Pacific Rim is out. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 07-14-2013, 09:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
This 3D effect controversial film is out now in our local theaters. It is available in 3 formats, 2D, Real3D, and IMAX 3D.

Considering this movie subject is about BIG. Would it be best seen in IMAX 3D vs. Real 3D? Here, the IMAX theater complex is charging almost double the 3D price for IMAX 3D. In the past, I stopped going to IMAX 3D because the size was too big for most films, but felt this one might be more suited for the IMAX size.

Real 3D ticket is $7.50
IMAX 3D ticket is $13.00 for same time slot.

Is IMAX 3D worth the additional price?
Don Landis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 07-14-2013, 05:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
laugsbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Is IMAX 3D worth the additional price?

Yes...I'm going later this week...smile.gif

BTW, what was controversial about this film?
laugsbach is online now  
post #3 of 36 Old 07-15-2013, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TrickMcKaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I saw it in Real 3D. At my theater, it was a little doubled and blurry - I've noticed this before on some screens here, and I don't think this is typical of other RealD screenings. Next time, I'll see it in IMAX 3D. I think the bigger screen will help this movie.

As to the controversy, I think they did a good job of 3D post conversion. I did not think the 3D made things look smaller, or at least not to a degree that hurt the film. In regular scale scenes, people has depth and roundness, to my eye.

This movie is well done, but in the end, I hate to say it, but it was a lot like Transformers 3D. They are movies about robots fighting. And then, some more fighting, and a big fight scene at the end.
TrickMcKaha is offline  
post #4 of 36 Old 07-15-2013, 02:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Thanks Trick. I may just spring for the IMAX version. I don't mind spending for the IMAX, but want the size difference to be worth the extra money

This older article helps explain the controversy on the 3D of this film and the disagreement between Del Toro and the Studio.

I'm sure Del Toro doesn't mind the money from the 3D versions. smile.gif
Don Landis is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 07-15-2013, 02:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
laugsbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 123
^^
Thanks for the article...cool.gif
laugsbach is online now  
post #6 of 36 Old 07-15-2013, 05:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
GregK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
The controversy was pretty much over when WB agreed to all of Del Toro's requests to ensure a high quality and scale accurate 3-D presentation.

http://collider.com/guillermo-del-toro-pacific-rim-3d/


Like Jurassic Park (also converted by StereoD) I would highly recommend seeing a feature like this in IMAX 3-D. Somehow I think the experience will be just a tad diminished when I watch this again on a smaller home theater screen. wink.gif
GregK is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 07-15-2013, 05:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
laugsbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregK View Post

Somehow I think the experience will be just a tad diminished when I watch this again on a smaller home theater screen. wink.gif

Thanks for the article...smile.gif

I am hoping that the Blu-ray sound mix makes up for the lack of home video size...if it brings the full extension, this will be an amazing home theater experience!
laugsbach is online now  
post #8 of 36 Old 07-16-2013, 02:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Wife and I just got back from seeing PR in IMAX 3D. We had planned to see it at our local IMAX 3D theater at AMC multiplex ( 47' x 24') b ut we saw a bunch of Zimmerman protesters there and did not want to get mixed up in that so we headed out of town to a near by IMAX theater. It was fate at work because this theater is much bigger with a screen size 60 x 80 ft. It also has nearly double the sound system at 28,000 watts. ( Not necessarily a good thing)

Anyway the experience was well worth the additional drive. and the cost was lower too at $10 ea for 1PM showing.

I was curious as to whether our Real 3D classes would work but they didn't. So we just used the big IMAX 3D glasses.

The 3D quality was excellent with no ghosting and extreme depth range from right in front of your face to way way back. The underwater shots were like being under water for real. The snow fall scenes filled the room. The large screen did not dwarf the large robots or alien creatures but gave a natural looking depth like being there and seeing it for real. The low camera angle of the water scenes made you feel like reaching out and touching the water as it came right up in front of you and then stretched way behind the screen. The views from the robots at the surrounding city and under water gave you vertigo.

What did not look natural was the huge face closeups. These directors need to be careful at shooting scenes where there are closeups of people talking where you are watching and the face is 60 ft tall. While Del Toro was worried about miniaturization of the city and robots due to wide parallax he would be better served worrying more about giant normal people. For this reason I don't go to IMAX theaters much. The more distant 3D shots of the city streets with crowds of people where the people are more natural sized like 8 ft high maximum gave a more pleasing 3D real world look. This is not a complaint about PR but a complaint about IMAX direction of movies in general. It's why I reserve my IMAX experience for stuff like stories of large scale such as Outer Space.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The Pacific Rim story itself was somewhat goofy. You really had to put away your serious sci fi cap for this one. It takes place over a 5 year time frame beginning in 2017 and as such uses technology that may be 40 to 100 years away at best.. Plus, I doubt if we ever were invaded by an alien race of giants that our defense would be to construct a bunch of huge robots to pick a fist fight with them. I mean how dumb is that? They did use nukes to blow up and destroy the invaders but those could have been simply deployed by our present day penetrating missiles. The idea of this story is just plain stupid. BUT, watching with a bite your tongue from laughter, we both enjoyed the film tremendously, the experience of the 60x80 ft screen and the great sound stage. I can't wait to see this in BluRay 3D.
Don Landis is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 07-16-2013, 03:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Although I generally prefer all my movies in 3D these days as so few of them seem to suffer because of it and ALL scifi to be 3D. I'm probably abnormal in this respect.

But this one I may spend some money and go see it in 2D one afternoon just so I can try to appreciate Del Toro's concerns. I can tell you that the 3D is so good on the version I saw today, that seeing it now in 2D may just be a major let down and more about following the story, like reading the book with pictures, than experiencing a real world event. I haven't done this 2D second viewing since Avatar and I can tell you it was a real let down. Avatar is best appreciated in 3D but then I'm very biased on the debate of 2D vs. 3D.
Don Landis is offline  
post #10 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 06:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I haven't seen this yet, but will try this week on an iMax screen (smaller version). I must say, I was totally adverse to conversions prior to Titanic. After that, I welcomed them. In some ways, they seemed to capture front to back depth better--probably because they can control where infinity is vs. a twin lens system that will converge at a given point and produce less depth (unless lots of thought is given to lens separation--the stereo baseline).
threed123 is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 08:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Yes, I do believe that Titanic was the turning point for conversions quality. The laborious time consumed by conversion is costly but it seems within the process of a first time film making, it can add an option to using twin cameras and post conversion. As a shooter I know that in these productions, the twin camera system is often compromised and then you get what your equipment produces, not always what you intended. In the conversion process if one element/object in the shot causes an issue, you simply fine tune that object in the scene and then move on. We see the end result often a very accurate 3D rendition as opposed to twin cameras that are on a variable IA and convergence bench. Certainly much better production than the self contained 3D camcorders like most of us use. But cost cutting can rear it's ugly head in the conversion process too. When Del toro demanded a meticulous process like Titanic he knew that's what it would take. But conversion is a big word and many people not understanding the difference between "simulated 3D" in a TV set and these conversions that take months of labor to perform.
Don Landis is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 09:32 AM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I also thought this was a great conversion. It's amazing how far this process has come since Clash of the Titans. I feel this was the best use of 3D since Avatar and it wasn't even conceived as a 3D project. I saw it on a large Real 3D screening and was very pleased with the brightness and lack of ghosting. There is so much detail in the production design in almost every scene that the depth really helped to enhance your perception of these complex spaces. Also, I noticed layers in the far background in the cavernous hangers that I believe would not have been there if shot natively but was enhanced in the conversion. I agree with Don that seeing this film again flat will seem like a letdown.

It's to bad as 3D gets better there is less promotion of it by the studios and theaters. My local theater seems embarrassed that a film is in 3D with fewer showings at odd times and box office personnel that tries to steer you to a 2D showing.

I enjoyed Pacific Rim a lot and it really pains me that crap like Grown Ups 2 makes more money. I guess the public gets what it deserves
.
SFMike is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
I enjoyed Pacific Rim a lot and it really pains me that crap like Grown Ups 2 makes more money. I guess the public gets what it deserves

It's probably because the public looks for the story and who stars in a film first and foremost, but we, in this tiny group are interested in the technical aspect of the film. I'll tolerate a bad story ( which I believe Pacific Rim was really a stupid story) if the entertainment value of the 3D entertains.
Don Landis is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
+1 Don. I've watched more than a few bad stories just to enjoy the 3D. My son wishes all films were 3D. My wife and daughter can't stand it and hope it dies quickly. They both get motion sickness when watching in 3D, yet they love carnival rides that spin around--go figure...
threed123 is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrickMcKaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Don,
Thanks for reporting your 2D experience and saving us that time. I too love 3D so much, I'll tolerate a weak story for the spectacle. I accused Avatar of having two dimensional characters, but I loved it overall. I think what Pacific Rim maybe lacked was a love scene between the robots.
TrickMcKaha is offline  
post #16 of 36 Old 07-17-2013, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrickMcKaha View Post

I think what Pacific Rim maybe lacked was a love scene between the robots.
Sudden flashbacks of Team America here...

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 01:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrickMcKaha View Post

Don,
Thanks for reporting your 2D experience and saving us that time. I too love 3D so much, I'll tolerate a weak story for the spectacle. I accused Avatar of having two dimensional characters, but I loved it overall. I think what Pacific Rim maybe lacked was a love scene between the robots.

LOL!
My wife is far more a romantic than I am but she never mentioned it.. I wouldn't say the story was weak, just some aspects of it was silly, not logical. Of course Transformers was also a silly concept but at least those were aliens. The silliness, in part, made these movies entertaining. I guess if the author did what we would do to combat a large creature using a missile to launch a nuke, there would be no story or be quite boring.
Don Landis is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 02:42 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Wife and I just got back from seeing PR in IMAX 3D. We had planned to see it at our local IMAX 3D theater at AMC multiplex ( 47' x 24') b ut we saw a bunch of Zimmerman protesters there and did not want to get mixed up in that so we headed out of town to a near by IMAX theater. It was fate at work because this theater is much bigger with a screen size 60 x 80 ft. It also has nearly double the sound system at 28,000 watts. ( Not necessarily a good thing)

Anyway the experience was well worth the additional drive. and the cost was lower too at $10 ea for 1PM showing.

I was curious as to whether our Real 3D classes would work but they didn't. So we just used the big IMAX 3D glasses.

Don, was this the World Golf Hall of Fame IMAX Theater?

I've seen a number of films there, both Hollywood and IMAX Documentaries. Very excellent theater!

I too have never been able to use my Oakley 3D glasses at the IMAX.

I believe this is due to IMAX using Linear polarizing while RealD uses Circular polarizing.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Native shooters have the best of both worlds -- they get to see their shots in 3D on set, and still get to fix errors or add dimensionality with postconversion tools.

I discourage the use of 2D filming, especially if that director and cinematographer lack the years of experience it takes to develop a familiarity with shooting 3D blind.

http://guru.bafta.org/chris-parks-interview
Quote:
He recalls one of its hardest scenes thus: “We were filming the actors on a green screen stage as they interacted with the giants. We were able to see the giants, who had been filmed in advance, on the monitors. The giant video feed, however, was just 2D which meant that none of our 3D monitoring was any use for judging the 3D on them. So, we were shooting scenes that we knew would look fantastic in stereo, but without the ability actually to judge the 3D settings – how we could get the best from the shots or whether we were even creating usable material.”

While conversions do still struggle with things like transparent elements (fog, glass, etc), it's not the technical issues I take issue with. My problem with conversions is that they're usually an afterthought. Gravity seems to be an exception, but we'll have to wait and see. The stereographer said:
Quote:
"Alfonso Cuaron pushed me more with the 3D than any director has done before and it’s fantastic,” Parks adds, discreetly, that it contains work of which he’s, to date, “proudest” but, “I can’t really talk about it yet!”

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 11:58 AM
Member
 
EVERRET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post


I too have never been able to use my Oakley 3D glasses at the IMAX.

I believe this is due to IMAX using Linear polarizing while RealD uses Circular polarizing.

I found some decent glasses that work at our local "digital" IMAX theater

Terminator Glasses For Newer Imax Theatres - http://www.berezin.com/3d/3dglasses.htm#Imax

I got these because My local IMAX theater reuses their glasses , so they are allway's smugged or scratched frown.gif
EVERRET is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 12:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
The glasses issue is more a problem for my wife who has to wear Rx, therefore the need to wear two pair. For Real 3D I made a set of Rx glasses for her so only one pair needs to be worn. I was thinking of taking the IMAX pair home and making an Rx pair with those but we really don't go to IMAX that often.
Don Landis is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 03:02 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post

I found some decent glasses that work at our local "digital" IMAX theater

Terminator Glasses For Newer Imax Theatres - http://www.berezin.com/3d/3dglasses.htm#Imax

I got these because My local IMAX theater reuses their glasses , so they are allway's smugged or scratched frown.gif

Nice find! But I wonder which ones to order as they say there are now 2 different linear polarization options used in IMAX. confused.gif

But maybe I should just order both as I travel a lot and never know what the IMAX venue will use. Plus they're not that expensive.

Whenever I can get to an IMAX, I always double check the glasses for that exact reason and often have to tell the person to keep looking until he/she gets a good and clean pair.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 03:18 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
BTW, was anyone else disappointed it wasn't shot in Cinemascope format? frown.gif
biliam1982 is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 07-18-2013, 05:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
GregK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Very interesting about different IMAX installations using two different linear polarization methods.. The primary set up I've always known IMAX to use is the 0 and 90 degree orientation. Do some IMAX theaters use the oposing 45/45 orientation like classic 35mm 3-D features used? Or is it something different? Edit: Found it: 45/135 orientaion.

While I like Scope, in this case I didn't mind it being 1.85:1, as height is an important part of this movie, and having this being full height in IMAX was a plus. This will be more so in the typical home theater set-up, not including those doing CIH set-ups.
Don Landis likes this.
GregK is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 07-30-2013, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Saw PR in iMax (smaller version) yesterday. Again, this is the 3rd film I've seen in that theater and it was way too loud. I ended up stuffing pieces of napkin in my ears and that helped. There were only 14 people in the theater and two men brought along what looked like about 8 year olds. I honestly couldn't believe it. First, children at that age have smaller heads and eye separation and often suffer from eye strain because the screen separation is too wide. Second, 3D at that age (considering the intensity of an iMax screen and PR's use of action) could cause seizures, extreme night fright, and god knows what. As I predicted, it wasn't long before the kids took off their glasses and asked their daddies to leave, but neither adults budged and the kids had to suffer through the rest of the movie. I'm all for 3D, but we don't have enough evidence of what it does to small minds yet. Regardless of the 3D, the intense action and ravaging aliens are just too much for kids....okay, I'm off my soap box now.

I feel that iMax is the only way to see this movie. I had no problem with scale of the robots and creatures. The technology--especially in the robot hangar--was truly amazing and realistic. Definitely raises the level of cgi action and will put a strain on Avatar 2 to come up with something even more spectacular.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The movie is silly in the sense that it takes place in 2014, given the technology shown, but after you let your mind jump from reality to fantasy, the whole movie is one wild ride using bits and pieces from Alien (the creatures), Blade Runner (the overall feel), Top Gun (even has a female strategist in a love interest with a top-gun like robot commander), Star Wars (shooting bombs down the pipe to blow up the death ray), Avatar (use of 3D video monitors and avatars to control the robots), Transformers (giant robots), Godzilla (giant creatures crossing water and destroying coastal cities), and The Black Hole Disney movie(the robot--I swear you will see an almost exact replica of it in the movie near the end of the movie--do a Black Hole movie search, and even some of the scenes--ala fire in the tube) to name a few.

That said, the 3D conversion was excellent, almost perfect, I'd give it a 5 out of 5. The action scenes had less judder than other conversions. I'd give the feeling of depth a 4 out of 5, and the feeling of "being there," a 3 out of 5, and that's mostly because the iMax screen makes everything bigger than life--it's a trade off. I'll have to see again on my 159" home screen to see if I feel the same.

Interesting that the previews included 3 sci-fi blockbusters coming soon--all in 2D: Elysium, Riddick and Gravity--sad really.
threed123 is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 07-30-2013, 12:08 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
3D does not harm children any more than it does adults or cause seizures any more than 2D does.

http://www.3deyehealth.org/faq.html

And yes, since their interocular distance is smaller, children can't converge on parallax as wide as adults can, but unless they were sitting in the front row of the IMAX, I didn't think Pacific Rim's parallax was so large that it would cause issues for anyone.

Fun movie though. All the 3D CGI looked great.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 07-30-2013, 01:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

BTW, was anyone else disappointed it wasn't shot in Cinemascope format? frown.gif

Not at all! This movie in particular needed the height. But 3D in general for my personal enjoyment at home, I prefer the 16:9 format. 2D can be either. Note- I have a variable aspect ratio home theater screen.
Don Landis is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 07-30-2013, 04:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11 View Post

3D does not harm children any more than it does adults or cause seizures any more than 2D does.

http://www.3deyehealth.org/faq.html

.

Well that a relief. At least we are destroying them equally with 2D and TV as well as 3D--lol.
threed123 is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 07-30-2013, 06:01 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Not at all! This movie in particular needed the height. But 3D in general for my personal enjoyment at home, I prefer the 16:9 format. 2D can be either. Note- I have a variable aspect ratio home theater screen.

I don't get it when people say that w/ out explaining further.

2.35:1 and 1.78:1 have the same height.

Are you referring to once the movie makes it into a home and are constrained by the lack of CIH setups and mass amounts of 16:9 TV's?
biliam1982 is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 07-31-2013, 12:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post

My local IMAX theater reuses their glasses , so they are allway's smugged or scratched frown.gif

My SO just crucified me to our friends regaling the tale of me blocking the line to get a pair of glasses I liked. I all but couldn't watch the last movie we went to there. I was floored bt just how bad they actually were, going through a bunch of them.
coolhand is offline  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Pacific Rim Blu Ray 3d Blu Ray Dvd Ultraviolet Combo Pack

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off