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 45

post #1321 of 1877
Is the VuDu version somehow different than the Netflix version? Could have sworn I saw that one on the Netflix 3D list, but I haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
post #1322 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Is the VuDu version somehow different than the Netflix version? Could have sworn I saw that one on the Netflix 3D list, but I haven't gotten around to watching it yet.

I have NO CLUE - I only use VuDu - not Netflix
post #1323 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post

What do you think are the best kids movies with popout? Don't really care if they are good, just want nice popout to show the kid and get him interested. He is 4 1/2. I believe I read madagascar 3 had good pop out in this thread somewhere. Are there any others? Planes was a major letdown for my son as his first 3d movie.

I thought Yogi Bear (2010) had some great pop-out (the picnic basket scene early in the movie with stuff flying in the air was great)...it's also perfect for small children to watch
post #1324 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

I thought Yogi Bear (2010) had some great pop-out (the picnic basket scene early in the movie with stuff flying in the air was great)...it's also perfect for small children to watch

Yeah, you can say what you like about the subject matter and quality of the acting or story (though I thought they were just fine for a family friendly film) but there is no denying that this was a very strong native 3D release. Unlike other natively shot 3D films where the depth cues were really conservative, this one shows strong depth and nice pop throughout.
post #1325 of 1877
I watched part of Sammy's Adventure on Netflix and really enjoyed the pop out, they were fairly constant throughout the movie unlike many movies with a pop out here and there. I don't understand the over use of depth and under use of pop out. I keep thinking I want to see stuff happening right in front me, not far away but of course we need both.

Unfortunately cartoons are of no interest to me and that seems to be where the most 3D movies are. My other limitation is I have a hard time sitting through a bad movie, 3D or not which puts more limits on my watching. I doubt I'm alone in these issues. I really want 3D to succeed because I think it has potential but just needs to continue to advance and worry that it may be stalling due to lack of content, access, and interest. I think if Netflix ever decided to make3D a priority it could grow but not sure anyone else has that power.
post #1326 of 1877
I'm with you, give me a good movie with good 3D and I'll buy it. No cartoons.
post #1327 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

I'm with you, give me a good movie with good 3D and I'll buy it. No cartoons.

Depends what you consider good. Hugo has excellent 3d. I wasn't crazy about the story though. It's 3d is better than avatar. The final destination has excellent 3d if you Like that stuff. Journey to the center of the Earth is great too. The main stream movies from marvel tend not to be great.
post #1328 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post

Depends what you consider good. Hugo has excellent 3d. I wasn't crazy about the story though. It's 3d is better than avatar. The final destination has excellent 3d if you Like that stuff. Journey to the center of the Earth is great too. The main stream movies from marvel tend not to be great.

Good to hear Journey to the Center of the Earth is good 3d as I have had that here forever and still have not watched it, but will get to it ASAP. Also have the second one as well, so hope that is good 3d also(?).
post #1329 of 1877
Second one has its moments but first is better for 3d. First doesn't have Vanessa hudgens though smile.gif
post #1330 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post

Second one has its moments but first is better for 3d. First doesn't have Vanessa hudgens though smile.gif

Sounds like there are positives to both! biggrin.gif
post #1331 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post

Depends what you consider good. Hugo has excellent 3d. I wasn't crazy about the story though. It's 3d is better than avatar. The final destination has excellent 3d if you Like that stuff. Journey to the center of the Earth is great too. The main stream movies from marvel tend not to be great.

I totally agree, I did not consider Hugo to be a good movie, at least not to me. I never even finished watching it. Loved Final Destination and Journey To The Center Of The Earth. By a good movie, I just mean one that can hold my interest.
post #1332 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

I totally agree, I did not consider Hugo to be a good movie, at least not to me. I never even finished watching it. Loved Final Destination and Journey To The Center Of The Earth. By a good movie, I just mean one that can hold my interest.

If Hugo was done by some guy named Jim Johnson, nobody would have ever talked about it.

It was boring, and I didn't find the 3D all that great. rolleyes.gif
post #1333 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post

If Hugo was done by some guy named Jim Johnson, nobody would have ever talked about it.

It was boring, and I didn't find the 3D all that great. rolleyes.gif

But it wasn't made by Jim Johnson, it was made by one of the greatest directors of all time. I love when people like to insert 'if this person starred or was done by this no one would care' blah blah. It wasn't so there is no need to even go there.
post #1334 of 1877
Edit: Double post
post #1335 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post

Second one has its moments but first is better for 3d. First doesn't have Vanessa hudgens though smile.gif



My experience was the same as yours. The first is the better 3d experience in general for both depth and pop, but the second is no slouch and was still a solid 3d ride.

Call me crazy, but I was actually a bit partial to the mountain guide girl in the first one, but I certainly would not say no to either. biggrin.gif

The Rock peck dance scene with the cherries popping out of the screen has to be one of the corniest things in movie history......talk about eye rolling cheese!
post #1336 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by mldardy View Post

But it wasn't made by Jim Johnson, it was made by one of the greatest directors of all time. I love when people like to insert 'if this person starred or was done by this no one would care' blah blah. It wasn't so there is no need to even go there.

My point was it is a mediocre movie with a weak storyline. But since Scorcesse directed it, everyone thinks it is good.

Kinda like the opposite of those Walmart steak commercials wink.gif
post #1337 of 1877
Which Final Destination are people talking about, there is 4 and 5 in 3D from what I can tell.
post #1338 of 1877
Oops. Misread
post #1339 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperslug View Post

Which Final Destination are people talking about, there is 4 and 5 in 3D from what I can tell.

Both are good, 4 is the best. 4 is probably one of the best examples of live action 3d.
post #1340 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post

If Hugo was done by some guy named Jim Johnson, nobody would have ever talked about it.

It was boring, and I didn't find the 3D all that great. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post

My point was it is a mediocre movie with a weak storyline. But since Scorcesse directed it, everyone thinks it is good.
Mmm, the tears. So salty.
post #1341 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post

My point was it is a mediocre movie with a weak storyline. But since Scorcesse directed it, everyone thinks it is good.

Kinda like the opposite of those Walmart steak commercials wink.gif

I didn't think the storyline was bad, it was just kind of boring, not really something you would watch again. The 3d was amazing though, probably the best there has been. Lots of popout used, plenty of depth, its what avatar should have been like. God forbid an arrow would have come out at the audience, the horror of it all.
post #1342 of 1877
Well, having now seen Sammy's Adventures, I can understand why some people think it's "demo worthy". While it does appear to have seen a limited one-time theatrical release, it's clear this was meant for home video. Not having to worry about separation on a gigantic screen means you can push the depth much further than you normally can. As for everyone's favorite pop-out, I would have the say the movie suffers from far too much of it. The "normal" pop-out is fine.. bird beaks, the snake, or any shot where the animals are entirely within the video frame, those are all great. But there is WAY too much edge-breaking in this movie (which is generally considered a cardinal sin for 3D, but it appears that the stereographer on this film must have been sick the day they taught that), and some of the negative parallax is pushed so far as to be impossible to focus on.. negative separation of a foot or more, all I see is two of them, not the "in your face" pop-out that was apparently their goal.

So yes, lots of pop-out. And most of it's pretty good. But there's way too much really poorly-executed negative parallax as well, which I didn't appreciate in the slightest. Actually gave me a bit of a headache. In the end, not really worth it. The movie itself is certainly nothing to write home about, I would have viewed it as a complete waste of time watching it in 2D.
post #1343 of 1877
Ben Stassen designs his 3D to be seen at a close distance to a large screen where window violations don't bother the viewer as much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpDpTHv51Iw

Both of his Sammy films are still playing at the IMAX here in Galveston.
post #1344 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11 View Post

Ben Stassen designs his 3D to be seen at a close distance to a large screen where window violations don't bother the viewer as much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpDpTHv51Iw

Both of his Sammy films are still playing at the IMAX here in Galveston.

I AGREE 100% with Ben Stassen - MOST 3D movies are 2D Movies

Sammy's Movie - I OWN and is a GREAT 3D Movie and I am not into Animated Movies
post #1345 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

I AGREE 100% with Ben Stassen - MOST 3D movies are 2D Movies

Sammy's Movie - I OWN and is a GREAT 3D Movie and I am not into Animated Movies

I agree with him as well and this is why SA is still my favorite 3d disc. The 3d is very aggressive and there is no mistaking this for 2d in any way. tongue.gif A lot of 3d presentations are SO conservative and subtle you start to feel like wearing the goofy glasses for 2 hours is largely pointless. I want to know I am watching 3d! Conservative watered down 3d sucks.
post #1346 of 1877
Well.. depends on what you agree with him on, 'cause he's kinda full of it.

Full-field-of-view-experience? I'll give him this one. Too bad it's damn near impossible to find such an experience.

But pretty much everything he said about cameras is entirely fabricated. For one, parallel cameras don't work the way he says they do. I've used them myself, and there's a reason everyone uses convergent cameras, including him. Oh, yeah... his own movies don't use parallel cameras. Look at the trailers on YT, even if you don't have a 3D monitor, just watch them. See that convergence point, in every single shot? Yeah, parallel cameras don't do that. What parallel cameras do is push the convergence point to infinity, so everything gets pushed in front of the screen, and you get zero depth of any kind. Even that distant mountain range would be inside your living room. Not a very convincing sense of scale. Which is why even Ben the Great and Powerful Stassen doesn't use them. NO one uses them.

All he's doing in his movies is pushing the convergence point further back to bring more of the action in front of the screen. For a movie like this, where it's relatively easy to put the entire character in frame, floating freely, that works. And this is about the only kind of movie that this works on (Pixar actually did the same thing with Finding Nemo, but only on shots that fully contained the fish, with no background except the empty sea). He also pushes the separation of the cameras to result in more severe depth & pop-out. And that's really all he's doing... there's nothing "magical" or even all that different about it. Really, all he's doing is framing it for home video (where you can push separation like that) instead of theatrical (where you can't).

He's just really good at telling BS stories in a press junket to people that don't understand how 3D works. Makes them think that he's the only one in cinema that really understands how 3D works, when he's actually doing just exactly the same thing as everyone else.

I'm sorry if that makes some people here butthurt about their favorite movie, but there it is. Having now seen the film, I feel justified in critiquing it for what it is.. it's a gimmicky pop-out book for five year olds and for people that believe that all 3D has to be inside your living room. And the movie itself is s**t. If the cake is bad, what good is the frosting?

And don't bother "defending" it. I'm not going to listen, and you're not going to change my mind. You can take it to the Sammy's thread if you like. I don't go there, so have at it.

So, going back to the OP. It really depends on what you mean by "3D effect". I would have to rate my top movies, at least the ones from my own collection, at Prometheus (for live-action, with Hugo a close second) and Tangled (for CGI).
post #1347 of 1877
I liked Prometheus for 3d, but it is a good example of play it safe conservative bordering on not being worth the trouble of wearing the glasses 3d. The best 3d in Prometheus is right in the beginning with the sweeping mountain type scene. Something like Flying Swords of Dragonsgate or most of the IMAX titles destroy Prometheus for 3d in general IMO.

What I agreed with him about exactly is the comment I responded to. A lot of 3d is so conservative that it can hardly be differentiated between it's 2d counterpart.

Jedi, relax! biggrin.gif Nobody is trying to change your mind and we certainly respect your perspective, I personally just don't agree with you as far as your general perception of SA for 3d. You are not going to change my mind either, so we can agree to disagree. Whatever SA is doing as far as 3d goes works for most if you read the various comments/opinions as many feel this is still the 3d disc to beat.
Edited by Toe - 8/25/13 at 9:26am
post #1348 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I agree with him as well and this is why SA is still my favorite 3d disc. The 3d is very aggressive and there is no mistaking this for 2d in any way. tongue.gif A lot of 3d presentations are SO conservative and subtle you start to feel like wearing the goofy glasses for 2 hours is largely pointless. I want to know I am watching 3d! Conservative watered down 3d sucks.

and that is why 3D is destined to fail...too many people want pop-out, in your face 3D...Cameron 're-invented' 3D not for pop-out tricks but rather as a way of using it as a window to create depth over all else...Scorsese used it that way for Hugo...3D from the 80's was all about yo-yo's coming out of the screen and knives being thrown at you...acclaimed director's like Spielberg, Scorsese, Ang Lee etc aren't going to want to use 3D for pop-out but rather mostly for depth to enhance their world and story

can't be a coincidence that the people that consider Avatar 3D nothing special are the same people who love movies where pop-out gimmicks rule over all else...I have to admit liking movies with a lot of pop-out as I want a reason to watch the 3D version...in 99% of cases the 2D version is the far superior movie...it's only the lesser quality movies where 3D enhances the experience (Yogi Bear, Rise of the Guardians etc)...pop-out= 3D for most people which is why it's destined to fail
post #1349 of 1877
Wrong. rolleyes.gif I am honestly more impressed by good depth 3d in general since the vast majority of 3d relies on depth, not pop. Apparently you have not read my posts, but it is not just pop that makes SA great, but pop AND depth. Monsters vs Aliens is another favorite of mine and mainly because of how aggressive, strong and consistent the depth 3d is used.

I keep mentioning the IMAX titles as well which mainly rely on depth 3d. I am not a pop freak by any means, even if I do enjoy those very rare moments. Give me strong, not conservative play it safe depth 3d (Avatar is a bit conservative, and JC even alludes to this in the interview above) and I certainly don't need pop.

You need to quit trying to lump those who appreciate pop into the pop freak club who ONLY appreciate pop and not depth. Most of us don't qualify as much as you would like that to be the case Troy. rolleyes.gif

You know why 3d is destined to fail IMO? IF 3d fails it will be because of conservative play it safe use of it for mainly depth, but pop as well. In general, people from my experience want to know they are watching 3d and for there to be plenty of separation between its 2d counterpart. This is where 3d can commonly fail.
Edited by Toe - 8/25/13 at 9:53am
post #1350 of 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

and that is why 3D is destined to fail...too many people want pop-out, in your face 3D...Cameron 're-invented' 3D not for pop-out tricks but rather as a way of using it as a window to create depth over all else...Scorsese used it that way for Hugo...3D from the 80's was all about yo-yo's coming out of the screen and knives being thrown at you...acclaimed director's like Spielberg, Scorsese, Ang Lee etc aren't going to want to use 3D for pop-out but rather mostly for depth to enhance their world and story
.
The funny part is that if you go back to the first 3D in the 50s, it was all depth-based, with very little pop-out (basically, the same way JC did with Avatar).

I disagree that people "want to know they're watching 3D". While such people do exist (obviously), I think they're the minority. Like many other opinionated minorities, though, they're very vocal, which makes them seem far more numerous than they actually are. If you consider why the "average consumer" thinks that 3D is a failure, it's because they think it's a "gimmick", which perfectly describes the in-your-face pop-out experience that's brought to you courtesy of the '80s. The "gimmick" argument typically far outweighs the "it doesn't add anything" argument that the pop-out crowd likes to use when talking about depth-based 3D. I think depth-based "subtle" 3D very much adds to the experience.

Any time you're reminded that you're watching 3D, it pulls you out of the story, which IMO is a complete failure and the worst possible thing you can do. The best 3D (again, IMO) is the kind where you forget you're watching 3D. Not because it isn't there, but because it's so natural that it just pulls you in, and you become so immersed in the experience that it just is. You want 3D to bring your audience into the movie, not pull them out of it. Taking Prometheus as an example, I've heard from multiple people, who typically aren't fans of 3D, talking about how intense the movie was, even though they couldn't really explain why when they thought about it after the fact. It was because the 3D pulled them in, and it was so natural that they weren't even aware it was happening. That's successful 3D, right there, and it's clear that the movie is meant to be seen this way, despite people saying it "adds nothing" just because it doesn't have monsters jumping out at the audience.
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