or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: 3D (Theatrical Release)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: 3D (Theatrical Release) - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopho View Post

Not sure YMMV applies here but I wasted $16 buck to watch TF3 in IMAX screen where $11 was well spent on the RealD screen, yes of the same movie and at the same cinema location.
I'm big on 3D only where it's technologically justified.
That said and based on many reviews I've read I may sit out on this movie until it hits the 3D rental site.
BTW, I'm not a big fan of HP either.

Spent 30 bucks for two tickets to see this at a large screen IMAX Theater. About three or four times during the movie I kept thinking what a waste of money. The 3D was not impressive at all and my wife even said we could have seen this in 2D. Like I said before the last three 3D movies I've seen have been a complete waste of money. I'm a big 3D fan and hope this trend doesn't continue.
post #32 of 58
Thread Starter 
Based on what I've read thus far on this thread...
Holywood (3D in general) is shooting itself in the foot again.
let's hope the next one Captain America will be much better.
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopho View Post

Based on what I've read thus far on this thread...
Holywood (3D in general) is shooting itself in the foot again.
let's hope the next one Captain America will be much better.

Just to add some perspective:
Quote:


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 outpaced even the most generous prognostications this weekend, setting a new weekend record with an incredible $309 million at the foreign box office...

...On average, the opening weekend 3D share was 60 percent...

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3212&p=.htm

I think 3D's doing just fine.
post #34 of 58
It's only creating more negative word of mouth compared to if it had been native, and that can't be a good thing in the long run.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Just to add some perspective:

I think 3D's doing just fine.

It'll take more than one movie to pull it out of the mud. I'm hoping Captain American will be a positive. So far live action 3D has been disappointing to me this summer.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbug View Post


It'll take more than one movie to pull it out of the mud. I'm hoping Captain American will be a positive. So far live action 3D has been disappointing to me this summer.

What did u you think of transformers?
post #37 of 58
for me, a lot was lost due to not being able to low sound levels for voices. I'm not into Transformers so didn't know who they were talking about in quite a few scenes. Overall it was not bad at all. The 3D was better than some but the best I've seen remains to be animated movies and IMAX features. Did you see it? If so what did you think?
post #38 of 58
Yea I saw it and loved it. But I'm biased cuz I love all the transformers movies and think bay did his thing with the visuals of it. The dialogue was always simple, stupid humor, etc but the 3d was amazing and was visuly and audibly amazing in my opinion
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
It's only creating more negative word of mouth compared to if it had been native, and that can't be a good thing in the long run.
Well...I suppose that's one way of looking at it, i.e. the more money this movie makes the more negative the word of mouth.

Who knows. Perhaps all that 3D ill will may help push it over that 1 billion mark in world wide revenue.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post
Well...I suppose that's one way of looking at it, i.e. the more money this movie makes the more negative the word of mouth.

Who knows. Perhaps all that 3D ill will may help push it over that 1 billion mark in world wide revenue.
So you have no regard for the long-term effects, but only care about squeezing every last drop out of consumers in the short term. Hey, that makes you just as ignorant as the studios!
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

So you have no regard for the long-term effects, but only care about squeezing every last drop out of consumers in the short term. Hey, that makes you just as ignorant as the studios!

Really...any concerns that you have vis-a-vis short term, mid term, or long term negative 3D fallout is completely unfounded and therefor unwarranted imo.

Furthermore, as a 3D enthusiast, I'm extremely happy that this title is doing so well on the 3D end of the business and making lots and lots of money.
post #42 of 58
There is plenty of historical evidence that quality is very important in determining a movie's legs over a 2-month period of time; certainly that concept can be applied to 3D as a format over a period of years.
post #43 of 58
Sadly I think conversions will be with us for quite some time to the detriment od 3D as a format. In my opinion some DOP's and directors are frightened to use 3D equipment because it means changing the way they shoot a film. If they are not willing to learn how to get the best from the 3D rigs and I get the impression that many of them are not, the only option is a conversion which will never match a native 3D shoot.

When I hear directors such as J.J. Abrams saying that light levels drop in 3D therefore it isn't worth doing I cannot help thinking that perhaps its more to do with a reluctance learn to adapt to the differences bulkier 3D rigs impose on a shoot and the way in which it may hamper his creative process. The dark and muted colours argument seems a bit disingenuous to me.

I remember Michael Bay voicing reservations about 3D too but he had the balls to try and I admire him for that. He wasn't afraid to ask for guidance and help from people with 3D experience and from what I have read he has made a very good 3D movie too.
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

When I hear directors such as J.J. Abrams saying that light levels drop in 3D therefore it isn't worth doing I cannot help thinking that perhaps its more to do with a reluctance learn to adapt to the differences bulkier 3D rigs impose on a shoot and the way in which it may hamper his creative process. The dark and muted colours argument seems a bit disingenuous to me.

I remember Michael Bay voicing reservations about 3D too but he had the balls to try and I admire him for that. He wasn't afraid to ask for guidance and help from people with 3D experience and from what I have read he has made a very good 3D movie too.

I think you may be on to something here. Abrams is a huge fan of shaky-cam, which is impractical to shoot in 3D and nausea-inducing when you try. He also has a fixation with lens flares, which don't work with a dual-lens camera rig.
post #45 of 58
With all the negative comments about the 3-D conversion of the latest Harry Potter film I almost hate to admit that I enjoyed it. Seeing that the film wasn't conceived from the planning stage as a 3-D property you can't expect that there will be as much foreground placement and in your face effects as you would find in a carefully thought out 3-D production. Also, a lot of the scenes were close up talking heads, not a stand out effect for 3-D. I felt it added to my enjoyment of the picture. It shouldn't be distracting and it wasn't and as such I guess many people feel cheated. I liked it. There was no real WOW scenes but I felt there was enough depth there to draw me more into the story. I felt the extra admission expense was worth while.

As a 3-D photographer and enthusiast I realize there are many ways to manipulate depth in a scene. This was a more subtle, dare I say tasteful, conversion of a high profile film. I felt it worked on that level. As noted in this Wired report that is what the director David Yates wanted. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...tter-finale-3d Some people just don't get or like 3-D and can't be pleased. I thought the conversion added more to my enjoyment and involvement of this entertaining film.
post #46 of 58
I saw it last night and I didn't think 3D really added anything to it. That said, I'm still looking forward to having both parts released on BD 3D in the future.

There were a few shots where the 3D didn't work though. There was more than one shot (and I can't remember which characters) where the head was stretched to the back, an artifact of the 3D conversion.

And as for the ticket price, $17 is too much, especially if they show it in a small theater on a smaller screen. It wasn't tiny, but it was far from the screens I saw Avatar on. There was a teaser while waiting for the movie to start where the image kept getting smaller, until it was TV sized. Then they made their point of seeing it on the "big" screen, except it wasn't so big.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacster View Post

There were a few shots where the 3D didn't work though. There was more than one shot (and I can't remember which characters) where the head was stretched to the back, an artifact of the 3D conversion.

And if a background element is obstructed by so much as a strand of hair in the foreground, the effect is ruined!
post #48 of 58
I went to see this last night with my fiancee who is a huge Potter fan in Imax3d and honestly the 3d was good for a conversion. I hate to say the obvious but native will always be better but as far as conversions it works for me with this release. It's a shame it wasn't done in native but it didn't distract my enjoyment of the movie and the conversion isn't as bad as some of the German releases I've seen.

I just hope the directors that aren't shooting in native 3d will eventually change their ways so we get more quality native stuff than this hit or miss conversion stuff. Like with all other conversions some people find it decent and others find it horrid. I myself found Deathly Hallows p2 to be decent and I am looking forward to the 3dbluray.
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacster View Post

I saw it last night and I didn't think 3D really added anything to it. That said, I'm still looking forward to having both parts released on BD 3D in the future.

There were a few shots where the 3D didn't work though. There was more than one shot (and I can't remember which characters) where the head was stretched to the back, an artifact of the 3D conversion.

And as for the ticket price, $17 is too much, especially if they show it in a small theater on a smaller screen. It wasn't tiny, but it was far from the screens I saw Avatar on. There was a teaser while waiting for the movie to start where the image kept getting smaller, until it was TV sized. Then they made their point of seeing it on the "big" screen, except it wasn't so big.

That would be my point also. Given the social profile of the film, the 3D just wasn't up to par. In several scenes, it would blank out all of a sudden. Certainly not Alice in Wonderland quality. But as I said b4, I'm sure I'll go and see it again.
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacster View Post

I saw it last night and I didn't think 3D really added anything to it. That said, I'm still looking forward to having both parts released on BD 3D in the future.

There were a few shots where the 3D didn't work though. There was more than one shot (and I can't remember which characters) where the head was stretched to the back, an artifact of the 3D conversion.

And as for the ticket price, $17 is too much, especially if they show it in a small theater on a smaller screen. It wasn't tiny, but it was far from the screens I saw Avatar on. There was a teaser while waiting for the movie to start where the image kept getting smaller, until it was TV sized. Then they made their point of seeing it on the "big" screen, except it wasn't so big.

The IMAX I saw this on didn't even show one darn preview. I was disappointed in hustling to the theater in time only to see no trailers. I like previews.
post #51 of 58
My Panny 50GT25 will do 3D conversion too, and IMHO this conversion wasn't all that much better than what my TV does, except maybe the ending with the ash floating in front of the screen. I haven't seen any 3D converted on my TV that does that, but I also only tried that when it was new and haven't used it since. I forget sometimes that I even have a 3D TV and BD player.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtT View Post
I'll be the contrarian here...
1. As a fan of the Potter movies (only read the first book), I thought this film was only bested by the first Potter film, and was one of the better movies i've seen in a long time. Paced well, great mix of action as well as plot/character, etc. Also great use of CGI witout it overwhelming the real characters and people. Over all, just a great job in moviemaking. It got a 97% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, and for good reason.
2. Saw it in Real 3D. Interetingly, at our theater the two "main" screens were 2d, while the 3 d was in two smaller auditoriums! In my opinion the 3D just made the show a more immersive experience, but once you got into the movie you didnt notice it. I think this is teh way it should be. YOu dont notice it, just as you dont notice you are seeing in 3d as you drive your car down the road. The 3d in Potter was similar. Nothing popping out at you, just what felt like an overall more immersive experience.
In summary:

+1

In detail:

Watched this tonight in Real3D. Had the IMAX 3D option, decided that the IMAX stuff seems to be not as well executed at non-IMAX-dedicated theaters, so went for the Real3D.

The image was clear, no ghosting, and the 3D effect, while occasionally, if I looked for it, derived from a post-conversion, it was a pretty good experience - better than I expected. Mostly, as noted, a good immersive 3D experience vs. throw axes/arrows/whatever at you. It started dark, but there were certain scenes (those who have seen it will know what I'm talking about) that did not seem dark, so I think it was director's intent for what I saw.

To top it off, the movie was one of the best in the series, and did a good job of wrapping up a bunch of loose ends (for me, at least).

Looking forward to the 3D BD for home viewing.

EDIT: Oh yeah, saw some previews including the new Sherlock Holmes film, which had a lot of in-your-face popping out effects - presumably because that "looks cool" in the preview - hopefully the film will be a good mix of immersion and the occasional pop-out. Also, the Three Musketeers seemed pretty action-filled and 3D-filled, though we all thought the actor portraying D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman, it appears, thanks to IMDb) was overly young looking (presumably to appeal to the teeny boppers). A preview for Arthur Christmas was pretty good, somewhat Cloudy-Meatballs or Ratatouille in style, with Cloudy-Meatballs level of 3D. And the preview for Hugo, also looking good in 3D, though I worry the story seems kiddie-fied/Disney-fied. Oh, and a preview for Glee. Not my cup of tea, but it appeared to be typical concert 3D stuff.

The Dark Knight Rises preview seemed to be in 2D - I saw no 3D effect, and the image was clear when I took off my 3D glasses, IIRC - and that seems to be the intent - it isn't going to be 3D, AFAICT.

Sorry for going so far OT.

IMHO,

shinksma
post #53 of 58
My theater has the dual projector 4k RealD. The 3D looked great throughout from beginning to end. The 3D added in post was amazing.

To tell if you are at a 4K theater, look over your shoulder, past the hot chicks, at the projector window that is. At my 4K theater, I see two images coming out. Top and bottom. Didn't notice two projections at non-4K RealD theaters.

Oh, and my 4K theater's 3D is only $8 bucks on Tuesdays. So all you PopEye fans who remember Whimpy. I'll glady wait till Tuesday to see the 3D movies that comes out today (Cowboys / Aliens). Can you beat that? Eight bucks??? Yes, we take all the family and friends on Tuesdays now. 2D is only Five bucks.
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinksma View Post
In summary:

+1

In detail:

Watched this tonight in Real3D. Had the IMAX 3D option, decided that the IMAX stuff seems to be not as well executed at non-IMAX-dedicated theaters, so went for the Real3D.


shinksma
I plan on seeing this movie again and thought I would do Real3D rather than IMAX which is what I watched it in before. Do you think Real 3D is better than IMAX? Also, is Real3D part of Real Audio? Does anyone know?
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinksma View Post

The Dark Knight Rises preview seemed to be in 2D - I saw no 3D effect, and the image was clear when I took off my 3D glasses, IIRC - and that seems to be the intent - it isn't going to be 3D, AFAICT.

Sorry for going so far OT.

IMHO,

shinksma

Christopher Nolan doesn't like 3D and will not shot it. The movie will be 2D.
post #56 of 58
I saw this film today and noticed a lot of ghosting/crosstalk...

It was most visible in high contrast scenes with bright objects that border dark backgrounds.

I also saw ghosting on most of the Gold/shinny objects.

I am very experienced with 3D movies in the theater (I have seen 20+ 3D movies in the theater) and have never seen anything like this when it comes to crosstalk.

The theater was a 48' wide 2.35:1 screen
The PJ was a Christie CP2230 DLP using the RealD XL system.

Did anyone else have any problems with crosstalk while seeing this movie?
post #57 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiFi-Spy View Post

I saw this film today and noticed a lot of ghosting/crosstalk...

It was most visible in high contrast scenes with bright objects that border dark backgrounds.

I also saw ghosting on most of the Gold/shinny objects.

I am very experienced with 3D movies in the theater (I have seen 20+ 3D movies in the theater) and have never seen anything like this when it comes to crosstalk.

The theater was a 48' wide 2.35:1 screen
The PJ was a Christie CP2230 DLP using the RealD XL system.

Did anyone else have any problems with crosstalk while seeing this movie?

I've seen the crosstalk issue with TF3 on an IMAX 3D at the very theater location that I previously saw the same exact movie except it was on a RealD screen. It was so bad I finally walked out after I tried to change the glasses and seating location at least once. Not to mention $16 was wasted. Bummer!!
As for HP, I have decided to wait out on BR 3D release on this one after having read so many negative reviews here.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiFi-Spy View Post
I saw this film today and noticed a lot of ghosting/crosstalk...

It was most visible in high contrast scenes with bright objects that border dark backgrounds.

I also saw ghosting on most of the Gold/shinny objects.

I am very experienced with 3D movies in the theater (I have seen 20+ 3D movies in the theater) and have never seen anything like this when it comes to crosstalk.

The theater was a 48' wide 2.35:1 screen
The PJ was a Christie CP2230 DLP using the RealD XL system.

Did anyone else have any problems with crosstalk while seeing this movie?

I saw this on the large two story IMAX screen at Navy Pier in Chicago.
Whenever I angled my head I saw cross talk and the picture was dimly projected. A waste of money. I'll pick the last two parts up on 3D BD when they are released.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: 3D (Theatrical Release)