Complete List of Full HD 3D Blu-ray Titles

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I keep a list of 3D BDs that have been released anywhere in the world that were natively filmed in 3D. The link is in my signature.

Wow. I never noticed your signature before.

You do great work! Keep it up!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Devion27

is there a list of all the 3D movies that have been released in the USA, sorry if this has been posted i just want a complete up to date list instead of clicking 3D Movies tab and searching.

thanks

Is it Real 3D or fake 3D? is a good place to search for U.S. theatrical titles that have been released to theaters, categorized by the year they were produced. Many are now released in Blu-ray 3D. Wishing they all eventually will have a BD 3D release.

Notice that before 2006 all films were native-3D but IMO, conversions should not be ignored as contemporary technology has allowed artistic creativity to blossom, manipulating even the best "native" 3D epics like Avatar into hybrid masterpieces.

Paul

[explorer6]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Is it Real 3D or fake 3D? is a good place to search for U.S. theatrical titles that have been released to theaters, categorized by the year they were produced. Many are now released in Blu-ray 3D. Wishing they all eventually will have a BD 3D release.

Notice that before 2006 all films were native-3D but IMO, conversions should not be ignored as contemporary technology has allowed artistic creativity to blossom, manipulating even the best "native" 3D epics like Avatar into hybrid masterpieces.

Paul

the amazing spider-man was real and avengers fake? thought they were about equal when i watched

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by explorer6

the amazing spider-man was real and avengers fake? thought they were about equal when i watched

I hate the term "fake",as they are both illusions really.

Also the work and detail in many conversions should not be underestimated. Check out Titanic for a really good example of how great "fake" can look.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

I hate the term "fake",as they are both illusions really.

Also the work and detail in many conversions should not be underestimated. Check out Titanic for a really good example of how great "fake" can look.

It's funny how prior to the release of this, James Cameron said it wouldn't be like Avatar, and described it as "2.5D" or "2 1/2D" or something (no link, sorry). After I read this, I was expecting Clash of the Titanic, but then I saw a trailer, and wow!

I don't like conversions. I don't see the fuss about Avengers (besides being a really fun movie, I can't see the 3D). But I can't deny that trailer was amazing, and I can remember ever reading from someone who's watched it all, that it wasn't good.

Was it more expensive than the average conversion? Or just done with more time, care and technical know-how?

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by explorer6

the amazing spider-man was real and avengers fake? thought they were about equal when i watched

I hate the term "fake",as they are both illusions really.

Also the work and detail in many conversions should not be underestimated. Check out Titanic for a really good example of how great "fake" can look.

[AmrlKJaneway]

How did a double post happen, almost five hours apart from one another? I've never seen this in all my years of internetting!

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

How did a double post happen, almost five hours apart from one another? I've never seen this in all my years of internetting!

I have no idea! I swear it wasnt me...

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Clash of the Titanic

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

I have no idea! I swear it wasnt me...

I can see that, from the perfection of the duplicate. It's just one of those internet phenomenon's.

"Science will come up with some reason to put in the books, but in the end it'll be just a theory. I mean, we will fail to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding." Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), The Happening.

[EvilE981]

I have a question, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
My tv converts 2D to 3D, and it sounds like a lot of these movies are 2D-3D converts...
Sooo, what's the difference buying a studio 2D/3D movie and watching the 2D BD in the 2D/3D option on my tv?

Is it worth rebuyin each title or does my tv pretty much do the same thing?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by EvilE981

I have a question, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
My tv converts 2D to 3D, and it sounds like a lot of these movies are 2D-3D converts...
Sooo, what's the difference buying a studio 2D/3D movie and watching the 2D BD in the 2D/3D option on my tv?

Is it worth rebuyin each title or does my tv pretty much do the same thing?

The studios spend $$$ and have a live person making adustments to get the synthesized 3D effect to look the best it can. For instance, the 3D Top Gun blu-ray is *almost* as impressive as native 3D in some scenes.

No off-the-shelf chip/algorithm running in real-time can come close.

For movies converted to 3D with care (Top Gun, Titanic) yes, you'll see a significant improvement buying the blu-ray versus your TV's build-in conversion.

Of course, native 3D video will always look best.

[datlocolatino]

I keep seeing people say native 3D is best, but Pacific Rim is post conversion and it may be the best 3D ive ever seen. A lot of Gravity is as well. As I once read in a review, "post-conversion isnt the dirty word it once was."

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by datlocolatino

I keep seeing people say native 3D is best, but Pacific Rim is post conversion and it may be the best 3D ive ever seen. A lot of Gravity is as well. As I once read in a review, "post-conversion isnt the dirty word it once was."

I agree. Titanic, Wizard Of Oz, and Jurassic Park are great conversions as well.

[wvl]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

I agree. Titanic, Wizard Of Oz, and Jurassic Park are great conversions as well.

I agree, they were great on conversion. I also liked Predator. From what I can tell, they did an great 3D conversion. Would it not be cool if they converted a lot of other great movies in 3D? I know its a lot of hard work, but what the heck... we deserve being spoiled once in a while.

[wvl]

Originally Posted by EvilE981

I have a question, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.
My tv converts 2D to 3D, and it sounds like a lot of these movies are 2D-3D converts...
Sooo, what's the difference buying a studio 2D/3D movie and watching the 2D BD in the 2D/3D option on my tv?

Is it worth rebuyin each title or does my tv pretty much do the same thing?

Probably nothing. I've got a TV that will convert 2D to 3D and it has the ability to adjust the 3D settings and when tweaking the 3D settings, it is very hard to tell the difference between the TV doing the conversion and the movie that was converted from 2D to 3D. But the downside is that when you watch all that 3D, you get 3D-idish. So the popouts begin to blur leaving you with a less than impressionable experience while tuning in on 3D.

[wvl]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I just wanted to remind everyone that my list contains all 3D BDs that were natively shot in 3D. I personally feel that 2D to 3D conversions are pointless anyway.

I would like to agree with you, but I can't. I have seen some very good 2D conversions lately. It seems that technology could be catching up with the times. Maybe there is some truth behind what others are saying about 2D conversions. I've watched a few 2D conversions and were impressed. However, I do agree with you regarding native 3D. Can't beat it. It is like seeing an oak tree for real while others are seeing a douglas fir and thinking it is an oak. Anyway, I am glad the 2Ds are being converted. It gives plenty of opportunity to get the technology right when doing conversions for 2D to 3D.


BTW, it is just one more leading step to holograms. Someday, we will be there as viewers getting straight off the net and onto our big screen TVs or Walls, whatever you may have.

[Richard--W]

The originating post, with its list, needs to be updated. For example, Dial M For Murder and House of Wax were released on 3-D blu-ray over a year ago.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by wvl

Probably nothing. I've got a TV that will convert 2D to 3D and it has the ability to adjust the 3D settings and when tweaking the 3D settings, it is very hard to tell the difference between the TV doing the conversion and the movie that was converted from 2D to 3D. But the downside is that when you watch all that 3D, you get 3D-idish. So the popouts begin to blur leaving you with a less than impressionable experience while tuning in on 3D.

No, just no. No auto converter looks as good as even Clash of the Titans, let alone something like Titanic or Pacific Rim, Avengers, Edge of Tomorrow or even Godzilla, Man of Steel etc. It isn't even close. One looks terrible, one can look almost as good as native (just with less layering).

Originally Posted by datlocolatino

I keep seeing people say native 3D is best, but Pacific Rim is post conversion and it may be the best 3D ive ever seen. A lot of Gravity is as well. As I once read in a review, "post-conversion isnt the dirty word it once was."

All the cgi in both films was rendered in native 3d. In the case of Gravity that means the overwhelming majority of the film was native. Conversions can be fine, the problem is when they are added after the fact with no interest from the film makers.

[CinemaDude]

Originally Posted by wvl

Probably nothing. I've got a TV that will convert 2D to 3D and it has the ability to adjust the 3D settings and when tweaking the 3D settings, it is very hard to tell the difference between the TV doing the conversion and the movie that was converted from 2D to 3D. But the downside is that when you watch all that 3D, you get 3D-idish. So the popouts begin to blur leaving you with a less than impressionable experience while tuning in on 3D.

There is absolutely NO comparison between a commercial converted film to 3D and what your 3DTV does when you push the 3D button while watching normal 2D content. The TV "conversion" is a gimmic and a joke.

It takes months, sometimes even a year to convert a film to 3D using very sophistocated conversion software and dozens of artists all working frame by frame to create the separations required to recompose and reposition all the elements in a shot. Your TV can't possibly do that. The TV just uses logorthims that rely on brightness and colors variation and contrast between lines to shift elements of the image. The end result is a tossup if random depth within the image totally unrelated to where things actually should be in the scene. For anyone who really loves 3D, it is useless.

Thing about "converted" 3D is, given that in almost of the big action pictures, a huge portion if not all of the image exept maybe for the actors is CG anyway so that can be rendered in 3D just as easily as it can be rendered in 2D, and so when it is created in 3D it's as perfect as the artist can make it. So when people say original 3D capture is better than converted 3D and they automatically poo-poo any film that is converted 3D, they simply don't know what they are talking about because there really isn't very much difference given how films are made, especially films that are mostly CG generated anyway. They don't understand the ability of the artists to render 3D just as accurately as two camera original 3D, possibly even more accurately given the totally control available.

With today's uber-sophistocated 3D conversion software (key word - today - not the Model T stuff they were using to render CLASH OF THE TITANS -- the film everyone uses to bash converted 3D -- get over it...it was years ago), converted 3D can and does look every bit as good as native 3D. In fact, the 3D artists have much more control of the 3D composition making sure the convergence is exactly as it should be, something that can't always be acheived shooting with a dual camera rig. Shooting in 3D is much more difficult to control things like convergence; decisions made on location can make editing shots from different takes imperfect in dept matching. In converted 3D, that doesn't happen; the dept of each element is perfectly controlled.