IMAX 3D to Dwindle in North America - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 492Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 12:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Sledgehamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 658 Post(s)
Liked: 363
Sad news, indeed! IMAX 3D combined with their latest laser projectors is the best 3D experience I've seen by far.
King Richard likes this.
Sledgehamma is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 03:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmiller View Post
That might be true about differing opinions regarding sound in a theater. But, I studied, was certificated, and worked in sound recording for quite some time. I have a good ear. It isn't too difficult to tell when high frequencies aren't brought up, or low frequencies are too brought up.
Most of the theaters I work with use QSC/Datasat, the majority are Dolby CP550/650/750/850(ATMOS) audio processors Crown or QSC amps, JBL Pro or Klipsch Pro speakers from 2.0 to 64.4. The audio processor does just that, it processes the audio file that was ingested into the media server, there is nothing a projectionist/manager can do other than set volume level and the simplistic delay that controls the surrounds. That's it. Sure you can crank the amps up and listen to a clipping sound track and get gripes and asked for refunds. What you are talking about is the actual mixing of the sound track, something that a presenter has no control over. Sure you can play a little bit with the older 550/650, QSC, Datasat but not much. All the newer stuff will Blair a trailer at you then default for the premiere, no matter what you had it set for beyond the volume level, the same thing with the newer amps, as they now all talk to each other. And as I like to say, "It's so easy a monkey can do it".
Here are some snap shots of the projectionist paper included in a DCP from TF last knight, Dunkirk, and Inconvenient Truth.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg WP_20170802_03_26_59_Pro.jpg (1.19 MB, 24 views)
File Type: jpg WP_20170802_03_27_32_Pro.jpg (1.19 MB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg WP_20170802_03_27_49_Pro.jpg (1.12 MB, 23 views)

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Some servers can do non-encrypted playback to an A/V projector, but it's just a ridiculously expensive media player if you don't have a cinema projector.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #183 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 06:15 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,920
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Liked: 437
I find it odd that 3D haters hang out in the 3D forums. If I hate skiing why would I desire to hang out in a ski lodge? It just weird!

To all 3D haters: as a 3D enthusiast I don't care that you hate 3D. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment one bit.
Don Landis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 11:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 338
Yeah, 3D is deader than a doornail. Real 3D appears to disagree though judging by another 18 slated for release in 2018 and more in 2019, and more in 2020, and more in 2021. Disney too. http://cms.pro.boxoffice.com/statist...lease-calendar
AlanAbby and King Richard like this.

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3&5 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #185 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 01:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chitchatjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lawrence MA
Posts: 3,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 106
They had better have Star Wars in 3D IMAX at least for the first few weeks.

I'm taking my younger sister and a few friends opening night.

Older sister as well bu8t for her it will not be till at least the 22nd
chitchatjf is online now  
post #186 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 02:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1184 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
Well done 3D gives you the sense of being there and it doesn't require things to pop out of the screen unless they're intended to look extremely close to your face. Well done 3D gives you a continual sense of realism.
If nothing ever pops out of the screen, it feels to me more like looking out a window than "being there" (unless you tend to experience your life through a window frame). I forget which movie it was I was watching a while back, but someone was flying and they're feet were facing the camera yet they were inside the screen and I remember thinking what a waste of an opportunity to have their feet dangling in front of your face and then fly into the screen, but clearly the director didn't believe having things much outside the screen was dignified since prim and proper use of 3D clearly involves a bunch of blue people running around a forest behind the screen. I honestly don't expect much from a Terminator 2 3D refit if nothing is going to jump out at you (and T2 has plenty of moments where this can and should happen (e.g. pointing the shot gun at the screen before firing at the T-1000).

The problem with no glasses 3D will be something similar. It won't likely be possible to have anything pop out of the screen so "3D" will be relegated to depth only effects which to me seems almost pointless since aperture control on cameras already provides depth of field clues in 2D. 3D might be a little better for depth perception, but if it creates new problems like crosstalk, it shoots itself in the foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
I find it odd that 3D haters hang out in the 3D forums. If I hate skiing why would I desire to hang out in a ski lodge? It just weird!

To all 3D haters: as a 3D enthusiast I don't care that you hate 3D. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment one bit.
You see this everywhere with every topic, though. Some people feel the need to force their opinions/views on everything on other people, particularly when they disagree. They spend their entire lives preaching to the "enemy" on how stupid they are to not see what they see. Nations go to war over difference in opinion about economic or political systems or religious beliefs. It all stems from EGO. People make themselves into "god" and "god must make everything the way he wants it" ; nothing else will do. Most of the biggest egos on the planet hang out on the Internet causing trouble because they either believe in it or they're amused by it. Sadly, it must work since the industry is convinced almost everyone HATES 3D when it's more like they don't want to pay extra, watch it only on small screens, get headaches or don't like crosstalk (industry's own fault for releasing faulty equipment).

It's even worse when the media (reviewers/bloggers/whatever) does it as they seem to have more influence on both the industry and people's opinions (i.e. if a review says 3D sucks and people who were considering it believe the reviewer, they may never even bother to look into it, let alone form their own opinion).
Barry C likes this.
MagnumX is online now  
post #187 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 08:47 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 12,920
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Well done 3D gives you the sense of being there and it doesn't require things to pop out of the screen unless they're intended to look extremely close to your face. Well done 3D gives you a continual sense of realism.
Yes, and my latest fun work is creating 360 VR in 3D with goggles. Talk about realism and a sense of being in there! I will be posting some 3D 360 on my YT channel soon.

If the 3D haters think passive 3D glasses are goofy, they will laugh hysterically when they see people with the 360 VR goggles. But do I care? I'm having fun documenting my travels with this new 360 3D camera from Vuze Humaneyes. It's like I am there again Now if we can only get the image quality up to 4K flat screen quality, that's the next step.
MLXXX and King Richard like this.

My 3D and 360VR videos and more
Don Landis HT System: Projector Sony VPL VW665ES Players: Samsung UBD K8500 OPPO BD93 Sony BDP S6200 All Regions Player Denon AVR S940, 7.1 JBL Professional series and Klipsch PS3, XBOX360, Dish VIP722K; 3D Edit Suite:Adobe Premiere, Edius7.53, Vegas Pro v13, Power Director16, i9-7980XE/GTX1080Ti, LG 3D TV DM2752
Don Landis is offline  
post #188 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 11:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazen1 View Post
Yeah, 3D is deader than a doornail. Real 3D appears to disagree though judging by another 18 slated for release in 2018 and more in 2019, and more in 2020, and more in 2021. Disney too. http://cms.pro.boxoffice.com/statist...lease-calendar
Yep Scott said there is just of few of us "die hard" fans left.
AlanAbby is offline  
post #189 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 12:42 AM
Newbie
 
johnmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Most of the theaters I work with use QSC/Datasat, the majority are Dolby CP550/650/750/850(ATMOS) audio processors Crown or QSC amps, JBL Pro or Klipsch Pro speakers from 2.0 to 64.4. The audio processor does just that, it processes the audio file that was ingested into the media server, there is nothing a projectionist/manager can do other than set volume level and the simplistic delay that controls the surrounds. That's it. Sure you can crank the amps up and listen to a clipping sound track and get gripes and asked for refunds. What you are talking about is the actual mixing of the sound track, something that a presenter has no control over. Sure you can play a little bit with the older 550/650, QSC, Datasat but not much. All the newer stuff will Blair a trailer at you then default for the premiere, no matter what you had it set for beyond the volume level, the same thing with the newer amps, as they now all talk to each other. And as I like to say, "It's so easy a monkey can do it".
Here are some snap shots of the projectionist paper included in a DCP from TF last knight, Dunkirk, and Inconvenient Truth.
I appreciate your perspective, and your information. For me, it is frustrating to not be able to get the sound quality where I live that I have experienced in New York or Los Angeles. Perhaps it's simply better equipment at different venues. All I know is what I hear. THX-equipped theaters provided the best sound in middle America that I have heard. And, yes, it could be that Sound Mixing in today's films runs toward the lower-frequency end of the spectrum. There has been the more recent trend of nationwide re-releasing of classic films for digital showings (through Fathom Events, for example). It would be interesting to see if there is a difference seeing a classic film on a current screen where I am. But, I saw "Pompeii" in 2014 in L.A., and I very quickly could tell how the sound was sharper and clearer. One possibility is that an auditorium here might have Dolby Atmos. But, I would guess that doesn't mean that the rest of the audio chain, ending with the quality of speakers, is at the level of those auditoriums where I have experienced better sound.
johnmiller is offline  
post #190 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 12:51 AM
Newbie
 
johnmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazen1 View Post
Yeah, 3D is deader than a doornail. Real 3D appears to disagree though judging by another 18 slated for release in 2018 and more in 2019, and more in 2020, and more in 2021. Disney too. http://cms.pro.boxoffice.com/statist...lease-calendar
Thank you for posting that Release Calendar! I think that the issue with RealD 3D is that: The presentation quality varies more than with IMAX 3D. I have seen RealD 3D presented using two NEC 4K Projectors, and it was very good! But, I have seen RealD 3D projected with a lower-cost, single-contained-unit projector, and it just wasn't the same.

But, if people could see IMAX 3D with Laser Projection, it really does knock you on your butt!
johnmiller is offline  
post #191 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 09:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1113 Post(s)
Liked: 2172
The Hollywood Reporter has a followup article that includes some further clarification from IMAX: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...cially-1025843
Quote:
Imax Entertainment CEO Greg Foster tells THR that Imax is not abandoning 3D but taking a more strategic approach to its use of the format. "3D is no longer the default," he says, explaining that Imax releases about 35 motion pictures per year, and of those, his instincts suggest that an estimated 5-10 would be 3D releases in the foreseeable future.

"We listen to our filmmaking partners," he adds, saying directors that want to release their movies in 3D will continue to have Imax's support.
King Richard likes this.
puddy77 is offline  
post #192 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 09:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
I forget which movie it was I was watching a while back, but someone was flying and they're feet were facing the camera yet they were inside the screen and I remember thinking what a waste of an opportunity to have their feet dangling in front of your face and then fly into the screen, but clearly the director didn't believe having things much outside the screen was dignified...
There is a practical reason for using popout (negative parallax) sparingly. The 3D effect breaks down for the viewer if the object appearing to be in front of the screen window moves to the left or right edges of the screen (e.g. as a result of a camera pan) and disappears from view prematurely, inconsistent with the object truly being in front of the screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
... I honestly don't expect much from a Terminator 2 3D refit if nothing is going to jump out at you (and T2 has plenty of moments where this can and should happen (e.g. pointing the shot gun at the screen before firing at the T-1000).
A gun barrel pointing at the audience and occupying the centre of the screen is something that could be rendered with distinct popout.

But it would be tricky to manage if the camera then panned slowly away from the gun barrel so that the gun barrel got near the edge of the screen. That could generate a disturbing "edge violation". There are explanations of this issue on the net, and how to deal with it, e.g. at http://3droundabout.com/2011/11/5430...g-windows.html
King Richard likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #193 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 09:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
The Hollywood Reporter has a followup article that includes some further clarification from IMAX: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...cially-1025843
So 3D continues, but not as a "default" format.

Last edited by MLXXX; 08-03-2017 at 09:44 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
post #194 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 03:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
The problem with no glasses 3D will be something similar. It won't likely be possible to have anything pop out of the screen so "3D" will be relegated to depth only effects which to me seems almost pointless since aperture control on cameras already provides depth of field clues in 2D.
That is pretty much exactly the way it was on the Ultra-D demo I saw last year. Any so-called "glasses-free" tv better have an option to view WITH glasses. Otherwise, they can keep it.
film113 is offline  
post #195 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 03:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
I find it odd that 3D haters hang out in the 3D forums. If I hate skiing why would I desire to hang out in a ski lodge? It just weird!
Maybe they are just insecure about their precious Faux K so coming here makes them feel better.
film113 is offline  
post #196 of 313 Old 08-03-2017, 04:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1184 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX

But it would be tricky to manage if the camera then panned slowly away from the gun barrel so that the gun barrel got near the edge of the screen. That could generate a disturbing "edge violation". There are explanations of this issue on the net, and how to deal with it, e.g. at http://3droundabout.com/2011/11/5430...g-windows.html
Yeah, that edge thing doesn't bother me. I know I'm watching a movie, after all. What bothers me are overrated movies with fake looking blue people running around that never have a single thing come out of the screen. I maintain the only reason Avatar did well was it was the first 3D movie in a LONG time outside of Disney and so the "wow" effect was present in full. As goofy as Pacific Rim was in some regards it was still way less boring than Avatar and the 3D was way more impressive despite being a post processing effect.
MagnumX is online now  
post #197 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 10:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 338
I think a lot of folks rely on pop-out gimmicks when it comes to 3D and the lack of them, or too far and few between, looses their interest. It's like it's expected or 3D just doesn't add the wow effect and you might as well be watching 2D. I can see how these interest grabbing frames and scenes would be necessary for children as they have the least attention span and they pay more attention to those visuals and other short term catchy story lines than the entire experience as a whole. But as an adult, my audio video experience is based on realism.


I like to look at my display and let my brain interpret it as a window on wall. The more realistic that window appears, the more I'm immersed in my experience. Great looking wide color gamut, including bright and dark, or 16k is nice for what it is. But I'm not looking out a window. I'm looking at a two dimensional painting and all it's detail and colors. To look out a window, I need 3 dimensions, just as my stereo eyes were designed or evolved.


The idea is to make sure that window is as clean as possible. A bug screen, window tint, the slightest amount of grainy dust, or after shower fog makes it difficult to see out of. I also don't want my window a skylight, viewing nothing more interesting than a cloudless blue sky or shades of grey and black evenings with no depth so, content is important. When I look out my window of my Martian landscape and see Mark Watney recover from being knocked out, I feel his disorientation, sense of emergency, and pain. I want to reach out and help him because I'm just a few feet away. When I'm looking out my window above the twin towers at Philippe Petit on that tightrope, I'm as nervous as he should be and my stomach is queasy....... as it should be. After all, I'm right beside him.


I don't require stars hitting my shoulders or giant fish with open mouths approaching me out of the aspect ratio, into a new one extended into the black bars momentarily. I just want to feel like I'm there even if that means subtle on set close proximity as if I'm looking out my window just into the other room.


Those wow moments are probably a requirement for most. Sometimes because the theatre itself lacked a proper presentation to show the full potential of 3D. Add in bobbing heads in front of your field of view and other distractions, the immersion never stood a chance for a foothold. Without a doubt, home users who didn't lift a finger to clean their window relied on wow moments as the soul benefit of 3D and when that single aspect became repetitive and lackluster, they happily put up a painting over the window exclaiming how much more satisfied they are now. To back up their 3D disgust, they blame glasses and overcome defects from a decade ago as if to enhance their new painting decision and eliminate any buyers remorse so to speak.


I have UHD HDR and 3D. I choose to look out the window rather than view the painting every time and glad I'm offered that choice because I made decent hardware decisions while the getting was still good. New buyers don't get that luxury and it's wrong that they don't. TBH, I simply don't reach out to Mark or Philippe watching them in that painting because I'm not participating with them. I'm just watching them look good.


It's a shame new users will never experience what I have and even more shameful that choice was made for them by another using revenue as an excuse despite thousands and thousands of petitions. Unfortunately, our entire modern world revolves around money. Enough will never be enough. The game is how best to milk hamsters out of that coffer of theirs (as if) in order to fill another's in the name of job creation/retention and more Cuban cigars of course.


Studios produced 3D, good and bad. Theatres adopted 3D, good and bad. Displays adopted 3D, good and bad. Someone said they were taking their ball out of the game and running away to a new field. 3D got milked and to make sure it did, others followed suit and the 'booo' 3D campaign was launched. A new cow appeared. As with everything, it too will be milked to the last drop but she's a young heifer at the moment. I'm hoping it will be a wash, rinse, repeat cycle here. I don't need glass free viewing to entice me again. I don't need native 2160p 3D because a 1080p appears 2160p using upscale. Sure, that would be nice but let's be realistic. By the time some mind blowing change comes to my window or painting, I'll be dead. 8k ain't gonna' blow my dress up anymore than a glasses free image looking the same or close to what I see now with glasses.


Next time someone argues 4k supremacy vs 3D, hand them a band aid to wrap around the bridge of the glasses and a bottle of Windex.
King Richard likes this.

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3&5 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #198 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 01:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
dew42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 730
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 175
I think some negative parallax is needed help to make that window disappear and pull you in to the movie. Not the stuff flying in your face, though that can be amusing in a less serious movie like Pirates of the Caribbean or Despicable Me. Foreground objects help bring out the true depth of other objects. They give a sense of sitting in the front row of a concert vs. sitting in the back row when only positive parallax 3D is used. Edge violation can make the window reappear.

From what I've read about Ultra-D negative parallax is that it is possible but not if you are too close to the screen. This sounds similar to my LG OLED which goes ghost crazy if I'm too close. At the proper distance it is great.

Some people argue that 3D does not always add value to a movie. I'd say the same argument could be made of color. In modern movies the absence of color in a movie is an artistic choice made by a director to convey an older era. Perhaps 2D will be used to similar effect someday.

I wonder if they charged extra at the theaters for color when it came out.

As a kid I loved IMAX. Now the local non-IMAX theaters have much larger screens, stadium seating, and they show 3D movies. IMAX continues to become less appealing over time. IMAX was about the ultimate movie experience but staying ahead of other theaters is perhaps becoming increasingly difficult.
King Richard likes this.
dew42 is online now  
post #199 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 02:42 PM
Newbie
 
lordkinbote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I like 3D and will be sad to see it go

I like 3D and it's gotten better and better through the years and IMAX 3D is the best of 3D. I noticed this when I saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" for (*ahem*) the third time at the theater. I saw it at 3 different theaters, all in 3D. The first was okay (a little dim), the 2nd wasn't that great (muddier sound & hard to make out some dialogue), the 3rd was IMAX 3D and was simply gorgeous. After that, I've gone to see Marvel movies (especially) only in IMAX 3D. It is the brightest, yes, but the best thing about it is the audio being great with separation. You can hear all the dialogue with no problems. The underscore and SPFX sounds never overpower the dialogue. The 3D portion is much more immersive because of the clarity of it. For me, it's not about the size of the screen, as much. That's nice, but the bigger the screen, the farther back I tend to sit so I never have to turn my head or even drastically turn my eyes to focus on one side of the screen while possibly missing the detail on the other side.

It's funny, people tend to label something as a gimmick simply because they don't like it. 3D, good 3D, makes a movie that much more immersive and that, for me, is the reason I go to see movies, for the roller coaster aspect of it.
King Richard likes this.
lordkinbote is offline  
post #200 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 05:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 338
I tend to agree about SIZE. I actually feel it's a 'bigger is better' thing imbedded into us for one reason or another. You know, mines bigger than yours. And of course they cost more. I don't like sitting in front of a large screen either. I find myself turning my head from side to side as well hoping I don't miss that quick blip of something that's occurring on the side I'm not looking at. Especially during those times when the entire screen is filled with eye candy detail you'd like to take all in but simply isn't there long enough to scan your head around in circles. I find myself pausing at times just to do exactly that, something I can't do at a theatre. I also find the detail goes down as the screen size goes up no matter the display quality. Lastly, when I'm looking out my window (especially) or at that painting, I find a 'video reference level' beneficial just as it is in audio volume; A normal listening level as if I was present that is true to life. When I'm right beside Philippe on that tightrope, I want to see a one inch cable, not a 4 inch monster with a size 28 stomping on it. I don't want his head to appear 3 feet in circumference. I want his head in the same relationship to mine. When I'm reaching out to save Mark Watney, I don't want to perceive him as a giant, just a normal size man like myself. In other words, I think size is overrated. The same is true the opposite direction. How immersed are you viewing your blockbuster on the can holding your cell up to your face? There's a time and a place for it like a huge room where seating doesn't even begin until yards lengths away aka a commercial theatre environment and that's just to accommodate a herd. But for the average room in the average home, with the average audience of one to four and special times maybe 10, to display these gigantic screens for the sheer sake of mine's bigger than yours and naturally therefore better are usually worse but bragging rights cannot be denied. To call it more immersive because of shear size must be some primitive instinct handed down throughout the ages like 'the strong survive' except bigger does not necessarily prevail. (I'm thinking mosquito) These distance charts (usually manufacturers or those affiliated one way or another in the business) are quick to point out why your screen is too small for your seating distance but rarely too large. I'll just let my eyes be the judge of all that with some understanding of why.

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3&5 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #201 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1184 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazen1 View Post
I think a lot of folks rely on pop-out gimmicks when it comes to 3D and the lack of them, or too far and few between, looses their interest. It's like it's expected or 3D just doesn't add the wow effect and you might as well be watching 2D. I can see how these interest grabbing frames and scenes would be necessary for children as they have the least attention span
There's a clear difference between stating your opinion and views and playing word games to essentially put down everyone who disagrees with you such as having the attention span of a child or not appreciating the "immersion" of depth only effects, etc. This sort of "if people disagree with taste/views/opinions then they're basically an idiot" doesn't fly too well with me and that's exactly the impression I got from your post.

I have around 700 movies, about 150 of which are from before 1950 and over half of which are from before 1980. The fact I like some "immersion" beyond the "window frame" in 3D only speaks of what I like to see from 3D framing/depth choices, not movies in general, movie genres, plots or spectacles. I do not like most Michael Bay movies (save perhaps Bad Boys 1 & 2) nor did I find Pacific Rim particularly good in general, even though the 3D was lovely. I liked Predator and Jurassic Park long before there was ever a 3D version of them. But 3D is a CHOICE. Most 3D is not filmed with 3D cameras and even when it is, it's still a CHOICE how to frame any given shot in a given movie as to whether there's any "negative parallax" or not.

Yes, many movies use it as a "gimmick" and there's a reason they do that. It's very impressive looking. Overly doing it just for effect can grate over time. But not using it at all creates another ball of wax and that's the "It's a window" effect. I don't personally feel "immersed" when everything is always behind that window. The best use of 3D, in my OPINION, is when pop-out is used where appropriate. In retro-fits, this would be where it most makes sense (e.g. Arnold pulling his shotgun out on the bike in T2 after he pulls away from the fiery semi wreck would BEG for it to stick out of the screen, but because I already know James Cameron hates pop-outs, I think you'll just see the edge of the gun at or near the edge of the screen in this T2 3D release come August 25th (I hope I'm wrong). I find that a waste of a cool effect. It would be like using green screen CGI instead of a model when the model would look 10x more realistic (e.g. The Star Wars prequels look fakers than the original trilogy IMO despite having more details because much of it doesn't really look real and oddly sometimes it's the opposite as the "puppet" Yoda looked faker than the CGI in the first movie because the puppet wasn't well made). It has nothing to do with the story and nothing to do with whether the movie itself is any good. It has to do with whether I feel like 3D was used well and whether I want to bother putting on glasses to watch a given movie or not. If the 3D is poorly done, has tons of irritating crosstalk or makes no good use of 3D in blatant scenes, I might as well enjoy perfect 2D than flawed 3D and I think that is part of the reason 3D largely failed at home.

Too many cheap conversions and way way too many poor televisions that create exacerbate or even create crosstalk with overpriced active shutter glasses and little inter-compatibility with other brands to bring prices down. You've got 3D BDs that are 2-4x as much as the 2D versions and people on a budget have to make real choices there. Do they want one 3D title or 2-4 2D titles? Given the aforementioned considerations, clearly "most" chose 2D and price had a LOT to do with it, far more than having to put on glasses. People might be willing to pay a few more dollars a ticket to watch 3D at the theater but paying $25-30 for a 3D Blu-Ray when the 2D one is down to $8-12 doesn't fly too well with many people. I'm not crazy about paying these prices, but I'm enjoying 3D enough to do it anyway (based on the fact I just bought around 50 3D BDs in less than a month).

Oddly, the Pirates of the Caribbean comparison is kind of funny to me since I just got On Stranger Tides in 3D and there's hardly any crosstalk at all (whereas many newer films have far more crosstalk with my Epson projector). Even the opening Disney Castle was "neat" because the flag flapping on top it created a relatively rare centered surround effect as it panned into view that passed just over my head with my "now" improperly placed side surrounds that are 2/3 the way up the side-walls (does that make the movie better? No, but it's a nice surround effect).

What's extra amusing there to me in regards to all the "Atmos" talk that side surrounds placed above ear height or using bipoles (mine are both) are "obsolete" is that I just watched a few movies with helicopters (Pacific Rim) and other aircraft (The Rocketeer) and even without a Dolby Atmos mix and without height speakers, all such aircraft already sound like they're above my head due to that speaker placement and because the screen itself is above eye level in my room, surround effects that might normally seem too high all match up on the screen regardless. In short, I don't see where Atmos would provide much more immersion in that setup. Lowering the surrounds would put ear-level effects below screen level and ceiling speakers might at best raise the height of aircraft "higher" in the room. This is why I talked about greater need for speaker placement flexibility in the Atmos thread (and on another site called AVForums).

When screen size, screen height and watching locations can vary, what works best in one room doesn't always work best in another. But you will get plenty of people arguing with you that it simply MUST be done just this way or it will sound like crap. Yeah, I don't believe comments like that. Room interactions and speaker variations are nearly endless and what sounds fantastic to one person won't to all people (I use ribbon dipoles in my 2-channel room and some people HATE dipole speakers. To me, they sound utterly real compared to "box" speakers due to the placement of sounds in 3D space by the 3-dimensional wavefront. But others will argue that having it sound "real" in your particular room defeats the point of recreating the actual room it was recorded in despite the fact that 2-channel recordings cannot accurately recreate the original locale anyway (unless it's a binaural recording and you listen with headphones).

So I say to each their own. I have no problem with other people liking different things from me. I do have a problem when they imply I'm like a child for appreciating the occasional object flying out of the screen in a 3D movie. In the case of Jaws 3D, the 3D effects are better than the movie itself which was just OK at best, IMO. Could it get old? Yes, if i watch Jaws 3D several times in a row it gets old, but then so do most movies.
Dreamliner and LDizzle like this.
MagnumX is online now  
post #202 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 09:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
As goofy as Pacific Rim was in some regards it was still way less boring than Avatar and the 3D was way more impressive despite being a post processing effect.
People vary in their reactions to movies, and some people prefer strong 3D effects.

The Jurassic Park conversion to 3D is one I enjoyed a lot but I couldn't help noticing that the 3D effect was exaggerated almost the whole time. A bit like playing music with tone controls turned to boost the bass and/or treble. Or video with over-saturated colours. The 3D didn't look realistic to me. At times I found the exaggeration distracting.

On the other hand the Titanic conversion to 3D looked to have a realistic amplitude of 3D depth for my vision. Rather like listening to classical music with good quality speakers and tone controls set to flat. I prefer this more realistic amplitude of 3D in a conversion. Others might find it too tame.

(It's perhaps worth mentioning that a movie like Pacific Rim with many scenes containing extensive CGI generated as two precise left and right stereoscopic views [rather than as single 2D view later processed to 3D] is getting very close to a native 3D movie; despite some frames of the movie incorporating real-life 2D footage post-processed to 3D.)
King Richard likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #203 of 313 Old 08-04-2017, 10:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Yeah, that edge thing doesn't bother me. I know I'm watching a movie, after all. What bothers me are overrated movies with fake looking blue people running around that never have a single thing come out of the screen. I maintain the only reason Avatar did well was it was the first 3D movie in a LONG time outside of Disney and so the "wow" effect was present in full.
I didn't find the Na'vi race fake looking myself. I note that their facial expressions were mapped from the faces of human actors speaking the lines. What I did find amazing about Avatar were certain scenes of great 3D complexity (a particular scene impressed me where a number of human characters are watching separate 3D displays, and in which a 3D display is transparent) and the exhilarating scenes of the animated characters flying on huge birds (the Ikran).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
The best use of 3D, in my OPINION, is when pop-out is used where appropriate. In retro-fits, this would be where it most makes sense (e.g. Arnold pulling his shotgun out on the bike in T2 after he pulls away from the fiery semi wreck would BEG for it to stick out of the screen, but because I already know James Cameron hates pop-outs, I think you'll just see the edge of the gun at or near the edge of the screen in this T2 3D release come August 25th (I hope I'm wrong). I find that a waste of a cool effect.
I too hope you're wrong about T2 not utilising some impressive -ve parallax in the conversion, but I've just had a look at a Youtube clip of Arnie on the motor bike with a shotgun and I see a lot of the time the shotgun hits the edge of the frame. An edge-violation nightmare to convert if using -ve parallax.
King Richard likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #204 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 12:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1184 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
An edge-violation nightmare to convert if using -ve parallax.
An edge-violation nightmare?

It doesn't bother me ONE BIT when they go off the edge, but then my screen is 93" at 9 feet. The "edge" is almost the edge of my regular glasses. I'm usually not staring at the edges of my screen. In fact, in 3D in the dark it's often hard to tell exactly where the edge is.

I suppose you must have really hated Ghostbusters in 3D as the BD bleeds 3D special effects outside the 2.35:1 box into the 16:9 area as if things could fly beyond the screen borders that go negative (that would cause some issues for 2.35:1 screen setups as the picture could bleed on to adjoining surfaces above and below the screen. Of course, many people hated the 2016 version for other reasons, but I actually thought it wasn't bad as long as you didn't compare it to the original and the 3D looked excellent for the most part (I also didn't care for Melissa McCarthy's character at all, but the others were more amusing).

Then there's TRON: Legacy where the 2D disc maintains 2.35:1 the entire movie, the 3D one changes aspect ratio (as it did for IMAX) and the iTunes version also changes ratios. I'd imagine that would drive some people nuts as well, particularly with fixed 2.35:1 screens as it would box the sides instead which would look ridiculous (getting smaller instead of larger) all because they wanted to film some parts to show off IMAX effects but were too cheap to do the whole movie that way. I'm not totally thrilled with changing ratios (and for home use I'd rather have fixed 16:9 than 2.35:1 for 2D due to looking larger on a 16:9 screen), but in TRON: Legacy's case the movie looks so gorgeous (even in 2D) I can forgive quite a lot (I still like the original better for various reasons, but given how bad Legacy could have been, I was reasonably pleased with it. There wasn't a lot of negative parallax, but the disc battles did have those fly right at your glasses briefly). I'm rather unhappy that Disney is putting all their money into Star Wars and Marvel and we'll probably therefore never see a TRON 3, which is sad because I was really disappointed in The Force Awakens (totally unoriginal with nonsensical developments) and almost fell asleep during Rogue One.
MagnumX is online now  
post #205 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 12:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Worf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,279
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 846 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Edge violation is what I saw on my first experience at the Sony Store years ago. A nice nature scene, and a polar bear walking across in front if the screen.

Then it was a noseless polar bear, followed by a decapitated polar bear, then a polar gear torso and legs, and finally, polar bear butt.

Violating the letter box is fine, just don't do an edge violation with the edge of the screen. Might not be a problem if to have a huge wall to wall floor to ceiling screen, but if you are of limited means and have a much smaller screen, and running into the edge of the screen is an issue. It makes the safe area smaller so you avoid running into the edge of the screen. Aspect ratio changes, or having effects go beyond the letter or pillar box is fine as long as they do to hit the screen edge.

As for Ultra-D, remember it generally displays 3d 24/7, so the default settings of the 3d settings is generally on the more subdued side so you can see the 3d, but you're not likely to get nauseous. You can set it to modes that can be sickening by adjusting the effect depth and offsets and make it pop more, at the risk if inducing nausea in others around you.

Also, for Ultra-D there is a sweet spot - around 8' or so from the screen and 120 degrees wide. The maximum distance is probably around 16' or so - I had 3d rarities playing on the screen and could see the pop out from that far away (it as somewhat shocked at how far it came out).
King Richard likes this.
Worf is offline  
post #206 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 01:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1184 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf View Post
Edge violation is what I saw on my first experience at the Sony Store years ago. A nice nature scene, and a polar bear walking across in front if the screen.

Then it was a noseless polar bear, followed by a decapitated polar bear, then a polar gear torso and legs, and finally, polar bear butt.
I'm sorry, but what you are saying is what I would call a figment of one's imagination. My brain simply sees "edge of picture" regardless of whether something passes in front of it, at it or behind it because in 3D there essentially is no screen but just an edge of the picture and that edge exists in the 3rd dimension. The 'screen' pretty much disappears, at least in the dark. I suppose if you watch movies in a brightly lit room you could still see the edge of the TV or screen but then what? Do you pretend people are 2 feet tall and somehow fit in side the TV or is a flat screen on the wall a gateway to another dimension?

Both of these things only exist in one's imagination of what the screen actually is when it's just a projection surface. I think the problem here is that people like to pretend things "behind" the screen are on the other side of a window instead of a screen and that they continue to walk/move behind it where you just can't see it, but in a dark room, you can't see the screen, just the picture and that could be anywhere from in front of your glasses to the infinite depth so the polar bear would appear to get "cut off" regardless of its position in front of or behind the screen. Thus "edge violations" don't actually exist except in one's imagination as anything going off screen could be considered an "edge violation" unless you pretend it's a window instead of a screen edge.

Quote:
Might not be a problem if to have a huge wall to wall floor to ceiling screen, but if you are of limited means and have a much smaller screen, and running into the edge of the screen is an issue. It makes the safe area smaller so you avoid running into the edge of the screen. Aspect ratio changes, or having effects go beyond the letter or pillar box is fine as long as they do to hit the screen edge.
Limited means? My whole 93" projection setup (for the picture that is) cost about $1600 with a Dalite screen and Epson 3100 projector. You can't even get a 55" OLED (save maybe some generic brand like Vizio) for that and 3D TV sets will no longer exist next year so a projector is the only thing left for people to buy (at least in the USA).
MagnumX is online now  
post #207 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 07:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
zimmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: montreal quebec
Posts: 531
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I am very sorry for 3D ,I like but for sure eventually is gone ,I buy my oled because I have mutch disk 3D ,for me nothing beat AVATAR OR TERMINATOR GENISYS,PACIFIC RIM,FRANKENSTEIN,MAD MAX,SAN ANDRES,JURASSIC WORD and the best picture is TRANSFORMER (AGE OF EXTINCTION)IN IMAX 3D ULTRA VIOLET SPECIAL BLURAY DISK WOWOWWOWOW.
King Richard likes this.

marantz av 8805, 13 chanels, emotiva 2 xpa 5 gen1,1 emotiva xpa3 gen3, 7.4.6,4 speakers monitor 11 ,2 paradigm studio 100 v2,4 ceillings speakers ss82w sweet spot earthquake ,2 earthquake ecs-8.0,1 center Paradigm cc390,4 subs klipsch r-sw112 sw.antimod 8033 perfect bass kit paradigm, Buttkicker amplificateur lfe 1000 watts, , tv oled 65e6p,, room 12x25x7,bluray player oppo bdp 203,4coolers ac infinity s9 fan.
zimmo is offline  
post #208 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 07:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Viche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 794 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Viche is offline  
post #209 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 10:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 338
@MagnumX


I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I'm on your side. I like pop-outs too. I like all the added effects, the more the better. I guess you call it 'edge violation'? To not only have depth perception within the frame, but extend it into the letterbox by changing the aspect ratio into a faux letterbox, even if only briefly adds another level of depth..... often totally unexpected and therefor surprising. I guess I annoyed you using the word "gimmick". Well, that's what it is and it's a welcome well done 'special effect' I enjoy every time I notice one. Reaching into my 'window' from time to time, instead of me just looking 'through' it adds to the realism and immerses myself even more tricking my brain into 'seeing' objects in front of my 'window'. It reminds me there is no 'safety net' between me and the ball that just got hit into my face and I'm not a protected audience member. I'm a participant who's right there in the middle of the action.


Lets face it. When you want to show off your 3D, these are the scenes you select. You want the viewer to see the best of the best. You smile when you see them duck and say "WHOA!". Normal pop-outs, same thing. Cinematography depth separation, same thing. Etc. 'For me' as an adult, they add to the experience as a whole because I'm mostly concerned about the 'realism' of my 'window'. Those that did not take the time to set up how 3D is displayed, never have much of the 'window' effect. They (perhaps the majority) bought a cheap TV, player, and a Blu-ray title or even worse an RPI and downloaded some crap somewhere that had !!3D!! in the title. Came home and plugged everything in the wall, fumbled with HDMI cables a few minutes and popped in the disc or file. Then they called the neighbor kid who showed them how to press the 3D button on the remote. Once they got some sort of 3D image on the screen the only thing that 'stood out' and wowed them was the 'gimmicks'. The kids cheer and say wow did you see that, play it again. A while later they're begging to turn on X-Box.


I think the majority of people are not enthusiasts. Given that the average person did nothing more than shop for the best deal, they neglected most, if not all, 'necessities' for a proper 3D presentation. Some theatres were no better. Never experiencing well done 3D, especially at home, made it easy to say it isn't worth it. The glasses suck. Crosstalk makes it unbearable. The picture is sort of dark. Why am I investing in something that doesn't look better than 2D and actually a little worse? Top it off with added costs and the market declined as fast as it started.


The 'gimmicks' no longer held their attention since without calibrating, ambient light consideration, screen relation size, reasonably proper hardware choices, angle of viewing, content, ease of use, deploy method, etc., gimmicks were the only thing that 'stood out' and lost their luster. This was no fault of theirs. Because they are not enthusiasts and naïve to all of it, they figured plug and play was good enough and based their experience on exactly that.


At the moment, IMAX putting 3D on the back burner may have resulted for reasons I've touched on. A trickle down or trickle up affect of my opined thoughts may be some the minor reasons declining 3D embracement reflected on ticket sales, hardware sales, and so on. I felt it worth putting out here. In case history repeats itself, maybe these thoughts will educate someone and resulting feedback myself too. Not everyone went to IMAX 3D showings. In other words, had more theatres and especially home users understood the importance of setting up a presentation properly, more would have embraced it. (maybe not) Instead some and maybe even most based their experience on less than desirable conditions. This was no fault of theirs, they simply didn't understand how much these complexities affected the outcome. Imo, the average guy buying newer equipment may have went as far as buying pretty decent equipment. He probably wasn't going to spend time on a learning curve beyond plug and play because he's got more important things to do like get up tomorrow morning and go to work to pay for it. Everything was left at default, after all, he just paid good money to buy quality out of the box and that's why he spent it. He's not setting up appointments with installers and calibrators. As most of us know, being enthusiasts, plug and play defaults do not cut the mustard and one thing overlooked in the chain could lead to the degradation of all that nice equipment like a bad cable.


I'm not using any words games or belittling anyone and certainly not singling you out intentionally. I write candidly from the hip. I'm not addressing Congress. I don't mind if you disagree with my opinions. There's no right or wrong going on here? I'm not name calling you or anyone else and sorry if I come across that way? I welcome criticism. It's part of a healthy discussion and I often learn from it. None of this has anything to do with 'my way or the highway' and no idea how you arrived at that? Maybe it's easy to misinterpret my candid style and I'll have to work on that aspect in the future. In retrospect, sorry for any offense I caused you or anyone else....

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3&5 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #210 of 313 Old 08-05-2017, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post
Hate to disappoint you but...no, it's not. Since the announcement, IMAX has back-tracked a bit. They are stating that they will still be utilizing 3D on a number of releases, especially if the filmmakers would like it to be seen that way. It just will no longer be a default policy. And that's fine...as some movies weren't made for 3D and don't need to be seen that way. (THE MUMMY for example.)
King Richard likes this.
film113 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
imax , imax 3d

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