John Carter 3D Blu-ray Pre-order from Mars w/ $5 off coupon

[BleedOrange11]

I finally got to watch this tonight. The 3D and the movie were very similar to my theatrical experience.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=82

Shots were composed for 2D, and consequently, several scenes look very flat. These occur when the director just focuses on one object/person and blurs the background. Some scenes look great in 3D by accident, and others just flop. Despite the 2D focus, the CGI looks great in 3D, and the conversion teams did a great job. Humans don't have 100% accurate proportions like they would if shot with 3D cameras, but they're far more realistic-looking than some other conversions I've seen. Image separation is good when there are enough elements in the image to create decent 3D.

Overall, the 3D is nothing special. There are no Wow! moments, but depth looks good when the stereography allows it. Even if it's just an average presentation, 3D is definitely the best way to watch John Carter, one of my new favorite adventure stories. (If you liked the movie as much as I did, I highly recommend the books.)

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by donald.brown

I agree. Here's hoping that the video sells well enough to warrant a theatrical sequel. I loved the movie and blames its commercial failure on poor, indifferent marketing and promotion.

Don't forget the inflated budget.

We already have a direct-to-video adaptation of A Princess of Mars from Asylum. That didn't turn out too well. I want a proper Disney sequel. The Gods of Mars has some pretty amazing action sequences that would translate great to a Hollywood film.

[steelerik]

Ok so who reviewed the 3D blu on this site? They gave it 5 for 3D image but kinda said it underwhelmed ... i don't call that a 5 i am afraid. Same goes for the audio on Journey 2 ... i experience very little lfe unlike the reviewer. How opinions can differ!

[BleedOrange11]

Actually, Blu-ray.com gave John Carter a 3.5/5 for 3D and a 5/5 for video quality.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Personally I think that would be the death chamber for the franchise if it went DTV. I want it in theaters and being treated like it was an actual franchise darn it!

Originally Posted by donald.brown

I agree. Here's hoping that the video sells well enough to warrant a theatrical sequel. I loved the movie and blames its commercial failure on poor, indifferent marketing and promotion.

I agree, but this would have to sell really well on Blu Ray to warrant a theatrical risk after Disney was quick to suggest the film was a financial loss with their quarterly reports (before the film even had time to reach 250$ million world wide).

Yes to theatrical with the same two leads, Tars Tarkas (Dafoe) was great as well as many of the other characters, and filmed in 3D this time.

Originally Posted by Jude72

The Thark scenes were better than the human scenes.....but certainly nothing in the league of the depth of the Na'vi in Avatar. What's weird is that my husband was quite impressed with the 3D. We were wearing different glasses. He had the EW3D2MU on and I had my EW3D3MU on.

Thanks for the feedback. Those 3D crowd scenes looked great, I agree. I would say the 3D was actually a bit stronger or even at the very least with the converted Avengers 3D.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I finally got to watch this tonight. The 3D and the movie were very similar to my theatrical experience.

Despite the 2D focus, the CGI looks great in 3D, and the conversion teams did a great job. Humans don't have 100% accurate proportions like they would if shot with 3D cameras, but they're far more realistic-looking than some other conversions I've seen. Image separation is good when there are enough elements in the image to create decent 3D.

Overall, the 3D is nothing special. There are no Wow! moments, but depth looks good when the stereography allows it. Even if it's just an average presentation, 3D is definitely the best way to watch John Carter, one of my new favorite adventure stories. (If you liked the movie as much as I did, I highly recommend the books.)

BleedOrange,

Would you agree that the CGI was actually rendered for both eyes, and then composited in with the 2D live action humans/backgrounds? I can't explain it any other way considering how amazing those Thark crowd scenes pop in 3D for the ton of layers visible.

It would be foolish to have such an easily ready asset and not use it to improve the 3D. The CGI characters have great volume to them.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

BleedOrange,

Would you agree that the CGI was actually rendered for both eyes, and then composited in with the 2D live action humans/backgrounds?

Yes, except it's more like the 2D film was composited into the 3D CGI world. The whole movie is actually made of CGI objects rendered in 3D with virtual cameras.

The animation and green-screened backgrounds were created in 3D. The live-action was shot in 2D, rotoscoped, and then molded over CGI objects that were created and animated in 3D to match the filmed 2D objects' forms and motions. To get the second eye viewpoint for the live-action molds, they had to warp the images to a different position and then clean up the artifacts.

[mseeley]

Just finished watching the 3d version. Great 3d!

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Yes, except it's more like the 2D film was composited into the 3D CGI world. The whole movie is actually made of CGI objects rendered in 3D with virtual cameras.

The animation and green-screened backgrounds were created in 3D. The live-action was shot in 2D, rotoscoped, and then molded over CGI objects that were created and animated in 3D to match the filmed 2D objects' forms and motions. To get the second eye viewpoint for the live-action molds, they had to warp the images to a different position and then clean up the artifacts.

That sounds right. Thanks.

On that note, it's fair to say this movie, like Alice in Wonderland 3D, isn't a straight 2D to 3D conversion where all of the elements were originally 2D, but more like a Native 3D film with humans being 2D to 3D conversions. I wonder if there's a term for that process. "Mix 3D", "Filmed/post 3D", "50% Native 3D"? "Mostly filmed 3D".......

[BleedOrange11]

I've never seen an official term for that either. Maybe "Hybrid 3D" or "2D-3D/S3DR?"

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I've never seen an official term for that either. Maybe "Hybrid 3D" or "2D-3D/S3DR?"

Yes, Hybrid 3D sounds great. That was the word I was looking for. Thanks.

[lujan]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

...

Let us know what you thought.

I just saw John Carter 3D last night and here are my impressions:

1. The movie starts out with subtitles on and I was wondering why so I turned them off so I spent the first 1/2 hour not understanding what the aliens on Mars were saying? They should have done it like other movies with alien languages and just used the subtitles at that point and not have to use them for English as well.

2. The 3D was not very good in my opinion and maybe I'm spoiled because I want all 3D to be like "Avatar"?

3. The movie contained action all the way so it kept me interested through out the movie which I liked.

4. Like the other poster, I'm glad I only paid $15.00 for this blind buy and you will need to watch it more than once to know what's going on if you didn't read the book.

[Joos519]

I finally got to see the movie after having it sit on my table for a week. The 3d was really good, not spectacular, but good nevertheless. It had some good depth and some minor pop out moments. Color was crisp and the dark scenes were really nice.

I truly think that some people have a different experience with 3D due to the combination of their equipment and the position of their TVs. I own the Samsung LED UND557000 and a Sony BDV E580 Blu ray player. When I had my TV mounted over my fireplace (in my old house) the 3d was subpar, but when we moved and I placed the TV on my entertainment center, the 3d was enhanced tremendously, like night and day. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, it's a sci fi family movie, sort of had that Stargate feel to it. I've seen some crappy 3d movies and at least this is a Disney movie that I know my son will love to watch over and over.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by lujan

I just saw John Carter 3D last night and here are my impressions:

2. The 3D was not very good in my opinion and maybe I'm spoiled because I want all 3D to be like "Avatar"?

3. The movie contained action all the way so it kept me interested through out the movie which I liked.

As long as you have a 3D movie with strong 3D at home, like Journey 1 3D, Hugo 3D, Avatar 3D etc, I'll take "not very good" to mean it wasn't "Avatar great 3D" as you suggested. Glad you enjoyed the movie.

Originally Posted by Joos519

I finally got to see the movie after having it sit on my table for a week. The 3d was really good, not spectacular, but good nevertheless. It had some good depth and some minor pop out moments. Color was crisp and the dark scenes were really nice.

I truly think that some people have a different experience with 3D due to the combination of their equipment and the position of their TVs. I own the Samsung LED UND557000 and a Sony BDV E580 Blu ray player. When I had my TV mounted over my fireplace (in my old house) the 3d was subpar, but when we moved and I placed the TV on my entertainment center, the 3d was enhanced tremendously, like night and day. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, it's a sci fi family movie, sort of had that Stargate feel to it. I've seen some crappy 3d movies and at least this is a Disney movie that I know my son will love to watch over and over.

Great point. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yes, the position from which we view the 3DTV is important with current technology. If I lay flat on my back and the 3DTV is above my eye level, the 3D goes mostly flat. If I'm sitting at the same general eye level of the screen, the 3D looks great.

[lujan]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

As long as you have a 3D movie with strong 3D at home, like Journey 1 3D, Hugo 3D, Avatar 3D etc, I'll take "not very good" to mean it wasn't "Avatar great 3D" as you suggested. Glad you enjoyed the movie.

...

Yes, I have all 3 that you mentioned and maybe that's why I'm spoiled with 3D and expect them all to look like that?

[Hira23]

any coupons for 2012?

[Jude72]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Great point. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yes, the position from which we view the 3DTV is important with current technology. If I lay flat on my back and the 3DTV is above my eye level, the 3D goes mostly flat. If I'm sitting at the same general eye level of the screen, the 3D looks great.

Our TV is mounted on the wall, above eye level. I'll have to stand up to see what it's like at eye level....but having watched all of my 3D movies with the TV in the same position, I was still disappointed with the strength of 3D of John Carter as compared to most of my 3D collection. Avatar & Hugo, amongst some of my other stronger movies, all looked fantastic with the TV where it was. I can understand how viewing angle can make huge differences though.

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Just finished watching the 3d version. Great 3d!

I felt the opposite. For the first time ever I gave up trying to watch the 3d and switched to 2d about 1/3 of the way in.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Tns49

I felt the opposite. For the first time ever I gave up trying to watch the 3d and switched to 2d about 1/3 of the way in.

What's your 3D display setup?

Paul

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by Paul H

What's your 3D display setup?

Paul

Samsung 63" plasma with active 3d glasses.

I've watched lots of 3d on it, but as I said this is the first that didn't work for me at all. On the other hand I had watched Journey 2 just the day before, and that one came off great.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Tns49

Samsung 63" plasma with active 3d glasses.

I've watched lots of 3d on it, but as I said this is the first that didn't work for me at all. On the other hand I had watched Journey 2 just the day before, and that one came off great.

Sorry for not clarifying. Additionally What BD 3D player do you use?

The reason I'm asking is that my experience with John Carter 3D (at home) has been mixed. Different software has produced different results. Posted the following in the "John Carter 3D not playing" thread:

FYI: The John Carter 3D disc will not play on my laptop when I use the Cyberlink PowerDVD 12 software player. It plays fine with Corel WinDVD and ArcSoft Theater 5.

In addition, The John Carter 3D experience has been the best, so far, using only ArcSoft Theater 5; the 3D is much more impressive when Theater 5 software 3D depth control is set to 100% (default is 30%).

Paul