or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Best 3d Bluray Movie so far????3d effects
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best 3d Bluray Movie so far????3d effects - Page 35

post #1021 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabesh View Post

Thx for all those who recommended IMAX: Under the sea. It is simply awesome. This whole Bluray should be a Demo for any TV.

+1

My daughter actually reached out to see if she can touch the fish in that famous cod(?) fish scene.

I admit some scenes made my eyes feel crossed but I have old eyes compared to my kids. tongue.gif
post #1022 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

MAYBE you are watching it on a TINY screen.

Try 13 Feet

55", sure bigger screen would be nicer, but not all of us have that luxury. I don't have space for anything larger, maybe my next house...
post #1023 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

VuDu is 1080p Video and DD 5.1.

The exception being 3D content on the PS3 VuDu app, where the resolution is 720p.
post #1024 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheYC View Post

The exception being 3D content on the PS3 VuDu app, where the resolution is 720p.

I run VuDu on a Sony BDP-S790 Blu-Ray Player where it is 1080p.
post #1025 of 1877
There's more to quality than just the resolution. Online streaming will never be as good as physical media, until we all have fiber running right into our houses.
post #1026 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

I run VuDu on a Sony BDP-S790 Blu-Ray Player where it is 1080p.

Just pointing this out for people that might be viewing VuDu through a PS3 smile.gif
post #1027 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheYC View Post

Just pointing this out for people that might be viewing VuDu through a PS3 smile.gif

OK.

I watched the entire Sammy's Adventure in 3D last night and it was 1080p and the DD 5.1 Sound was also awesome.
post #1028 of 1877
We watched the Avengers last night. We saw in the theater in 2D, but the 3D was pretty darn good. Not very many cheesy pop outs but well done. cool.gif
post #1029 of 1877
I just recently picked up the HK and Korean imports of Sammy's Adventures 1 & 2. I enjoyed the 3D effects. Reading reviews of the Blu-rays, I can't seem to understand why people make comments as if 3D "Pop-Out" effects and "Depth of Field" are techinically different. They are just optical opposites. There is no reason why the film editors can't interchange the effects at the push of a button. In the 80s there were horror movies released in 3D (Blue/Red Anaglyph) like Friday the 13th in 3D, where the producers used the 3D "Pop-Out" effect as a crutch for scares, rather than good writing and cinematography. Maybe that is where the "Gimmick" label originates. Sammy's Adventures' 3D effects weren't gimmicky, because they were very well done and effective in implementation, unlike 90% of the 3D movies released.

While Sammy's Adventures is now overhyped, there is no denying its place amongst the best 3D blu-rays out.
post #1030 of 1877
I watched Sammy's Adventure and took some measurements. I have an Optoma hd33, a 108" srceen and sit 15' from the screen. There are some scenes where objects appear to be less than a foot away from my eyes, and not just a few. Nothing else in my collection (26 in all) has the popout like Sammy. Undisputed champ IMO.
post #1031 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by g_bartman View Post

I watched Sammy's Adventure and took some measurements. I have an Optoma hd33, a 108" srceen and sit 15' from the screen. There are some scenes where objects appear to be less than a foot away from my eyes, and not just a few. Nothing else in my collection (26 in all) has the popout like Sammy. Undisputed champ IMO.

I have to AGREE ^

I have a 13ft screen and it is the best pop-out yet.

I almost think it is a function of screen size.
post #1032 of 1877
As I stated earlier, Sammy's Adventure basically takes place in the middle of your living room, not on the TV screen. IMO, that is what 3D is all about. Depth may be nice, and certainly better than 2D, but is rather boring. Sammy's is 3D done right. All the elements are there. You FEEL like your are part of the action. I have yet to see another 3D movie come close. Sammy's reign's king of 3D. Disney/Pixar can't even come close and as far as live action 3D films, most of them are very disapointing. After watching Sammy 1 and 2, it's very hard to watch anything else because of how disapointing the other 3D movies are by comparison.

If 3D is to succeed, studios need to step up to the plate and give us something amazing and on the same level as Sammy's. Depth alone is not enough. And conversions are usually very disapointing to say the least. Until the level of 3D glory is achieved as like in Sammy's, 3D is nothing special, a gimmic to get more money from the consumer. Money I'd gladly pay for 3D done right.

IMO, and speaking just of the 3D aspect, Sammy's is the standard by which all others are judged. This is the level of quality 3D that studios should be thriving for. Sammy's sets the benchmark.
Edited by buonforte - 2/2/13 at 2:29am
post #1033 of 1877
How about Madagascar 3 .i think the 3d its way much better than sammy or any other movies there
post #1034 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

As I stated earlier, Sammy's Adventure basically takes place in the middle of your living room, not on the TV screen. IMO, that is what 3D is all about. Depth may be nice, and certainly better than 2D, but is rather boring. Sammy's is 3D done right. All the elements are there. You FEEL like your are part of the action. I have yet to see another 3D movie come close. Sammy's reign's king of 3D. Disney/Pixar can't even come close and as far as live action 3D films, most of them are very disapointing. After watching Sammy 1 and 2, it's very hard to watch anything else because of how disapointing the other 3D movies are by comparison.

If 3D is to succeed, studios need to step up to the plate and give us something amazing and on the same level as Sammy's. Depth alone is not enough. And conversions are usually very disapointing to say the least. Until the level of 3D glory is achieved as like in Sammy's, 3D is nothing special, a gimmic to get more money from the consumer. Money I'd gladly pay for 3D done right.

IMO, and speaking just of the 3D aspect, Sammy's is the standard by which all others are judged. This is the level of quality 3D that studios should be thriving for. Sammy's sets the benchmark.

I know that it's available to order from across the pond but I wonder it's not sold in the U.S.? This is the largest market in the world and yet no one carries it.
post #1035 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

I know that it's available to order from across the pond but I wonder it's not sold in the U.S.? This is the largest market in the world and yet no one carries it.

It is NOT a U.S Movie
post #1036 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

As I stated earlier, Sammy's Adventure basically takes place in the middle of your living room, not on the TV screen. IMO, that is what 3D is all about. Depth may be nice, and certainly better than 2D, but is rather boring. Sammy's is 3D done right. All the elements are there. You FEEL like your are part of the action. I have yet to see another 3D movie come close. Sammy's reign's king of 3D. Disney/Pixar can't even come close and as far as live action 3D films, most of them are very disapointing. After watching Sammy 1 and 2, it's very hard to watch anything else because of how disapointing the other 3D movies are by comparison.

If 3D is to succeed, studios need to step up to the plate and give us something amazing and on the same level as Sammy's. Depth alone is not enough. And conversions are usually very disapointing to say the least. Until the level of 3D glory is achieved as like in Sammy's, 3D is nothing special, a gimmic to get more money from the consumer. Money I'd gladly pay for 3D done right.

IMO, and speaking just of the 3D aspect, Sammy's is the standard by which all others are judged. This is the level of quality 3D that studios should be thriving for. Sammy's sets the benchmark.

The reality is that many people consider that to be gimmicky 3D.
post #1037 of 1877
Yes and it strains the eyes too for many of us causing headaches and discomfort. I thank God that Directors working with 3D are rather more subtle with their 3D that the Director of Sammy's who is rather over the top!
post #1038 of 1877
If it's meant to be further away then the 10' to my screen, then it should be behind the screen and not in front of it. Scale has to be a factor.
post #1039 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post


IMO, and speaking just of the 3D aspect, Sammy's is the standard by which all others are judged. This is the level of quality 3D that studios should be thriving for. Sammy's sets the benchmark.

I would also like to see more aggressive use of 3d in general. Nothing worse than conservative 3d IMO and I would much rather it be somewhat overdone vs underdone. Give me a reason to wear the glasses and give clear and even dramatic separation (SA, Madagascar 3, etc......are all great examples) between the 3d version and 2d version of the same film. cool.gif
post #1040 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

The reality is that many people consider that to be gimmicky 3D.
People consider it gimmicky? I consider it amazing!
post #1041 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

People consider it gimmicky? I consider it amazing!

Same here. I dont get the gimmicky talk. I like to know I am watching 3d instead of having to lift my glasses seeing if there is separation and getting the feeling that the 3d version is not even worth the hassle of wearing the glasses due to how conservative it is.
post #1042 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Yes and it strains the eyes too for many of us causing headaches and discomfort. I thank God that Directors working with 3D are rather more subtle with their 3D that the Director of Sammy's who is rather over the top!
Usually headaches and eyestrain are the result of using "active shutter" glasses. This rarely happens with "passive glasses". Not trying to start a flame war between Active and Passive but it's a proven fact that more headaches and eyestrain are caused from Active Shutter Glasses.
Edited by buonforte - 2/2/13 at 3:56pm
post #1043 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

Usually headaches and eyestrain are the result of using "active shutter" glasses. This rarely happens with "passive glasses". Not trying to start a flame war between Active and Passive but it's a proven fact that more headaches and eyestrain are caused from Active Shutter Glasses.
Well, that certainly explains why so many people have issues at the theater, then. Thanks for that.
post #1044 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Well, that certainly explains why so many people have issues at the theater, then. Thanks for that.
I guess I struck a nerve! The fact is, Active Shutter causes more eyestrain and headaches than Passive. And that's a proven fact! Do the research and you'll find the documentation. If you understand how Active Shutter works, you'll understand how many people are affected by it. And yes, there will be people who will have issues with the 3D aspect no matter what method is used. I'm just saying that more of these issues come from people who have Active sets. I have found that when asking those complaining of headaches and eyestrain, which system they use, the answer is usually Active.

Again, do the research. This is not something I'm making up. I have better things to do with my time. Anyway, let's not get off the track of the topic of this post.
Edited by buonforte - 2/2/13 at 6:52pm
post #1045 of 1877
I'm well aware of how all methods of 3D work, thank you (except for the new autostereoscopic displays from CES, but no one knows how those work except the folks that made it), and I happen to be a passive user myself. Both my computer monitor (VG23AH) and TV (60LM7200) are passive. So no, you didn't "strike a nerve". But I don't believe that it's a "proven fact", either. It's a supposition based on limited information and personal observation, but not documented medically. Otherwise, they wouldn't still sell active sets, and active wouldn't be outselling passive by what.. five to one? Ten to one?

Eye strain in 3D has traditionally been caused by the convergence of the eyes not matching the focal point. Your eyes are pointing at something that's either further away or closer than the screen, but the lenses in your eyes are still focused on the screen. That's half of the equation. Headaches I actually have zero experience with. Merely staring at an LCD display all day will give me a headache regardless of whether it's in 3D or not.

As you say, getting back on topic... As I pointed out earlier, scale is very important. When I watch Under the Sea, I see bubbles that are maybe 5mm across, appearing in front of my television and appearing to be several inches across. My brain balks at the idea, and their speed makes them very hard to focus on, even if I make the effort. There's also a lot of directors that don't seem to understand that you cannot break the edges of the frame when using excessive negative parallax. Having something floating in front of the screen is fine (in fact, most of the fish shots in Finding Nemo had a mild negative parallax), but when that object suddenly gets cut off by something behind it, then it's a problem. It's that "breaking" of the effect that causes some people issues with pop-out, because your brain gets even more confused about where the object actually is. When your eyes tell you two different things at the same time, that's a problem.

We have our reasons for not liking over-usage of pop-out. And it's not that we don't like any pop-out, just that we prefer it to be used for a particular reason. Why is this object in front of the screen? Does it belong there? Does it serve any other purpose than showing off?
post #1046 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

But I don't believe that it's a "proven fact", either. It's a supposition based on limited information and personal observation, but not documented medically. Otherwise, they wouldn't still sell active sets, and active wouldn't be outselling passive by what.. five to one? Ten to one?
The reason why Active sets are outselling Passive is because people are buying "brand". Samsung and Sony are the most popular sets that just happen to use "Active". They out sell every other brand. That doesn't mean that "Active" is better. Most people who buy these sets don't even care about 3D, they buy them for the picture quality and 3D just happens to be included. So since Samsung sells more than LG (which is no slouch), hence more Active sets.

LG, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Vizio currently offer Passive.

I just had to comment about that. Now, back on track.
post #1047 of 1877
"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimmick)

I dont feel this way about 3D. I feel it has its value. Gimick is probably one of the most overused terms (when pertaining to 3D) that I have ever heard. Its quite annoying to hear it over and over again. I feel that it is only a gimick to those that have no use for it. Everyone says POP OUT is a gimick and a lot of people say 3D in general is a gimick. I say its in the eye of the beholder. If you like what you see and enjoy viewing it a certain way then its not gimicky to you. If you dont like it, feel no need to purchase it, then obviously its gimicky to you, because you have no use for it and wouldnt make a purchase based solely upon it. You can apply the word gimick to any product....in particular A/V. That goes from LED TV's to Sound Bars. If you buy whitening toothpaste solely based on the whitening aspect, and you feel it is really whitening your teeth then its not a gimick to you, is it? It comes down to personal preference and I dont think a consumer is dumb by choosing to buy or not buy based on a feature they may or may not like.
post #1048 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

But I don't believe that it's a "proven fact", either. It's a supposition based on limited information and personal observation, but not documented medically. Otherwise, they wouldn't still sell active sets, and active wouldn't be outselling passive by what.. five to one? Ten to one?
The reason why Active sets are outselling Passive is because people are buying "brand". Samsung and Sony are the most popular sets that just happen to use "Active". They out sell every other brand. That doesn't mean that "Active" is better. Most people who buy these sets don't even care about 3D, they buy them for the picture quality and 3D just happens to be included. So since Samsung sells more than LG (which is no slouch), hence more Active sets.

LG, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Vizio currently offer Passive.

I just had to comment about that. Now, back on track.

Active is better because it IS better. It offers more resolution than passive.
post #1049 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by buonforte View Post

The reason why Active sets are outselling Passive is because people are buying "brand". Samsung and Sony are the most popular sets that just happen to use "Active". They out sell every other brand. That doesn't mean that "Active" is better. Most people who buy these sets don't even care about 3D, they buy them for the picture quality and 3D just happens to be included. So since Samsung sells more than LG (which is no slouch), hence more Active sets.

LG, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Vizio currently offer Passive.

I just had to comment about that. Now, back on track.

Excellent point, they're buying TVs that just happen to have 3D capability and those two brands outsell everyone else. They're not choosing active over passive. If they compared them side by side as I did it would be a whole lot closer. I have a Sony HD and love it so when I went to look for a 3D set I wanted a Sony but BestBuy had a Sony set up for display right next to an LG so I was able to view the same material on both and liked the image on the LG just as well but loved the glasses. Light and cheap and you could look around the store wearing them and still be able to see everything. Some people don't mind the shutters opening and closing in front of their eyes but I found it disturbing. Passive isn't for everyone and neither is Active. If the big companies start making passive sets then people would be able to choose.
post #1050 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Active is better because it IS better. It offers more resolution than passive.
There is no "better". There are pro's and con's to each system.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Best 3d Bluray Movie so far????3d effects