This movie is the first real 3D movie i've watched (except IMAX and anime 3D) and shot under the most difficult circumstances for a 3D : ***** environment and heavy motion...
I had no plans on picking this one up, but was really intrigued by the wildly divergent perceptions. I'm skeptical by nature, so I expected to be underwhelmed. (I watched this on a Panasonic 50" VT25 connected to a Panasonic BDT100 player. My seating position is in the 6-7 foot range).
I thought the movie looked fantastic overall, with great depth, minimal crosstalk, and even some limited pop-out effects. (I even enjoyed the movie a bit, to the extent I understood what the hell was going on. This was my first Resident Evil movie).
I'm still curious to see why this film above all others has created so many divergent opinions. Some say the 3D was good while others felt it was flat and non-existent.
Taking a look at these screenshots, I recall the 3D looking rather good during those moments. When Milla is holding her pistols or sawed-off shotguns towards the screen, the barrels didn't really pop-out but they looked 3D (like I'm looking at a real physical object behind my screen). The mega-explosion in the city looked 3D on my screen (like a huge spherical ball of smoke and debris), the scene with the Axe-man and water looked good, and even the scenes on top of the rooftop had a nice "window effect" and receded inwards.
I will say the movie was not minute-for-minute 3D. Maybe that's where we differ. Some would've liked a continuous 3D experience in nearly every scene (that's understandable since it was filmed with 3D cameras) and probably more pop-out, while others are content if the 3D showcases are just found in highlight scenes (which is more where I stand).
Originally Posted by Columbo345
I'm still curious to see why this film above all others has created so many divergent opinions. Some say the 3D was good while others felt it was flat and non-existent.
Taking a look at these screenshots, I recall the 3D looking rather good during those moments. When Milla is holding her pistols or sawed-off shotguns towards the screen, the barrels didn't really pop-out but they looked 3D (like I'm looking at a real physical object behind my screen). The mega-explosion in the city looked 3D on my screen (like a huge spherical ball of smoke and debris), the scene with the Axe-man and water looked good, and even the scenes on top of the rooftop had a nice "window effect" and receded inwards.
I will say the movie was not minute-for-minute 3D. Maybe that's where we differ. Some would've liked a continuous 3D experience in nearly every scene (that's understandable since it was filmed with 3D cameras) and probably more pop-out, while others are content if the 3D showcases are just found in highlight scenes (which is more where I stand).
If you put on REA, then put on something like Open Season, ANY of the IMAX films, Avatar, ACC, Polar Express, Alice In Wonderland, etc........the depth in REA for the most part is very lacking in comparison from my experience. There was a large chunk of the film where you seemed to be wearing the glasses for no/very little reason since there was hardly much difference from its 2d counterpart.
I had no problem at all with the pop-out moments which I thought were fantastic............if the depth had been up to par with the other 3d blu rays I have watched, REA would have been one of the best. The depth was just noticeably lacking compared to other 3d blu rays I have watched. Bad discs seems highly unlikely, but who knows......
Maybe it's possible that some are not noticing the 3D as much because this is using live actors and a set with CGI added where other movies mentioned are animated.
Is it possible that because it is closer to real life than the "cartoons" are that it isn't as noticable?
Over the past month, I think around 15 people (including me!) saw my Optoma GT720 setup. I think... 10 people (including me), see 3D effect normally. 2 people see 3D way over the top. Whatever pop-out, or more motion in the depth, they feel motion sick! 2 people see thing much flatter. They are not impressed. They only cheer when things really pop-out! 1 people almost can't see 3D AT ALL! He said he saw double image watching Avatar in IMAX cinema WITH 3D glasses ON! My home 3D setup looks better because even though he still couldn't see 3D, at least it's just a normal 2D image without double ghost!
IMO, REA does look a bit flat compare to other more 3D movies. I guess the 3D effect is average in my scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw /forum/post/19767390
I haven't seen the BR version yet, but I saw RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE in theaters and I agree with the reviewer about the astounding use of dimensional space captured throughout the length and breadth of the entire movie. For such a low-expectation film, I was literally astonished by the level of care which went into the camerawork and art direction, all of which combined to give every scene a sense of depth which went above and beyond the call of duty.
I agree 100%. Afterlife, in theaters, looked good. Afterlife, on Blu-Ray -- if your settings are right -- looks incredible. I was really impressed. It was, quite honestly, the first true HD3D movie to make me flinch as stuff was thrown out of my screen. Quite impressive. I'm now wondering if those who found it "flat" had their settings off or received a defective disc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tophinator /forum/post/19806584
Maybe it's possible that some are not noticing the 3D as much because this is using live actors and a set with CGI added where other movies mentioned are animated.
Is it possible that because it is closer to real life than the "cartoons" are that it isn't as noticable?
Grand Canyon, IMAX Space Station, Avatar (in certain scenes), My Bloody Valentine, Alice In Wonderland (certain scenes)ALL have real actors and look fantastic in the depth department compared to the REA disc I had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barb1978 /forum/post/19806699
If this was a settings issue, I would have complaints with most/all other discs I have watched which is not the case AT ALL. I have been impressed to one degree or another with every other disc I have watched (~15 now) from a depth perspective (I was floored last night with How To Train Your Dragon!
)..........REA was flat out lacking for me ONLY IN DEPTH and it was not a settings issue I can assure you.
I agree with you that the "fly out of the screen moments" were fantastic in REA (such as the throwing stars in the beg, the Axe man scene, the glasses coming out of the screen scene, etc...........), but these are few and far between. As we all know, 3d depends mainly on depth and my experience was WELL under par in that department with REA. Considering that this is a native 3d title shot with the same cameras as Avatar(?!?) makes the noticeable lack of depth all the more disappointing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkblaze /forum/post/19769008
Maybe we need a poll on this! I am in the camp with blu-ray.com. Of the 13 total 3D movies I own I would say this is, close to, if not dead last in depth. It just looks flat on my Mitsu 73C9. Avatar blows this one away.
I'm starting to believe in the two disc theory, which is probably not far off from the belief in big foot and the loch ness monster.
RE: AFTERLIFE SPOILERS AHEAD: Do you see depth when Alice flies over Alaska? Or is surrounded by all the airplanes when looking for Claire? How about when axe-man is walking down the street filled with zombies, dragging his axe? I get a lot of depth in those scenes. Maybe the crazy "2 disc" theory isn't so crazy, after-all.
That one should really stand out. In theaters, what begins as a flat panoramic vista (true to life - such an aerial view would be rendered 'flat' even when seen with the naked eye) is suddenly given a tremendous amount of depth when the plane appears at the bottom of the screen, a simple - and truly breathtaking - 3-D illusion. This should be a knock-out moment in the BR edition.
I wonder too how many people watch 3D TV with the left / right images inverted (either by the display or the glasses.) This will not make for a pleasant 3D experience AT ALL. Many may not even know that this is a problem and usually can be rectified by changing settings either on the TV or the glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToEhrIsHuman /forum/post/19810213
I wonder too how many people watch 3D TV with the left / right images inverted (either by the display or the glasses.) This will not make for a pleasant 3D experience AT ALL. Many may not even know that this is a problem and usually can be rectified by changing settings either on the TV or the glasses.
Considering everyone who has reported the unusually flat issue with this disc has had good success with other 3d blu rays, this inversion theory is not the problem in this particular case.
Originally Posted by Toe
Considering everyone who has reported the unusually flat issue with this disc has had good success with other 3d blu rays, this inversion theory is not the problem in this particular case.
This happens sometimes with field sequential DVD's, where you have to change the settings on the transmitter to synch the glasses with the display. I don't have access to a BR 3-D set-up, so I wonder if viewers have the ability to 'invert' the signal transmitted to the glasses. There has to be some kind of explanation for this problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw /forum/post/19814425
This happens sometimes with field sequential DVD's, where you have to change the settings on the transmitter to synch the glasses with the display. I don't have access to a BR 3-D set-up, so I wonder if viewers have the ability to 'invert' the signal transmitted to the glasses. There has to be some kind of explanation for this problem...
If it was an inversion issue though we would not see the pop out 3d either right? The pop out moments were fantastic for me with REA, it was just the depth that was hardly any better in the vast majority of the film compared to its 2d counterpart.
I dont doubt that most are getting great depth with this title, I am just trying to figure out why me, Martin and all the others who have reported lack of depth are not getting the same thing while we do get great depth on most (all in my case) other blu ray 3ds.
In answer to your question, I tried inverting the signal on my field sequential DVD-R version of FRIDAY THE 13th PART III, using that film's opening titles as the ultimate 'off-screen effect'. And while the titles DID breach the screen wall, they tended to break up, because images intended for each eye were travelling in the opposite direction. In other words, it was unwatchable.
But that was on an antiquated field sequential system. If I were you, I'd try inverting the signal and testing the BR disc that way, see if it makes any difference, good or bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Shaw /forum/post/19815641
In answer to your question, I tried inverting the signal on my field sequential DVD-R version of FRIDAY THE 13th PART III, using that film's opening titles as the ultimate 'off-screen effect'. And while the titles DID breach the screen wall, they tended to break up, because images intended for each eye were travelling in the opposite direction. In other words, it was unwatchable.
But that was on an antiquated field sequential system. If I were you, I'd try inverting the signal and testing the BR disc that way, see if it makes any difference, good or bad.
That's a pity. Anyone else out there having trouble with this disc who can invert the signal and try it out in the manner I suggested? I'm not hopeful of success, but it's worth a try...
I agree with Barb1978. All those scenes were incredible in 3d.
If you goto the xtras the director and producers say they used the same Pace camera's that James Cameron used for Avatar. They also said all editing and post production were done in 3D (first ever for a live action film).
The cameraman said that there's alot of learning to do with 3d cameras as some scenes will look flat because of foreground and background distances. He thought that 3D was best when used with water (hence the bathroom scene with the executioner).
I have a PS3 to Onkyo SR508 to Sammy 63" plasma (forgot model #)
'Tis true. In real life, our '3-D' vision begins to drop away very rapidly beyond 10 feet or so, and is extremely limited at 50 feet. After 100 feet, it's as flat as my Aunt Fanny's pancakes. Which is why the aerial shot of Alaska in RE:A was pretty blahh until the plane appeared at the bottom of the image, suddenly adding a tremendous illusion of depth to the entire panoramic vista. Astounding stuff, and among the best I've seen in a lifetime of 3-D viewing.
I thought the reverse field of depth (going to the Back of TV) was stunning.... the pop out of screen depth was limited though, and truly, alot of beginner 3d people, thats all there really looking for is frontal depth. Which is not what 3D is about IMO.
I watched this last night and was VERY impressed by it. Great 3D depth and, when appropriate, pop. I'd say it is my second favorite 3D-wise right after Despicable Me. Granted, I do not have Avatar. I do have about 8-10 other 3D movies, though, and I watched Monsters Vs Aliens and Ice Age on HBO on demand.
The basement prison scenes in the room where they had the one guy locked up seemed to lack depth the most, but then again, that room was pretty empty save for the chamber. Some of the darker scenes did exhibit crosstalk, but other dark scenes looked just fine. I use a PS3 slim going to my Sony 60LX900 to view 3D, so I am used to crosstalk during darker scenes.
The movie itself was better than I expected. I played and loved Resident Evil 5, so that probably helped. It was nice to see a familiar character from that game, but the actor they chose didn't really look like him (facially or bodily). Not a big deal. Nice to see Agent Bloom from Undercovers in there as well. He's very easy on the eyes.
For those contemplating a purchase, RE Afterlife 3D dropped back down to $26.99 at Bestbuy.com; real good deal if you have some RZ certificates to apply.
This is an intriguing discussion. I'm on the bullish side about RE in 3D, but admittedly there are a few scenes that are fairly flat. Then again, I don't think a lot of depth is appropriate for every scene in every movie. My desk, where I'm typing is against the wall in a narrow room. Life can be flat.
If you browse user blu-ray 3D reviews on Amazon, which arguably features a lot of unsophisticated feedback, you'll read angry criticism from those expecting a constant assault on the senses. If T-Rex isn't jumping off the screen and barfing on their lap, they feel cheated.
I'm confident that is not what is going on here, but I wonder if our subconscious "mental set" (expectations) come into play. For example: I thought Pirahna 3D looked fairly flat. Since others have been impressed by the depth, I wouldn't rule out my own psychological "set", whether I was aware of it or not. I don't know if this little theory of mine has merit, but I'm adding it to the mix of possible perception differences.
This article is exactly a year old, but if you haven't seen it, it provides a couple of stereo-acuity tests:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droozy /forum/post/19820491
I thought the reverse field of depth (going to the Back of TV) was stunning.... the pop out of screen depth was limited though, and truly, alot of beginner 3d people, thats all there really looking for is frontal depth. Which is not what 3D is about IMO.
I take some exception to that. I've been a 3D fan since I was a little kid in the 60's. I still love in front of the screen effects when they're used the same way a great chef uses seasoning. Unfortunately, too many directors go overboard, but directorial excess also applies to a lot of movie making techniques these days (i.e. high speed shutter, shaky cam, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary miller /forum/post/19824354
I'm confident that is not what is going on here, but I wonder if our subconscious "mental set" (expectations) come into play. For example: I thought Pirahna 3D looked fairly flat. Since others have been impressed by the depth, I wouldn't rule out my own psychological "set", whether I was aware of it or not. I don't know if this little theory of mine has merit, but I'm adding it to the mix of possible perception differences.
It really is interesting. EVERY other title I have watched (~15 now) I have been happy to some degree as far as the depth goes.........it was just REA that I found unusually flat and I dont know why.....
To throw another wrench in the fire, the AVS member who I traded REA to (for HTTYD) just sent me a PM and thought the depth was great
Like I have also mentioned, my buddy Sam has the same projector/player (even VERY similar settings) as me and loved the 3d in REA. Who knows.......
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!