AVATAR, the movie...

[MidnightSensi]

The railroad track picture is NOT a realistic depth of field if you are talking about the focus of a human eye. Either the fore ground will be in focus or the background, not both at the same time, the eye can only focus on one subject at a time and the trees in the background are far too much in focus when looking at the rail close up at the bottom of the picture. The water drop picture however is almost exactly what you would see based on perceived distances of the objects involved. The closer the subject you are focusing on is to your eye the blurrier the background will be. Here's and easy, simple experiment - hold your hand out in front of you with arm stretched out. Focus on your hand, now how clear is the background? Then focus on the background, now how clear is your hand? Does it resemble the railroad track picture...even remotely? Photos can have much more DOF than the human iris/pupil can give in a single instance... and looking at the DOF in 2D (i.e. looking at a photograph - no physical distance separation of foreground from background) is not the same as focusing on the same scene in 3D space (where the fore ground and back ground are physically separated with distance.) A human iris/pupil has equivalent F-stop ranges of around 2-10, maybe 14. Camera lenses normally range from 1-32, and that picture of the railroad track looks to be around 22.

The bottle one is closer to the movie, your right. The railroad is realistic depending on what you are focusing on. If you were focusing on the bolt in the front, then no it wouldn't be realistic, but if your focusing midway on the track, it looks real to me.

Not perfect examples, but, hey, I'm trying.

 

[Quickley17]

So I guess I can understand an argument from the side of "we want you to focus on this specific thing, so we will produce the image as such" and I can also understand the argument of "well I want to be able to focus where I feel like it, so you should make that possible". I guess without asking the artists behind the product it's hard to know what their goal was.

If I read your 20 GB per minute comment right, thats about 3,400+ TB over the course of 4 months... WOW

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think it was your theater. I had a much different experience today. The sound system at the IMAX theater here is really good. There were many times I could really feal the LFE. My whole body was vibrating and I felt completely immersed in the sound.

Yep, hard to beat the sound in an IMAX How was the picture? My 3D experience was not so enjoyable.

 

[Cavediver]

Yep, hard to beat the sound in an IMAX How was the picture? My 3D experience was not so enjoyable.

The 3D picture was great. We have a really good IMAX theater here. Having seen it in 3D on both IMAX and a regular screen, I thought the 3D picture was better in IMAX than on the regular screen.

 

[Gior]

Maybe it was just the cinema I saw it in, but I thought the cons of the 3D outweighed the pro's. The colours and overall brightness seemed somewhat dull with the glasses on and the image was quite soft, almost out of focus. Admittedly, I was on a wing seat (all the good seating was taken by the time I got in), and so maybe a direct front on viewing angle makes for a much better experience?

Soundwise I think the soundtrack would be great, but the cinema didn't do it justice. I think you guys in the US have much nicer cinema's - especially the D-Box enabled ones. Even the Sydney IMAX's sound isn't really impressive at all. Haven't noticed any great sounding cinema's in Sydney which is what led me to building my HT a few years ago.

I can't wait to get it on Blu-ray though

 

[mtrycrafts]

The 3D picture was great. We have a really good IMAX theater here. Having seen it in 3D on both IMAX and a regular screen, I thought the 3D picture was better in IMAX than on the regular screen.

Well, I may just have to invest in an IMAX experience then. Thanks.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe it was just the cinema I saw it in, but I thought the cons of the 3D outweighed the pro's. The colours and overall brightness seemed somewhat dull with the glasses on and the image was quite soft, almost out of focus. Admittedly, I was on a wing seat (all the good seating was taken by the time I got in), and so maybe a direct front on viewing angle makes for a much better experience?

Soundwise I think the soundtrack would be great, but the cinema didn't do it justice. I think you guys in the US have much nicer cinema's - especially the D-Box enabled ones. Even the Sydney IMAX's sound isn't really impressive at all. Haven't noticed any great sounding cinema's in Sydney which is what led me to building my HT a few years ago.

I can't wait to get it on Blu-ray though

Yes, the wait to BD is difficult.

I am surprised that in a city like Sydney, a capital city, IMAX would not be top notch

 

[Soundman]

Yes, the wait to BD is difficult.

I am surprised that in a city like Sydney, a capital city, IMAX would not be top notch

You would think, especially since Sidney it's one of the Pixar locations.

BTW, there really is a P Sherman at 42 Wallaby Way, right!?

 

[Cavediver]

Well, I may just have to invest in an IMAX experience then. Thanks.

Get there early and sit up high and as close to the middle as you can get.

 

[Soundman]

Well, I just got back from seeing it in 3-D. I wasn't too impressed with the presentation this theatre gave me. Maybe I need to watch it in a theatre made for 3-D, but I just felt that it looked so dark with the glasses on that I couldn't see much detail and at times I found it hard to see what was going on. Every once in a while during the movie, I would take off the glasses to see what was happening and things got immediately brighter with more detail, but it was a trade off, because some things were blurry, but that's how the 3-d tech works. I think I would have enjoyed it better in 2-d at this particular theatre. If it's going to be in 3-d then they have to do something to brighten up the picture. I'm sure it's a much better presentation at an Imax though.

As for the movie itself, i thought it was very well done and I enjoyed every bit of it. I also thought the audio experience was very good. In the past, I haven't been thrilled with the audio in this particular theatre, but Avatar sounded excellent! I'm sure this will be fantastic on Blu-ray, once it is released. I'll be picking that one up. Can't wait.

 

[aberkowitz]

I guess it depends on the theater... saw the movie in IMAX 3D today- the experience was outstanding. Fantastic picture- very sharp, black levels were near perfect, no blurring of colors, and the 3D only added to the experience. I particularly liked how they used 3D from the "first person perspective" and not just to have items thrown in the viewers face.

I was most blown away by the sound. Again, may have been my theater, but I've never had a better experience with bass during a movie at a theater.

 

[Alex2507]

IMAX 3D with popcorn and a couple of drinks and parking ... priceless. ($52)

In the first part of the movie I thought the 3D part took away from what could have been much more stunning visually. I kept thinking about Sheep saying he recommended the 2D version ... and then it got better. I forgot all about 3D and how not everything was in focus all at once everywhere I looked. For some reason I wasn't at all distracted by the 3D during the second half.

The sound was great. I would have trouble letting it play that loud at home being a condo dweller. I mean this was first rate audio. I have seen a few other things in that theater but the audio in this film was meant to impress and it did.

The sub titles were bothersome because I kept trying to eyeball the blue boobies and missed out on a fair bit of dialog. Another thing I kept thinking is that that tail would definitely be in the way.

I had bought my tickets on line and chose this evenings 10:15 showing based on availability of my seats of choice ... about 2/3 of the way back and dead center. Our IMAX is heavily treated with a rounded rear wall and side walls going out like a 'V'. I thought I did pretty good with that. I might see this again and that's a huge statement because I don't like sitting still for that long.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have seen Avatar in 3D IMAX first, then 3D plain second, then 2D last night.

I liked them all.

Which do I prefer?

2D.

Why?

I really hate wearing any kind of eye glasses - even sunglasses!

 

[just-some-guy]

i saw it standard 3d yesterday. the technology, though a little flawed at times, is AWESOME . going by some of the reviews here, i ended up in a crappy theater. sound was ok, bass = none. image quality was good, but not as good as what i have(not including the 3d thing, of course). blacks the same as what i have.

the story. it was good enough. kind of reminded me of a "cowboys vs indians" thing.

the klunky glass's leave a lot to be desired. and detracted from the experience.
i see a small market in quality glass's developing.

 

[Soundman]

Worldwide Grosses

So, now that this movie has now cleared 1 Billion in world wide grosses and is now number 3 on the "highest grossing movies of alltime" list, the question remains, "can this movie overtake Titanic for the number 1 spot?" I know that sounds optimistic, but the movie hasn't even been out 3 full weeks yet and it's expected to pass "Dead man's Chest" and "Return of the King" in the next few days to claim the number 2 spot. So looks like Cameron's going 1-2 either way.

 

[aberkowitz]

So, now that this movie has now cleared 1 Billion in world wide grosses and is now number 3 on the "highest grossing movies of alltime" list, the question remains, "can this movie overtake Titanic for the number 1 spot?" I know that sounds optimistic, but the movie hasn't even been out 3 full weeks yet and it's expected to pass "Dead man's Chest" and "Return of the King" in the next few days to claim the number 2 spot. So looks like Cameron's going 1-2 either way.

Highest grossing of all time is such a BS number when not adjusted for inflation. Movie prices have risen so drastically that it takes many fewer people to see a movie these days to rank it highly compared to past years. For Avatar this is further exaggerated by the fact that they charge even more money to attend an IMAX film.

I prefer to look at the inflation adjusted list, which measures by tickets sold. Unfortunately this list only shows data for the US and Canada, but it's very telling- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada. From that list, you can see that only 2 movies in the last 30 years make the top 10 (Star Wars misses the cut by 3 years), and you have to drop to 27 before you find a movie from the last decade (Dark Knight).

There are many reasons for these drastic differences and I accept all of the arguments, I just find it a bit ridiculous that we get so hung up on nominal dollars for ranking movies without taking into account that ticket prices have been jacked up to ridiculous levels over the years.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So, now that this movie has now cleared 1 Billion in world wide grosses and is now number 3 on the "highest grossing movies of alltime" list, the question remains, "can this movie overtake Titanic for the number 1 spot?" I know that sounds optimistic, but the movie hasn't even been out 3 full weeks yet and it's expected to pass "Dead man's Chest" and "Return of the King" in the next few days to claim the number 2 spot. So looks like Cameron's going 1-2 either way.

I have no doubt it will be the #2 movies of all times in world wide box office.

Beating Titanic ($1.8 billion) is just crazy, but if any movie is capable, I think it is Avatar.

I predict it will be around $1.79 billion.

Screw Inflation.
And Politics.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just find it a bit ridiculous that we get so hung up on nominal dollars for ranking movies without taking into account that ticket prices have been jacked up to ridiculous levels over the years.

No one is forcing people spend $19 to see Avatar in 3D IMAX.

But the FACT that people are WILLING regardless of price tells me how much they ENJOYED Avatar.

The main point of bringing up box office success is to say that a lot of people really, really enjoyed Avatar.

Life is short. Don't think too hard. Ejoy.

If "Gone With The Wind" had just been released TODAY for the First time ever, I predict that AVATAR would kick it's a$$!

 

[aberkowitz]

No one is forcing people spend $19 to see Avatar in 3D IMAX.

But the FACT that people are WILLING regardless of price tells me how much they ENJOYED Avatar.

The main point of bringing up box office success is to say that a lot of people really, really enjoyed Avatar.

Life is short. Don't think too hard. Ejoy.

If "Gone With The Wind" had just been released TODAY for the First time ever, I predict that AVATAR would kick it's a$$!

I wasn't trying to imply that anybody was being forced to pay more (although I saw the movie for $14 in IMAX, not sure where they are charging $19! ), my point was that nominal dollar records are not as meaningful as ticket sales when it comes to the popularity and reach of a movie.

A movie that sells $1 billion in today's dollars is clearly not as successful as a movie that sold $1 billion in 1980 dollars- that's an economic fact. Gone With the Wind made $200 million domestically, when you adjust for ticket prices it would have made $1.4 billion in the US alone in 2009.

Over all of the years it was released in the US and Canada (and it was rereleased several times) the movie sold over 200 million tickets. The only movie even close is Star Wars at about 180 million. Interestingly enough, the most popular movie ever by tickets sold with only 1 release- The Sound of Music (who woulda thunk?) with 140 million tickets sold back in 1965.

I don't doubt people loved Avatar- I'm crazy about the movie. All I'm saying is that unadjusted box office numbers are incredibly misleading.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, but I would not compare ANYTHING from today to years ago.
Circumtances are different, times are just different.

I mean years ago, movies may be the ONLY means of entertainment. Today, there are all kinds of entertainment. Today, a lot of people may never even go to a movie theater. Who knows?

I just can't compare TODAY to years AGO.

Was there an economic "down time" during "Gone With The Wind"? Were there millions of people laid off from work? Did the stock market crash?

Everything is tied to together.

By the way, Avatar is the fastest film in history to shatter the $1 billion mark (19 days).