Is 3D about dead? - Page 73 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1532Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2161 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 10:53 AM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 35,391
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8952 Post(s)
Liked: 5730
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
It was a 6/10 at the very best. Very poor script. There are so many top-tier writers in hollywood. How this dreck ended up as the script for a legacy brand blockbuster is beyond me. Seriously, I have to wonder about stuff like this. I saw so many places in the story needing overhauling.

1. Cardboard, dull characters (the character depth, not how they appeared).
2. Cliche after cliche.
3. Predictable scenes (oh wait...he's relaxing....something tense is going to happen...)
4. Absurd science.

This could have been so so much better.
Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.

49TB unRAID1a--53TB unRAID2--70TB unRAID3
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2162 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 10:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
James Freeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Not for @ least five years.
Never actually.
Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.
Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-comput...vatar-1031232/
Quote:
To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render. And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed.
High hopes for the 4K 3D version?... Don't.


Up-scaled to 2160p from 2K DCI with P3 gamut is what we'll get a LOT of on UHD Blu Ray.
marcuslaw likes this.

Last edited by James Freeman; 10-26-2015 at 11:11 AM.
James Freeman is offline  
post #2163 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 12:37 PM
Member
 
dhvsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
Never actually.
Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.
Not sure that this is the most powerful computer ?! Your URL indicates a server farm with 4000 blades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?
Probably more money than they would spend - agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
WETA's server farm according to the URL was made up of G5 blade servers. In 2014, HP released the G9 server's which are quite a bit more powerful. So the once impressive computer power is now less impressive. According to HP: Triple compute capacity and increase efficiency across multiple workloads at a lower total cost of ownership with design optimization and automation. HP internal comparison between HP ProLiant DL380 Gen9 vs. HP ProLiant DL380 G6
HP wasn't even comparing down to the G5 which were all pretty much retired before I left HP earlier this year.

Nothing in this posting/signature really means anything in the long run.
dhvsfan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2164 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
EVERRET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
No to be negative but this is relevant to this thread,
Watching the "CEDIA 2015 Wrap-Up" video the fellows said that there were only one booth that showed 3D, and they were quite happy about it.
They even joked that this wave is dead and 3D might show up again in 2040...

Now, I don't like (the hassles of) 3D myself, but why the majority of the pro reviewers and industry insiders are happy about it being held by the last thread?
Any thoughts?
Are they older guys with glasses ?

What do you think are the hassles with 3D ?

If there is a TV that displays 3D with no glasses needed for the same price as 2D ..... would it still be a hassle ?

In 2015
3D looks better than ever in 4K - passive is finally full HD
3D is cheaper than ever - TV's - Glasses - Players
3D is so easy now to set up , it can be streamed , it can be converted, it can be played on a game console or 3D player.

The problem is most people are naive and don't realize just how easy it is. When people come over to watch 3D movies a my house they are blown away by the picture quality compared to the theaters, they cannot believe how little i have spent to do it either.

When i went to CES this year there was 3D everywhere "if you looked for it" , some of it was glassless , yet most of the media reported that there were none there. What they don't realize is by ignoring 3D they are ignoring at least 1/3 of their audience , and it's the upper 1/3 that has the most disposable income !

CNET POLL: http://www.cnet.com/news/poll-is-3d-dead-do-you-care/

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-com...-you-care.html

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=4K%203D%20TV

Here is a younger guy from CES in (first minute) he mentions 3D in 4K (so it proves it was there, lol) -

I have a local TV dealer that loves 3D and pushes 3D and it's a huge advantage for him, most local sales people still think 3D is a hassle when it is not.

BillFree, marcuslaw and Cla55clown like this.
EVERRET is offline  
post #2165 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 02:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rudy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 5,740
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1957 Post(s)
Liked: 3253
I've never quite understood the outright hatred directed at 3D by some parties. Especially this whole thing about having to "wear glasses" to view a movie in 3D---duh! It's not the 22nd century, so ultrahigh resolution holographic cinema is not quite here yet. From the very beginning, when some critics (who should've known better), complained about how "silly" and "ridiculous" the glasses make people look. As if one was going to wear the damn things 24 hours a day in public or while engaged in intimacy with that special someone. Or those critics who made their own poor eyesight everybody's problem by complaining that the 3D glasses were difficult to wear over their own prescription eyewear. But by far the worst were those TV reviewers who jumped on the "3D is not important" bandwagon started by a certain myopic reviewer from a certain online publication. Okay, dude, I get it: YOU don't like 3D, but don't presume to tell ME I shouldn't like it either!

And the greedy, cheap studios turned many enthusiasts' stomachs by doing terrible 3D conversions, some of movies that were so pathetically bad to begin with that they wouldn't have stood a chance even if the conversion had actually gone well. Of course, the TV manufacturers didn't do themselves any favors either by putting out models with 3D performance so dismal that it made any good points about that specific set irrelevant. I don't think anyone actually expected ALL movies to eventually be shot in 3D, so it's not like every single director or producer needed to "get onboard". The genre is suited best for use by those with the vision (no pun intended) and artistic expertise to make the most of the format, and not those content to sit back scratching their nut sacks and complaining about "what a pain in the ass" shooting in 3D is. There are "directors" and "cinematographers", and there are people who direct and shoot movies. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be the ones getting all the money and screen time these days. 3D in the home is but one of many casualties of this trend.
Rudy1 is offline  
post #2166 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 03:07 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Cool (((3D))) is Alive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
No to be negative but this is relevant to this thread,
Watching the "CEDIA 2015 Wrap-Up" video the fellows said that there were only one booth that showed 3D, and they were quite happy about it.
They even joked that this wave is dead and 3D might show up again in 2040...

Now, I don't like (the hassles of) 3D myself, but why the majority of the pro reviewers and industry insiders are happy about it being held by the last thread?
Any thoughts?
Very simple: Many people aren't ready to change their habits. ...To have some variety in life.

♦ But mark my words; 3D ain't going to die...they are going to be presenting 3D movies more in more in the theaters than ever before...and we'll have them on Blu-ray too. So no matter how much they want to put 3D down, it's just the contrary that is happening...and more tomorrow than today.

Disney is only backing off slightly @ this moment...analyzing their overall revenues. When they realize all the money they are losing for their investors they'll be back stronger than ever all across the 3D world line.

And not only that, but when 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' shows up on December 18 @ our local Cineplex and IMAX 3D theaters...watch out!
And when they'll see 'Avatar 2' in 3D with James Cameron's latest technical tour-de-force...watch out too!

Hey, 'Everest' is in 3D, 'The Martian' is in 3D, 'The Walk' is in 3D...(((3D))) is alive and very very strong with the force.

*** CEDIA 2015 was on the emphasis of UHD/HDR, DTS:X, the new stuff coming up...that's all. So they have to emphasize that new market...tout à fait naturel. ...They didn't want to distract the dealers and manufacturers and reviewers and audio/video writers and the high profile public who are the leaders of the latest and newest technologies.

But 3D is strong, and will be strong with a vengeance alongside with 3D immersive sound (DTS:X - Dolby Atmos - Auro-3D).
The only glitch in the ointment is no 3D UHD on Blu-ray. ...But the'll include the 3D Blu-ray 1080p disc with the package...some studios...and others separately...my very good guess...depending of each Hollywood movie studio's financial/business plan strategy/stratagem/scheme.
Because, after all, money is the main incentive...after the creative art itself.

Us, the moviegoers, the movie lovers, the Blu-ray buyers...we just vote with our wallets in the direction we prefer...without following necessarily what the movie studios try to dictate us with. It's their decision on the choice(s) they give us...and you can bet that their decision is going to be directly related to financial revenues...the most MONEY they can make.

Nah, 3D is good business...it's good for us and it's good for them.
BillFree, ferl and therealdjnugz like this.
NorthSky is offline  
post #2167 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 03:30 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.
$1.666 billion. ... 'Jurassic World'

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
Never actually.
Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.
Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-comput...vatar-1031232/
♣ "Never" is a big long-time word...I wouldn't say that...a future "Rainbow" multi-layered Purple-ray disc...with one terabyte capacity (12 layers).
And streaming UHD from Netflix, Vudu, and all the future newcomers into the world of 4K (UHD). ...High-speed internet, and 7.14 Dolby Atmos and DTS:X immersive audio (streaming).

Quote:
High hopes for the 4K 3D version?... Don't.
Up-scaled to 2160p from 2K DCI with P3 gamut is what we'll get a LOT of on UHD Blu Ray.
♠ Maybe not during our generation time...but our grandchildren (or even our children) have the best chance of all. ...There is hope...certainly.
BillFree and ferl like this.
NorthSky is offline  
post #2168 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 04:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Laidlaw View Post
At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips. To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. We actually preferred watching it in 2D. I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.
That's a first. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they preferred Avatar in 2D. I don't think I could ever watch it in 2D personally.

Last edited by johnny905; 10-26-2015 at 04:54 PM.
johnny905 is offline  
post #2169 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 04:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
He probably didn't know how to use the equipment and had it set to upconvert to 3D and not use the native 3D signal as well as forgetting to adjust the tv size in the 3D settings on the bluray player.. I once did this by accident and predictably the results were not good.
mo949 is offline  
post #2170 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 06:29 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
A name change for this thread would be appropriate I think.

The title reads like a slap in the face...and it's been 2 YEARS since the question was asked.

Since 3D is obviously sticking around for awhile, I recommend "The Future of 3D" as a more forum friendly thread title.

Just a suggestion.
Rudy1, BillFree, marcuslaw and 4 others like this.
ekaaaans is offline  
post #2171 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 06:41 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaaaans View Post
A name change for this thread would be appropriate I think.

The title reads like a slap in the face...and it's been 2 YEARS since the question was asked.

Since 3D is obviously sticking around for awhile, I recommend "The Future of 3D" as a more forum friendly thread title.

Just a suggestion.
Methinks that the OP selected his thread's title according to his spirit and the times he was living in @ the time...so it's all perfectly perfect.
I like it, very.
BillFree and ferl like this.
NorthSky is offline  
post #2172 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 07:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I agree on Jurassic World, they didn't use the full range of 3D. It was a layered middle 3D range movie like most of these newer converted titles coming out. By middle range I mean they're not using negative and positive parallax for full the full range of 3D our displays are capable of doing. It's not that they need to do this in all scenes but once in awhile there should be a few shots that this is done, especially a movie like JW. I would expect it, but it was a middle range 3D movie, never anything before the screen plane and nothing deep.

The story was equally disappointing, I actually think JP 3 was better overall.
I rented JW but still haven't watched it yet. It least my expectations will be low after reading this thread... :-(
marcuslaw likes this.
johnny905 is offline  
post #2173 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 07:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Methinks that the OP selected his thread's title according to his spirit and the times he was living in @ the time...so it's all perfectly perfect.
I like it, very.
Eloquently stated!

ferl is offline  
post #2174 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 09:09 PM
Member
 
KaraokeAmerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
In 2015
3D looks better than ever in 4K - passive is finally full HD
3D is cheaper than ever - TV's - Glasses - Players
3D is so easy now to set up , it can be streamed , it can be converted, it can be played on a game console or 3D player.

The problem is most people are naive and don't realize just how easy it is.
OK.....I'll bite! How easy is it?

I have a 3 year old, 1080p Toshiba, passive 3D TV that I have been fairly happy with. Compared to the newer, UHD sets of course it's not as good, but that's not my main question.

It is HOW do you set up your 3D playback? Do you use an HTPC or some sort of hardware device? If an HTPC, what software package do you run to do this?

I have played with a couple HTPC players. I'm currently running Plex. I can get it to play SBS or TAB, 3D MKV's. I simply switch the TV's 3D mode to that sort of 3D format. I use this program to rip my BR's: BDtoAVCHD (forum wouldn't let me post a link)

I don't know how to use all the settings because that single page make sup the entire manual on it. However, the results are that I am able to create files that Plex will play and result in MKV files that are usually less than 10GB in size. That is not full resolution, but it works.

Are there better programs or options for making playable 3D content for an HTPC setup?

I have used MakeMKV and found a tutorial to make MVC 3D MKV files. However, I have no idea how to play them. Plex will play them, but they are only 2D. It appears MVC 3D requires special players or hardware to play. Maybe you can confirm/deny this?

Do you know of a good primer on 3D? I have been searching and although there are plenty of hits on this general topic, the quality seems to have been lacking as a one-stop explanation.

One thing about 3D being "cheaper": I haven't found that to be true. I could buy a 50"+ 1080 TV with 3D for under $1000 a year ago. Today, it seems all 3D TV's are UHD, which is fine, but you don't get any 3D options until you get to at least the mid-range TV's, putting them in the $1700+ range to start. I'm not sure what they are cheaper than.

Thanks in advance if you can help! I'd be happy to start a new thread, but you mentioned here how "easy" it was so this was my starting point. Sorry for the potential hijack.
KaraokeAmerica is offline  
post #2175 of 4200 Old 10-26-2015, 11:05 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferl View Post
Eloquently stated!
Merci beaucoup; you sound like a very generous person...
NorthSky is offline  
post #2176 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 12:47 AM
Senior Member
 
EVERRET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraokeAmerica View Post

One thing about 3D being "cheaper": I haven't found that to be true. I could buy a 50"+ 1080 TV with 3D for under $1000 a year ago. Today, it seems all 3D TV's are UHD, which is fine, but you don't get any 3D options until you get to at least the mid-range TV's, putting them in the $1700+ range to start. I'm not sure what they are cheaper than.

Thanks in advance if you can help! I'd be happy to start a new thread, but you mentioned here how "easy" it was so this was my starting point. Sorry for the potential hijack.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55-...&skuId=2698045

Wrong thread for HTPC questions , I run a stand alone 3D player through a video processor.
EVERRET is offline  
post #2177 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 04:10 AM
Rabid 3-D Aficionado
 
marcuslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,545
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.
I suppose $30.7 million in marketing didn't hurt. Also from an article entitled How and why Jurassic World managed — surprisingly — to break box office records:

Quote:
The timing of Jurassic World's release was key: Above all else, Jurassic World got lucky because of the calendar. The last blockbuster to open was Avengers: Age of Ultron on May 1, and while several modest hits have debuted since then, the box office hasn't seen a single other film top $200 million. Plus, potential megahits like Tomorrowland ultimately struggled to make an impression. People were craving a big summer movie, and only Jurassic World really fit the bill.

Jurassic World is different, but not too different: Recent box office champs have largely been either comic book movies or adaptations of young adult novels. But both 2014's Mockingjay — Part 1 (the latest Hunger Games film) and 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron have fallen a bit short of expectations. Granted, said expectations may have been too lofty to begin with, but the perception persists. Perhaps the audience, as the thinking goes, is looking for something outside of those two genres — in which case Jurassic World is a perfect fit. But it's also not so different as to be alienating. People know exactly what they're going to get.

The Jurassic Park franchise has always been popular: The first two Jurassic Park films set opening-weekend records, and even the much-reviled Jurassic Park III managed to rake in more than $180 million in 2001. The nice long break between Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World allowed both nostalgia for the franchise and anticipation for the new film to build, and gave box office analysts plenty of time to forget what a monster performer the original trilogy was. Jurassic World also enjoyed a minor bump from half-pretending the second and third films didn't exist, though this may not have been creatively optimal, as Screencrush's Matt Singer notes.

Jurassic World's marketing campaign smartly focused on the movie at hand: The press tour for Jurassic World didn't spend lots of time focusing on future Jurassic movies, as Forbes's Scott Mendelson pointed out. It didn't involve teasing an expanded dinosaur universe. Universal's promotion of the movie was ubiquitous, yes, but it never felt quite so in-your-face as some of Marvel's campaigns have. That allowed Jurassic World to seem like an underdog, at least as much as a movie about dinosaurs eating people can seem like an underdog.

Everybody loves Chris Pratt: The entire cast of Jurassic World is solid — even Bryce Dallas Howard, whose character is impossible to play. But Universal chose to sell Jurassic World with Pratt as its central hero after 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy became such a big hit. What's fascinating is that Pratt isn't even the true protagonist of the film; it's Howard's character (who goes from being obsessed with her job to feeling more maternal, an arc that has drawn criticism for being sexist) who has the much more traditional storyline. Pratt's character pretty much remains the same throughout the whole movie, and the actor clearly struggles with the part. (It's his weakest big-screen work to date.) But Pratt is much loved on the press circuit, and he's always a charming presence onscreen.
marcuslaw is offline  
post #2178 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Wilson Laidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcuslaw View Post
Like I suggested above, unless the borrowed player was introducing something into the image, I don't think it was the problem. Also, a UHD player isn't going to improve the 3-D with Avatar (which will not likely ever be released in 3-D UHD).
I am not thinking of a 4K player for 3D just for improved 2D. I have a demo 4K travelogue on my Retina MacBook Pro and that looks fantastic on the Philips 49" 4K. I would agree that 49" is probably not big enough for 3D effects but I don't want the room dominated by a screen. I am quite happy to go to an IMAX to see "proper" immersive 3D. I am going to pre-book for our local UK IMAX (Crawley) to watch the new Star Wars film.

Wilson
Wilson Laidlaw is offline  
post #2179 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 08:15 AM
Member
 
Wilson Laidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny905 View Post
That's a first. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they preferred Avatar in 2D. I don't think I could ever watch it in 2D personally.
It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.
Wilson Laidlaw is offline  
post #2180 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 09:33 AM
Member
 
KaraokeAmerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERRET View Post
Wrong thread for HTPC questions , I run a stand alone 3D player through a video processor.
Yes, I knew I was risking a hijack. I will start a new thread. I'd appreciate you coming along for the ride!

New thread is here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-hom...l#post38428177

Thanks!

Last edited by KaraokeAmerica; 10-27-2015 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Updates
KaraokeAmerica is offline  
post #2181 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 03:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Laidlaw View Post
It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.
Yes... but it's just Avatar in 2D. There's not much point in the movie if its not in 3D imo.
marcuslaw likes this.
johnny905 is offline  
post #2182 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 04:02 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Question

'Avatar' is fine in 2D, and is fun in 3D.

And how can we hijack a 3D thread with any 3D discussion? ...If 3D HTPC has the force with it...reason more that 3D is still well alive.
And it's all part of this topic...(((3D))) dead or alive.

______

* One small question: If you do a lot of surfing in a day...from any type of screen (PC, Mac Pro, tablet, iPhone, laptop, etc.), and lots of TV watching (flat LED, OLED, plasma panel), do you think that it affects your eyes...in 2D...and in 3D?

What do you think would be a reasonable amount of hours per day to watch 3D content?
...Now the same question...but with 2D content?

If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?
ferl likes this.
NorthSky is offline  
post #2183 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 04:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Laidlaw View Post
It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.
I found the sharpness to be equal to the 2D. And the darkening when using glasses is because the 3D encode is usually brighter than the 2D since they take the slight darkening into account. When the glasses are put on, it becomes a more correct image. When well-mastered, there should be little difference between the two.
film113 is offline  
post #2184 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
He might have watched it on a an HD passive setup which would be less sharp since there's less resolution.
mo949 is offline  
post #2185 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 05:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bweissman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: East SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 1,104
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy1 View Post
From the very beginning, when some critics (who should've known better), complained about how "silly" and "ridiculous" the glasses make people look. As if one was going to wear the damn things 24 hours a day in public or while engaged in intimacy with that special someone.
So where is the 3D porn? I like 3D, but if it were going to survive, wouldn't porn be the obvious content for all those black bat-cave home theaters?
bweissman is offline  
post #2186 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 05:25 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpness).

And good point too about porno films in 3D.
ferl likes this.

Last edited by NorthSky; 10-27-2015 at 07:10 PM. Reason: small typo (sharpness)
NorthSky is offline  
post #2187 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 06:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I agree on Jurassic World, they didn't use the full range of 3D. It was a layered middle 3D range movie like most of these newer converted titles coming out. By middle range I mean they're not using negative and positive parallax for full the full range of 3D our displays are capable of doing. It's not that they need to do this in all scenes but once in awhile there should be a few shots that this is done, especially a movie like JW. I would expect it, but it was a middle range 3D movie, never anything before the screen plane and nothing deep.

The story was equally disappointing, I actually think JP 3 was better overall.

Getting back to what this thread is about, this year is panning out as I expected. The top movies are all converted and the first year since Avatar that converted titles outnumber native. They're only using 3D now for extra ticket sales, not as an approach to unique filmmaking. There are a few directors out there, I'm looking forward to The Martian, one of the few native titles this year.

Thanks for posting 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1, I didn't know about this one. I'll have to take a look at it, I miss my 3Net channel!
Agree, found the 3D disappointing overall. There were some great scenes and some very bland ones as well. Expected more. But thought the story itself was as good as any entry.
marcuslaw likes this.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #2188 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 07:07 PM
Senior Member
 
therealdjnugz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpnes).

And good point too about porno films in 3D.
Haha I remember when I got my first 3d display(Epson 2030), I swear all my friends asked if I was watching 3d porn in surround sound!

Epson 5025ub Projector
Pioneer VSX-1123-K Receiver
SVS Prime Towers Front Left/Right
SVS Prime Center
Polk Audio TSI 100 Side/Rear Surrounds
Bic F12 Subwoofer x 3 (next upgrade)
therealdjnugz is offline  
post #2189 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 07:12 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealdjnugz View Post
Haha I remember when I got my first 3d display(Epson 2030), I swear all my friends asked if I was watching 3d porn in surround sound!
All your friends...girls?
NorthSky is offline  
post #2190 of 4200 Old 10-27-2015, 07:18 PM
Senior Member
 
dr_bling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 15
If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpness).

And good point too about porno films in 3D.
NorthSky, I have 3 active 3D sony tv's and without a doubt it makes me very tired watching a movie and playing games was cool for 15 minutes. Purchased my sony passive 3D XBR65850B and now i can watch a full movie without any fatigue and in full 1080 resolution which looks pretty spectacular and way better than active 3D on my other 3 sony's

Sony XBR65-850B and KDL-55 HX800
Marantz 1403
B&W 601's fronts , B&W CC6 Center and Athena micra rears
SVS PC12-NDS & Mirage Omni S10
dr_bling is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
blu-ray 3d , gearvr

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off