[Melville]

I have a Samsung PN51D6900 plasma television. I have had it calibrated. I love this T.V.. I have Samsung 3D glasses, and the four Shrek movies that came with them. I have a Panasonic BDT110 3D Bluray player.


I have the T.V. and Bluray player properly set up to view 3D. What I get is disappointing in the extreme. I suppose it's my own fault for not looking at any demos at stores, but I didn't know that the glasses darken the screen and diminish the brightness of the picture. And, no matter the distance from which I view, there is absolutely no POP of 3D images beyond the screen. What I get is this weird paper-cutout-layered-on-the-background depth illusion which, to me, is just gimicky and irritating.


What's the big deal?

 

[tory40]

Sounds like your using 2d to 3d conversion mode. When you see genuine 3d, it should look like its all laid out right in front of you.

 

[cakefoo]

Have you seen a 3D movie in theaters? You're not going to get a lot of popout in adventure movies. You'll get more of a depth effect than popout. Where you have to go for popout is the horror genre.


Marketing since the 80's has done a piss-poor job of truly conveying what 3D actually looks like to those who haven't seen it. The reality is not stingrays floating in your face, but rather an aquarium inside your television.


This has led to people like yourself who are disappointed upon purchase. This marketing also conveys the wrong message to people who hate 3D because they THINK it's all about popout, when it's really not. I see this all the time in comments on internet articles- things like "I don't want to see x coming at my face, 3D needs to die," etc. So it's really not a good marketing strategy for anyone.


On the topic of cardboard cutouts, the closer you sit, the flatter the layers will look.

 

[studiotan]

Did you watch the 4th Shrek movie? I'm pretty sure the first 3 were converted and are not rendered in native 3D. That will lessen the sense of depth.

 

[JOHNnDENVER]

It does sound like maybe your underwhelmed with the content more than anything?


I have not screened any of the Shrek movies in 3D yet.

 

[Melville]

We will soon see. I have Coraline 3D on order from Amazon. I ordered this disc because it is supposed to be very good in 3D and it will play in 2D. I know that it is great in 2D.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotan /forum/post/20875369


Did you watch the 4th Shrek movie? I'm pretty sure the first 3 were converted and are not rendered in native 3D. That will lessen the sense of depth.

Shrek is CGI so it's ALL rendered and 3D makes no difference because there is NO conversion.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Melville /forum/post/20880348


We will soon see. I have Coraline 3D on order from Amazon. I ordered this disc because it is supposed to be very good in 3D and it will play in 2D. I know that it is great in 2D.

Make sure you ordered the CORRECT version and not the Anaglyph .

 

[cakefoo]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20880470


Shrek is CGI so it's ALL rendered and 3D makes no difference because there is NO conversion.

Honestly I don't know if that's 100% true. People have had this discussion before. I've gotten the impression from others, that some CG movies are converted Captain America style.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo /forum/post/20881155


Honestly I don't know if that's 100% true. People have had this discussion before. I've gotten the impression from others, that some CG movies are converted Captain America style.

I guess they could be converted on the cheep. I do have Shrek 3 in 3D and it looks like it was rendered.

 

[Brian Hampton]

I have the four Shrek movies in 3d but only the forth was made to be 3d and it's a much better 3d experience.


I prefer to watch the first three movies on 2D.

 

[MentalDistortion]

watch sammys adventure. that movie has awesome 3d depth and pop out.

 

[freddyi]

"Drive Angry" (not suitable for kids) looks flawless on my E3D420VX - no fatigue, excellent depth and realism of sorts compared to 2D. 2D is ho-hum :^)

 

[JOHNnDENVER]



Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyi /forum/post/20894389


"Drive Angry" (not suitable for kids) looks flawless on my E3D420VX - no fatigue, excellent depth and realism of sorts compared to 2D. 2D is ho-hum :^)

I need to see it in 3D.... The 2D, I thought was a bit of a let down with Drive Angry.

 

[almostinsane]

The first 3 Shrek's all look like paper cutouts.

 

[tory40]

Heres why i would guess. This is what realistic separation looks like. Notice the amount of separation in the laser as you go from near to far. The thing is, if you do this in a movie theater, it will look very different to those in the front seats to those in the back. You can see this effect yourself moving away from your TV, in 3d mode of course.

 

[studiotan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/20880470


Shrek is CGI so it's ALL rendered and 3D makes no difference because there is NO conversion.

http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/3...ted-to-3d/1480

 

[Richard Adams]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Melville /forum/post/20880348


We will soon see. I have Coraline 3D on order from Amazon. I ordered this disc because it is supposed to be very good in 3D and it will play in 2D. I know that it is great in 2D.

I saw Coraline 3D in RealD at the theater, and didn't think it had very much of a 3D effect as compared with the fantastic perception of depth and pop I see when sitting about 3' away from my Passive 23" 3D monitor, with titles such as Piranah 3D and Monsters Inc.


Coraline was one of the early RealD 3D titles at the theater in my area near Sacramento California. I remember the most 3D looking scene of Coraline at the theater was a striped circular vortex thing that "sticks out" in my memory. I don't have that disk yet.


One of the most memorable 3D animations I recall from the theater was, "How to train your Dragon," especially the segments when riding the Dragon and the dive begins following the apogee of flight. Rather than pop, it is the ride on the roller coaster effect.


Content I shoot myself with the Sony TD10 definitely has a lot of pop when people poke things toward the camera, which gives a range of different depths in the scene being viewed. The pop surprises people that see it for the first time. With the monitor so close, some jump back.

 

[almostinsane]



Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotan /forum/post/20899640

http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/3...ted-to-3d/1480

3D Focus managed to get some time with Dr Barry Sandrew, and started by asking what help did Dreamworks offer in the 2D to 3D conversion process of Shrek…


Dr Barry Sandrew: We feel that the conversion we produced on Shrek 1, 2 and 3 is the best stereo conversion that’s been done to date in the industry. It will be up to the consumers to decide how the Shrek trilogy we converted holds up to Shrek 4 which was produced from “native” assets. Wherever possible, DreamWorks provided CG assets which we incorporated into our proprietary conversion process. While not quite the same as an original or “native” CG render, all the image information is available when and if we have access to CG assets. However, not all of the assets were available on these films, but since this was animation, it was a rather straightforward process for our artists to reconstruct certain background elements that might be exposed in stereo.

 

[studiotan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by almostinsane /forum/post/20901462


3D Focus managed to get some time with Dr Barry Sandrew, and started by asking what help did Dreamworks offer in the 2D to 3D conversion process of Shrek…


Dr Barry Sandrew: We feel that the conversion we produced on Shrek 1, 2 and 3 is the best stereo conversion that’s been done to date in the industry. It will be up to the consumers to decide how the Shrek trilogy we converted holds up to Shrek 4 which was produced from “native” assets. Wherever possible, DreamWorks provided CG assets which we incorporated into our proprietary conversion process. While not quite the same as an original or “native” CG render, all the image information is available when and if we have access to CG assets. However, not all of the assets were available on these films, but since this was animation, it was a rather straightforward process for our artists to reconstruct certain background elements that might be exposed in stereo.

Which might make for a better conversion but it's not the same as rendering out an entire scene in 3D. Obviously the results speak for themselves as people have complained about the original movies looking more like cutouts than something that was rendered natively.