What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[koover]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

No 3D cameras, no sale. It's no different than colorizing a black and white film.

Stubborn but totally understand, appreciate and respect your stance. I've read enough posts of yours through the years to know how steadfast you are with quality and integrity.
Me, I'm somewhat like that but not to the point where I won't give something a shot if its done well.
I whole heartedly agree that conversions don't hold up to natively shot 3D but there's some pretty good stuff, recently. Half my collection of 3D titles from what I bought in the early days, wouldn't even have a chance to remotely come close to crossing my mind to purchase nowadays.
It's all good man. I'm just surprised you even gave 3D a shot seeing if I remember correctly, you were not a fan at all when it first came out, with good reason too. With me, I just loved the experience so I had to have them all Peace

[makinbiscuits]

Originally Posted by Blueoktober

Or maybe as in Titanic, the technology wasn't there when the film was shot, an
d now that it is, filmmakers can see their vision fully realized.

Titanic knocks the socks off most native 3D films.

I wouldn't go down this road if I were you.

[koover]

Originally Posted by makinbiscuits

I wouldn't go down this road if I were you.

I 100% agree. I can't think of a single converted title that "knocks your socks off" versus a natively shot film.
Hell, I remember people were dogging a film called A Dolphins Tale because it didn't have strong 3D with all kinds of pop out scenes. But IMO, it' s still better than any conversion I've seen.
By the way, a good movie too, just because I'm a sucker for family, feel good animal movies with heart.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by koover

Stubborn but totally understand, appreciate and respect your stance. I've read enough posts of yours through the years to know how steadfast you are with quality and integrity.
Me, I'm somewhat like that but not to the point where I won't give something a shot if its done well.
I whole heartedly agree that conversions don't hold up to natively shot 3D but there's some pretty good stuff, recently. Half my collection of 3D titles from what I bought in the early days, wouldn't even have a chance to remotely come close to crossing my mind to purchase nowadays.
It's all good man. I'm just surprised you even gave 3D a shot seeing if I remember correctly, you were not a fan at all when it first came out, with good reason too. With me, I just loved the experience so I had to have them all Peace

I appreciate the fact that you understand and respect my position. There's just really only a few things I won't budge on: OAR, losless audio, colorizing B & W films, and native 3D only.

[Rainhurt]

Native 3D is better to look at. The converting ruins the picture quality, no getting around that. Also native has better shape and finer details, not getting around that as well.

I've done a lot of 3D still photography this past year so I notice instantly that everything isn't shaped right in a conversion. Titanic is the only one that I think makes the most of what conversions can do.

[Zivouhr]

For those who didn't like 3D but now like it, would you say it was weak 3D movies like Clash of the Titans (for example) that turned you away, in addition to having to wear 3D glasses (active or passive)? Thanks.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

The only 3D title that I own that has any converted material is Immortals. However, all of the SFX shots (fight scenes) were shot with 3D cameras and look absolutely stunning. It will more than likely be the only 3D title in my collection that wasn't originally shot completely in 3D.

Yeah, Immortals looks great for a 3D conversion for the 3D layers> I didn't know the kick @ss fight scenes were filmed 3D. I'll watch that one again soon. Cool movie.

Originally Posted by Mr.Twinks

IMO, the 'best' converted 2D-->3D movie I have seen in my HT was Titanic 3D.

It's a perfect example of the strongest direct 2D to 3D conversion I've seen.

-------
I can see why it might cost 18 million to convert. Most movie conversions probably don't set aside a budget like that. CGI heavy movies like Avengers can end up with great 3D during the CGI shots. The live action shots usually pale in comparison.

[meremortal]

I don't even have a 3D tv yet, but I'm starting to slowly buy movies with both 3D and 2D included in the same pack for only a few bucks more. Also may blind buy on occasion if $12 or lower.

[BleedOrange11]

All that I could find about Immortals' use of native 3D cameras:

We did a lot of scenes that we shot in 3D and a lot of the other stuff we shot, we shot in 2D and took plates in 3D. I found it too limited in terms of action to shoot it all in 3D. Some things that you do, the camera makes it look like a 1950's movie because the camera becomes too bulky. The action sequences and most of the stuff with the Gods was actually converted. But it's really about knowing what you want to do with it instead of just giving it to somebody to convert. The little girl and the visions and everything, though, we actually shot in 3D.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/wonde...s.php?id=76106

In fact, a small number of "Immortals" scenes were shot in 3D -- including material intended for a teaser trailer that ended up being a used in the film itself -- but the vast majority of the footage was captured in 2D.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118045792

I'll have to check out the 3D version some time. Unfortunately, I only got to see the 2D in theaters.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I appreciate the fact that you understand and respect my position. There's just really only a few things I won't budge on: OAR, losless audio, colorizing B & W films, and native 3D only.

What about converted animations, where the film is practically re-made in 3D. Have you seen Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King? They're just below Avatar and Hugo on my top 3D rankings. What did you think?

I'm not arguing with ya. You seem a good bloke. I'm just interested where you stand on conversions like this.

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I appreciate the fact that you understand and respect my position. There's just really only a few things I won't budge on: OAR, losless audio, colorizing B & W films, and native 3D only.

I respect and also agree with some of your standards. I have been playing with my 3D FP setup for almost 7 months and I am 'solidifying' my standards. First and foremost is sound, mainly with bass punch in movies (ie War of the Worlds 2005) and also with I am still 'building' my BD collection and I am coming across a few gems in 3D and 2D. Still learning but having a fun time with this hobby.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Mr.Twinks

I respect and also agree with some of your standards. I have been playing with my 3D FP setup for almost 7 months and I am 'solidifying' my standards. First and foremost is sound, mainly with bass punch in movies (ie War of the Worlds 2005) and also with I am still 'building' my BD collection and I am coming across a few gems in 3D and 2D. Still learning but having a fun time with this hobby.

Awesome. If you have any questions just let me know. Sometimes I feel like I have been involved with A/V stuff for a lifetime...I guess I can count since I was 2 years old that so that's almost 30 years.

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Awesome. If you have any questions just let me know. Sometimes I feel like I have been involved with A/V stuff for a lifetime...I guess I can count since I was 2 years old that so that's almost 30 years.

Cool, I've been playing with A/V for a while but it was my No 2 hobby, now it is my No 1 hobby and I feel like I am just scratching the surface.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Mr.Twinks

Cool, I've been playing with A/V for a while but it was my No 2 hobby, now it is my No 1 hobby and I feel like I am just scratching the surface.

Whatever you do don't listen to the guys over at AVS. Other than a distinct few most will get annoyed with you if you don't have 3 amps, a $1500 receiver, and a $500 BD player.

[gates70]

I was one of those haters. I recently bought an Epson 5020UB that does 3D. Am I still a hater ? No. Do I love it ? No. But I don't hate it anymore. It's a fun little toy once in a while.

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by koover

I 100% agree. I can't think of a single converted title that "knocks your socks off" versus a natively shot film.
Hell, I remember people were dogging a film called A Dolphins Tale because it didn't have strong 3D with all kinds of pop out scenes. But IMO, it' s still better than any conversion I've seen.
By the way, a good movie too, just because I'm a sucker for family, feel good animal movies with heart.

I actually like Titanic and Men In Black 3 more than about any native 3D film out there.

For the latter, the director made the interesting argument that he chose to convert vs. using 3D cameras because he had more control over just how much everything popped out or sunk back. It looked phenomenal at any rate!

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by koover

I 100% agree. I can't think of a single converted title that "knocks your socks off" versus a natively shot film.

Sorry have to disagree with you....if you saw Wrath, JC or AbrahamL you will see 3D there is a lot lot better than native crap like Underworld.

[sokh1985]

I feel exactly the same.

In the beginning I thought 3D was crap.

Then I got an LG Cinema Display 3D Set and I actually love 3D at home much more than in most movie theaters.

I also thought converted 3D was crap. But then came Titanic, Avengers, etc. Which are way better than a lot of movies shot in 3D.


An interesting thought I had last night is how important is the studio/technical crew important in 3D.

Most of the amazing 3D movies I own/watched are from 20th century fox.
I guess Cameron was able to help other director's of the Studio in that regard.

PS : I finally bought and Watch Avatar in 3D Yesterday, and it's sooo amazing. A whole different movie for me. I even thought that they should forbid selling it in 2D

[Questioner]

Hey everyone ,

Well, I have just ordered my LG Passive 3D TV, and I have got a very basic question (which may sound very stupid to some lol):

If I have a 3D movie, which is side-by-side , like this:



Can I view this movie as blurry in passive 3D (Anaglyph)?

I don't have the glasses for the active 3D types, just for the passive ones.

Please let me know.

Thanks.

[Questioner]

Anyone?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Questioner

Hey everyone ,

Well, I have just ordered my LG Passive 3D TV, and I have got a very basic question (which may sound very stupid to some lol):

If I have a 3D movie, which is side-by-side , like this:



Can I view this movie as blurry in passive 3D (Anaglyph)?

I don't have the glasses for the active 3D types, just for the passive ones.

Please let me know.

Thanks.

I'm a little confused by the way you wrote this. You said you have a *passive* 3D TV, but say you don't have *active* 3D glasses, and then also refer to passive 3D followed up with "anaglyph".

Are you asking if the red/blue style glasses will work on side by side 3D? If so, no they won't. To view side by side, you will need the glasses that are compatible with your TV. If your TV is passive, you need passive glasses. If your TV is active, you'll need active glasses.