So, I went from a 1080p Toshiba DLP (last yrs model) to a Sony Bravia LCD (2 wks old). My PS3 was in for repairs at Sony, so I hooked back up my HD-A3...popped in King Kong and WOW, the fight scene between Kong and the T-rex(s) was amazing. I think it's called 3d cinemotion or something. I thought I had a good hdtv w/ the Toshiba (and it is), BUT it does not compare to the Sony. I'm sure i'm comparing apples and oranges or apples and genetically engineered terminator apples.

I got my PS3 back and like my A3, not all of my blu's look ??? 3d ??? have depth? Not sure i'm able to describe what i'm seeing. I'm sure someone on here knows what i'm talking about....hopefully.

And now finally the question...F4-silver surfer looks really good, so does I robot. But Tokyo Drift (hd-dvd), not at all good, no depth! So why is this? I'm sure this is a basic question thats been asked many times, but i'm curious. What does one look for (if anything)...reviews? Surely not. Newer releases? Is it the transfer or the master? Another member on here claims that an older movie The Sandpebbles is really good on blu....this is subjective? I like the "depth look", it's part of enjoying HD content.

Maybe it's the Sony Lcd in combo w/ the content be it satellite or disc. What would someone look for when purchasing a new blu?

I think you're referring to the motion interpolation option on the newer 120hz HDTVs like the Sonys and Samsung (referred to as Motion Plus on the Samsungs and "Motion Flow" on the Sony TVs), which puts puts new frames between the existing frames.

I'm not sure why some titles would look better/more 3d than others though - it might be to do with higher contrast, different types of camera movement/depth of field, lack of noise/grain or types of camera used or something.

What makes 2D look like 3D sometimes, is how you light the objects in the movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_lighting

Also, King Kong used a 4k master for downconversion, likely adding an extra bit of effective resolution to HD discs. Black levels, varying between displays, enhance 3D-like effects. -- John

Also, King Kong used a 4k master for downconversion, likely adding an extra bit of effective resolution to HD discs. Black levels, varying between displays, enhance 3D-like effects. -- John

Mr. Mason,

So one could assume that whoever (peter jackson, paramount, etc.) takes the master and "picks" the resolution(?) when they are going to move it to blu-ray/dvd?

Why did (Jackson?) use a 4k master for King Kong and other's do/don't? And how would a person know this or how to look for it? Where do I look for it on my current collection, on the back of the case, imdb, google?

Interesting stuff for sure.

Mr. Mason,

So one could assume that whoever (peter jackson, paramount, etc.) takes the master and "picks" the resolution(?) when they are going to move it to blu-ray/dvd?

Why did (Jackson?) use a 4k master for King Kong and other's do/don't? And how would a person know this or how to look for it? Where do I look for it on my current collection, on the back of the case, imdb, google?

Interesting stuff for sure.

4K isnt the actuall resolution of the movie, its the resolution they scan the movienegative. Its actually oversampling to easier extract the real information thats is on the film itself.

Compare that you play a DVD on your TV, what would be better to capture the screenshoot with.

A 1 megapixelcam or a 12 megapixelcam?

I thought King Kong (2005) was scanned at 2k?

Well whatever they did with Kong, it looks excellent to my eye. I wish there was a way to figure out which movies are what resolution or how they are scanned or whatever term to describe them.
Example:
King Kong (2008): has depth, 3d look, etc.
FF/tokyo drift: flat, looks nice in hd, but flat
FF4/ssurfer: has depth, 3d look, etc.
I'robot: depth, 3d, blah, blah.... you all get the point.

Reviews don't seem to mention these points. Do they? I don't recall any.

Shouldn't FF/tokyo drift be whatevered? Remastered? Negative rescanned? Would that make a difference.

So I played Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith in my ps3 and then my reference:FF/tokyo drift. Star Wars:RotS looked better. It had some depth to it, not HD quality but I saw depth. What gives here? If a standard dvd is scanned or mastered at a higher "rate" than a HD movie, it looks better? Maybe it's just me...subjective.

thanks for allowing me to take up someones time....

You could always download a few screenshots, and preview them on your PS3

www.hdmovies.co.nz

Note the lack of motion may not portray the movies full 3D pop potential

So I played Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith in my ps3 and then my reference:FF/tokyo drift. Star Wars:RotS looked better. It had some depth to it, not HD quality but I saw depth. What gives here? If a standard dvd is scanned or mastered at a higher "rate" than a HD movie, it looks better? Maybe it's just me...subjective.

Both King Kong and SWROTS have a lot of CG in them, so gradients will be smoother, which may be adding to the 3D effect you're seeing . My guess is the lighting used during the filming of FFTD was done to create a specific style instead of a realistic image, hence the sensation of 3D pop is reduced.

Both King Kong and SWROTS have a lot of CG in them, so gradients will be smoother, which may be adding to the 3D effect you're seeing . My guess is the lighting used during the filming of FFTD was done to create a specific style instead of a realistic image, hence the sensation of 3D pop is reduced.

The films budget was alot lighter then the other two movies, that can effect how much they can spend on setting up each scene. It also was shoot on location were starwars was entirly shoot in greenscreen/bluescreen (easy to prepare lights).

Not that I saw the lighting of FF:TD as the movies main problem...