Originally Posted by TitusTroy
Avatar is not about pop-out effects, it's about depth...I agree that if you're looking for things to be flying in your face then Avatar will disappoint but the sense of depth is unreal...when 2-3 characters are standing in a room you can literally see the separation within the 3D environment (don't know if that makes any sense)...or to put it another way you can see how far in front of an object a character is standing...the walls and environment have depth to them...look at the way the grass and leaves pop into the screen when someone is walking...it's not something jaw dropping but this is what 3D is meant to convey
some movies may have excellent depth or overall 3D for a portion of the movie or certain scenes but Avatar has it for the entire movie...literally almost every scene
now the movie itself was totally overrated and not that great but the 3D alone was impressive (I'm watching on a calibrated 55" Panasonic VT25 plasma)...and like I said earlier the 3D version looked just as good or slightly better then the 2D version which pretty much never happens...I have to admit I prefer the popout effects just from an entertainment perspective but Cameron really did create something special with 3D depth...I saw Rise of the Guardians 3D last night and that had some really impressive pop-out...the snow in the beginning reached further out of the screen then anything I've ever experienced on 3D...it was literally in my face
Pop out was not my focus if you re-read my post. I am not a pop freak (I certainly enjoy those rare moments though) and depth is what I appreciate most since 3d relies mainly on depth as pop out moments, lets face it, are few and far between in general. Talking strictly depth, not pop, not the film itself, not audio, etc......depth is reserved and conservative vs many other titles, especially if you include animation. There is nothing reference to my eyes with Avatar as far as depth goes and again, throw on any DreamWorks animated title, most IMAX live action titles, Flying Swords of Dragonsgate, etc.......and compare JUST depth and I don't know how you cant see the reserved and conservative quality to Avatar in comparison in general. I have seen this title on my JVC RS40, RS45, and BenQ 7000 in full in both 3d and 2d on my 9' wide screen and a Panny VT50 65" in part and there is nothing special about it vs the competition strictly from a depth perspective IMO. The most impressive scene for depth in Avatar to my eyes is near the beginning when Jake comes out of the capsule and is floating in that long capsule room/chamber......if the whole film had depth similar or close to this, it would deserve to be called "reference", but it doesn't and just feels conservative a good chunk of the time.
As far as the 3d vs 2d goes, I also disagree with you. On my calibrated RS45 (Lumagen mini, Chromapure and D3 Pro meter) the 2d image is stunning and in no way inferior to the 3d image.
I thought Avatar was an excellent 3d title when I first viewed it on blu almost 3 years ago with my limited experience, but as I have viewed more and more 3d over time and revisited Avatar, it just does not hold up to the best 3d out there for depth or pop.
I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine. Avatar is without question the most overrated title strictly from a 3d perspective, both depth and pop that I have seen out of the ~40 + titles I have viewed. I am not saying it is the least impressive out of those, but just very average and mid pack to my eyes for both depth and pop.