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

WHOA!! - Page 2

post #31 of 53
12/11/12 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonAlam View Post

@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...

Apparently we are having trouble understanding each others posts. So lets just move on to more productive activities such as watching 3d movies any which way we like best. smile.gif
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 53
12/11/12 at 6:36pm
Thread Starter 
I had to go back and read that original post AGAIN, and I STILL dont see any YOU's biggrin.gif! I thought, maybe I missed a YOU there, or a sentence where I directly asked a poster to read the thread and demanded that he/she do what I did...

So wait, the one poster...agreed that there wasn't any YOU's, but THEN said that there didnt HAVE to be any, he took it, personally, as a YOU biggrin.gif. So if you dont say YOU, it can be implied that you're saying YOU biggrin.gif! Though you said "I", "ME" , and "MY" biggrin.gif! Guy mentioned meth...does uh...meth give you a heightened sense of paranoia and defensiveness biggrin.gif? If you're gonna imagine YOU's when there isnt any there, well, you've 100,000 OTHER on this board and throughout the website to assume is speaking to you biggrin.gif!

Also, its obviously a NEWBIE thread, geniuses...I got my 3D set up if Feb. Dont you think I'd have all this figured out if I had the TV as long as some posters?!

Lastly, thats great that the director wanted the movie seen a certain way, it really is smile.gif. But I'm not an oscar judge, so it means squat to me. The only thing that matters on MY tv is the way I enjoy it! The way the director wanted it left a picture that was too small and distant on the 55" screen for my eyes to fully see, distinguish, and fully expetience the 3D depth of the image. The flat people stuck out, but very little else. What this did was leave me unimpressed with 2.40:1 movies, less willing to pay for them, and only watching them once.

Here's the bottom line since the enlargement: I have 15 3D movies, and I only really cared about the 1.81.'s like Avengers because the 3D apeared superior. I passed up a lot of 2.40's upon release because I felt it wasnt worth it. NOW I've gone back through the 2.40's that just sat there, and I rewatch them as often as the 1.81's. The enlargement made me see things and effects in those movies I didnt realize were there, and the 3D is now just as fun in those as 1.81 movies like Immortals.

The REAL bottom line: since I now know the key to enjoying the 2.40's on my 55" is the slight blow up, I'm BUYING more 2.40's that I had been leaving on the store shelves. I bought Thor before I got the 3D set. Childhood hero, so it was a must buy. I didnt get the 3D version becausr it was 2.40 and I felt I wouldnt be impressed with the 3D. I got it today...Ice Age Drift too, and I dont normally get toons. NO 3D blu ray release is off limits now. I'm pretty sure the studios and movie stores could give a rats butt that the movies' director wanted it seen on a postage stamp sized image biggrin.gif! Whereas I was very selective, I will buy any 3D horror/sci-fi/action disc!
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 53
12/11/12 at 7:33pm
since this dead horse has been beaten over and over again...
"Right after I wrote a post about 1.81 fullscreen 3D being WAY more awesome than 2.40 letterbox on the 55", again, bold statement. Im done with this thread, zoom away everyone...
And Andre, not saying "YOU" in your opening post, but still saying what you said is implying it...and no I dont think anyone took your post personally, they were trying to help you understand, but your a 3D guru apparently and we are all wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 53
12/11/12 at 8:20pm
Might as well make use of the pixels you bought.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 53
12/12/12 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

Lastly, thats great that the director wanted the movie seen a certain way, it really is smile.gif. But I'm not an oscar judge, so it means squat to me.

The good news for the rest of us is that Blu-ray content is almost always in the original aspect ratio, so it's fine I guess. Where it gets bad is when the "fill my screen" attitude becomes so prevalent that content providers start altering the picture at the source, like what HBO used to do with HD movies (or maybe still does?). Then it gets nasty, since there's no button I can press to restore the original image.

What's a little disheartening is hearing that there is essentially NO value to the original composition. Really?
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 53
12/12/12 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenjabil View Post

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

We'd all like an 80" 3D tv. I have to make due with my 55" though. But to your comment about sitting closer. I really don't think I can sit any closer because when I do I start getting ghosting. We sit fairly close not but 6 feet away. Movies that use the full screen like Avatar and Avengers look amazing. The letterboxed movies look good but don't have that same impact as ones using the whole screen.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 53
12/12/12 at 1:32pm
Thread Starter 
Dude, are you with the idea of COMPROMISE smile.gif? This is how ONE post likes to view 2.40 3D content on HIS tv. Thats all thats all that was intended by the thread. I understand that the director wanted it viewed that way. But I spent money on this 3D TV to enjoy a 3D experience smile.gif. I'm getting that from the 1.81 3D content on cable programming and blu rays. I never got it from 2.40 content...

I found out by accident why that was so, the picture was not big or close enough for my eyes make out the depth. 6-7 feet is the closet I can get due to the design of the living room and positioning of the HT equipment. The reason I was testing the resizing options on my blu ray and tv was to just make it fullscreen. But I thought, can I do this when the TV is 3D mode. I could through the blu ray (not the tv), only during playback of the movie. I tried it, and thats when I could see clearly that there was a lot more to that image than some cardboard-like people in front of a background- the only thing sticking out to my eyes when it was 2.40. I can now see the people in the foregrod, some distance between them and people in the background, and 3D objects at different distances in between! If something explodes or is shattered, the debris flies out more, and particles from dust clouds or storms look better.

So its safe to say that I wont be going back to straight 2.40:1 smile.gif. At first I went with the blu ray mode 2, perfect fullscreen fit but too much off the sides. So the COMPROMISE was mode 1, which is a 50% reduction of the borders, making it just shy of fullscreen, and 50% reduction of the side cropping. The loss of the back of someone's head or and inch or two of dead space to me is an excelent trade off to get the full 3D experience of the movie!

My 2.40 blu rays are no longer collecting dust, 3D's that I wasnt interested in at the store because of the AR will now be bought and given a try. I'm pretty sure the directors would rather I buy the disc and watch it my way than not at all biggrin.gif!
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 53
12/12/12 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 
I have 3D slider thingy in the menues that reduces ghosting. I'm not a technician, but it seems to do it by nudging the 3D sweet spot over to the left or right. The default position is "0" in the middle. I got sub-menues inside of sub-menues biggrin.gif. I thought about googling some UN55D6900 calibration settings. Every time I did that though, the person posting the calibration seemed unsure, or said this is what HE liked, or settings were challenged by another poster smile.gif. So I decided to only mess with basic settings and pay a pro to tweek it.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 53
12/13/12 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

Dude, are you with the idea of COMPROMISE smile.gif? This is how ONE post likes to view 2.40 3D content on HIS tv. Thats all thats all that was intended by the thread. I understand that the director wanted it viewed that way. But I spent money on this 3D TV to enjoy a 3D experience smile.gif

You posted what you like to do on a discussion forum. Where people discuss things. Where the vast majority have educated themselves and worked to educate others on the value of OAR. It's fine that you don't personally see as much value in OAR, but don't be surprised to hear some feedback on your views!

Do you also zoom in when viewing 2.4:1 2D content? If not, you may find it interesting to question why that is. If so, then at least you're being consistent.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 53
12/13/12 at 11:28am
"Right after I wrote a post about 1.81 fullscreen 3D being WAY more awesome than 2.40 letterbox on the 55"
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 53
12/13/12 at 1:29pm
Thread Starter 
To ME! ME!!
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 53
12/13/12 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
About non 3D 2.40's, YES, I now view them with the mode 1. I've always wanted Cowboys and Aliens bigger than 2.40 because of the beautiful desert landscapes in the movie smile.gif.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 53
12/13/12 at 4:36pm
Despite the ire here, I think this is a really interesting topic.

As others have already said, the left/right separation is fixed with a Blu-ray. These movies were shot to be shown on a very large screen, and when you shrink it down to a TV, the physical separation between the left and right images becomes less and less, making the 3D effect less and less. The director's intent was for it to be seen on a large screen. By watching it on a TV, we're already compromising the director's vision. A lot of work (we hope) goes into the 3D of every shot, and with less 3D on a smaller screen, we're not getting the impact they worked so hard to achieve. By zooming the picture, AndreHD is obviously getting some of that intended impact back. In that aspect, it's moving more towards the director's intent. On the other hand, by cropping out the sides of the image, the image isn't framed quite as intended. Between the two, which would the director prefer you to watch? Can we, or should we, presume to know?

Maybe if the director thought size and 3D was more important, the Blu-ray would have been released in 1.8 format. But what then about people with very large screens, or who would prefer to see it framed as seen in the theater? The Titanic 3D Blu-ray was released in 1.8, clearly signaling the director's preference for that aspect ratio for 3D, but then some people complain that some of the image is lost vs the original. Maybe releasing the Blu-ray in it's original aspect ratio is just the safe thing to do.

My guess is the director would be happy to have you watch it in 2.4 and enjoy it as originally framed, and would also be happy to have you watch it in larger 1.8 and enjoy the 3D effect closer to how it was intended. As it is you have the choice and can watch it more than once.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 53
12/14/12 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Between the two, which would the director prefer you to watch? Can we, or should we, presume to know?
Maybe if the director thought size and 3D was more important, the Blu-ray would have been released in 1.8 format. ... The Titanic 3D Blu-ray was released in 1.8, clearly signaling the director's preference for that aspect ratio for 3D, but then some people complain that some of the image is lost vs the original. Maybe releasing the Blu-ray in it's original aspect ratio is just the safe thing to do.
My guess is the director would be happy to have you watch it in 2.4 and enjoy it as originally framed, and would also be happy to have you watch it in larger 1.8 and enjoy the 3D effect closer to how it was intended.

Definitely releasing the Blu-ray in its original aspect ratio is the safe thing to do.

It would be interesting to know what the reactions of filmmakers (especially cinematographers) would be if you said to their faces: "I watched your movie last night zoomed in to 1.85:1."

Would their reaction be more:

A) A horrified expression, similar to the reaction of a master chef after you poured half a bottle of ketchup on their carefully constructed meal.

or

B) "That's great. '3D pop' on any size of television is the main thing we were trying to achieve. That's far more significant to us than experiencing the carefully composed shots we sweat blood to achieve."


Hehe, OK, I realize I'm being massively biased here. smile.gif

Titanic I assume is different though. Yeah, the 3D release of Titanic is 1.85:1. But I assume that that's more like open matte or at least manual reframing (or both), which isn't the same thing as the consumer simply centering the image and chopping off the sides.

I do find the notion that a 55" TV is "small" to be amusing though. biggrin.gif (<-- I can overuse smiley's too!)
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 53
12/14/12 at 1:55pm
Honestly I don't think most directors are that picky about how you choose to watch their movies at home.

55" is certainly small compared to a movie theater screen, which the parallax is tuned too. Even home theaters in the 100" range are comparably small.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 53
12/14/12 at 6:29pm
Thread Starter 
Alright, the tv can upconvert 2D content to 3D. I think I'm gonna like this smile.gif. Theres some blu rays like Cowboys and Aliens and Cabin in the Woods, that I believe should have been 3D, but the director opposed it. I'm gonna give it a try a little tonight or the next couple of days. The movie was originally shot in 2D, so I dont expect a miracle, and thats what the manual says. But if the effect is cool enough...I'll go with that for certain movies.

Underworld Awakening, which had looked ho hum when I left it at 2.40 AR, now looks incredible. Theres a big battle at the end in the parking garage. The giant werewolf loved to toss cars around. You can clearly see that werewolf 20 feet in the background tossing the car at Kate, in the foreground smile.gif. In another scene, she's at the bottom of a a shaft about to be crushed by a free falling elevator. She shoots 50 bullet holes through the floor of the elevator. Instead of being smashed, she busts through the floor, sending pieces of it out the screen. I'm getting way more enjoyment out of the 2.40's.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 53
12/17/12 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Honestly I don't think most directors are that picky about how you choose to watch their movies at home.

Why would you say that?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 53
12/17/12 at 4:08pm
James Cameron released Avatar in 2.4 in 2D and 1.8 in 3D. He sees merit to both and prefers 2.4 in 2D even though that means cropping out portions of his film. Take Peter Jackson's extended cut of Lord of the Rings. He went to the trouble of making it even though he felt that the additions ruin the pace, and he says that the theatrical cuts are the definitive versions. Why would he present us with something other than the definitive version, something which he feels is a worse movie? Because he sees that there's merit to both, and that in the home you're free to watch it as you want at whatever pace you wish.

Directors and cinematographers are individuals with varying personalities like anyone else. Some will want you to watch their film only one way. Others will want you to watch it in whatever way you'll most enjoy it. Unless a director specifically addresses the issue, we have no way of knowing what they think. If you want to play it safe, only watch the movie in it's original aspect ratio (and watch it in one setting to preserve the pace). If you're more interested in enjoying the movie the way you want, then have at it. In the privacy of your own home with your own TV and your own Blu-ray, the director will never know and never care.

I'd also like to reemphasize the main point I wanted to make. Both the framing of the shot and the composition of the 3D are both artistic values of a film. For AndreHD to zoom in, he's compromising the framing to better appreciate the 3D. For him to view it in the original aspect ratio, he's compromising the 3D to better appreciate the framing. There's artistic compromise either way.
Edited by Airion - 12/17/12 at 4:17pm
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 53
12/17/12 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

James Cameron released Avatar in 2.4 in 2D and 1.8 in 3D. He sees merit to both and prefers 2.4 in 2D even though that means cropping out portions of his film. Take Peter Jackson's extended cut of Lord of the Rings. He went to the trouble of making it even though he felt that the additions ruin the pace, and he says that the theatrical cuts are the definitive versions. Why would he present us with something other than the definitive version, something which he feels is a worse movie? Because he sees that there's merit to both, and that in the home you're free to watch it as you want at whatever pace you wish.
Directors and cinematographers are individuals with varying personalities like anyone else. Some will want you to watch their film only one way. Others will want you to watch it in whatever way you'll most enjoy it. Unless a director specifically addresses the issue, we have no way of knowing what they think. If you want to play it safe, only watch the movie in it's original aspect ratio (and watch it in one setting to preserve the pace). If you're more interested in enjoying the movie the way you want, then have at it. In the privacy of your own home with your own TV and your own Blu-ray, the director will never know and never care.
I'd also like to reemphasize the main point I wanted to make. Both the framing of the shot and the composition of the 3D are both artistic values of a film. For AndreHD to zoom in, he's compromising the framing to better appreciate the 3D. For him to view it in the original aspect ratio, he's compromising the 3D to better appreciate the framing. There's artistic compromise either way.

Yes, but one is done by the viewer and the other is imposed by the studio and NOT usually the director or cinematographer. The problem is that, with cropping such as was done on I ROBOT,3D, there is NO option for the viewer to view the film as intended to be seen. (Yes, I know Alex Proyas didn't film this in 3D; that's not what we're referring to here.) I've been on a number of film shoots and I can say that literally hours are spent on composition and determining what will and won't fill the frame. For studios (and channels like HBO) to arbitrarily eliminate picture information just to please those who want to "fill my screen!:"...that practice should not be supported by anyone. Don't like the black bars? Then turn the lights off. Or sit closer. Or get a bigger set. Or zoom in, if you want. But don't alter the film for everyone else...that's reprehensible.

By the way, Jackson has said that the theatrical versions LOTR are definitive FOR THE THEATER...and the need to alleviate sore butts, weak bladders, and to save time for additional screenings and concession sales. Otherwise, the extended editions are definitive, closer to the source material, and the best way to go.
Edited by cinema13 - 12/17/12 at 6:11pm
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 53
12/17/12 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

The problem is that, with cropping such as was done on I ROBOT,3D, there is NO option for the viewer to view the film as intended to be seen. (Yes, I know Alex Proyas didn't film this in 3D; that's not what we're referring to here.) I've been on a number of film shoots and I can say that literally hours are spent on composition and determining what will and won't fill the frame. For studios (and channels like HBO) to arbitrarily eliminate picture information just to please those who want to "fill my screen!:"...that practice should not be supported by anyone.

I agree, but that's not the case here. It's just a user's temporary adjustment to a uncropped Blu-ray.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 53
12/17/12 at 7:44pm
Here's some of what Jackson said about the extended edition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN View Post

The extended versions are interesting because I do the extended versions for the fans, really. To me every time I put a scene in it, it's mucking up the momentum. The theatrical versions are very carefully worked out. We spent a whole year trying to get the best possible cut. I do the extended cuts because we have 30-40 minutes of footage that people are interested in, fans of the books. It's usually related to something that's in the book. It's a legitimate part of the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and you can either have it lost forever or you can put an extended cut out. So I do these extended cuts thinking that people will like to see these scenes. But I'm aware every time I put something in [that] the momentum of the scene going to be slow. This is going to slow the first act down. Every time I think I'm spoiling the film, but I'm doing it because people want to see it and they'll see it in their home. The DVD has a different dynamic. You can watch it over two nights or you can pause it and make a cup of tea. The whole pacing on the DVD seems to have a different requirement or level of commitment from the audience. Then I read these reviews that say this is so much better than the theatrical version. And I think, 'Oh God!'

I agree the extended edition is the better version. I'm just glad that Jackson doesn't feel the film has to be seen and enjoyed only one way.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 53
12/18/12 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I agree, but that's not the case here. It's just a user's temporary adjustment to a uncropped Blu-ray.

And there's nothing wrong with that. That's how it should be if someone wishes to eliminate picture info. I just object to discs (such as I ROBOT 3D) that do so, to the loss of ALL viewers.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 53
12/18/12 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Here's some of what Jackson said about the extended edition:
I agree the extended edition is the better version. I'm just glad that Jackson doesn't feel the film has to be seen and enjoyed only one way.

Different mediums I know, but can you imagine if Tolkien wrote the books, worrying about the "...momentum of a scene"?? To me, these days such momentum or "pacing" just means "get to the next action or effects sequence ASAP." . When I saw ROTK theatrical, I thought it felt long. Yet the longer extended version seemed to go by much more quickly...because the restored footage provided a stronger investment with the characters,
Without that, numerous instances of "There's blood in the air...I can feel it." or "There's danger in the wind...I can sense it." add little. But thankfully Jackson (and some others) do provide us with the extended options. (And yes, I liked the extended KING KONG with the water attack added back in.)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › WHOA!!