AVS Forum

AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   3D Content (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/)
-   -   Gravity 3D Bluray (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1513857-gravity-3d-bluray.html)

Peterpack 01-24-2014 12:08 PM

Is this the one 3D enthusiasts are waiting for ?

I haven't seen the movie yet in 2D or 3D

Brajesh 01-24-2014 01:07 PM

Oh yes, I missed this in IMAX 3d in theaters... Next best thing will be 3d front projection at home. Just wish it was 1:78:1 (vs. 2.35:1) for best 3d impact.

tgm1024 01-24-2014 02:35 PM

Gravity (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + UltraViolet Combo Pack) (2014)

Sandra Bullock (Actor), George Clooney (Actor), Alfonso Cuaron (Director) | Rated: PG-13 | Format: Blu-ray

List Price: $44.95
Price: $29.99 Eligible for free shipping with Amazon Prime.
You Save: $14.96 (33%)
  Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more.
   
 
This title will be released on February 25, 2014.
Pre-order now.

Toe 01-25-2014 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brajesh View Post

Oh yes, I missed this in IMAX 3d in theaters... Next best thing will be 3d front projection at home. Just wish it was 1:78:1 (vs. 2.35:1) for best 3d impact.


Best 3d impact for me is 2.35. Glad this is scope!

tgm1024 01-25-2014 07:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brajesh View Post

Oh yes, I missed this in IMAX 3d in theaters... Next best thing will be 3d front projection at home. Just wish it was 1:78:1 (vs. 2.35:1) for best 3d impact.


Best 3d impact for me is 2.35.

 

No way, not for me.  James Cameron was 100% right IMO.  3D requires the height.  He chose 16:9 (filmed natively and for 3D display) because it increases your sense of immersion.  He went broader for the 2D version using a scan only version of "pan and scan" of the original 16:9.


Toe 01-25-2014 08:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No way, not for me.  James Cameron was 100% right IMO.  3D requires the height.  He chose 16:9 (filmed natively and for 3D display) because it increases your sense of immersion.  He went broader for the 2D version using a scan only version of "pan and scan" of the original 16:9.

I am talking in general and from the perspective of somebody who runs a CIH setup which I do. 2.35/40 3d on a scope screen is MUCH more immersive vs 1.78, and JC would agree. biggrin.gif I always root for OAR of course, but I am always a bit more excited when the OAR is 2.35/40 for both 2d and 3d. Someone who has the more common 1.78 screen would not agree which makes sense as well.

Either way, I am just glad they are releasing both 2d and 3d in OAR no matter if it is 1.78/85 or 2.35/40.

threed123 01-25-2014 09:43 AM

I saw it in little imax (not the big IMAX) and was disappointed by the 2.35/1 perspective as many of the free-floating objects/actors that could have floated into the audience for a true space effect, were cut off by the scene window. The theater was full, and not one person let out an ooh or awe during the film unlike Avatar. The action kept the movie going, but the 3D was so-so and could have been so much better. I had a sense of "what were they (producers/director) thinking?" when I saw it. It's worth a buy or rent, but the impact on a small home screen will be minimal in my opinion. Yeah, if you have an anamorphic wide-screen set up at home, it might be sweet, but on a 100" 16:9 screen, it's going to lose a lot.

tgm1024 01-25-2014 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No way, not for me.  James Cameron was 100% right IMO.  3D requires the height.  He chose 16:9 (filmed natively and for 3D display) because it increases your sense of immersion.  He went broader for the 2D version using a scan only version of "pan and scan" of the original 16:9.

I am talking in general and from the perspective of somebody who runs a CIH setup which I do. 2.35/40 3d on a scope screen is MUCH more immersive vs 1.78, and JC would agree. biggrin.gif I always root for OAR of course, but I am always a bit more excited when the OAR is 2.35/40 for both 2d and 3d. Someone who has the more common 1.78 screen would not agree which makes sense as well.

Either way, I am just glad they are releasing both 2d and 3d in OAR no matter if it is 1.78/85 or 2.35/40.

 

Yeah, turns out for the non-Imax 3D version he tailored it per type of movie screen:

Quote:
In the theatrical release of the movie, it played in 3-D in non-IMAX digital theaters in both formats. We did that by selecting whichever theater was going to look best in which format.
 

cinema13 01-25-2014 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post

I saw it in little imax (not the big IMAX) and was disappointed by the 2.35/1 perspective as many of the free-floating objects/actors that could have floated into the audience for a true space effect, were cut off by the scene window. The theater was full, and not one person let out an ooh or awe during the film unlike Avatar. The action kept the movie going, but the 3D was so-so and could have been so much better. I had a sense of "what were they (producers/director) thinking?" when I saw it. It's worth a buy or rent, but the impact on a small home screen will be minimal in my opinion. Yeah, if you have an anamorphic wide-screen set up at home, it might be sweet, but on a 100" 16:9 screen, it's going to lose a lot.


Surely you jest. I saw FINAL DESTINATION 5 ona 100" 16:9 screen (not mine, sadly) and some of us were ducking! (Not me, of course.) Whether 2D or 3D, there is no substitute for OAR 3D. Even on my much smaller home set-up, if a 3D movie is released cropped, I never purchase it.

threed123 01-26-2014 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Surely you jest. I saw FINAL DESTINATION 5 ona 100" 16:9 screen (not mine, sadly) and some of us were ducking! (Not me, of course.) Whether 2D or 3D, there is no substitute for OAR 3D. Even on my much smaller home set-up, if a 3D movie is released cropped, I never purchase it.

I'm not saying that there aren't good 2.35:1 3D movies, just that with more top and bottom shown of any scene, the 3D becomes more real. Gravity lacked a sense of space in many scenes because floating objects were cut off by the top and bottom part of the frame. The problem with OAR and 2.35:1 is that they chop a 35mm frame into pseudo wide screen rather than shooting in true wide screen to capture all of the vertical plane. Anyway, I watched Titanic 2D in original 2.35:1 and then Titanic 3D in 16:9 (they opened up the top and bottom to show the original captured full frame), and was blown away by the added feel of being there.

Toe 01-26-2014 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post

I'm not saying that there aren't good 2.35:1 3D movies, just that with more top and bottom shown of any scene, the 3D becomes more real. Gravity lacked a sense of space in many scenes because floating objects were cut off by the top and bottom part of the frame. The problem with OAR and 2.35:1 is that they chop a 35mm frame into pseudo wide screen rather than shooting in true wide screen to capture all of the vertical plane. Anyway, I watched Titanic 2D in original 2.35:1 and then Titanic 3D in 16:9 (they opened up the top and bottom to show the original captured full frame), and was blown away by the added feel of being there.

I don't see how this is a problem as long as it was originally conceived in scope at which point precautions could be taken to avoid the issues you talk about. Gravity was shot with 2.35 3d in mind, so we are getting exactly what is meant to be seen. I personally find open matte like Titanic a bit distracting commonly as there seems to be too much empty/excessive space above and/or below the original 2.35 frame, especially when we have been watching it for YEARS in scope before (the case with Titanic). They opened it up to fill peoples 1.78 screens IMO and if everyone was running with 2.35 displays instead of the MUCH more common 1.78, do you really think they would have opened up Titanic?

I just want OAR for both 2d and 3d. I don't like this open matte practice just to fill the common 1.78 screen.

tgm1024 01-26-2014 03:37 PM

No, there's something about 3D that requires the height IMO.

 

I have a theory, but it's only a theory, or more of a guess.  That guess would be that because 3D is a step closer to what you see IRL that it more requires what you'd normally see for vertical FOV. (?)


cinema13 01-26-2014 04:09 PM

With TITANIC, if I'm not mistaken, the scenes with actors may be "opened up" but, like Toe, I find the empty space distracting. (wanna see how bad an open matte can be...watch KNIGHT & DAY) the the FX sequences (the only reason I'd have to see it again) are cropped...NOT opened up. In addition, an open matte can change the intended perspective (the automat scene in DARK CITY is an example...opened up it makes the characters seem much closer to each other, while in 2.35, even though its the same scene, they seem to be more seperated with a greater between the.....as intended by the director. As for height...I just sit closer. Everything taken into account, there is never a valid reason to crop a widescreen movie. If a 3D movie is intended to be in 2.35, then that is how I want it. If it's altered to fit 16:9, then I won't purchase the title.

Toe 01-26-2014 04:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, there's something about 3D that requires the height IMO.

I have a theory, but it's only a theory, or more of a guess.  That guess would be that because 3D is a step closer to what you see IRL that it more requires what you'd normally see for vertical FOV. (?)

I disagree, but we can just leave it at that. It still all depends on what is trying to be emphasized in the composition which is why some films are scope and some 1.78 for 3d, just like 2d. Maybe more width wants to be emphasized instead of height in which case scope makes more sense (which apparently is the case with Gravity).

Joseph Clark 01-26-2014 07:10 PM

I've seen interviews with James Cameron in which he dismisses several of the more old school axioms of 3D shooting. For instance, he encourages not worrying about edge violations - in which objects that are in front of the screen plane dissect one or more edges of the frame. Traditional stereographers are usually adamant about not breaking this rule. Cameron says that "there is no frame" when you shoot 3D. He believes it's next to impossible to tell the stories that he wants to tell without breaking this rule. He goes so far as to say that this rule should be broken as often as possible. smile.gif His only exception is when objects fly out of the frame (like the knife that comes toward your head).

Cameron also advocates that people sit as close as possible to the small 3D TVs they probably have in their living rooms, which I believe is relevant to this discussion. I think sitting close immerses the viewer more in the story, which I suspect is the main reason Cameron likes 3D so much as a storytelling tool. If you listened to some stereographers, you'd get out your high school trig book and calculate the exact viewing distance and angle before you watched any 3D. I think James Cameron would argue that sitting close eliminates as much of your surroundings as possible from the periphery of your vision, and thus pulls you into the 3D world better. It's true that sitting closer gives you an "unreal" perspective, collapsing the depth somewhat, but the benefit is that you can't see much else and the 3D world feels more real. The extra height of a 16x9 screen helps with that illusion.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting JC, but this was my first reaction to Avatar when I saw it in the theaters. I sat in the 4th row and the feeling of being "on Pandora" gave me goosebumps.

Deja Vu 01-26-2014 07:32 PM

I saw Gravity at the IMAX and I am sure of one thing -- this movie with all its high contrast scenes is going to be a ghosting nightmare for most home theatre setups. Only DLP is going to be able to handle this one (IMO). I saw a ton of "ghosting" at the IMAX. I enjoyed the movie nonetheless, because I know this is going to look great on one of my DLP projectors on the HP screen. Toe, you're in for a treat! I can't wait to get my hands on this one.

Toe 01-26-2014 08:52 PM

You guys have me excited to see this Deja Vu! cool.gif

Joseph Clark 01-26-2014 09:00 PM

Me, too. I didn't see it at the theater. Most of my experiences at the theater these days don't compare to what I see and hear at home. But the biggest improvement has come from changes to the sound in my home theater. I used a chapter from Oblivion today to demo the new surround system. How's the sound in Gravity?

Toe 01-26-2014 09:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Me, too. I didn't see it at the theater. Most of my experiences at the theater these days don't compare to what I see and hear at home. But the biggest improvement has come from changes to the sound in my home theater. I used a chapter from Oblivion today to demo the new surround system. How's the sound in Gravity?

I feel the same way. I get a much better overall experience at home. Oblivion is my favorite audio track on blu from 2013 and probably my favorite 2d transfer as well........such a great disc!

brwsaw 01-26-2014 10:14 PM

First must buy of the year.
Thanks for keeping it spoiler free...
This might drive me to get glasses too.

Edit: Just caught "3D" in the thread title.
I stand by my post.lol.

tgm1024 01-27-2014 07:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I saw Gravity at the IMAX and I am sure of one thing -- this movie with all its high contrast scenes is going to be a ghosting nightmare for most home theatre setups. Only DLP is going to be able to handle this one (IMO). I saw a ton of "ghosting" at the IMAX. I enjoyed the movie nonetheless, because I know this is going to look great on one of my DLP projectors on the HP screen. Toe, you're in for a treat! I can't wait to get my hands on this one.

 

I saw Gravity at a non-IMAX circularly polarized theater, and I was floored by the fact that I couldn't see any crosstalk at all.  They were using glasses that they lent out and asked to be returned, but they were not active (I called and asked the theater myself about it).

 

In theory, the high contrast nature of white items over the black of space should have caused an absurd amount of Left information leaking into the Right eye, etc., but it didn't in the theater.  I'm not sure why; I'll have to get the brand they use someday.  The only thing I can think of is that in a darkened theater the amount of light needed to achieve a "white" is much lower than with an LCD TV.

 

Frankly, as absolutely jaw-dropping as my (passive) LCD can get, I don't think it'll be able to pull this one off without crosstalk.


tgm1024 01-27-2014 07:17 AM

You can pre-order the 4 BD set for $30.

 

Partially OT:  If I do that, what's the best way to sell off the remaining 3 discs (blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)?  All together or separately?  Amazon Marketplace?  Ebay?  AVS classifieds (the sub-forum: Physical Media Items (Movies etc))?


threed123 03-01-2014 06:29 PM

Watched Gravity in 3D last night-Optoma HD131x and 159" 16:9 Dalite Highpower screen. Per the previous discussion above, I struggled with the 2.40:1 ratio throughout the movie. It was as if a couldn't get the window opened enough in my mind to "see" the whole picture. I didn't get this feeling watching it in the theater on a imax screen as much. Maybe it was because too much of the objects in the scene were cutoff top to bottom. Another issue I had was that the movie doesn't stand as a "got to watch this again" movie as it comes off as a one-act play when you know what's going to happen. Oh well, I have watched Avatar and Titanic 3D many times and still find them interesting and fresh. This, not so much.

tgm1024 03-01-2014 06:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by threed123 View Post

Watched Gravity in 3D last night-Optoma HD131x and 159" 16:9 Dalite Highpower screen. Per the previous discussion above, I struggled with the 2.40:1 ratio throughout the movie. It was as if a couldn't get the window opened enough in my mind to "see" the whole picture. I didn't get this feeling watching it in the theater on a imax screen as much. Maybe it was because too much of the objects in the scene were cutoff top to bottom. Another issue I had was that the movie doesn't stand as a "got to watch this again" movie as it comes off as a one-act play when you know what's going to happen. Oh well, I have watched Avatar and Titanic 3D many times and still find them interesting and fresh. This, not so much.

 

Perhaps that's because Gravity, unlike Avatar, was 100% non-stop OMG are they going to make it.  One sub-disaster after another after another.  That's not something to fully enjoy repeatedly.  Avatar had a long developed set of intrigue and character development to sink in to and enjoy....it does not require you to suspend disbelief too much to enjoy again and again.

 

I was rather hoping they'd release this in 16:9 3DBD.

 

BTW, I'm not sure how people can be interested in watching Titanic more than once....just not an ending that lends itself to that for me.  But I am waiting for the sequel.


tingham 03-01-2014 07:31 PM

I watched Gravity in 3D "On Demand" via Xfinity (Comcast). It was presented in full screen 16X9 and DD. I thought it was pretty good. I was on the fence about purchasing this title and I still am. I liked it but do not know if it's worth a purchase for me.

It had some pop out, but mostly is was about depth. It looked pretty good on my 60" plasma from a 9' viewing distance. I saw very little ghosting. I'm sure it will look and sound better on 3DBD but I wanted to check it out before I purchased. If anyone is on the fence with this title like I am, you can check it out if you have Xfinity (Comcast).

TonyDP 03-01-2014 07:38 PM

I watched the Gravity 3D BluRay via my Samsung plasma today and despite the 2.40:1 aspect ratio (I would have really preferred they opened the matte to 16x9) I thought the 3D on this title was a little better at home than at the movies. The sense of depth seemed slightly more pronounced to me and the minimal but very effective pop outs (especially during the ISS sequence) still worked quite well at home. I also experienced negligible ghosting on my 2010 TV so this title should be pretty friendly with older model 3DTV's.

As to the film itself, it is one mini-crisis after another and loses a little bit of its sense of urgency after its first viewing but the imagery on display is so realistic and the running time is short enough that I still think this will have replay value.

cinema13 03-02-2014 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I watched the Gravity 3D BluRay via my Samsung plasma today and despite the 2.40:1 aspect ratio (I would have really preferred they opened the matte to 16x9) I.

Since the film had a 65mm Negative and was shot anamorphic (not Super35), it's not matted. So what you want is to have a lot of picture information eliminated just to fit a 16X9 tv screen. That would be a travesty, particularly for a movie with an expanse like this.

TonyDP 03-02-2014 02:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Since the film had a 65mm Negative and was shot anamorphic (not Super35), it's not matted. So what you want is to have a lot of picture information eliminated just to fit a 16X9 tv screen. That would be a travesty, particularly for a movie with an expanse like this.

I saw the film on both Imax and Real-D 2.40.1 screens when it played theatrically. I could be wrong of course but when I saw the film in Imax the aspect ratio to me seemed to be around 1.78:1 and it looked to my eyes like there was more visual info as compared to the Real-D presentation. I don't recall the Explorer space shuttle for example ever appearing cropped during the Imax presentation as it does on the disc. The Marvin the Martian statuette also seemed further up from the bottom of the screen during the Imax presentation. Again I'm going only be memory here as it has been about 5 months since I saw it theatrically.

Joseph Clark 03-02-2014 02:35 PM

For clarification, the Dish VOD of Gravity 3D is 2.35:1 (or thereabout), not 16x9 cropped. It's not as good as the Blu-ray disc, of course, but it holds up pretty well on my 64" Samsung 3D plasma. It's not as clean looking on my Epson 5030. Dish uses a side by side 3D image.

tingham 03-02-2014 04:14 PM

^ I was pretty surprised when the movie started and saw it filled the screen, via streaming from Comcast On Demand. I would have preferred that it be shown in it's original aspect ratio, but what can you do. If I purchase the movie, which I think I will at some point, I'll see it the way it was intended to be seen.

I watched it again, as I like watching a movie twice within 24 to 48 hrs. if possible. You pick up scenes/moments in the second viewing that you might have missed in the 1st viewing, particularly so if you watch it again quickly after the 1st view. The movie does very well in 3D and I can't imagine it being better in 2D.

After viewing a 2nd time I was more impressed with the presentation in 3D, enough to make it a purchase, as it does have replay value for me.The depth on some scenes is just tremendous, and really adds to the overall experience. I also noticed more pop out the 2nd time.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.