The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey 3D Blu-ray (2012) [Region Free] [Both Cuts]

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Paul H

What do you understand would be "subpar" about 4K passive 3D displays in relation to existing Full HD 1080P Active 3D Displays?
Blu-ray 3Ds should display at their Full HD 1080P resolution, same as todays active displays, eliminating todays passive half-image interlace separation artifacts, and the viewing distance comparable to todays 1080P active technology without flicker.?

It will be a subpar technology when 4K comes to market as in you won't be seeing 4K images, simple as that. I'm not bashing either technology, but let's call a spade a spade, passive 3D hurts resolution. We always knew that and it hasn't changed. Maybe down the road we'll get to resolutions that high that we won't be able to tell the difference, but 1080 is not high enough (depending on how far you sit of course)

Sony Announces First 4K, Passive 3D TV: 1080P For Each Eye!

They are making such a big deal out of this when it's the lamest thing ever. It's not better, it's cheaper and that's it. We are celebrating 1080p for each eye in the 4K era? We already have that. And all that to avoid paying for extra glasses (cause that's the big issue with active 3D) which can be found pretty cheap nowadays? So no, passive 4K is nothing to be celebrating about. It's good for passive 3D owners but not good for the rest. I'll take full 4K 3D over 1080p any day.

You said it yourself, "same as todays active displays". That's good news? It's like saying, "whoa, we can finally have 540p 3D" in the 1080p era.

Originally Posted by keb33509

But they want 4K 3D Nothing is ever good enough for whiny people. I still bet many will be jealous when I have a 4K set, and they do not.

Dude-full-of-himself alert. Here's a newsflash for you, having new technology doesn't mean anything if you don't what it is and how you can use it, and you clearly have problems in that area.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

passive 3D hurts resolution. We always knew that and it hasn't changed............................

Passive 3D is the most common way we see 3D theatrically and now we're finally given the same capability to process and duplicate the experience.

Originally Posted by Lnds500

They are making such a big deal out of this when it's the lamest thing ever. It's not better, it's cheaper and that's it.

Will have to agreee to disagree.

"We are celebrating 1080p for each eye in the 4K era" because that is the only era that makes Full HD 1080P passive 3D possible, duplicating the passive theatrical processes.
Call the name of the new screen 4K or whatever other name that fits, but it only exists now, is here, and is not "lame". For the advancement of passive consumer technology, it is "a big deal"!
Other 4K benefits come with the package, blinding the significance of the flickerless advancement.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Passive 3D is the most common way we see 3D theatrically and now we're finally given the same capability to process and duplicate the experience.

Will have to agreee to disagree.

"We are celebrating 1080p for each eye in the 4K era" because that is the only era that makes Full HD 1080P passive 3D possible, duplicating the passive theatrical processes.
Call the name of the new screen 4K or whatever other name that fits, but it only exists now, is here, and is not "lame". For the advancement of passive consumer technology, it is "a big deal"!
Other 4K benefits come with the package, blinding the significance of the flickerless advancement.

We aren't saying anything different. You asked me how passive 4K 3D would be subpar, I answered in the context that passive sets would dominate the market (as implied by keb33509). As I said, "it's good for passive 3D owners but not good for the rest". Let me rephrase that a bit.
Going from 1080 to 4K is an upgrade if you were a passive 3D supporter (passive -> passive), for active 3D supporters though it's pretty much the same (passive -> active). So, in that case, yes, for active 3D supporters it's pretty lame because there wouldn't be any progress.

Obviously 4K passive is better than 1080 passive, no one argued about that.

[keb33509]

3D blu rays do not hold a large enough part of the market share to justify creating 4K 3D Blu rays. With passive 4K, they will be able to continue offering the same films, without the need to "upgrade" disc format. Since they will most likely not create a new 3D blu format, I believe that is why most manufacturers are going to opt for glasses-free or passive. Also, 4K glasses free will only be 720p, so that will give more people something to complain about.

[Ryan Peddle]

Sorry to stop the wonderful conversation happening, but since this is the Hobbit thread, I will try to get it back on topic.

Picked up the Hobbit this week, watched it in 2D a few times (I work at an AV specialty store, so I get to put movies on daily). First off, loved the movie.

The 2D picture was spectacular. But, had some friends over this weekend to watch it in 3D. WOW. The 3D was done to perfection in my opinion. What ever the current limitations are the 3D technology, The Hobbit pushed it.

Nothing felt out of place, or distracting. Once of my biggest complaints about 3D movies, is I am too busy paying attention to the 3D, that I miss the movie (which was a good thing for DREDD). But the Hobbit, I simply enjoyed the story, the action...the movie, and not once did it scoot my attention away for a gag 3D effect. When the "pop-out" effect was used, it was well timed, and placed in the film to give you time to enjoy it. But the rest of the time, the movie focused on the depth. Incredible Depth.

So many realistic scenes where the smallest, most subtle thing just seems to be right there, able to touch.

My 3D collection is growing. But the Hobbit is perfect. I say perfect because I loved the story, I loved the characters, I loved the movie, I loved the 3D.

[AmrlKJaneway]

What ever happened to active switching technology? Was there a bug, and it never worked? Is there any commercial products available? That would provide 1080p to each eye with passive glasses now, and in theory 4K to each eye in the future (though there isn't a single 3D film mastered in 4K yet...)!

[Jsmith82]

I enjoyed this at the house I will say I enjoyed the 48fps I saw in the IMAX theater more but boy was this a crispy clean movie, I'm happy.

Side note - did anyone else notice that

[Show spoiler] Bilbo's sword did not illuminate at the end when the white orc had the gang cornered in the tree?

. Is that a mistake?

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

did anyone else notice that

[Show spoiler] Bilbo's sword did not illuminate at the end when the white orc had the gang cornered in the tree?

. Is that a mistake?

A good reason to play The Hobbit 3D part 2 again on my 3D headset! Movie gets better every time I see it!

[Show spoiler]The moon light shining through the clouded sky casts a bright light-blue color on the sword in a couple shots, which lessens the glow. I don't see just metal. There is a brief moment where the sword is once again completely brightly glowing as it is used on an Orc's wolf.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by Paul H

A good reason to play The Hobbit 3D part 2 again on my 3D headset! Movie gets better every time I see it!

[Show spoiler]The moon light shining through the clouded sky casts a bright light-blue color on the sword in a couple shots, which lessens the glow. I don't see just metal. There is a brief moment where the sword is once again completely brightly glowing as it is used on an Orc's wolf.

Yeah it opened quite a discussion at my buddies house on Saturday , nothing like a good old fashioned movie nerd off with a group of LOTR fans who are in love with The Hobbit LOL (that would include me). The consensus of our rambling was that

[Show spoiler]the sword mistakenly is not lit in a few shots, glowing in the others. Good point about the moon though, we're not far off from re-watching this either so I'll have to pay closer attention next time.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

It will be a subpar technology when 4K comes to market as in you won't be seeing 4K images, simple as that. I'm not bashing either technology, but let's call a spade a spade, passive 3D hurts resolution. We always knew that and it hasn't changed. Maybe down the road we'll get to resolutions that high that we won't be able to tell the difference, but 1080 is not high enough (depending on how far you sit of course)

Sony Announces First 4K, Passive 3D TV: 1080P For Each Eye!

They are making such a big deal out of this when it's the lamest thing ever. It's not better, it's cheaper and that's it. We are celebrating 1080p for each eye in the 4K era? We already have that. And all that to avoid paying for extra glasses (cause that's the big issue with active 3D) which can be found pretty cheap nowadays? So no, passive 4K is nothing to be celebrating about. It's good for passive 3D owners but not good for the rest. I'll take full 4K 3D over 1080p any day.

You said it yourself, "same as todays active displays". That's good news? It's like saying, "whoa, we can finally have 540p 3D" in the 1080p era.



Dude-full-of-himself alert. Here's a newsflash for you, having new technology doesn't mean anything if you don't what it is and how you can use it, and you clearly have problems in that area.

Passive 3D has 540 lines per eye and when the 3D image is recreated by the brain, that image has 1080 horizontal lines. Yes, there is a slight resolution drop but that is only visible 4 or 5 feet from a 55inch TV.
We've come from having red and blue anaglyph to full blown color with pleasant viewing experiences. Not to mention the 3D camera rigs and advancements in 2D to 3D conversions (done by studios, not by display devices ). This is a huge advancement in the way movies are filmed and EXPERIENCED. I keep hearing people in general saying '3D is still not where I'd like it to be' or '3D is still not in a stage where it can go mainstream'. This always puzzles me. What do they expect exactly? Sitting 12 feet from a 150inch screen, 3D is incredibly close to virtual reality. I for one am incredibly happy with all the advancements, all the options that allow us to choose the tech, and Hollywood's relentless pursuit of making 3D a success!

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Passive 3D has 540 lines per eye and when the 3D image is recreated by the brain, that image has 1080 horizontal lines. Yes, there is a slight resolution drop but that is only visible 4 or 5 feet from a 55inch TV.

I'm so man and no offence but that's pure PR marketing crap. "The brain combines..." Does the brain also recreate the 1080 2D images we see with each eye into a 2160 version of the movie?

Watch a 2D BD. Close one eye. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with active glasses. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with passive glasses. Close one eye. What do you see? 540p (or 1080i)

It's absolutely terrifying how marketing + consumer psychology works.

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

What ever happened to active switching technology? Was there a bug, and it never worked? Is there any commercial products available? That would provide 1080p to each eye with passive glasses now, and in theory 4K to each eye in the future (though there isn't a single 3D film mastered in 4K yet...)!

To my knowledge, both Samsung and Sony still support passive active, even if overall 3D support has lessened this year.

[tigermoth]

Passive 3D projection has no resolution drop if you are so lucky to have that at home. Passive 3D TV's have half the horizontal resolution. I have 20/20 vision and I can see the difference in my lounge room between passive and active TVs. You have to sit really far away from a passive set to not notice the resolution drop. That is the lie they are selling you in the "passive is full HD" marketing rap, sit really far away and it is the same. It is just nonsense! If you sit far away from 720p it looks the same as full HD, if you sit even further away from SD it looks the same as full HD. You're eyes can only perceive resolution at certain distances and this is the bases of the passive TVs are full HD lie.

[pug1]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Okay, thanks. That's a bummer it's on 2 discs. Avatar managed it on one. Oh well. At least it'll have the best HD possible with the 3D.



HFR 3D felt less like a movie, and more like actually being there with the characters, as if in real life based on the motion. Really cool. I still like 24fps, but welcome 48.

Agree. The HFR was a beyond real. But i did feel as if i was watching the actors being filmed. Still, I loved it and have tried to simulate it with my TV's Motionflow set to the highest setting.

[pug1]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

passive 3d projection has no resolution drop if you are so lucky to have that at home. Passive 3d tv's have half the horizontal resolution. I have 20/20 vision and i can see the difference in my lounge room between passive and active tvs. You have to sit really far away from a passive set to not notice the resolution drop. That is the lie they are selling you in the "passive is full hd" marketing rap, sit really far away and it is the same. It is just nonsense! If you sit far away from 720p it looks the same as full hd, if you sit even further away from sd it looks the same as full hd. You're eyes can only perceive resolution at certain distances and this is the bases of the passive tvs are full hd lie.

+1

[pug1]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

I'm so man and no offence but that's pure PR marketing crap. "The brain combines..." Does the brain also recreate the 1080 2D images we see with each eye into a 2160 version of the movie?

Watch a 2D BD. Close one eye. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with active glasses. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with passive glasses. Close one eye. What do you see? 540p (or 1080i)

It's absolutely terrifying how marketing + consumer psychology works.



To my knowledge, both Samsung and Sony still support passive, even if overall 3D support has lessened this year.

Samsung and Sony have, until this model year, supported ONLY active 3D. This year, Sony's 4K sets are passive 3D; so are some of their 1080p 2013 sets coming out. They are keeping active shutter in some models as well.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Passive 3D projection has no resolution drop if you are so lucky to have that at home. Passive 3D TV's have half the horizontal resolution. I have 20/20 vision and I can see the difference in my lounge room between passive and active TVs. You have to sit really far away from a passive set to not notice the resolution drop. That is the lie they are selling you in the "passive is full HD" marketing rap, sit really far away and it is the same. It is just nonsense! If you sit far away from 720p it looks the same as full HD, if you sit even further away from SD it looks the same as full HD. You're eyes can only perceive resolution at certain distances and this is the bases of the passive TVs are full HD lie.

Did you mean active here?

Originally Posted by pug1

Samsung and Sony have, until this model year, supported ONLY active 3D. This year, Sony's 4K sets are passive 3D; so are some of their 1080p 2013 sets coming out. They are keeping active shutter in some models as well.

Sorry, that was what I meant to say, I didn't know Sony made passive sets, I thought both them and Samsung still made active sets

[tigermoth]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Did you mean active here?

No. There are two types of passive for at home that are available in 3D projection. Both involve two projects with light filters, one a silver screen and the other silver glasses.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

I'm so man and no offence but that's pure PR marketing crap. "The brain combines..." Does the brain also recreate the 1080 2D images we see with each eye into a 2160 version of the movie?

Watch a 2D BD. Close one eye. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with active glasses. What do you see? 1080p

Watch a 3D BD with passive glasses. Close one eye. What do you see? 540p (or 1080i)

Let's say you were looking at a 3D display with passive glasses, but it was showing a totally still image, which was also flat and at the same apparent depth as the screen (so if you took off the glasses you wouldn't see any double images). Do you agree that with both eyes open, you'd be seeing every single pixel that would be present in the same image if was shown with the TV in 2D mode, it's just that in the 3D mode half the horizontal lines would be shown to your left eye and the other half would be shown to your right eye? (as explained here, for those who aren't clear on what we're talking about) And if you agree with that, do you really disagree that this would be "combined" in your brain? For example, if the screen was big enough and you were close enough to see individual pixels, if there were two bright pixels next to each other against a black background, and one was on a line going to your left eye while the other was on a line going to your right eye, do you think you could tell which was which, or that you wouldn't see them as part of the same image?

[Impossible]

Seriously this is a thread about The Hobbit, not an active vs passive thread.

Can you take the *****fighting elsewhere?

We get it, the people who have a passive set think passive is best and the people who have active think active is better.

Debate over

[Jbug]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Seriously this is a thread about The Hobbit, not an active vs passive thread.

Can you take the *****fighting elsewhere?

We get it, the people who have a passive set think passive is best and the people who have active think active is better.

Debate over

Thank you brother Dredd. That's exactly what this thread needed to shake of the cobwebs and find it's way back.