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

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by martins

3D plays a role only for action films. For ordinary melodramas that are not known for their entertainment, a 3D show is simply a waste of money

I like the 3D role is several genres.

[gazadams]

I have had our 3d tv for about 3 years now. I always have loved 3d and cant get enough of it .But i do get a bit despondent about the films that were made or shown in the cinemas in 3d and the studios cant be bothered to put them out for home viewing in 3d .
Wrinkle in time - missed at cinema and would of bought on blu ray
Ben Hur - seen this in 3d at cinema and really liked it but no blu ray release
What happened to the viy sequel in 3d ?
The Nest (had title change) Still no 3d
Mission in possible - missed at cinema no chance now
The Predator watched at cinema probably no 3d home release
The Phantom menace and the star wars sequels . Apart from the first one never shown (only at star wars con) so whats the point in converting them!
Alpha really was looking forward to this one and the list goes on and on

[gazadams]

was wondering if they are saving some of these films , for a resurgence if Avatar 2 does well

[VonMagnum]

I can't see Avatar sequels helping. The truth is Avatar wasn't that great a movie (certainly no Terminator 2 or True Lies). It got a HUGE boost by being the first real 3D movie outside Walt Disney parks since the 1980s. People who had never seem 3D or hadn't seen it in decades were blown away (at first). But the movie does nothing for me. I would not want to see one sequel, let alone three. I'd much rather see Cameron do the next Aliens movie or even another Terminator film (despite the fact I would have been happy with it ending at two instead of those forced sequel abominations).

I've moved on to 3D sound instead, which is growing instead of shrinking. It's even better with 3D video, of course (having to roll my own combination disc/files since the 3D discs often get only 5.1 or 7.1) but fun just the same.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

I can't see Avatar sequels helping. The truth is Avatar wasn't that great a movie (certainly no Terminator 2 or True Lies). It got a HUGE boost by being the first real 3D movie outside Walt Disney parks since the 1980s. People who had never seem 3D or hadn't seen it in decades were blown away (at first). But the movie does nothing for me. I would not want to see one sequel, let alone three. I'd much rather see Cameron do the next Aliens movie or even another Terminator film (despite the fact I would have been happy with it ending at two instead of those forced sequel abominations).

I've moved on to 3D sound instead, which is growing instead of shrinking. It's even better with 3D video, of course (having to roll my own combination disc/files since the 3D discs often get only 5.1 or 7.1) but fun just the same.

Yeah, I can relate to this regarding Avatar.

I acknowlegde its importance for 3D in general but man, I don't like the movie itself at all. I think I've seen it about 4 times tops in all those years, and it got harder getting to the end with each viewing. Therefore I'm only interested in the sequels if it means it will somehow give 3D a boost again...

[presidentevil3d]

i dont like avatar at all as a film, i find it a real grind

just a personal dislike of its look, and ive never really been bowled over by the 3d on it tbh...i think there is a lot better out there.

Also get annoyed when general public non 3d freaks say "avatar was the only good 3d film"

However, keen on the sequels and hoping it will force manufacturers to make 3d sets again with a massive profit at the cinema.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by presidentevil3d

i dont like avatar at all as a film, i find it a real grind

just a personal dislike of its look, and ive never really been bowled over by the 3d on it tbh...i think there is a lot better out there.

Also get annoyed when general public non 3d freaks say "avatar was the only good 3d film"

However, keen on the sequels and hoping it will force manufacturers to make 3d sets again with a massive profit at the cinema.

Yeah, the 3D has never really impressed me that much either. Never understood why so many people saw it as reference material.

[presidentevil3d]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Yeah, the 3D has never really impressed me that much either. Never understood why so many people saw it as reference material.

it is decent enough, but doesnt make my jaw drop like ragnarok, house of magic, oz the great and powerful and the ones of that quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Yeah, the 3D has never really impressed me that much either. Never understood why so many people saw it as reference material.

The only part that impressed me was the sleeping bay when he floats out and the chamber seems to stretch for miles.

Film wise, I would say it’s lesser Cameron. If Aliens and the first two Terminators are 5/5 this would be a 3/5.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The only part that impressed me was the sleeping bay when he floats out and the chamber seems to stretch for miles.

Film wise, I would say it’s lesser Cameron. If Aliens and the first two Terminators are 5/5 this would be a 3/5.

It's a 2/5 for me honestly.

[the13thman]

Unobtanium. As soon as I heard that word I cringed, I thought I was watching a James Cameron movie, not kids' TV. Who wrote this garbage?

Anyway, my problem with Avatar theatrically (other than the pressure on my bladder thanks to the excessive running time) was the overall conservatism of the 3D, particularly towards the end. Where were all the pop-outs?

At home it plays a lot lot better and you can see how much foliage etc is out of the screen, but it's still far too conservative.

As far as James Cameron movies go, it's one of his worst. I won't ever watch it again flat, not the extended cut, not any cut. If I have to rewatch a James Cameron film in 2D I'd rather watch The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss (watching The Meg I was imagining how amazing The Abyss would be in 3D) or True Lies.

But on 3D Blu-ray without the letterboxing there is some undeniable magic to Avatar's visuals and I'm more than happy to vegetate in front of it. That's why 3D is better than any flat format, be that SD, 2K, 4K or 8K - all flat flat flat... no magic.

[presidentevil3d]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Unobtanium. As soon as I heard that word I cringed, I thought I was watching a James Cameron movie, not kids' TV. Who wrote this garbage?

Anyway, my problem with Avatar theatrically (other than the pressure on my bladder thanks to the excessive running time) was the overall conservatism of the 3D, particularly towards the end. Where were all the pop-outs?

At home it plays a lot lot better and you can see how much foliage etc is out of the screen, but it's still far too conservative.

As far as James Cameron movies go, it's one of his worst. I won't ever watch it again flat, not the extended cut, not any cut. If I have to rewatch a James Cameron film in 2D I'd rather watch The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss (watching The Meg I was imagining how amazing The Abyss would be in 3D) or True Lies.

But on 3D Blu-ray without the letterboxing there is some undeniable magic to Avatar's visuals and I'm more than happy to vegetate in front of it. That's why 3D is better than any flat format, be that SD, 2K, 4K or 8K - all flat flat flat... no magic.

Bbbbbbbut what about wide colour gamut and perfect 4k blacks?

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by presidentevil3d

Bbbbbbbut what about wide colour gamut and perfect 4k blacks?

HDR/WCG really makes a difference, there's no point in denying it. Resolution wise, most 2K DI movies look just a tad sharper and more refined on UHD than their BD counterparts, let alone native 4K material. Then there's also better compression with UHD.

I've said it here a couple of times already. It's a g-damn shame 3D wasn't included in the UHD specs, but it is what it is. But there's no reason why one can't enjoy both. Therefore, 4K and 3D are both a must for me.

[presidentevil3d]

Originally Posted by DJR662

HDR/WCG really makes a difference, there's no point in denying it. Resolution wise, most 2K DI movies look just a tad sharper and more refined on UHD than their BD counterparts, let alone native 4K material. Then there's also better compression with UHD.

I've said it here a couple of times already. It's a g-damn shame 3D wasn't included in the UHD specs, but it is what it is. But there's no reason why one can't enjoy both. Therefore, 4K and 3D are both a must for me.

They do make a difference yes, but 3d should have been included within that

My bugbear is that for what i see as some but not essential improvement will probably be done away with in a few years and the 8k cycle will begin

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by presidentevil3d

Bbbbbbbut what about wide colour gamut and perfect 4k blacks?

They'll do fine if there's no 3D alternative, but there's no magic there.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by DJR662

It's a 2/5 for me honestly.

Fair play.

[Frank169]

Originally Posted by the13thman

watching The Meg I was imagining how amazing The Abyss would be in 3D) or True Lies.

If the reason for The Abyss delay was another 3D conversion (and theatrical re-release), I'd stop complaining about its Blu-ray absence, immediately.

Still don't have Avatar on 3D Blu-ray, but plan to get it soon.

But only for the fact that James Cameron (unlike Ridley Scott) is among the few filmmakers who understand that objects outside our stereoscopic field of vision, i.e. especially planets, can't show up in 3D because they're too far away - and the opening scenes of Avatar therefore are sort of a reference how that should look like in 3D realistically.

[lucycummings120]

This is a very subjective question because not everyone likes 3D, Sure it's quite unique and offers a much better aesthetic quality than others, but it's quite complex and expensive to pull off in the right manner. When I started doing it in my animation agency, I found that this is an entirely new field and not just an upgradation from 2D. It's a rookie mistake to not know the difference between 2D animation and 3D animation and designers who believe that 3D is just an upgrade from 2D, make a lot of mistakes earlier on and also produce quite bad results. So firstly one needs to understand the intricacies attached with it and secondly start practicing as an altogether different art form in order to produce intended results.

very nice bro

[Zambrokal]

Bonjour.

Je suis sincèrement navré de vous interpeller ainsi mais je souhaiterais savoir comment faire pour poser une autre question s'il vous plaît. Une question technique sur de la 3D... Merci à vous...