The Avengers AKA Avengers Assemble 3D Blu-ray (2012) [Region Free]

[kdoggg]

This is REGION FREE worldwide but please note that some editions of the film (e.g. in the UK) have one scene digitally censored. See here for details.



The Avengers 3D Blu-ray

The Avengers 3D Blu-ray Review



Avengers Assemble 3D Blu-ray (digitally censored edition)

Original post:
Early signs that the 3d won't be up to much

http://screenrant.com/avengers-movie...-sandy-164417/

[GC Riot]

Well, the trailer looked fantastic in 3D, so I'm still hoping for the best.

[imdb_acc]

It looks like those reviewers don't like 3D in general and probably don't even know what to look for when judging 3D. Captain America looked pretty great in 3D. Avengers should be much much better.

[UFAlien]

I've still yet to be able to see the trailer in 3D. Can't find it online anywhere and it's never played at my theatre in 3D.

[dirkblack]

Got my tickets booked for 3D, 2 weeks today. Can.Not.Wait.

I Never listen to critics and always go with my own preference.

Interestingly when I booked today, there was no 2d option to book at all.

[aaaa6344]

i saw the avengers 3d trailer with wrath of the titans in imax 3d, and i have to say that it's the best 3d conversion i've ever seen, and (at least the trailer) had twice the strength of depth of many "shot in 3d" films like resident evil afterlife, the hobbit (whose trailer played right after it), or amazing spider-man. its strength of depth was comparable to the titanic 3d conversion (from watching its trailer) but probably not as intricately done...so i'll stay optimistic for the time being.

[gamermwm]

Originally Posted by imdb_acc

It looks like those reviewers don't like 3D in general and probably don't even know what to look for when judging 3D. Captain America looked pretty great in 3D. Avengers should be much much better.

Yeah these are probably the same critics that said the 3D in Captain America "didn't add anything to the experience" when in reality it was great! They probably don't like 3D, or at least haven't seen enough to appreciate a good conversion when they see one

I'm going into this expecting the 3D to be on par with Captain America, and if I get that, I'll be happy enough. They may be right about it not being shot with 3D in mind, but I would still rather watch the movie in three dimensions with appreciable depth

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

Well, the trailer looked fantastic in 3D, so I'm still hoping for the best.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I've still yet to be able to see the trailer in 3D. Can't find it online anywhere and it's never played at my theatre in 3D.

Originally Posted by aaaa6344

i saw the avengers 3d trailer with wrath of the titans in imax 3d, and i have to say that it's the best 3d conversion i've ever seen, and (at least the trailer) had twice the strength of depth of many "shot in 3d" films like resident evil afterlife, the hobbit (whose trailer played right after it), or amazing spider-man. its strength of depth was comparable to the titanic 3d conversion (from watching its trailer) but probably not as intricately done...so i'll stay optimistic for the time being.

The first time I saw Avengers 3D before John Carter 3D, it looked good, but not mind blowing for 3D. The second time I saw it, sitting closer up for Wrath of the Titans 3D, I was floored. The Avengers 3D looked amazing in terms of the 3D layers. I also saw MIB 3D and Hobbit 3D, both of which looked great as well, the Hobbit 3D was filmed 3D, the other two post.

My only concern is, a studio can make the trailer separately from the movie, and also separately convert it from 2D to 3D, meaning the trailer could look incredible in 3D, and then then movie disappoint for 3D, but I won't know for sure till I see it.

Originally Posted by gamermwm

I'm going into this expecting the 3D to be on par with Captain America, and if I get that, I'll be happy enough. They may be right about it not being shot with 3D in mind, but I would still rather watch the movie in three dimensions with appreciable depth

Captain America was a nice conversion for 3D. If it matches that level, which is just average 3D, I'll be satisfied, but at the same time, disappointed they teased 3D fans with that very impressive 3D trailer. Hopefully it matches the 3D trailer's layers, depth and pop out, but it seems too good to be true for a 2D conversion.
As far as living up to the trailer's 3D for a filmed 3D movie, most recently, John Carter 3D maintained the great 3D layers throughout most of the film, as seen in the trailer. In that sense, there is hope Avengers 3D delivers the goods. The movie looks action packed.

[mseeley]

I finally got too see the 3D trailer again in Imax when I saw Wrath. It looks incredible!!!! The tracking shot of Iron man zipping low through the city shooting and dodging alien craft has to be the 3D highlight for me. That, and the Hulk stuff

[imdb_acc]

I'm surprised and disappointed that the Russian guy doesn't have a 3d trailer of this on YouTube yet.
There is one in Russian posted by some other guy but the left eye lags behind a bit. Can anybody take this video and correct it? It seems legit except for the slight lag.

The Avengers| 3D* Trailer deutsch / german Full-HD 1080p - YouTube

[Mrbrownst0ne]

finally scar jo's sexyness in an awesome role. im tired of her doing pathetic roles....3d boobies lookin forward to.

[Gae]

Originally Posted by imdb_acc

I'm surprised and disappointed that the Russian guy doesn't have a 3d trailer of this on YouTube yet.
There is one in Russian posted by some other guy but the left eye lags behind a bit. Can anybody take this video and correct it? It seems legit except for the slight lag.

The Avengers| 3D* Trailer deutsch / german Full-HD 1080p - YouTube

This is fake 3D if 3D at all. Just stop any frame and compare each side and there is no (or very little) parallax between the images.

Am I the only 3D fan who HATE HATE HATES this tradition of converting new films to, dare i say it, "3D"? I just can't convince myself that what I'm watching is in 3D, good conversion or not. Personally, as a 3D fan, I'm only interested in watching natively shot 3D. That's where the "wonder" of the stereoscopic image shines through.
With regards the trailer, how short people's memories are. Didn't the John Carter trailer look "incredible" and yet the actual "3D" in the movie sucked big time? Just a thought.

Gae

[gamermwm]

Originally Posted by Gae

This is fake 3D if 3D at all. Just stop any frame and compare each side and there is no (or very little) parallax between the images.

Am I the only 3D fan who HATE HATE HATES this tradition of converting new films to, dare i say it, "3D"? I just can't convince myself that what I'm watching is in 3D, good conversion or not. Personally, as a 3D fan, I'm only interested in watching natively shot 3D. That's where the "wonder" of the stereoscopic image shines through.
With regards the trailer, how short people's memories are. Didn't the John Carter trailer look "incredible" and yet the actual "3D" in the movie sucked big time? Just a thought.

Gae

Never trust Youtube 3D trailers to be legit. If it looks like something is wrong with it, there probably is

[aaaa6344]

that trailer is fake. the reason why one of the eyes is "lagging" is because that is a method to produce semi-convincing 3d from 2d content. when the camera is dollying/panning going from left to right (or the opposite), one "eye view" is represented by the frame in the correct time, while the other eye is represented by the camera position a few frames from before. so it seems like you are looking at the scene from independent perspectives, and as long as whatever's going on in the frame is pretty static, it will look pretty decent, though not a true representation of how the ACTUAL 3d will look like. look at this for example, it's a "conversion" of the shot going around the characters, and there is real depth and separation there, but it is using the same "delay" trick

The Avengers 3D teaser -"I Bringing Party To You" - YouTube

the reason i was a little shocked by the actual 3d trailer i saw in imax, was because the depth was over 4 times as strong as of the "faked" ones i've seen on youtube (in a lot of the shots, but not all), and it would be impossible to get that level of strength from these type of fake tactics. like the first shot looking down on the building popped incredibly far.....but i am also am not sure if they converted the trailer separately from the film. sometimes conversions can be good because the director change alter the depth strength later while editing, where as if you shoot in 3d, you are stuck with whatever you got. but yeah natively shot usually looks a lot better.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Gae

This is fake 3D if 3D at all. Just stop any frame and compare each side and there is no (or very little) parallax between the images.

Am I the only 3D fan who HATE HATE HATES this tradition of converting new films to, dare i say it, "3D"? I just can't convince myself that what I'm watching is in 3D, good conversion or not. Personally, as a 3D fan, I'm only interested in watching natively shot 3D. That's where the "wonder" of the stereoscopic image shines through.
With regards the trailer, how short people's memories are. Didn't the John Carter trailer look "incredible" and yet the actual "3D" in the movie sucked big time? Just a thought.

Gae

The official Avengers 3D trailer in theaters has very deep parallax. It's pretty striking for a conversion. The look and feel of the 3D action reminded me a lot of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, except with maybe even more depth and a 1.85:1 AR.

I do find myself scrutinizing the image instead of just sitting back and enjoying the movie if I know that the movie is a conversion ahead of time, especially if the story isn't very engrossing. Personally, I thought John Carter was one of the best conversions I've ever seen though. Very few shots really impressed, but shortly into the film, I realized I could sit back and enjoy the story without being distracted by errors. The parallax was always decent enough to give characters a natural volume. I'd blame most of its 3D faults on Andrew Stanton for failing to design all his shots to impress in 3D rather than on poor conversion work, which is an issue that would have existed even if he chose to shoot in 3D. And as always, they put the most impressive shots in the trailer.

Hollywood 3D conversions are here to stay though, and I'm okay with that. Every big-budget native 3D film has at least a few converted sequences where they had to fix footage that wasn't captured properly or didn't work as well in 3D as they had hoped. Converted material can look just as nice as native if the conversion artists spend lots of time dimensionalizing the image. It's a tool that directors are going to take advantage of as long as its available. Some environments and materials (i.e. water, fog, sand, dust, fine hairs) will always look better with 3D cameras, but I see conversion as a legitimate full feature option if the filmmakers are willing to factor in its weaknesses when shooting and spend time and money getting the 3D to look right with strong parallax and minimal errors.

[aaaa6344]

if shooting in native 3d you can change at what point the objects begin to pop out/go into the screen by sliding frames left or right, however you cannot change the strength of how much they do....meaning the "virtual" distance between the forward-most object and furthest object will alway be the same. it you want a greater "stretch" between them, then you'd have to alter the distance between your stereo cameras in production.

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by Gae

This is fake 3D if 3D at all. Just stop any frame and compare each side and there is no (or very little) parallax between the images.

Am I the only 3D fan who HATE HATE HATES this tradition of converting new films to, dare i say it, "3D"? I just can't convince myself that what I'm watching is in 3D, good conversion or not. Personally, as a 3D fan, I'm only interested in watching natively shot 3D. That's where the "wonder" of the stereoscopic image shines through.
With regards the trailer, how short people's memories are. Didn't the John Carter trailer look "incredible" and yet the actual "3D" in the movie sucked big time? Just a thought.

Gae

Yes. You are the ONLY 3D fan who dislikes converting films to 3D.

[aaaa6344]

i have to say that i originally was pretty against the idea of converting films to 3d......but let's face it's, it's not like the majority of the "3d" movies out there are fine art masterpieces where a conversion would be a an ultimate disgrace to its original vision. for the most part they just make a lot of mid-brow pop movies a bit more enjoyable at times, if done decently enough....and if you're not a 3d hater altogether. i'd say there's probably a bigger problem with directors who don't understand how to shoot for 3d compared to the people doing the conversions--like if your eyes have to change focus a lot from shot to shot, that shouldn't have to happen much if at all in most movies.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Gae

This is fake 3D if 3D at all. Just stop any frame and compare each side and there is no (or very little) parallax between the images.

Am I the only 3D fan who HATE HATE HATES this tradition of converting new films to, dare i say it, "3D"? I just can't convince myself that what I'm watching is in 3D, good conversion or not. Personally, as a 3D fan, I'm only interested in watching natively shot 3D. That's where the "wonder" of the stereoscopic image shines through.
With regards the trailer, how short people's memories are. Didn't the John Carter trailer look "incredible" and yet the actual "3D" in the movie sucked big time? Just a thought.

Gae

Alot of the 3D movie's I've enjoyed lately have been converted. Converted is just as viable as native to me. Like others have said, it comes down to time and effort put into it. Avatar had converted sequences too

[Gae]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Alot of the 3D movie's I've enjoyed lately have been converted. Converted is just as viable as native to me. Like others have said, it comes down to time and effort put into it. Avatar had converted sequences too

This is where we all come to 3D from a different perspective. Everything that you've said about 3D applies to CGI Animation for me. I appreciate the skill and craft of artists who have created stereoscopic 3D animation and enjoy 3D animation movies on that level.

With regards live action 3D, this is where the problem lies. It's a complex area. One of the problems today is that most films have so much CGI. Of course all CGI has to be converted, that's a given. With regards the live shoot, I always want it to be shot natively (regardless of whether or not there is CGI composite work in the scene). I guess, what we tend to talk about, are Hollywood Blockbusters but I am hoping that 3D gets used for other types of films more and more...non special effect dramas would work well in 3D just as well, if not better.

With regards live action, this is where I come from when I watch it in 3D. Even when a converted 3D scene is done well, it will never replace native 3D for me. I have this hangup that when I look at a 3D scene, it only works properly for me when I know that each eye was shot separately and at the same moment on the set, or on location and so is genuine. Everything must be natural and real for me. That's when the "magic" of the 3D works for me. It's as though my eyes are actually there, in the middle of the scene. If I know that one side was re-constructed and is an artist's interpretation, subconsciously, I know that it is fake. That is enough to ruin the 3D for me. That's not to say that I don't appreciate the work gone into the conversion, I do (I should know, as I converted a whole movie myself once). It's just the knowledge that this isn't real, isn't a real camera capturing the exact detail of the scene....small reflections of light, the exact angles, or just the "atmosphere" of the moment can never be truly re-captured by an artist. And with higher and higher definition cameras this is going to get more difficult. Also, I really don't understand why directors don't just shoot with a 3D camera. It's just laziness or lack of interest in 3D, maybe, on their part. Surely, in the long run, it's quicker and better to shoot natively, than to get hundreds of artists slaving over a scene frame by frame trying to convert every millimetre of that image in an effort to make it look as good as native 3D. Why? Just film it with 3D cameras already....jeez.

Gae