[tomjstn7]

As adventure movies go, it is impressively new in every way except the way that matters most storytelling. Its look will last. But its heart won't go on. Entertaining enough and stunning to look.

 

[aneelr]

Camerons next move,

News: A 3D Cleopatra Is Possible With James Cameron to Direct | Latino Review




cheers.



P.Sosted it here cause it was related to cameron, and I did not want to start a new thread.