or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › I, Robot 3D in October
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I, Robot 3D in October - Page 3

post #61 of 78
A couple more favorable reviews:
http://noreruns.net/2012/10/23/blu-ray-review-i-robot-3d/

http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/television/i-robot/

It's hard to judge 3D conversion quality from reviews since so many reviewers seem to really hate 3D. This bunch seemed to like it.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I absolutely HATE the trend of open matte just for the 3d version on films that have always been scope OAR. mad.gif
What "trend"? How many are there? I can only think of this one.
post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

What "trend"? How many are there? I can only think of this one.

Titanic and now this. Maybe not a trend yet, but I bet it will be. There will certainly be more to come unfortunately.
post #64 of 78
People who own 3d displays are the minority. People with 3d displays that are 2.35:1 (or constant height) are ultra rare. They are probably catering to the great majority of 3d display owners. Because I don't own a constant height screen for my pj, of course I really enjoy the 1.78:1 aspect ratio.
post #65 of 78
Eliminate picture information? No sale.
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Eliminate picture information? No sale.
Open Matte adds picture info, not eliminates it. The only time there my be a crop is if a scene has "problems".
post #67 of 78
Check out Titanic when they are in the engine room and the pistons are pumping. You can really see them churning with the 16:9 aspect ratio. 2:35:1 cuts a lot off.
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith808 View Post

People who own 3d displays are the minority. People with 3d displays that are 2.35:1 (or constant height) are ultra rare. They are probably catering to the great majority of 3d display owners. Because I don't own a constant height screen for my pj, of course I really enjoy the 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

I agree that they are catering to the majority of 3d display owners, but this does not make the practice right or good IMO. Again, what if they did this with 2d blu ray? Would everyone be happy with that? I think that would be horrible.
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Open Matte adds picture info, not eliminates it. The only time there my be a crop is if a scene has "problems".

Sorry, but you are wrong. One of the links sgowed a comparison of the two ratios. Two people visib;e on the 2.35 version are eliminated on the 1.78 version (with a third person almost cut in half). Anyone with two working eyes (or even one!) can see that. imagine a similar loss in a visual effects shot.. Sadly, the "fill-up-my-incompatible-screen ratio because I don't care about composition or filmic intent" group is why one cxan't watch a film properly on HBO or MAX. But I guess some people, even with newer toys, are still in the VHS state-of-mind. I, for one, won't spend money on altered or compromised movies. (And yes, I'm aware that Proyas did not make the flick with 3D in mind. So one can look at the 3D conversion as more of a hoped-for enhancement while the cropping is a difference.)
Edited by cinema13 - 10/24/12 at 7:30am
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Sorry, but you are wrong. One of the links sgowed a comparison of the two ratios. Two people visib;e on the 2.35 version are eliminated on the 1.78 version (with a third person almost cut in half). Anyone with two working eyes (or even one!) can see that. imagine a similar loss in a visual effects shot.. Sadly, the "fill-up-my-incompatible-screen ratio because I don't care about composition or filmic intent" group is why one cxan't watch a film properly on HBO or MAX. But I guess some people, even with newer toys, are still in the VHS state-of-mind. I, for one, won't spend money on altered or compromised movies. (And yes, I'm aware that Proyas did not make the flick with 3D in mind. So one can look at the 3D conversion as more of a hoped-for enhancement while the cropping is a difference.)

That is horrible! frown.gif
post #71 of 78
So I noticed that AVSForum's Ralph Potts has posted what I would regard as a generally favorable review....

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1435484/i-robot-3d-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review

Having seen both the 1.78 open matte version and the 2.35 OAR version, there is some minor information cropped from the sides of some scenes but quite honestly the compositions are not at all affected in my opinion and the full frame image definitely improves the 3D effect.
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

So I noticed that AVSForum's Ralph Potts has posted what I would regard as a generally favorable review....
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1435484/i-robot-3d-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review
Having seen both the 1.78 open matte version and the 2.35 OAR version, there is some minor information cropped from the sides of some scenes but quite honestly the compositions are not at all affected in my opinion and the full frame image definitely improves the 3D effect.

It would only improve the 3d effect on a 1.78 screen though. CIH users get the shaft here and considering this film has always been scope up until now, I dont see any justification for the change JUST because it is 3d. Once again, what if this practice started popping up for 2d as well? frown.gif

The whole point is we should all be preaching OAR.
Edited by Toe - 10/25/12 at 6:38pm
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Sorry, but you are wrong. One of the links sgowed a comparison of the two ratios....
As I said there can be an exception "problem scene". Is this the scene you are referring to? Could be the scene in question had a boom mic that would fall in a 1.78 open frame forcing a small crop.

Now if the entire move is cropped (or even most) then that is a different story. Do you have screen shots or links to multiple scenes for comparison?
Edited by William - 10/26/12 at 4:42am
post #74 of 78
Both I, Robot and Titanic were shot in Super35, so theoretically the top and bottom can be opened up without losing much information on the sides. I, Robot, though, is listed on imdb as using a Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format). I would assume it doesn't fare as well as Titanic because it's the intermediary being cropped rather than the original film due to only the intermediary including the fx shots.
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by live4ten View Post

Both I, Robot and Titanic were shot in Super35, so theoretically the top and bottom can be opened up without losing much information on the sides. I, Robot, though, is listed on imdb as using a Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format). I would assume it doesn't fare as well as Titanic because it's the intermediary being cropped rather than the original film due to only the intermediary including the fx shots.

No, because I don't own (and now, will never own) the 3D disc. But here is a fine rundown on OAR from Josh Zyber...pay special attention to the DARK CITY shots to see how even an open matte can ruin and/or alter the composition and intent of a shot.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764
post #76 of 78
I think there's more to consider regarding open matte for a 3D conversion of an old 2D movie. Often, 2D movies are composed so that the edges of the frame chop off the very top of a person's head. In 3D, this can be an eyesore, especially if the character is positioned in negative parallax. While changing the composition of the scene is not good, using the open matte version could eliminate some the edge violations and give the conversion artists more freedom with their choice in convergence.
post #77 of 78
I picked this one up and finally watched it. I have nothing against 2D-3D conversions and actually like many of them. I hate to admit it but I watched the entire "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" series using the 3D converter on my Samsung LED 3D set. (For some reason it seemed to work well on that series......really....) So my expectations were not really high and I did enjoy the film again and the added depth of the conversion. However, I think it could have been done a lot better, even using this new JVC conversion program. I feel they needed to push it a little more in the depth department, more the way it was done on the "Titanic" conversion. Perhaps they need a daring stereographer to get in there and make some real artistic decisions.

So bottom line I enjoyed this conversion but it kind of felt to me as if they had run the film through my Samsung 2D-3D converter and then someone went through and fixed all the glaring depth mistakes that the auto conversion had made. And I bet that is pretty much what they did.
post #78 of 78
It's conversion on the cheap and in my 46 years on this planet if I have learned one thing it is that you get what you pay for!
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 › I, Robot 3D in October