List of Native 3D BDs

[Dumbhuman]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

The title is "List of Native 3d BD's." It's quite specific. That was his intent and people are bagging him making this list? This is a great resource for some. I would like to know what is filmed in 3D and what is conversion as I don't support conversions. I see it as a money grab. If the studio cared about the technology, they would of filmed it in 3D.

As a resource this list still has plenty of errors and omissions.

For example: Iron Man 3 was converted. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is roughly half native stereoscopic footage (which is WAY more than Immortals, which is almost entirely converted and poorly at that). The Lion King and Beauty & The Beast, though animated, were both converted using the same techniques that are used for live action conversions (also poorly in my opinion).

It's harder to mess up native stereo than it is a conversion, but it's perfectly possible to deliver bad 3D in that format. For example, see The Amazing Spider-Man. The only bits that are even somewhat worth the ticket price of 3D were largely CGI which would've been handled just as well if not better by any of the leading conversion studios.

For every Hugo, you have a Dolphin Tale. For every Jurassic Park, you have an Episode I. The production method doesn't guarantee quality or a lack thereof.

Here's a fun game. Can HD Goofnut or others who claim they will only watch native stereo pick out the 30 converted shots in Avatar?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

As a resource this list still has plenty of errors and omissions.

For example: Iron Man 3 was converted. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is roughly half native stereoscopic footage (which is WAY more than Immortals, which is almost entirely converted and poorly at that). The Lion King and Beauty & The Beast, though animated, were both converted using the same techniques that are used for live action conversions (also poorly in my opinion).

It's harder to mess up native stereo than it is a conversion, but it's perfectly possible to deliver bad 3D in that format. For example, see The Amazing Spider-Man. The only bits that are even somewhat worth the ticket price of 3D were largely CGI which would've been handled just as well if not better by any of the leading conversion studios.

For every Hugo, you have a Dolphin Tale. For every Jurassic Park, you have an Episode I. The production method doesn't guarantee quality or a lack thereof.

Here's a fun game. Can HD Goofnut or others who claim they will only watch native stereo pick out the 30 converted shots in Avatar?

Thanks for the updates. BTW I disagree with you 100%. I have stated my case in this thread more than once so feel free to go back and read it.

[postulio]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

As a resource this list still has plenty of errors and omissions.

For example: Iron Man 3 was converted. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is roughly half native stereoscopic footage (which is WAY more than Immortals, which is almost entirely converted and poorly at that). The Lion King and Beauty & The Beast, though animated, were both converted using the same techniques that are used for live action conversions (also poorly in my opinion).

It's harder to mess up native stereo than it is a conversion, but it's perfectly possible to deliver bad 3D in that format. For example, see The Amazing Spider-Man. The only bits that are even somewhat worth the ticket price of 3D were largely CGI which would've been handled just as well if not better by any of the leading conversion studios.

For every Hugo, you have a Dolphin Tale. For every Jurassic Park, you have an Episode I. The production method doesn't guarantee quality or a lack thereof.

Here's a fun game. Can HD Goofnut or others who claim they will only watch native stereo pick out the 30 converted shots in Avatar?

Thank you, you are absolutely right.

The future of 3D is not completely-filmed-with-a-3D-camera, the future of 3D lies in camera and conversion used as necessary with all films being hybrids of both. Sometimes conversion is better because it lets the director tweak the effect, and other times you want an actual 3D camera to more accurately portray fast movement and definition of minor details (like a slow motion jogger).

I think filming in purely 3D is falsely idolized as superior to due misinformation. Almost all filmed in 3D films have some conversion in them. The fact that there are bad conversions doesnt help things. We should not be demonizing conversion, we should be demonizing a visually poorly crafted film, regardless of tech used.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

If certain folks don't like the list then they can refrain from reading and/or contributing to it.

Think it's close to a full moon tonight/tomorrow?

Have to say that of all the threads in the 3D Blu-ray Movies section I think this one is the most periodically enlivening; lighting the fires for debate!

The OP has proven he is proficient in following consistent designated standards with his clarifications given as the thread progresses and so far, it has been what is actively adhered to regarding movies that "qualify" for "Native 3D" as specifically listed.

The professionalism garnered for the taunting received is also greatly admired.

My appreciation for the convictions-of-passion for the "Native" perspective is understandably supportive, initially driven from the "Money grabbing" studios taking advantage of a 3D-window-trend opportunity, by filling "native" voids with extremely poor conversions. Now IMO, we are starting to experience some great conversions rivaling native 3D.

For those of you who feel only for native at this point in time, please bite the bullet and experience "Jurassic Park 3D". Come back here and let the rest of us know if your perspective has changed.

Thanks in advance,

Paul

[postulio]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Think it's close to a full moon tonight/tomorrow?

Have to say that of all the threads in the 3D Blu-ray Movies section I think this one is the most periodically enlivening; lighting the fires for debate!

The OP has proven he is proficient in following consistent designated standards with his clarifications given as the thread progresses and so far, it has been what is actively adhered to regarding movies that "qualify" for "Native 3D" as specifically listed.

The professionalism garnered for the taunting received is also greatly admired.

My appreciation for the convictions-of-passion for the "Native" perspective is understandably supportive, initially driven from the "Money grabbing" studios taking advantage of a 3D-window-trend opportunity, by filling "native" voids with extremely poor conversions. Now IMO, we are starting to experience some great conversions rivaling native 3D.

For those of you who feel only for native at this point in time, please bite the bullet and experience "Jurassic Park 3D". Come back here and let the rest of us know if your perspective has changed.

Thanks in advance,

Paul

Yeah pretty much +1 to everything you said.

I am greatly looking forward to watching Jurassic Park 3D. waiting on price to drop to ~15 or so for me to take the plunge. I heard great things, and after watching my Titanic 3D BD I am a believer in expertly done 3D conversions of older films that *deserve* it.

Anyone remember the 3D Jurassic Park ride at Universal Studios? or was it 6-Flags? I remember it was *awesome*. Ditto for the Terminator 2 ride and Back to the Future I think it was....

OK when are they gonna make rumbling/twisting home theater chairs. Screw 4K, that is the logical next step!

[koover]

Originally Posted by postulio

I'm glad the list exists if it is used simply for conversation/reference. It is a disservice when people like you, and the OP, come around saying (or at the very least, insinuating) that 3D conversions are somehow inferior to natively filmed 3D movies (whatever that even means, since about half of these are hybrids of both). That perception is not only blatantly wrong as there are conversions which are superior to native 3D (hence why OP does not argue it), but it steers people new to 3D in the wrong direction without giving them the opportunity to judge for themselves which they like best, or if there is even a difference, and if so, is it even relevant?

I am always up for objective, unbiased discussion, and if the OP made it clear that that is what this thread is about, I dont think anyone would have any problems with it. However, there seems to be a lot of people getting on their soap box here claiming these movies are somehow superior to other 3D movies, which, they are not.

3D releases of old movies like Titanic and new movies where 3D was applied in post production, like Avengers are every bit as jaw dropping, if not more so, than native 3D movies like Avatar and TinTin. In fact in the case of Dredd and Prometheus, they are even superior.

So for the benefit of everyone, lets keep this thread about the list itself and about the technology behind it, and *not* insinuate or flat out state that these movies are superior. Encourage fans to check out all 3D movies so that we can give studios more reasons to invest in the technology for the benefit of us all.

+ 1 million

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by postulio

OK when are they gonna make rumbling/twisting home theater chairs. Screw 4K, that is the logical next step!

Interesting that you brought "rumbling/twisting home theater chairs" up. Jurassic Park Blu-ray 3D has "D-Box" as a feature for those who have the equipment.

The signal is then sent to our actuators that act like little robots under your seat. Unlike theme park rides, D-BOX is smooth and blends perfectly with the sound and image to make your cinematic experience complete. Its motion is multilevel; it can whisk you as if you were speeding in a car chase or wipe you off gently as if you were by the ocean side.

Paul

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

As a resource this list still has plenty of errors and omissions.

For example: Iron Man 3 was converted. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is roughly half native stereoscopic footage (which is WAY more than Immortals, which is almost entirely converted and poorly at that). The Lion King and Beauty & The Beast, though animated, were both converted using the same techniques that are used for live action conversions (also poorly in my opinion).

It's harder to mess up native stereo than it is a conversion, but it's perfectly possible to deliver bad 3D in that format. For example, see The Amazing Spider-Man. The only bits that are even somewhat worth the ticket price of 3D were largely CGI which would've been handled just as well if not better by any of the leading conversion studios.

For every Hugo, you have a Dolphin Tale. For every Jurassic Park, you have an Episode I. The production method doesn't guarantee quality or a lack thereof.

Here's a fun game. Can HD Goofnut or others who claim they will only watch native stereo pick out the 30 converted shots in Avatar?

My dislike of conversions has nothing to do with the quality. I feel in most cases it's a money grab by the studio, good or bad job done.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

My dislike of conversions has nothing to do with the quality. I feel in most cases it's a money grab by the studio, good or bad job done.

Bingo.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

I feel in most cases it's a money grab by the studio, good or bad job done.

Hopefully "most" will be the bygone memories of bad-jobs, and even the good-jobs were not that good in the sense that conversions were the result of beginning experimentation under development.
The poisonous blight for enthusiasts is that consumer 3D conversions as well as native 3D, receive spasmodic reviews, opinions from experiences of garbage to perfection from the exact same encode. This is unfortunate, and apparently totally dependent on the equipment rendering the 3D.

Being one of the fortunate people that have seen JP3D Blu-ray as a quality experience, all I can tell others is that the encode is a significant advancement for conversions and that IMO, the quality now rivals native 3D experiences. When all displays will be able to render the quality, the artists accomplishments will be duly appreciated.

post #498 (Jurassic Park 3D - 4/23/2013 Review)

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

My dislike of conversions has nothing to do with the quality. I feel in most cases it's a money grab by the studio, good or bad job done.

You could certainly make that argument for many movies. Maybe even Man of Steel as an example of an upcoming film.

http://collider.com/justice-league-z...-man-of-steel/

This isn't always the case though, and that attitude is more of an overgeneralization. Lot's of filmmakers do tests with 3D cameras and end up choosing conversion for their 3D project because it's easier for them to work with. These are movies designed to be seen in 3D, and if you watch them in 2D, you are missing out on intended artistic effects. I'll use Alfonso Cuaron and Gravity as another upcoming example:

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/0...on-in-may.html

Now, I'm a huge fan of native 3D for quality reasons. It just looks better to me--smoother, cleaner, and better shaping when proper interaxials are used, even compared to Titanic, Avengers, Top Gun, and the trailers for more recent films. However, the idea that 3D conversions are just studio money grabs and not intended to be seen in 3D by the director is not always true. It's not a black or white issue. It's more of a case-by-case basis.

With something like Man of Steel or World War Z that isn't necessarily created for 3D story-telling, my opinion is that people should just go see the version that they find the most visually appealing and not worry about who intended what or what is "cinema-ethically" correct.

[makinbiscuits]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

My dislike of conversions has nothing to do with the quality. I feel in most cases it's a money grab by the studio, good or bad job done.

couldn't that be said about all movies though?

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Originally Posted by makinbiscuits

couldn't that be said about all movies though?

Movies have to make money, that's for sure. There is the cash in sequel etc, no doubt.

3D is the current trend, and tickets for it are a premium over standard tickets, it's a big profit enhancer for movies to be released in 3D. Especially when conversion is not that expensive compared to the budget of most big releases.

I will be seeing Man of Steel, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Iron Man in 2D. I just don't support studios that do this.

Regardless of this side discussion, the topic starter has every right to make a list of natively filmed 3D movies. Just as much as anyone else can start and maintain a list of converted films.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

Movies have to make money, that's for sure. There is the cash in sequel etc, no doubt.

3D is the current trend, and tickets for it are a premium over standard tickets, it's a big profit enhancer for movies to be released in 3D. Especially when conversion is not that expensive compared to the budget of most big releases.

I will be seeing Man of Steel, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Iron Man in 2D. I just don't support studios that do this.

Regardless of this side discussion, the topic starter has every right to make a list of natively filmed 3D movies. Just as much as anyone else can start and maintain a list of converted films.

Well said sir.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by SixSpeedSamurai

Regardless of this side discussion, the topic starter has every right to make a list of natively filmed 3D movies. Just as much as anyone else can start and maintain a list of converted films.

Agreed! Native 3D filming has a pleasing infinite amount of 3D plane variation that reveals as much as binocular vision, compared to conversions with a finite number of planes, but hopefully were creatively chosen for aesthetic dimensionality with characteristic symmetry.

The biggest problem I have about the list is the grey matter. i.e. Are there any totally "native 3D" movies?

CGI can be considered totally "native 3D" when the algorithms encompass complete-infinite Z-axis dimensionality for placement purposes, but where does one draw the line for live-action native 3D films?
Are there any "Native 3D" films without scenes that are converted and how many converted scenes must there be to cross the "Native" line to be called converted?

Paul

[HD Goofnut]

Several titles added including Spiders, The Croods, Epic, Escape from Planet Earth, and Amazing Ocean 3D.