AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Will a Real 3D Movie Please Stand Up?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will a Real 3D Movie Please Stand Up?????

post #1 of 22
4/12/11 at 10:29pm
Thread Starter 
Ok....I am tired of this crap. I spent a lot of money on a 3d setup and these movie directors and studios have done nothing but under deliver. Now don't get me wrong, there are some decent looking movies out there, hence the word DECENT but I am ready to be f@#cking WOWED.

I don't care what James Cameron says about how 3D should be done, his movie looked good, but the best 3D video ever made was Terminator 3D (universal studios), which brings me to my next point. I new 3d was coming but I was hesitant at first because of all of the stories of how it failed in the past, but after seeing Terminator 3d for the first time I IMMEDIATELY took my 3d glasses off, (rode the mummy ride) went home and began my 3d tv budget (at the expense of canceling my swimming with the dolphins plans lol). But then I realized after I bought the tv that the technology is being suppressed because ONE MOVIE MAKER said so.

Now I am not saying everything in every 3d movies should pop out at you (that would be annoying) but GOT D@MNIT, we need at least a few movies to give is the WOW factor, IMO this is what is going to get peoples attention when it comes to 3d. "The Mad Magician" was a beautiful 3d movie, not once did I have to take my glasses off to remind myself that I am watching it in 3d (don't act like you haven't done it) this movie was in 3d and, you, new, it. Why cant 3d movies of today look that good? Right now the sh@t is just to subtle and I am sick of it.

Ok sorry I just had to get that off my chest............its ok, im cool now.

Rant over
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 22
4/12/11 at 11:03pm
You are aware that James Cameron also did Terminator 2: 3D, right? Directed and supervised the 3D integration. Honestly if you expect something like that at home, prepare to ALWAYS be let down. I've seen the Orlando attraction 20-30 times. Nothing at home will ever live up to that experience. If it did, the show wouldn't be as "super" as it is.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 22
4/13/11 at 4:24am
In a way I can agree a bit with you. I also would love the WOW factor of pop-out scenes. And I do believe pop-out would sell more 3D TV's. I enjoy the depth of most 3D movies but want something more, I want that in your face at times kinda 3D.
Such as IMAX Under the Sea where that dang fish literally comes outa the TV right at you.. Now that made me say WOAH, or Step Up where their arms come at you.
3D needs much more of this, so many movies such as Resident Evil had the potential to make items pop-out.. You see it and you want it so bad to happen, but it really doesn't much and that's a let down.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 22
4/13/11 at 4:46am
While I'm very very happy with my 3D investment, the one thing that continues to bemuse me is that most studios, by and large, really don't seem to be applying the technology to more visually striking genres. While having stuff like Tangled, Step Up and even Alice in Wonderland in 3D is all well and good, I'm surprised that not one studio has yet made a grand space adventure (along the lines of a Star Trek or Star Wars) in 3D as something like that would really showcase the technology. In perusing my 3D collection, I always find myself gravitating back to the spacebound titles I own such as Hubble, Space Station and even Seven Wonders of the Universe; the awe and grandeur of space seems to me to be a natural fit for the enhancements that 3D can provide. Hopefully Green Lantern will give us a little bit of that and maybe George Lucas' rerelease of his Star Wars films in 3D will further jumpstart that kind of a trend.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 22
4/13/11 at 5:27am
The Green Lantern is definitely sci fi, and should be impressive. I'm not sure that is shot in native 3D though.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 22
4/13/11 at 8:01am
Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole has a lot of good pop-out. I was also impressed with Resident Evil, though apparently the OP wasn't. I don't need lots of pop-out to be blown away though. Pausing numerous scenes in Alice in Wonderland and counting (easily) 30+ layers of clearly focused depth does it for me.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 22
4/13/11 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaborik View Post

The Green Lantern is definitely sci fi, and should be impressive. I'm not sure that is shot in native 3D though.

Green Lantern will be a 2D>3D conversion (Thor and Captain America will also be 2D>3D, BTW) but as movies like Alice In Wonderland have shown, 2D>3D can work just fine if the studios take the time to do it right.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 22
4/13/11 at 8:53am
A quote from a reviewer about AVATAR:

Quote:


He liked how James Cameron showed the world that it was "not about poking you in the eye but instead it was pulling you in."
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 22
4/13/11 at 3:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brad View Post

You are aware that James Cameron also did Terminator 2: 3D, right? Directed and supervised the 3D integration. Honestly if you expect something like that at home, prepare to ALWAYS be let down. I've seen the Orlando attraction 20-30 times. Nothing at home will ever live up to that experience. If it did, the show wouldn't be as "super" as it is.

I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is WHY NOT or why cant we have that experience at home? The tech is clearly there, there is no reason why we cant have that type of experience at home, this was done in 1995 or 96 (15 years ago). Whats the hold up I cannot think of one person that was unhappy with T2 in 3d, can you?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 22
4/17/11 at 8:02pm
Here's a feature that might help with the popping out in your face 3D with the new Panasonic DMP-BDT310 Integrated-Wi-Fi 3D Blu-ray DVD Player.


"3D Effect Controller
The 3D Effect Controller lets you moderate the leaping effects of 3D images. It also lets you adjust the amount of depth, so you can view expansive images and enjoy movies with exactly the kind of 3D effects you want."


http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-...094304&sr=1-19
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 22
4/19/11 at 9:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melman26 View Post


I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is WHY NOT or why cant we have that experience at home? The tech is clearly there, there is no reason why we cant have that type of experience at home, this was done in 1995 or 96 (15 years ago). Whats the hold up I cannot think of one person that was unhappy with T2 in 3d, can you?

T2 was what, 15 minutes? Sure, it was impressive how the terminator leg seemed like it was an inch from your face, but you wouldn't enjoy two hours of that, your eyes will be like permanently crossed. Try reading a book 6 inches from your face for 2 hours...if you can last.

On a side but related note, they way it seemed like the live T2 actors were using actual blanks in their guns just goes to show how poorly gunshots are reproduced in movies. Yet do you think you could stand a few hours of real gunshots that make your ears ring like that?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 22
4/19/11 at 10:58am
T2 3D is way beyond the current ability of home theaters. Per Wikipedia: "The unique 3-D film format used six, solid-state Iwerks projectors that were electronically interlocked to run 70mm film synchronously, at the high speed of 30 frames per second. The image was projected onto a triptych of adjoined silver screens. The effect of the six projectors running simultaneously results in what appears to be one, contiguous, 3-D image across the three screens, accomplishing a wrap-around effect reminiscent of Cinerama."
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 22
4/19/11 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokeySmoke View Post

T2 3D is way beyond the current ability of home theaters. Per Wikipedia: "The unique 3-D film format used six, solid-state Iwerks projectors that were electronically interlocked to run 70mm film synchronously, at the high speed of 30 frames per second. The image was projected onto a triptych of adjoined silver screens. The effect of the six projectors running simultaneously results in what appears to be one, contiguous, 3-D image across the three screens, accomplishing a wrap-around effect reminiscent of Cinerama."

That's all kind of besides the fact that it was in 3D. It was sure a lot of screenage, but the actual 3Dness of it was pretty basic. It was state of the art 1996 level CGI, on a huge screen, with really basic design, that converged very close to your face. It quite literally was a thrill ride like everything else in the park, with all the dials set to 11 to impress you as much as it can in a very short period of time.

It would be no more enjoyable over 2+ hours as riding a rollercoaster for 2 hours. That level of 3Dness absolutely could be done at home. The reason it isn't is because its not a particularly good idea.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 22
4/19/11 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melman26 View Post
Ok....I am tired of this crap. I spent a lot of money on a 3d setup and these movie directors and studios have done nothing but under deliver. Now don't get me wrong, there are some decent looking movies out there, hence the word DECENT but I am ready to be f@#cking WOWED.

I don't care what James Cameron says about how 3D should be done, his movie looked good, but the best 3D video ever made was Terminator 3D (universal studios), which brings me to my next point. I new 3d was coming but I was hesitant at first because of all of the stories of how it failed in the past, but after seeing Terminator 3d for the first time I IMMEDIATELY took my 3d glasses off, (rode the mummy ride) went home and began my 3d tv budget (at the expense of canceling my swimming with the dolphins plans lol). But then I realized after I bought the tv that the technology is being suppressed because ONE MOVIE MAKER said so.

Now I am not saying everything in every 3d movies should pop out at you (that would be annoying) but GOT D@MNIT, we need at least a few movies to give is the WOW factor, IMO this is what is going to get peoples attention when it comes to 3d. "The Mad Magician" was a beautiful 3d movie, not once did I have to take my glasses off to remind myself that I am watching it in 3d (don't act like you haven't done it) this movie was in 3d and, you, new, it. Why cant 3d movies of today look that good? Right now the sh@t is just to subtle and I am sick of it.

Ok sorry I just had to get that off my chest............its ok, im cool now.

Rant over
The Terminator 2 - 3D interactive movie/show at Universal was co-written and co-directed by James Cameron so Avatar wasn't his first attempt at 3D. In any case some people really like the 'in your face" 3D with things flying out of the screen while others (myself included) generally prefer the 3D "window to the virtual world" effect. I believe that James Cameron, and perhaps a few other directors, have finally realized the too much in your face action can cause headaches as the viewer's eyes are being asked to refocus too often and also too much camera motion can lead to nausea.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 22
4/20/11 at 7:28am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

The Terminator 2 - 3D interactive movie/show at Universal was co-written and co-directed by James Cameron so Avatar wasn't his first attempt at 3D. In any case some people really like the 'in your face" 3D with things flying out of the screen while others (myself included) generally prefer the 3D "window to the virtual world" effect. I believe that James Cameron, and perhaps a few other directors, have finally realized the too much in your face action can cause headaches as the viewer's eyes are being asked to refocus too often and also too much camera motion can lead to nausea.

I think you guys are missing my point here, I am not saying that the whole movie should have things in your face, that would be ridiculous. But how about maybe 4 times in a 90 min movie??? And why cant the normal parts of the movie look as good as the mad magician??
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 22
4/20/11 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

That's all kind of besides the fact that it was in 3D. It was sure a lot of screenage, but the actual 3Dness of it was pretty basic. It was state of the art 1996 level CGI, on a huge screen, with really basic design, that converged very close to your face...

Sorry, I don't agree. Edge confusion is one of the primary problems of 3D that can only be helped by higher frame rates and higher resolution, both of which are superior here than at home.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 22
4/22/11 at 9:28am
As fare as outer space movies, isn't the next Star Trek movie going to be in 3D?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 22
4/22/11 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbug View Post

As fare as outer space movies, isn't the next Star Trek movie going to be in 3D?

The scuttlebutt is that Paramount is really pushing hard for JJ Abrams to make it in 3D but no decision has been made yet. Abrams does hold a lot of clout so it could still end up as a 2D movie.

Personally, as a longtime Trekkie, I think something like Star Trek would really lend itself well to 3D: the alien vistas, ships flying thru space, and phaser battles would probably all benefit from the added sense of depth and pop.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 22
4/24/11 at 7:46am
As far as home 3D not being able to handle the Cameron T2/3D thing, a bit of it is in one of those best-of shows on the 3D channel and when the T-One Billion (or whatever its called) blows up, the in-yer-face 3D effect was probably one of the best I've seen at home and worked.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 22
4/25/11 at 6:33pm
T2 3D was shot at 30 fps. Ain't gonna work unless it's encoded with dual 1080i/30 streams. And it won't be shown on video because the film was only part of the attraction... it's not a stand alone film.

And the pop-out stuff really is gimmicky. That's why a lot of DP's don't like 3D. They were burned by its checkered history.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 22
5/1/11 at 3:02pm
If you're looking for a recent movie with lots, LOTS of Pop-Up effects, try HBO's OnDemand version of The Final Destination. The movie is literally full of pop out gags, and all work really well with little to no ghosting. There's only a Closed Caption version up at the moment, but its hardly noticeable when focusing on the 3D effects.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 22
5/2/11 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxexvxrx View Post
If you're looking for a recent movie with lots, LOTS of Pop-Up effects, try HBO's OnDemand version of The Final Destination. The movie is literally full of pop out gags, and all work really well with little to no ghosting. There's only a Closed Caption version up at the moment, but its hardly noticeable when focusing on the 3D effects.
Thanks ..I'll look for it
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Will a Real 3D Movie Please Stand Up?????