I, Robot 3D (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review - Page 3

Sitting a tad close to our giant screens, are we?

No, seriously, maybe sitting a few feet further back, should one have the room, for 1.78:1 viewing, helps? 'Course, sound re-calibration could be a problem, come to think of it, so maybe a sweet spot between 2 seating positions? Cheers!

I think the CG movies are fine in full 16:9, but Ill stick to OAR for live action movies...

I hear ya.... Though, Titanic 3D, whew! Not sure you could top that with 2.4:1... Then comes Dark Knight 2 and now 3 (on its way...) with shifting ratios a-la-TRON Legacy, and these are just 2D... Oh, well!

Avatar 3D...

nothing compares to the Imax 3d version, not even on my screen...although the embers from the burnt tree were cool...

Taranteacher is completely missing the point. If the ,ovie was shot in 16:9 in mind, I have no problem watching it in 16:9. But when the studio (not the director) changing the OAR to different AR, that's when I have the problem. Titanic, Avatar AR change to 16:9 in3D were done at the director's instruction, therefore it's fine. I, robot, on the other hand, was cropped by the studio.

It has nothing to do with preference.

If I go with preference, I want all movies to be 21:9.

im about 20ft back, and still enjoy like OAR over crop and chop....

I guess one should not buy this TV if 16:9 is what youre looking for :-)
http://www.eoshd.com/content/265/philips-release-2-39-1-anamorphic-tv-with-2560x1080p-resolution

Agreed. Oh well, more $$$ for other discs I suppose.

Extremely expensive and quite ugly, but the ambient light feature is sweet. No, not for me, thank you!

OK, David, you've stated your view, and anyone can respect that. Just, consider this: what if nobody ever told you this movie had a different AR originally and you then saw it in this cropped-and-chopped-and-spammed-and-scammed-but-done-with-care-like-Ralph-says-it-looks-cool version? Would you not find it probly great to look at and maybe even recommend it? Food for thought...

And, please, do yourself a favor and do not expect me to keep responding, as I've grown tired of it... Peace brother!

I feel like Taranteacher still doesnt understand. Its one thing to say that a movie looks good in 3D, and its another saying all movies are better in 16x9 format, which from your posts, you are implying. A bold statement none the less.

I, for one, can usually tell if a movie has been cropped. Having seen enough films, having been on enough sets to see how much time and effort goes into framing, and taking photos a bit myself, I cen often see when the composition just doesn't feel right. For one thing, on cropped films everything appears more centered, while a widescreen film often uses the frame to have people more to the left or right. Or when two heads are in the frame but the back of their heads are cut-0ff, etc. etc. Cropping sucks, period. If I need the picture to be "larger", I just move closer. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay for a cropped film. Bad enough I have to pay HBO for their 100% cropped movies. (I only hold on to HBO for BOARDWALK EMPIRE and a few other original shows. If it were just for films, I'd have dumped it years ago.)

It did have a different AR though originally and that is the problem. You are OK with it which is fine, but this is a perfectly legitimate complaint from those like me who prefer OAR. Go enjoy the disc and ignore the OAR crowd if you are happy. You are not going to change our mind on this if that is your goal.

"Great to look at" is a preference, and there is no right and wrong way to measure that

But a butchered aspect ratio is "black and white". It's wrong regardless of preference.

My preference? All movies in 21:9. Is it right? Hell no! Only OAR is correct!

Oh well, these are the same conversation most of us had during 4:3 vs OAR days of DVD.

Funny that during LaserDisc days, the percentage of educated people on OAR was much higher than today.

From the frame comparison, it looks like I, Robot may have been shot in anamorphic. The cropping does not seem to coincide with any Super 35 framing I've ever seen.

If I liked the movie, and even if I didn't... No OAR, no sale.

I can't believe I'm having to say that in this day and age.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 11/11/12 at 11:42am

I apologize. Thanks for the education.

Yes, cropping for the sake of cropping does become annoyingly apparent, I am aware of that, was just kind of hoping this version of I, ROBOT 3D had the cropping done in a more aesthetic way, avoiding as much as possible the presence of such traits. I too hate it when not properly done. Can anybody who has seen / owns it tell if such techniques were used "tastefully," so to speak? It looks like many here don't even want to look at it, but I am still looking forward to a positive response...

For the record, I only own the DVD. But, since I joined the Blu-ray bandwagon last December, this is one of those movies that I've been wanting to revisit but haven't simply because my now preffered 1080p viewing gets the best of me and I watch a Blu-ray instead. So, the avid 3D fan inside me wants to get this version, being both in 3D and containing lossless sound.

There is a sample scene of this in the Prometheus BR-3D disc, along with samples of Titanic and Avatar, and, while it looks decent enough (you can't in your right mind expect I, ROBOT to compare against Titanic or Avatar -- or Prometheus, for that matter), the HD lossless track sounds exceptionally good. Give it a shot, a friend of yours must by now be owning Prometheus 3D, so even if you didn't like that movie, you can still view those 3D samples, and then decide if I, ROBOT 3D is worth it!

so are you still implying 16x9 3D blu rays are the only way to watch 3D movies?

C'mon, Ron! I understand it's a preference, and so should you. Not "the only way," just gald to see others agree with 1.78:1 3D, as long as it's done "tastefully," okay?

I'd like to hear, from such owners of this BD, their opinion, is all... Thank you, and have a nice day!

Fox sent me a review Blu-ray of this movie. Although I have no problem watching the action scenes, too many of the original breathtaking 2.35 vista turned to be very claustrophobic. I honestly don't remember scene-by-scene of the 2.35 disc, but from all the scenes I remember, NONE of it were open-matte in the 3D version, just cropped and chopped.

Thank you, David, good to know! I'd still follow Ralph's lead in saying it's good, though!

he just disagreed with you, and you thanked him...im leaving this forum because i think the topic got lost withe the bickering...have fun everyone...

Was being sarcastic, if you know what that means, so...yeah, leave and get a life, man!

Sad..........All to fill up the common 1.78 screen instead of preserving the OAR. Thanks for the report.

I read a lot of the reviews here and see statements of not much 3D depth, while others see the 3D depth just fine. Correct 3D has infinity the width of your eyes, which is around 2.5 inches more or less. If your objects at infinity are much less than that, then you will see less 3D depth. Plus, sit closer to the screen, your 3D is more compressed. Sit too far back and it's elongated. So find the right distance from the screen, and make sure your objects are your eye width. There are many players that allow changing of the stereo separation like the Panasonic players. Anyway, my Panny BDT210 has saved many a 3D movie from 3D boredom by adjusting the 3D depth when needed.

As a CIH owner, I thnk I could live with this if it was open matte with no info on the sides chopped. It's no different than the premiun movie networks cutting of the sides of some scope films to "fill" the 16x9 screen.

I'm sure many dvd owners now regret buying pan and scan, just to fill their screen, now that they have HD sets.

Tom

I bit at sale price of $15, only because its a favorite movie of mine and good demo material. Not endorsing the choices made.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on the movie. I'm halfway through watching it in 3D and have to say I'm really enjoying the transfer. I was disappointed that the movie isn't in 2.35:1 like others and the fact that Fox simply decided to go cheap on the "Combo Pack." Lots of movies have a dedicated 3D disc, separate from BD. That's what Fox should have done and included the OAR BD. It's not a movie I'm too familiar with, I think I've seen it once before, so I don't know what I'm missing off screen in the 1.78 transfer. I think the 3D is well done and certain scenes don't have a ton of depth and so far (halfway through, mind you) there's not a lot of pop outs. But I like 3D to be subtle and I think it suits that preference very well. But I do feel I'm a purist and prefer to see movies in OAR so I have also ordered a used 2.35:1 copy of the disc. The only hard part will be to find a 3D 3-disc case . For 3D I think it's pretty good but I would still prefer OAR and I agree that OAR should be included (not just on the DVD).

Can anyone confirm the 2D Blu Ray disc from 2008 has side bars as part of the letterbox? I just put it on to watch it in full anamorphic and wanted to make sure my PC software (TMT5) isn't underscanning the picture.

Edit: Turns out CCC was underscanning the display when switching to 24p. I forgot to set up 24p profile with new display drivers.
Edited by anikun07 - 11/29/12 at 7:47pm