[wxchaser]

I've had this since July - along with two other IMAX Enhanced disks. It definitely is above par for PQ & DTS-X.

Waiting for major studio releases in this format but seems slow to occur.

 

[p5browne]

Was 2002 used for security purposes? (17 years ago ! )
Digital 4K Cameras have much improved since then ! Lighter, faster and more accurate.

 

[imagic]

Was 2002 used for security purposes? (17 years ago ! )
Digital 4K Cameras have much improved since then ! Lighter, faster and more accurate.

This was shot on IMAX film, giving it the effective resolution and dynamic range of modern digital. This could not have been shot digitally at that time.

The film documents aspects of the construction of the ISS, which of course happened back then, there's less "action" up there today with no space shuttle and no construction going on.

 

[Rieper]

My mini review for comparison (and shameless thread plug ):
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3087180-owner-s-thread-2019-pioneer-vsx-lx504-imax-enhanced-receiver-thread.html

My System:
Front speakers: PSB Imagine X2T (review: CNET review)
Center speaker: PSB Imagine XC
Surrounds: PSB Imagine XB
Atmos Add-ons: PSB XA (4 total)
Sub: JL Audio Fathom f113 v2
4K UHD Player: Panasonic DP-UB9000
SACD/CD player: Sony UBP-X1100ES

So right off the bat, I'm noticing a pronounced bass in all speakers compared to the Pio LX503. Punchy and a lot deeper. This bass was even more pronounced after adding a pair PSB X2T floor standers, which are already bass heavy to begin with. Not sure I like it, but we'll see if I get use to it as time passes. After installing the newest August 1st firmware for the LX504 (which officially adds support for IMAX Enhanced movies), I grabbed my copy of 4K IMAX Space Station Blu-ray disc and placed it into the Panny UB9000 tray. I wanted to hear for myself if IMAX Enhanced was just marketing shtick or an actual benefit to home theater users. I went in feeling skeptical, but after the first few minutes I could actually feel myself being inside a large movie theater. Every sound, from the narrator's voice (Tom Cruise) reverberating to the actual content I was seeing onscreen just sounded bigger than my actual living room. I FELT like I was inside an actual large movie theater. Not so much the loudness of it all (when the shuttle's thrusters blasted off I thought I would go deaf, had to lower the volume immediately!!) but just the larger spacing I felt. I live in the city, and my apartment living room dimensions are rather quaint (13'x11'x9' ceiling). But listening to the IMAX Enhanced track just opened up the soundstage. I know that's usually a term audiophiles use when describing speakers/amplifiers, but I feel it applies to this scenario. Everything just "opened up" in my small apartment living room and made everything feel spacious. I'm convinced the IMAX Enhanced track made a big difference in my viewing/listening experience. The only drawback I see going forward, is the lack of IMAX titles available. Unless some miracle happens between Disney/IMAX/anyone else, and we start getting IMAX 4K Blu-rays like Avenger's End Game or other IMAX titles, I don't see how else to take advantage of this new codec. There's only so many IMAX documentaries you can watch before you want actual movies to show off your new IMAX Enhanced receiver...

 

[tomtastic]

Every time I switched back to the 1080p HD Blu-ray version of the movie, I was shocked at how flat it looked in comparison.

I take it you viewed the 2D version for comparison. The 3D version is how this feature should be viewed as it was intentionally shot and conceived and I can assure you it is not flat. As far as resolution increasing depth, that doesn't work, still a flat image. Unless they release a 4K 3D version I don't see much reason to pick it up again.

 

[tobytune]

I take it you viewed the 2D version for comparison. The 3D version is how this feature should be viewed as it was intentionally shot and conceived and I can assure you it is not flat. As far as resolution increasing depth, that doesn't work, still a flat image. Unless they release a 4K 3D version I don't see much reason to pick it up again.

I absolutely agree! Why they left out 3D in the 4K specs is beyond me.

 

[SFMike]

This is a joke. This film was conceived to be viewed in 3D and 4K or 8K or whatever, is not going to give you the 3D experience that manufacturers have decided to try and erase from the home AV market. No 3D....No Sale.

 

[imagic]

Sure, it's unfortunate that 3D did not survive the transition to 4K. Of course the only people to blame are consumers that refused to adopt glasses-wearing.

But... human vision is only stereoscopic for a limited distance. It is in fact texture and detail and movement that also give depth cues that make something look 3D, so it is possible for something to look "more 3D" in a 2D movie as a result of playback fidelity. Stereoscopic 3D is only one part of the equation.

The movie looks great in 4K HDR and the way it was filmed works just fine in 2D. It's absurd to suggest that the way it was filmed only works for 3D presentations.

 

[PrimeTime]

I would submit that there is more customer interest in 3D than the 8K displays now available.

 

[fookoo_2010]

The 3D version is going for $46.50 on Amazon. Without spending that, one can use a compatible Blu-ray player and use its 3D option to see what it looks like. I don't think it is worth $46.50.

 

[imagic]

I would submit that there is more customer interest in 3D than the 8K displays now available.

I can tell you that I have personally stated to each major TV manufacturer that there's a pent-up demand for a 3D-capable TV, that projectors still support it and the discs are still sold and that people have collections, and that if there was one good 3D TV they could buy that model would have a (admittedly niche) but pretty much guaranteed sales prospect. Just one 75" model... I don't think anyone is biting.

 

[p5browne]

I can tell you that I have personally stated to each major TV manufacturer that there's a pent-up demand for a 3D-capable TV, that projectors still support it and the discs are still sold and that people have collections, and that if there was one good 3D TV they could buy that model would have a (admittedly niche) but pretty much guaranteed sales prospect. Just one 75" model... I don't think anyone is biting.

Why my wife refuses to update the 75" JU7100 - no 3D, no sale.
Keep trying to tell her the 65" HU9000 + SEK-3500U in her loft also does 3D, but apparently, basement only for her 3D viewing. Keep glasses charged up and a stock of batteries in my workshop for the Samsung glasses.

To bad many of today's movies, only have the 3D Version available overseas.

 

[sddp]

To bad many of today's movies, only have the 3D Version available overseas.

You have no idea how frustrating this is. Constantly having to scoure the entire planet and order from another continent, pay international fees and wait months😡

Back in the day I’d drive 8 min to Best Buy and pick up the 3D version on release date.

 

[thrang]

Until, if ever, there is a glasses-free 3D format, it is dead.


At least until Avatar 2...

 

[tomtastic]

But... human vision is only stereoscopic for a limited distance. It is in fact texture and detail and movement that also give depth cues that make something look 3D, so it is possible for something to look "more 3D" in a 2D movie as a result of playback fidelity. Stereoscopic 3D is only one part of the equation.

The movie looks great in 4K HDR and the way it was filmed works just fine in 2D. It's absurd to suggest that the way it was filmed only works for 3D presentations.

More detail and resolution can improve the perceived depth of the 2D image as a 3D image. But what is advantageous with stereo 3D is no longer perceived from 2D but interpreted as real 3D in your mind (although still considered an illusion since there are various limits yet with stereoscopic recording). A major advantage over resolution and detail alone, stereo 3D will allow more illusion of depth in comparison. That is assuming we're comparing HD to UHD. I've never seen anything in UHD which could compare with more depth than something in HD that is in stereo.

But yes, detail and resolution do help with any image what information we can perceive from that image. If we're directly comparing the 3D version on Blu ray to the new UHD version, I'm going to say the UHD version is more flat.

Generally, you could watch anything that was shot in stereo in 2D from just one of the camera views. But no it's not absurd to say it will only work in 3D. Many scenes are set up to be shown in 3D, especially scenes with negative parallax and I would also say the effect of "being there" is lost in 2D. You will NOT get the intended effect when viewing in 2D no matter the resolution and I will even suggest that some of those scenes will be very odd if not distracting in 2D.

As example, I had never scene Jaws 3 (A.K.A. Jaws 3D) in 3D before, only in 2D. The underwater scene where Jaws is coming out of the screen and maybe a leg or something, it's been awhile since I've seen it. Every time that scene comes up it seemed so damn odd in 2D. I even shook my head and wondered what was that all about? Very odd scene in 2D, just a close up of a leg or arm and dramatic music, did I miss something? Then I finally saw it in 3D, OK, OK, I get it, there's more here, it's a gotcha gimmick. Comin' at ya! And it makes sense in 3D, it's right in your face and you can almost feel it.

Now directly with Space Station, there are a few scenes where they throw objects at the cameras on the space station so you don't get the full effect. That cramped sense of being there with just a few millimeters of hull and outside space? In 2D, it gets you there, in 3D: you ARE there.

Yes, you can view it, but is it being viewed as it was intended? Not really. What if you view a 2:35 movie in 4:3? I use this example all the time. Directors pushed for letterboxed releases of their movies for home theater and it finally happened because what was being shown at home wasn't how it was filmed and intended, parts of the frame were missing or they showed too much above or below that wasn't intended. 3D isn't any different. A lot of planning has to go into setting up shots for 3D. In many cases if they weren't shooting 3D, the scenes would likely look much different. And that goes for movies that are filmed in 2D and later converted. The scenes are pre-visualized for stereo.

 

[imagic]

More detail and resolution can improve the perceived depth of the 2D image as a 3D image. But what is advantageous with stereo 3D is no longer perceived from 2D but interpreted as real 3D in your mind (although still considered an illusion since there are various limits yet with stereoscopic recording). A major advantage over resolution and detail alone, stereo 3D will allow more illusion of depth in comparison. That is assuming we're comparing HD to UHD. I've never seen anything in UHD which could compare with more depth than something in HD that is in stereo.

But yes, detail and resolution do help with any image what information we can perceive from that image. If we're directly comparing the 3D version on Blu ray to the new UHD version, I'm going to say the UHD version is more flat.

Generally, you could watch anything that was shot in stereo in 2D from just one of the camera views. But no it's not absurd to say it will only work in 3D. Many scenes are set up to be shown in 3D, especially scenes with negative parallax and I would also say the effect of "being there" is lost in 2D. You will NOT get the intended effect when viewing in 2D no matter the resolution and I will even suggest that some of those scenes will be very odd if not distracting in 2D.

As example, I had never scene Jaws 3 (A.K.A. Jaws 3D) in 3D before, only in 2D. The underwater scene where Jaws is coming out of the screen and maybe a leg or something, it's been awhile since I've seen it. Every time that scene comes up it seemed so damn odd in 2D. I even shook my head and wondered what was that all about? Very odd scene in 2D, just a close up of a leg or arm and dramatic music, did I miss something? Then I finally saw it in 3D, OK, OK, I get it, there's more here, it's a gotcha gimmick. Comin' at ya! And it makes sense in 3D, it's right in your face and you can almost feel it.

Now directly with Space Station, there are a few scenes where they throw objects at the cameras on the space station so you don't get the full effect. That cramped sense of being there with just a few millimeters of hull and outside space? In 2D, it gets you there, in 3D: you ARE there.

Yes, you can view it, but is it being viewed as it was intended? Not really. What if you view a 2:35 movie in 4:3? I use this example all the time. Directors pushed for letterboxed releases of their movies for home theater and it finally happened because what was being shown at home wasn't how it was filmed and intended, parts of the frame were missing or they showed too much above or below that wasn't intended. 3D isn't any different. A lot of planning has to go into setting up shots for 3D. In many cases if they weren't shooting 3D, the scenes would likely look much different. And that goes for movies that are filmed in 2D and later converted. The scenes are pre-visualized for stereo.

In the case of this film it works in 3D and it works in 2D and because of 4K HDR and the detail captured by IMAX cameras translates well. There are different aspects to appreciate than in an HD 3D presentation. I'm sure you've been in forums long enough to know some people will prefer the 3D presentation and others will enjoy the 4K HDR presentation more. Except for the silly "toss stuff at camera" moments you mention, the cinematography in Space Station is not such that it depends on 3D to appreciate it, unlike your Jaws 3D example.

 

[tomtastic]

In the case of this film it works in 3D and it works in 2D and because of 4K HDR and the detail captured by IMAX cameras translates well. There are different aspects to appreciate than in an HD 3D presentation. I'm sure you've been in forums long enough to know some people will prefer the 3D presentation and others will enjoy the 4K HDR presentation more. Except for the silly "toss stuff at camera" moments you mention, the cinematography in Space Station is not such that it depends on 3D to appreciate it, unlike your Jaws 3D example.

I didn't mean to suggest that only pop out moments are lost on 2D viewing, certainly more is lost in Space Station 2D vs 3D. It's one aspect of 3D that is lost for sure. But yes, one can at least view the film and enjoy it in 2D and with detail, resolution, color advantage over the HD 3D presentation. The only way to truly see the film as intended would be to view in IMAX 3D which would preserve the detail and 3D. It's unfortunate we don't have both for home viewing in 3D. Perhaps 2020's will offer something.

 

[wookiegr]

Slightly off topic but what killed 3D for me was the unnatural letterboxing of 16x9 content. On my old screen, the black bars killed the effect on my 125" 16x9 projected image and I eventually gave up on it. Things like Avatar or anything that respected the full frame nature of the presentation like all IMAX material, my heart would race and leave me excited for more. Not to mention, who could possibly experience 3D on a 55" TV from the 10 foot away off to the side in a living room environment. That is really the litmus test of a formats success.