or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Ironman 3 3d
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ironman 3 3d

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Movie was overall good the 3d just wasn't there. I've never been so unimpressed with 3d in the theater, or at home for that matter. Anyone else see it, maybe I was in a bad theater. No depth, no pop out.
post #2 of 48
is your glasses were on?smile.giftongue.gif
I am joking.
According to this website, 3D depth is 5/5
But at the same time it's a post conversion. What else you can expect?
post #3 of 48
Bad projection, or you ended up in a 2D showing. Plenty of depth, very little pop-out except where you would expect.

Conversion has no impact on depth.
post #4 of 48
Movie was decent, too many "oh man why did they include that" moments though at times.

3D depth was great, near 0 popout as mentioned. We saw in IMAX 3D and man was the sound good. Can't wait to own this one at home.
post #5 of 48
I think the 3D effect isn't as noticeable to me anymore...maybe my eyes are going bad or my brain is no longer impressed. After a few minutes of watching 3D, it's like it's no longer obvious to me that I'm watching 3D. So honestly I can't remember a single 3D effect in the movie.
post #6 of 48
IMO, that's when 3D is at its best, when it's not pulling you out of the movie with "ooh, 3D effect!!".. 3D is all about immersion.. anything that reminds you you're watching a 3D movie is effectively pulling you out of the film and placing emphasis solely on the presentation, which is the exact opposite of immersion.

The most obvious ones I remember were where you were seeing IM or WM flying around, with a backdrop some distance away. So it actually looked like you were a few thousand feet up and a few miles away from whatever it was they were headed toward. And:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When Stark's house was falling into the water, there was one POV shot in particular of the ocean rushing up to meet Stark as he fell, that shot was pretty damned cool.
post #7 of 48
I saw IM3 in 3D today; while watching the closing credits I noticed that the post-conversion was supervised by Stereo-D, which did the excellent Jurassic Park conversion. As far as IM3's 3D goes, there was a decent sense of depth most of the time but the film was clearly not shot with 3D in mind - no real consideration of placement of objects and lots of quick cuts during the action - so it almost never really enhanced the visuals for me. Also, much of the film takes place at night or in dark areas, further flattening the image.

As for the film itself, I really was kind of disappointed by it....
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Stark really doesn't even wear his armors for most of the film and when they're used they come across as incredibly fragile and quickly destroyed. The big action scene at the end was also a letdown as all the armors seen in the previews make appearances but nearly none of their specific functions come into play as they just fly around taking random potshots. Rhodes/War Machine/Iron Patriot is practically an afterthought and the way in which Ben Kingsley is used was literally laughable and kind of off-putting given how the trailers and clips led you on. Killian (Guy Pearce's character) is a literal copy of The Riddler from Batman Forever, right down to the nerdy first appearance and rejection by his hero. Even the post-credits scene, a staple of these films, is somewhat amusing but largely superfluous and not used to hint at what might come next, as was often done in these films.

...so overall it was easily the weakest of the three Iron Man films for me.
post #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

As for the film itself, I really was kind of disappointed by it....
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Stark really doesn't even wear his armors for most of the film and when they're used they come across as incredibly fragile and quickly destroyed. The big action scene at the end was also a letdown as all the armors seen in the previews make appearances but nearly none of their specific functions come into play as they just fly around taking random potshots. Rhodes/War Machine/Iron Patriot is practically an afterthought and the way in which Ben Kingsley is used was literally laughable and kind of off-putting given how the trailers and clips led you on. Killian (Guy Pearce's character) is a literal copy of The Riddler from Batman Forever, right down to the nerdy first appearance and rejection by his hero. Even the post-credits scene, a staple of these films, is somewhat amusing but largely superfluous and not used to hint at what might come next, as was often done in these films.

...so overall it was easily the weakest of the three Iron Man films for me.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I know what you're saying about the armor, but the only explanation I can come up with is that's what the makers of this movie wanted--to show that the armor isn't Iron Man, Iron Man is Tony Stark--his courage and resourcefulness. The armor was like a running gag throughout the entire movie, and since it had me laughing, it looks like it worked. The man wasn't doing anything but making Iron Man Suits of Armor--he was on 42 or 43...so many they were practically disposable...maybe he cut corners on a few lol.

I didn't take this movie too seriously, and so I found it to be a fun ride.
post #9 of 48
Finally saw it last night and thought the conversion was excellent. As stated before, It seems this picture wasn't really designed as a 3D experience, however I felt Stereo-D came through with an engaging conversion that matched a natively shot film pretty well. Just as good or better than most of Spiderman.

I really think the conversions have improved so much that they stand on their own against nativley shot pictures with poor 3D design. Unlike others I felt the added depth made Ironman Three more engaging. Can't wait to add this one to my bluray 3D collection.
Edited by SFMike - 5/14/13 at 9:19am
post #10 of 48
Movie was disappointing but the 3D was solid. Like others have said, good depth but little pop out.
post #11 of 48
I saw the movie in a DLP theater using my own Oakley 3D glasses.

I agree there wasn't much pop out but depth was good and like a lot of others have said, it's not in your face and allows you to forget you're in a theater watching a 3D movie and just enjoy it.

I did pick up on some ghosting but I believe it was always objects in the background.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

I saw the movie in a DLP theater using my own Oakley 3D glasses.

I agree there wasn't much pop out but depth was good and like a lot of others have said, it's not in your face and allows you to forget you're in a theater watching a 3D movie and just enjoy it.

I did pick up on some ghosting but I believe it was always objects in the background.
That's what causes ghosting- high contrast objects deep inside or far in front of the screen. The closer to the screen something is, the closer together its two projected images will be, so close together that it's difficult to notice.
post #13 of 48
I saw it on Imax 3D and was disappointed in both the movie and the 3D. Its not the fault of the Stereo-D. When a film is shot without any interest on the 3D it isn't going to be immersive or have any pop. And so it was.
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Post

When a film is shot without any interest on the 3D it isn't going to be immersive or have any pop.
Agreed. While a lot of director's these days may know ahead of time that the film will be converted, they rarely take it into account and change the way they shoot it. When properly set up for 3D starting with pre-production, through cinematography and shooting, even a converted film can be a beauty to watch.
post #15 of 48
Watched IM3 3d last night on Blu Ray. Enjoyed the movie, the sound was great but the 3d was a little disappointing. The depth was not the issue nor the lack of in the face 3d, but the ghosting was really annoying. It seemed most background scenes suffered from ghosting, although not always there, it got to the stage were you ended up looking for it making it very distracting to what was otherwise a good movie
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272 View Post

Watched IM3 3d last night on Blu Ray. Enjoyed the movie, the sound was great but the 3d was a little disappointing. The depth was not the issue nor the lack of in the face 3d, but the ghosting was really annoying. It seemed most background scenes suffered from ghosting, although not always there, it got to the stage were you ended up looking for it making it very distracting to what was otherwise a good movie

Out of curiosity, what model 3DTV do you have? I have an early generation Sony 3DTV and it is pretty bad for ghosting, but I thought newer 3DTVs didn't suffer from ghosting as much.
post #17 of 48
I love how people still think that ghosting is caused by the source. Adorable.
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272 View Post

Watched IM3 3d last night on Blu Ray. Enjoyed the movie, the sound was great but the 3d was a little disappointing. The depth was not the issue nor the lack of in the face 3d, but the ghosting was really annoying. It seemed most background scenes suffered from ghosting, although not always there, it got to the stage were you ended up looking for it making it very distracting to what was otherwise a good movie


Ghosting is a display issue. I have a JVC RS45 Lcos projector (and had an RS40 before it) and a single chip DLP BenQ W7000. It is always amazing to me that the scenes that ghosted like hell on my 45 have ZERO ghosting on the DLP, but single chip DLP is the only tech right now capable of a TRULY ghost and flicker free presentation.
post #19 of 48
Passive actually does a pretty good job at reducing ghosting, because it's not having to switch states between frames like an active LCD. It's not 100%, though, I still get it now and again. There's a *teeny* bit of bleedover between fields, but it only shows up under extreme circumstances. Unavoidable, really, but that's the way the technology works.

Now, one thing that can be an issue is in scenes that are very high-contrast, usually bright objects against a dark background (and IM3 does have quite a bit of these, especially toward the end). This can aggravate the problem, making it appear to be related to the source, but the actual issue causing the ghosting is still in the display.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Passive actually does a pretty good job at reducing ghosting, because it's not having to switch states between frames like an active LCD. It's not 100%, though, I still get it now and again. There's a *teeny* bit of bleedover between fields, but it only shows up under extreme circumstances. Unavoidable, really, but that's the way the technology works.

Passive displays are terrible with ghosting unless you sit with the screen precisely at eye level. If your head is even a smidge too high or too low, the ghosting is atrocious.
post #21 of 48
Might want to see about your display, then.. I can go from standing up to sitting on the floor and don't lose anything. The effect only starts to fall apart when you get closer than about three feet, which is not exactly optimal viewing distance.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Passive displays are terrible with ghosting unless you sit with the screen precisely at eye level. If your head is even a smidge too high or too low, the ghosting is atrocious.

You may want to take a look at current passive offerings. I have an LG 55" passive that I bought back in 2012 and I get very good 3D viewing angles when standing a couple of feet above eye level or sitting a couple of feet below eye level. Likewise horizontal 3D viewing angles are also very good.

As to Iron Man 3, I'm a little torn about this one. On the one hand I've been a lifelong Iron Man fan and think the first film is one of the best comic book adaptations ever made; IM2 while flawed still has some memorable sequences (especially the finale) but IM3 was a colossal disappointment to me. It was one of the most poorly written movies I've seen in years with plot holes you could fly a helicarrier thru, the armors are as weak as tissue paper, and Downey gives a far too jokey performance for too much of the film. I also thought the 3D at the theater was pretty poor with quite a bit of ghosting (something I never really experienced with other RealD features). The film really wasn't shot with 3D in mind and the effect, like so many films these days, is so mild that you quickly forget the movie is 3D. Might pass on this one until I can get it at a significant price drop.
post #23 of 48
I have a Panasonic Viera ST50A: 60" with active 3d glasses, and as I'm not overly technically minded, it could well be a setup issue. But in saying that, it's the only one out of many 3d movies that I have, that I've had this amount of ghosting. The movie does have many dark scenes and from what can recall, it wasnt noticable in the bright scenes. Happy to take on any advice if it is a setup problem.
post #24 of 48
I had the same experience when I first got my 3D TV (almost took it back) but I think the trick is to make sure you sit far enough back. The sweet spot grows the further you get back - at 3 or 4 feet it's pretty hard to be in the sweet spot, however at that range it's also hard to get over the scanlines.

About 9 feet back (which is further than I prefer but not terribly far) I get ghost free image a lot of the time from a pretty decent (I would say 3 foot vertical range) although in certain very high contrast scenes it creeps back and is oddly unresolveable (ie sometimes there is literally no sweet spot and I have to guess it's due to pixel location compared to the FPR)
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272 View Post

Watched IM3 3d last night on Blu Ray.

Wait. Wat? How did you get IM3 3 1/2 weeks ahead of release??

Feel free to PM me if you don't wanna spill the beans.
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272 View Post

Watched IM3 3d last night on Blu Ray.

Wait. Wat? How did you get IM3 3 1/2 weeks ahead of release??

Feel free to PM me if you don't wanna spill the beans.


It is soooooo easy!!!! wink.gif
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Post

Wait. Wat? How did you get IM3 3 1/2 weeks ahead of release??

Feel free to PM me if you don't wanna spill the beans.

Iron Man 3 was released here in Australia on 28th August
post #28 of 48
Shoot. I used to have a place that would ship a week or so early and they have since stopped doing that. I wouldn't mind finding another place like that.
post #29 of 48
I watched the first few minutes of the movie via a free Vudu preview. I'd forgotten how annoying the music was and Downey's delivery is even snarkier than I remember - he really doesn't play Stark in this one, just Downey being Downey. Watching Favreau try to imitate Travolta from Pulp Fiction was just embarrassing. Two minutes in and I was already turned off. Shane Black should be banned from ever being involved in another motion picture. Definitely going to pass on this one.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I watched the first few minutes of the movie via a free Vudu preview. I'd forgotten how annoying the music was and Downey's delivery is even snarkier than I remember - he really doesn't play Stark in this one, just Downey being Downey. Watching Favreau try to imitate Travolta from Pulp Fiction was just embarrassing. Two minutes in and I was already turned off. Shane Black should be banned from ever being involved in another motion picture. Definitely going to pass on this one.

Shane Black made Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and wrote one of the most iconic action movies of the '80s. He gets a pass from me, even if this one turned out to be a dud.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Ironman 3 3d