Aspect ratio


Why did Cameron decide to shoot this one in 2.35:1 after doing the first in 1.85:1? Seems like a weird choice, as the taller frame creates better immersion with the 3D.

reply

I think the movie was shot in 1.85:1 like the first movie. Pretty much all of Avatar 1's marketing was in 2.35:1, and when I saw the first movie in theaters, it was 2.35:1 (I even remember being thrown off by the movie when I watched it on Blu-Ray and the aspect ratio was 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1). I'm thinking James Cameron did the same for Avatar 2. Even IMDB lists 1.85:1 for Avatar 2 if you look at the technical specifications section. The marketing and theatrical release (in standard theaters like the one in my town and not something "fancy" like IMAX/IMAX 3D) are probably in 2.35:1, and the Blu-Ray/digital/streaming version will be 1.85:1. But that was why I was a little iffy on watching Avatar 2 in theaters. The theatrical release will chop off the top and bottom (or maybe do some kind of pan and scan) to make it 2.35:1, so I'm seeing less (I did see Avatar 2 in theaters though), but the Blu-Ray will have no black bars and everything that was chopped off will be there. I noticed I could see more on the Blu-Ray release of the first Avatar compared to when I saw it in theaters (I had to compare stuff using the Blu-Ray and trailers found on YouTube). We'll see what happens with the Avatar 2 Blu-Ray though. I'm just going to assume that Avatar 2 will follow what happened with Avatar 1, and that when Avatar 2 releases on Blu-Ray, it'll be in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

reply

Huh, weird. I don't remember the first being in 2.35:1 in theaters, but that was a long time ago. Why chop off the top and bottom of the frame?

reply