or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Captain America: The First Avenger
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Captain America: The First Avenger - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
I'm gonna trust Cinema Blend- they've been really reliable and I agree with most if not all their "3D or not" articles.

Can you be specific about what you didn't like about it that Potter did better? Potter has really lackluster 3D- the depth was inconsistent (sometimes faces were round, other times they were flat); it was an unconvincing conversion job (lumps here and there, particularly when looking at faces and other complex geometry); and oftentimes the 3D was far too subtle (which coincidentally makes for less work for the conversion team).
I agree that the harry potter 3d was terrible. the captain america 3d was very good. certainly better then the harry potter 3d.

Jacob
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post
Who's Paul Thomas Anderson and what did he do???
Let me Google that for you.

However, I believe Columbo345 meant to say Paul W.S. Anderson, who is a completely different person. I'm not aware of Paul Thomas Anderson working in 3D.
post #33 of 56
No way captain americas 3d is worse than harry potter. Haven't seen CA yet but HP 3d was terrible..
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Let me Google that for you.

However, I believe Columbo345 meant to say Paul W.S. Anderson, who is a completely different person. I'm not aware of Paul Thomas Anderson working in 3D.

The constantly moving camera guy...huh. Maybe not the same guy that combines the constantly moving camera with a herky jerky motion.

I'd like my wife to sit between these two guys one day and throw up all over them on some of those moving camera/herky jerky style movies.

And you think you're cranky...
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I'm gonna trust Cinema Blend- they've been really reliable and I agree with most if not all their "3D or not" articles.

Can you be specific about what you didn't like about it that Potter did better? Potter has really lackluster 3D- the depth was inconsistent (sometimes faces were round, other times they were flat); it was an unconvincing conversion job (lumps here and there, particularly when looking at faces and other complex geometry); and oftentimes the 3D was far too subtle (which coincidentally makes for less work for the conversion team).

HP's was very lackluster, but it blended in a lot better. It wasn't nearly as distracting. Captain America's is very cardboard cutout fake looking. Lots of stuff looks 2D and one or 2 elements will be more "defined" giving it a very staged layered look. That review mentioned that the brightness was well done for the 3D yet it was by far the darkest 3D I've ever seen at the theatre. In truth, it's the only time I've ever noticed a 3D movie really being dark at all.
post #36 of 56
Something must have been wrong. Should have asked for your money back. Wasn't dark where I saw it. Now HP, that was dark.
post #37 of 56
The nazis had wonder weapons, but Captain America had a Harley with flamethrowers. They never stood a chance.
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

I really liked Rocketeer. It was very entertaining.

Have you seen Captain America?? Just wondering because of that "buck up" comment.

Who's Paul Thomas Anderson and what did he do???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Let me Google that for you.

However, I believe Columbo345 meant to say Paul W.S. Anderson, who is a completely different person. I'm not aware of Paul Thomas Anderson working in 3D.

Thanks, I did mean the other Paul Anderson (Resident Evil movies).
Taffy Lewis, I haven't seen Captain America yet but will probably do so in the next couple weeks.

It's interesting to hear the variation of opinion on a lot of these 2D-to-3D conversions. I thought Thor's 3D conversion looked surprisingly good. Others thought it was terrible and non-existent. I haven't seen Harry Potter in 3D, but from the sounds of it, the studio really tried to take advantage of the fans who don't know what movies out there are native and conversion.
post #39 of 56
Just saw this this morning. 3-D was much better (good) than HP (worthless) and a tad better than Thor (acceptable) in my opinion. Transformers 3-D was the best of the bunch. The story and style are done in high taste like rocketeer and sky captain both of which I also liked. Marvel is really kicking ass. Dont forget to stay for the end of the movie credits...

Ultimate wave tahiti 3-D IMAX presentation still blew all of these out of the water. I therefore still think that the IMAX stuff is done the best as kids really like to grab stuff floating in front of them. Dont agree with all of the preaching regarding the Avatar (window 3-D)style of 3-D iwhich workeed mainly because of the dedicated 3-D cameras but what the audience likes is not being delivered - pop out.
post #40 of 56
I saw Captain America in 3D today; I enjoyed the movie and thought the 3D was very good with a very nice sense of depth most of the time and a sufficiently bright picture (I don't know what these idiot critics who constantly complain of "murky" pictures are watching).

Even though it is a post-conversion its pretty obvious that the filmmakers shot with 3D in mind and carefully managed the placement of foreground and background objects to help sell the 3D effect, especially during the opening scenes in the arctic.

In terms of pop-out moments, there really weren't that many but late in the film there is a scene of Cap's shield bouncing off a tank and flying straight at the viewer that was so convincing it literally made my brother and me both flinch in our seats.
post #41 of 56
Saw it last night and liked the movie and the 3D. The 3D is well done. Now I'm looking forward to the Avengers even more.
post #42 of 56
Movie was great.

3D was good for conversion, it really opened up once he got his suit, the airplane stuff was beautiful.

That one shield throw that everyone keeps mentioning was really awesome, slow mo spinning right into the crowd!

Good stuff.
post #43 of 56
Perhaps there was a problem when I saw it in 3D. They did have problems and had to restart the movie (it was all pink and green and you couldn't make out any details when it first started). Can't get my money back since it was a free screening.

Saw it again today in 2D and enjoyed it more, but it still has it's flaws (nonexistent challenge for Cap).
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

The Russians kicked the Nazis' butts also and lost more than 20 million doing it. They were in Berlin before the Americans. Oh, wife and I thought the movie was great and we liked the 3D.

True. They had less distance to travel. Let's keep it real...and yes, you are correct, good movie!
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChldsPlay View Post


HP's was very lackluster, but it blended in a lot better. It wasn't nearly as distracting. Captain America's is very cardboard cutout fake looking. Lots of stuff looks 2D and one or 2 elements will be more "defined" giving it a very staged layered look. That review mentioned that the brightness was well done for the 3D yet it was by far the darkest 3D I've ever seen at the theatre. In truth, it's the only time I've ever noticed a 3D movie really being dark at all.

Darkness has a lot to do with the theater and the the type of version they got of the movie.
post #46 of 56
Just saw it in RealD theater.
3D conversion was decent for what it is.
Got a few great 3D scenes as well.
Otherwise, it was a very good movie.
post #47 of 56
This movie certainly won't appeal to the world market as much as harry potter because ..well it's too american. I certainly wouldn't want to watch it, i don't care for captain america. I just came to check how the 3d aspect performed cos lately the 3d movies have been a little drab. But nice to hear that the 3d is good on this one. Though the industry needs to give up this post production conversion habit already and film it 3d. We don't want just decent/good 3d, when we go to the cinema we want to be blown away by the 3d effects, something that would also make a non-believer in 3d care about 3d. I don't really think conversions go to that length.
post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I saw Captain America in 3D today; I enjoyed the movie and thought the 3D was very good with a very nice sense of depth most of the time and a sufficiently bright picture (I don't know what these idiot critics who constantly complain of "murky" pictures are watching).

Even though it is a post-conversion its pretty obvious that the filmmakers shot with 3D in mind and carefully managed the placement of foreground and background objects to help sell the 3D effect, especially during the opening scenes in the arctic.

In terms of pop-out moments, there really weren't that many but late in the film there is a scene of Cap's shield bouncing off a tank and flying straight at the viewer that was so convincing it literally made my brother and me both flinch in our seats.




I jumped at that part too
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

The Russians kicked the Nazis' butts also and lost more than 20 million doing it. They were in Berlin before the Americans. Oh, wife and I thought the movie was great and we liked the 3D.

Of course once the war was over it was a different story. Since the victors write the history we will probably never get the full account of the atrocities that continued in Eastern Germany in some of the concentration camps that were taken over by the Soviets.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

Of course once the war was over it was a different story. Since the victors write the history we will probably never get the full account of the atrocities that continued in Eastern Germany in some of the concentration camps that were taken over by the Soviets.

Absolutely right!
post #51 of 56
It's not that conversions are so bad, it's that people are seeing the conversions with so-so 3D, then shying away from 3D for other 3D movies and watching in 2D only. The trend is already here--theaters are selling more 2D tickets of 3D movies now. Since studios can spend less for a 3D conversion and still get $$ from that market segment, they will produce both for now. That said, conversion technology will get better and at some point the difference will become negligible, and the $ savings will drive that trend--and the conversion of Star Wars will only add to that thinking. Remember this is a business first and foremost.
post #52 of 56
had seen this in the theater and was impressed with 3d quality. Great depth throughout and that shield scene really made me jump as well. Then bought the blu ray and watched on 43" Samsung 720p and was less impressed but still decent. Just watched on my new Panasonic UT50 and was blown away. Clarity, depth, amazing 3d quality especially since it's post conversion. Easily best post conversion I have seen. Most are barely passable, this could pass for the real thing it is that good.
post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrobitaille23 View Post

had seen this in the theater and was impressed with 3d quality. Great depth throughout and that shield scene really made me jump as well. Then bought the blu ray and watched on 43" Samsung 720p and was less impressed but still decent. Just watched on my new Panasonic UT50 and was blown away. Clarity, depth, amazing 3d quality especially since it's post conversion. Easily best post conversion I have seen. Most are barely passable, this could pass for the real thing it is that good.

I completely agree. However, I would put Disney's Alice in Wonderland along side CA for the best 3D conversions.
post #54 of 56
Just ordered this title to see for myself how good the 3D conversion is or isn't and will comment accordingly after I have watched it.
I quite like the Marvel movies anyway so it won't hurt to have it in my collection even if I don't like the 3D.
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Just ordered this title to see for myself how good the 3D conversion is or isn't and will comment accordingly after I have watched it.
I quite like the Marvel movies anyway so it won't hurt to have it in my collection even if I don't like the 3D.

I saw this at the movies and also own the 3D BluRay. To my eyes the 3D effect was comparable to Avengers, maybe a notch below. There was a moderate sense of depth most of the time and the director and cinematographer clearly gave some thought to the placement of objects in the foreground and background to further help sell the 3D effect. The action sequences also conveyed nice depth most of the time as the camera was usually in a fixed position. Not much in the way of pop out of the screen but there was a nice shot of Cap's shield flying right toward you near the end. As is the care with most Marvel movies, the end credits also had some nifty 3D effects.
post #56 of 56
Saw this last night and yeah, the 3D was very good for a conversion.

I did notice some inconsistencies though, for example when characters started walking in a scene, the depth would change and some facial shots didn't look quite right either. At times actors looked like their chins were 6-8 inches away from their necks, presumably becuase the artists doing the conversion pulled facial features forward but didn't or couldn't correct for this with the neck and body. This is the problem with shooting 2D live actors and converting, the absense of 3D info that is present by design for a CG character means the artists are having to make judgements and the complexity of the human form makes this very difficult to pull off.

Also, complex shapes such as the hundreds of folds in the doctors white lab coat were not well rendered in 3D where they would have been in a native 3D shoot.

Rapid cuts don't work well in 3D either and there were quite a few of those in this movie. That is 2D thinking and the Director and DOP really need to think more carefully about this when shooting and editing the movie that they know will be presented in 3D. The audience needs time to take in a 3D scene and half second cuts just don't allow for that!

Very good though and a hell of an improvement over earlier conversions. I am still not convinced that there is any excuse for shooting live actor dialogue scenes with 2D cameras when 3D rigs are now as easy to use as their 2D counterparts.
Edited by cbcdesign - 6/15/12 at 7:06am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Captain America: The First Avenger