or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › WHOA!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WHOA!!

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Right after I wrote a post about 1.81 fullscreen 3D being WAY more awesome than 2.40 letterbox on the 55", I went to fool around with the picture sizes of the tv and blu ray player. Which I had done briefly before, but I really put some effort into it now smile.gif. I tried combinations of tv AND blu ray adjustments to try to stretch the picture vertically with no cut offs.

After I couldt get a size I was satisfied with, I said to heck with it, I'm gonna watch the 2.40 Underworld Awakening movie in the blu-ray's "mode 2" picture. The picture is blown up in this mode so it covers the screen. You get NO vertical cut off, BUT theres cut off on the sides.

So I put the glasses on...and WOW.biggrin.gif!! My 2.40 3D movies looked just OKAY. But nowhere near the 3D effect of the 1.81. With this adjustment, a movie that had just okay 3D now has AWESOME 3D biggrin.gif!!! Even the paper cut-out 3D people scenes look good! Theres a particularily great 3D scene in the Underworld movie at the end where the man is stumbling around as he's transforming into the giant werewolf? When the transformation is complete, the werewolf sticks his snout out the screen? Okay, it already looked great in 2.40, but it looks INCREDIBLE in mode 2 fullscreen biggrin.gif!! Another scene is when Kate throws the grenade pin out the screen, and when she leaps over some cars to escape the giant wolf. All of this looks amazing in mode 2!

Now I gotta go back through all my 2.40's that were always JUST OKAY in that letterbox picture and rewatch it in mode biggrin.gif! I'd rather sacrifice some cutoff on the sides (not the top and bottom)! That 2.40 picture it wasnt giving me the full 3D effect, and blowing it up makes a world of difference!

And now Priest looks fully 3D biggrin.gif!! The freight train/cycle explosion throwing debis out the screen!
Edited by AndreHD - 12/6/12 at 11:44pm
post #2 of 53
You know, you can have your cake and eat it too by upgrading to a larger screen, or better yet a front projection setup. Yes, I know that isn't practical for many, but you get the improved 3D impact that size by itself (or sitting much, much closer to the screen) gets you, without compromising on a fair chunk of compositional information (not to mention artistic intent) on the sides
post #3 of 53
You're just getting higher separation with a larger image, is all, making it look "deeper". Aspect ratio has nothing to do with 3D depth.
post #4 of 53
Thread Starter 
No, I'm completely satisfied with my Samsung UN55D6900 Smart TV smile.gif. 55", its a huge upgrade from my Samsung 32" smile.gif. It hangs on a short wall in the living room, in front of the 2nd floor steps. The short wall wasnt big enough, so the upper right corner of the tv sticks out from the wall. So I got a BIG enough tv smile.gif. It also doubles as a 55" PC moniter and giant Ipad with apps smile.gif. Samsung always has quality products with fair prices.

Anyway, I'm already just 6-feet from the screen. Mind you, also viewing 1.81 AR movies, cable movies and programs, sports, XBox, and smarthub internet surfing. ALL that is in 1.81 AR and look HUGE. My ONLY problem was 2.40 AR blu-rays-which by the way, still look HUGE on the screen! But the black bars and letterboxed picture just didnt measure up to the OTHER 99% content I watch on the tv. My problem is with the AR of certain blu ray, NOT the tv biggrin.gif. Push come to shove, I can DVR the movie on HBO, which resizes all 2.40 movies to 1.81 AR, or one of the other movie channels.

Any bigger tv than this, and I might as well never go to the theater smile.gif! Those tvs are for auditoriums, not a close intimate home setting. I'd never go outside again if I had one of those 80-inchers biggrin.gif!
post #5 of 53
Thread Starter 
Well, whatever it is, it looks way cooler and 3Dish than the 2.40 letterboxed picture biggrin.gif. Underworld Awakening looked like 2D paper cut out people on a different plain than the background with letterbox. With some awesome action scenes mixed in. 90% of 3D movies are these still camera shots of the people in the foreground. I was always unimpressed with these cardboard cut out scenes because I was unaware that there was a lot more effects to these scenes that I couldnt distinguish on the 2.40 smaller picture biggrin.gif! With the mode 2 blow up, my eyes can clearly see 3-4 different layers of depth. Theres a foreground, right-before-foreground, mid-ground, and background biggrin.gif! In 2.40, the only thing that jumped out to my eye was the paper cut out people.

Cool thing about the blu ray player is that it automatically goes back to the OAR mode once I take the disc out and put another in. So I have to adjust it as needed every time I put a movie in. If I put movie in that already fills the screen, like 1.81 Avengers, it automatically starts at the OAR, so I dont have to worry about forgeting to switch out of mode 2 for 1.81's.

Since there was already black space on the top and bottom of the 2.40 picture, I get no top/bottom cut off fron the mode 2 blow up. The sides are cut a little. I have option on the tv to nudge a picture around a couple inches, so if I see that there something important there (normally isnt, just the back of someones head), I can move it.

I have 3 resize options on the blu ray and about 6-7 on the tv. So I have a lot of configurations I can test smile.gif. But mode 2 on the blu ray is the most awesome option at the moment to bring the 2.40 3D experience up to the 1.81's.
Edited by AndreHD - 12/7/12 at 12:19pm
post #6 of 53
I'll venture a guess that you're not going to convert many members here to your way of thinking. Videophiles want to see content as originally intended. Suggesting that you get a bigger display is a reasonable answer, IMO.

A lot of people out there agree with you, however, and many cable HD movies are cropped to cater to those people. Surprisingly, some also actually prefer to stretch the picture rather than have black bars. Of the two, cropping is the lesser of two evils I guess, but I hate both. tongue.gif
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

I'll venture a guess that you're not going to convert many members here to your way of thinking. Videophiles want to see content as originally intended. Suggesting that you get a bigger display is a reasonable answer, IMO.
A lot of people out there agree with you, however, and many cable HD movies are cropped to cater to those people. Surprisingly, some also actually prefer to stretch the picture rather than have black bars. Of the two, cropping is the lesser of two evils I guess, but I hate both. tongue.gif

Some?? I'd venture to say the vast majority of widescreen TV owners use my most hated "stretchy mode". cool.gif

"I paid for this big screen, I want it FILLED!"
post #8 of 53
And yet only 4:3 content is called "fullscreen"... wazzup wit dat?
post #9 of 53
Thread Starter 
I dont have a huge living room width wise, its an elongated one. The TV, 55" is just right for a long rectangle smile.gif. I planted a couch 6 feet away. All fullscreen 1.81 content is HUGE. Movie theater huge smile.gif. I'm trying to tell you its ALREADY huge. Not exactly like if you're in the front rows of the theater and the screen looks humongous? I'm talking where I'M usually seated in a theater, midway, on the second level. My tv feels like a mini version of being seated in the middle of the theater with a little distance from the screen. 6-feet is the closest I can do for 2.40 because the entertainment stand, subwoofer/front/right-left speakers is right under where the tv is mounted, and I have to fit an ottman in there, to put my feet up smile.gif.

The 2.40 picture is HUGE. Just less huge smile.gif. The difference between an elephant and a rhino. Guess I shoulda said my issue was the 3D depth perception of the 2.40 picture compared to a magnified 2.40. The difference is HUGE. Now I'm very excited to go back through John Carter, Ghost Rider 2, Prometheus, and some of the other flicks whose 3D didnt blow me away at first watching the 2.40 picture.

Really, since the mode 2 resize has cut off on both sides, what I'm probably looking at is a 65" 2.40 picture cropped on a 55" screen smile.gif! I'm gonna like ALL my 3D blu rays now, not just Avengers, Wrath of the Titans, and Immortals lol.
post #10 of 53
How did you resize the screen on a 3D Blu-Ray movie on your samsung TV ?

Most TV's won't let you resize/zoom in on a 3D movie , my 65" 2010 TV wont do it in 3D mode. (Only 2D)
post #11 of 53
Thread Starter 
I'm doing it through the blu ray player, not the tv. The tv can do it as well. Both my tv and blu ray are Samsung. The same "smart" brand. Also, I can only resize the 3D picture WHILE the movie is playing. I cant change the size at the menu screen. Once I've started the movie or chose a scene, I hit "tools" on the remote to bring up size option. Mode 1 magnifies it so theres less borders on the top and bottom. I prefer no borders at all so I went with mode 2, a perfect verticle fit with no cut off, but a couple inches chopped off the sides.

TV is Samsung UN55D6900 by the way. Different models I guess.

Blu Ray is BD6500
Edited by AndreHD - 12/7/12 at 8:29pm
post #12 of 53
so....you zoomed the image, and now its more 3-D'ier? wow.....rolleyes.gif
post #13 of 53
Thread Starter 
Let me say it another way smile.gif...forget about magically transforming a bad 3D image into a good one with the press of a button and a bigger size. This isnt about a magic show biggrin.gif. Its about MY EYES ability to distinguish different plains of a 3D image. MY eyes can make out 3D depth a lot better on a 55" 1.81 image (and the 20X bigger movie theater screen) than a 40"(?) 2.40 letterboxed image on a 55" screen.

The 3D depth was always there in the 2.40 image; I didnt magically alter the source code of the blu ray by pressing a remote button smile.gif. What I'm saying is that on the shruken 2.40 image, MY eyes could only got a cardboard cut out look, flat people against a background. Maybe YOUR eyes have a telescopic property, but mine DONT biggrin.gif. 1.81 3D (Avengers, Immortals) looked spectacular while the other 99% of my 3Ds-2.40 outnumber 1.81s 10-1-looked just OKAY.

I went back through Ghost Rider 2, Green Lantern, Abe Lincoln Vampier Hunter, And Underworld Evolution with the picture adjusyment and now they look spectacular smile.gif!! Even the people-in-front-of-backgound scenes, that always looked like 2D paper cut outs look good! I can now see past the people on the foreground and different layers of 3D objects and distance. Now I'm "gettin' it" with the 2.40's biggrin.gif! I'm gonna rewatch John Carter, which will be epic now!

BTW, I decided to go with "mode 1" blow up instead of "mode 2". Mode 2 filled the entire screen, no cut off vertically but some on the ends. Mode 1 magnifies it so the black bars are cut in half, making it almost fullscreen, with half the cut off on the ends. Mode 1 gives me that 1.81 feel so I'm going with that.
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

I have option on the tv to nudge a picture around a couple inches, so if I see that there something important there (normally isnt, just the back of someones head), I can move it.

So, manual pan and scan. Personally I have a little bit of appreciation/respect for cinematography, but to each their own.
post #15 of 53
Thread Starter 
biggrin.gif...something was just missing from my 2.40 movies compared to the in-your-face, out-the-screen effect of my 1.81's! I realized it was SIZE, and my eyes not being able to discern the different plains and depth of the smaller 2.40:1 image on my 55" screen. If all I'm missing on the sides is the back of someones head or the back half of a table lamp, its worth it to get the full intended 3D immersion on my 2.40s, that had been collecting dust, like I've always gotten from my 1.81's biggrin.gif! I had it fullscreen with side cropping, but (so far) I've settled on a "inch or two from fullscreen" mode because it has less side cropping. This is just from the blu ray players' 3 modes. I still have 6-7 picture morphs on the tv's menu, should I want to achieve minimal side cropping.
post #16 of 53
wonder if they zoomed movies in an imax theater, they would be 3D'ier?
post #17 of 53
I find that the more the image fills your field of view, the more immersive the 3D experience is, especially when you're watching on a 55" - 65" set at a distance of 7' - 8' or so. I also notice that the 3D movie BluRay menus, which often have looping clips of the film displayed at full frame, seem to convey a better sense of 3D to me than the corresponding scenes at their native aspect ratios.

My TV and BluRay player do not allow me to change the image zoom when in 3D but in comparing full frame 1.85:1 3D presentations like Avengers, Avatar and most recently Men in Black 3 with 2.40:1 presentations like Prometheus, Priest. Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter and so forth, the full frame presentations give me a better sense of depth and 3D pop out of the screen works much, much better.
Edited by TonyDP - 12/9/12 at 6:09pm
post #18 of 53
It's like a broken record broken record broken record.

You folks do realize why the 3D is "better" at larger sizes, yes? It's simple math, you're not making any astounding discovery here.

On the other hand, what you are doing is changing the way the film is meant to be viewed. For those of us that push heavily toward "director's intent", we have no intention of doing what you "recommend" for a "better" experience. 3D is highly subjective. If it's good for you, that's fine. But I'll reiterate what Fritzi said, you're not going to make any converts here.
post #19 of 53
Thread Starter 
Huh?! I had to...go back and read my own posts again...I count about 7 "I's", some "my's"...very little "YOU's". In fact, there isnt ANY biggrin.gif! Doesn't appear to be any dictatorial tone or anything...the thread was just about MY experiences. The image has to be as close to the 55" as possible for me to see the full 3D depth of a 2.40:1...but the intention wasnt tell YOU what to do with your set.

Anyway, whats standing out in the enlarged 2.40:1 movies now that werent before is "impact debris". When something explodes or is shattered, sending debris out at the screen. This was very noticable in the big train/cycle collision in priest. The nitrate gas in Underworld Awakening, and the Ghost Rider 2 villain punching a windshield out. Firey sparks in Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Noticed it before but it was contained within the 2.40 image, and now its right in my face smile.gif.
post #20 of 53
That's because us "YOU'S" have heard all this before and can barely be bothered to go into why stretchy mode sucks.
post #21 of 53
didnt we cover all of this in the iRobot thread already?? AndreHD, when you start a thread and say zooming the image is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than OAR, youre implying that to really appreciate a 3D movie is to watch it the way you do. Its almost like saying I had such an awesome time smoking crystal meth, it made everything better. Now Im not "saying" people should smoke crystal meth, but im "implying" that they will have a really good time...and lose teeth.
post #22 of 53
To each their own...but do realize that you are losing not only the director's intended composition, but you are losing resolution by blowing up the picture.

If you want the best of both worlds, may I suggest you make some letterbox mattes for your TV? Easy to do with some black poster board and velcro.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonAlam View Post

so....you zoomed the image, and now its more 3-D'ier? wow.....rolleyes.gif

Yeah, because current movies are filmed with a pitiful amount of parallax (separation between the images). Its not realistic and they need to start accounting for home viewing by filming with multiple cameras. Heres an example to see how small movie 3D volumes are - When you stare into the distance, your eyes are almost staring straight on right? So when your watching a movie, the max parallax [for distant objects] on the screen should be your interocular distance (distance between your eyes). The average interocular is 2.5". This is what you get in PC games, but in movies its much smaller. Tron for example had at most a .5" of separation that i could find on a 55" screen!

So yeah, im not surprised at his enthusiasm, its a good thing, 3D's potential is pretty amazing.
Quote:
but do realize that you are losing not only the director's intended composition...

*arrgh*...sorry, dry heaved there for a sec...
Edited by tory40 - 12/10/12 at 6:48pm
post #24 of 53
I don't understand why those who are tired of this topic even bother posting in this thread. I actually might find this useful if I can get a 3d bluray player that can zoom 3d content because my 3d pj is only 720p so scaling the 1080p image won't lose resolution.

Man talk about av snobs. Can't a guy get excited about something that you aren't?
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith808 View Post

Man talk about av snobs. Can't a guy get excited about something that you aren't?

It's "AVS Forum" not "Lowest Common Denominator Forum." Though LCD Forum does have a tech-y sound to it, hmm.

Seriously though, if someone was equally excited about the new noise reducing, edge enhancing, color boosting, contrast boosting, and frame interpolating features on a media player or TV, they'd get the same reactions. The thing is, the value of OAR in particular is something that most of us have been educated on over the years, even since the VHS days. Reading a post like this feels like 15+ years of backsliding.
post #26 of 53
@Johnsmith, zooming on a 1080P projector?? So youre saying zooming into an image will retain or better yet increase its resolution?? We must have the same technology as the stuff they use on CSI...enhance...enhance...enhance....
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonAlam View Post

@Johnsmith, zooming on a 1080P projector?? So youre saying zooming into an image will retain or better yet increase its resolution?? We must have the same technology as the stuff they use on CSI...enhance...enhance...enhance....

No, my pj is 720p. Zooming 1080p content wouldn't be lower than 720p, which is the highest my pj can display anyway. Of course this doesn't factor in scaling capabilities and lack if 1:1 pixel.

Might want to read a post carefully before you try to make a condescending comment on it.rolleyes.gif
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith808 View Post

Man talk about av snobs. Can't a guy get excited about something that you aren't?

You'll have to excuse the tone of some of the replies. There's a long history to this debate. If you watch this short video, maybe you'll understand the somewhat exasperated reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8

Zooming, pan and scan, cropping, whatever. It made more sense when everyone had small (by today's standards) 4:3 CRT TVs. Displaying a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed on a 4:3 CRT made for a pretty small picture. Most folks have 16:9 (1.78:1) flat panels these days, so the letterboxing isn't as prominent. That, and larger displays, means there's less excuse for it. Plus you're effectively lowering the resolution of the movie by zooming it.

What the OP is doing won't cut off as much of the picture as pan and scan for a 4:3 TV. Still, you lose some of the original artistic intent discussed in the video.

AndreHD is welcome to it, and again, he has lots of company. Nevertheless, I believe he should watch the video and think it over.
post #29 of 53
@johnsmith: thanks for the the update, and yes I did read correctly. You have a 720P projector, got that, but you said "so scaling the 1080p image won't lose resolution". Maybe you should read up on how scaling works before you make a response. No where in my comment did I say you had a 1080P projector...
post #30 of 53
I wish my LG BP620 had this feature. It doesnt. And I cant change the ar on my tv in 3D mode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

You'll have to excuse the tone of some of the replies. There's a long history to this debate. If you watch this short video, maybe you'll understand the somewhat exasperated reactions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8
Zooming, pan and scan, cropping, whatever. It made more sense when everyone had small (by today's standards) 4:3 CRT TVs. Displaying a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed on a 4:3 CRT made for a pretty small picture. Most folks have 16:9 (1.78:1) flat panels these days, so the letterboxing isn't as prominent. That, and larger displays, means there's less excuse for it. Plus you're effectively lowering the resolution of the movie by zooming it.
What the OP is doing won't cut off as much of the picture as pan and scan for a 4:3 TV. Still, you lose some of the original artistic intent discussed in the video.
AndreHD is welcome to it, and again, he has lots of company. Nevertheless, I believe he should watch the video and think it over.

One might say that a 'big screen' is part of artistic intent. So if you have more of the image filling your field of view then its actually closer to the cinema experience than a smaller ar correct image...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › WHOA!!