AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Movie was overall good the 3d just wasn't there. I've never been so unimpressed with 3d in the theater, or at home for that matter. Anyone else see it, maybe I was in a bad theater. No depth, no pop out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
is your glasses were on?


I am joking.

According to this website, 3D depth is 5/5

But at the same time it's a post conversion. What else you can expect?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
Bad projection, or you ended up in a 2D showing. Plenty of depth, very little pop-out except where you would expect.


Conversion has no impact on depth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Movie was decent, too many "oh man why did they include that" moments though at times.


3D depth was great, near 0 popout as mentioned. We saw in IMAX 3D and man was the sound good. Can't wait to own this one at home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
I think the 3D effect isn't as noticeable to me anymore...maybe my eyes are going bad or my brain is no longer impressed. After a few minutes of watching 3D, it's like it's no longer obvious to me that I'm watching 3D. So honestly I can't remember a single 3D effect in the movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
IMO, that's when 3D is at its best, when it's not pulling you out of the movie with "ooh, 3D effect!!".. 3D is all about immersion.. anything that reminds you you're watching a 3D movie is effectively pulling you out of the film and placing emphasis solely on the presentation, which is the exact opposite of immersion.


The most obvious ones I remember were where you were seeing IM or WM flying around, with a backdrop some distance away. So it actually looked like you were a few thousand feet up and a few miles away from whatever it was they were headed toward. And:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) When Stark's house was falling into the water, there was one POV shot in particular of the ocean rushing up to meet Stark as he fell, that shot was pretty damned cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,642 Posts
I saw IM3 in 3D today; while watching the closing credits I noticed that the post-conversion was supervised by Stereo-D, which did the excellent Jurassic Park conversion. As far as IM3's 3D goes, there was a decent sense of depth most of the time but the film was clearly not shot with 3D in mind - no real consideration of placement of objects and lots of quick cuts during the action - so it almost never really enhanced the visuals for me. Also, much of the film takes place at night or in dark areas, further flattening the image.


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


...so overall it was easily the weakest of the three Iron Man films for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23278914


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


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


I didn't take this movie too seriously, and so I found it to be a fun ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Finally saw it last night and thought the conversion was excellent. As stated before, It seems this picture wasn't really designed as a 3D experience, however I felt Stereo-D came through with an engaging conversion that matched a natively shot film pretty well. Just as good or better than most of Spiderman.


I really think the conversions have improved so much that they stand on their own against nativley shot pictures with poor 3D design. Unlike others I felt the added depth made Ironman Three more engaging. Can't wait to add this one to my bluray 3D collection.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
I saw the movie in a DLP theater using my own Oakley 3D glasses.


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


I did pick up on some ghosting but I believe it was always objects in the background.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23317761


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


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

I did pick up on some ghosting but I believe it was always objects in the background.
That's what causes ghosting- high contrast objects deep inside or far in front of the screen. The closer to the screen something is, the closer together its two projected images will be, so close together that it's difficult to notice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,914 Posts
I saw it on Imax 3D and was disappointed in both the movie and the 3D. Its not the fault of the Stereo-D. When a film is shot without any interest on the 3D it isn't going to be immersive or have any pop. And so it was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23320174


When a film is shot without any interest on the 3D it isn't going to be immersive or have any pop.
Agreed. While a lot of director's these days may know ahead of time that the film will be converted, they rarely take it into account and change the way they shoot it. When properly set up for 3D starting with pre-production, through cinematography and shooting, even a converted film can be a beauty to watch.
 

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23688939


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

Out of curiosity, what model 3DTV do you have? I have an early generation Sony 3DTV and it is pretty bad for ghosting, but I thought newer 3DTVs didn't suffer from ghosting as much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
I love how people still think that ghosting is caused by the source. Adorable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,989 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsv272  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23688939


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


Ghosting is a display issue. I have a JVC RS45 Lcos projector (and had an RS40 before it) and a single chip DLP BenQ W7000. It is always amazing to me that the scenes that ghosted like hell on my 45 have ZERO ghosting on the DLP, but single chip DLP is the only tech right now capable of a TRULY ghost and flicker free presentation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
Passive actually does a pretty good job at reducing ghosting, because it's not having to switch states between frames like an active LCD. It's not 100%, though, I still get it now and again. There's a *teeny* bit of bleedover between fields, but it only shows up under extreme circumstances. Unavoidable, really, but that's the way the technology works.


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

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016  /t/1471197/ironman-3-3d#post_23690733


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

Passive displays are terrible with ghosting unless you sit with the screen precisely at eye level. If your head is even a smidge too high or too low, the ghosting is atrocious.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top