Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by FC4L

The "matte painting" effect has more to do with camera focus then dimensionality. When you have the foreground in clear focus and the background very unfocused (called bokeh) there isn't much dimension in the background. Same thing happens if you are standing in the forrest and focusing on your finger right in front of your face.

I found the 3D to be exactly what it should be. Very natural looking. Still some people's idea of what 3D should be (jumping out of the screen constantly) will always taint their viewing. Irrational hate abounds in this thread.

Well it is of course a possibility that the matte painting effect is also created due to the DNR, which reduces details and thus the overall dimensionality of the image.

It was subtle but overall I can't say I was overwhelmed. Whilst I don't want forced 3D, there are a lot of shots in Ep.1 which should be prime examples of jump out effects (The Naboo starship which flies towards you after it passes the blockade for example) but nothing happened. Same with the Podrace, maybe I can't adjust my focus fast enough to see the 3D effect but for me it felt the same as watching the 2D version.

For the more subtle effects, it is great to bring the characters in the foreground, but when the backgrounds lacks detail or there isn't any 3D applied there (so only the foreground characters are "separated" from the rest of the image) I find that it doesn't add anything.

Maybe this situation improves due to the fact that Ep.2 and 3 have better PQ's and thus 2D depth is better, which could enhance the 3D experience.

As it stands, it was more fun to watch Episode 1 for the big screen and sound again than for it's 3D effect.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Aquel

It was subtle but overall I can't say I was overwhelmed. Whilst I don't want forced 3D, there are a lot of shots in Ep.1 which should be prime examples of jump out effects (The Naboo starship which flies towards you after it passes the blockade for example) but nothing happened. Same with the Podrace, maybe I can't adjust my focus fast enough to see the 3D effect but for me it felt the same as watching the 2D version.

For the more subtle effects, it is great to bring the characters in the foreground, but when the backgrounds lacks detail or there isn't any 3D applied there (so only the foreground characters are "separated" from the rest of the image) I find that it doesn't add anything.

Maybe this situation improves due to the fact that Ep.2 and 3 have better PQ's and thus 2D depth is better, which could enhance the 3D experience.

As it stands, it was more fun to watch Episode 1 for the big screen and sound again than for it's 3D effect.

My thoughts exactly.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Whilst I don't want forced 3D, there are a lot of shots in Ep.1 which should be prime examples of jump out effects (The Naboo starship which flies towards you after it passes the blockade for example) but nothing happened. Same with the Podrace, maybe I can't adjust my focus fast enough to see the 3D effect but for me it felt the same as watching the 2D version.

The one with the Naboo starship, from what I remember, is complicated because the ship is flying towards the camera, then the camera pans and the ship flies away... I'll have to check the blu-ray to see if I am remembering that accurately.

In the podrace, almost all of the shots seemed quite a bit enhanced, which for me worked a lot better than the way it was back in 1999, back then, occasionally I had trouble knowing which podracers where in the front and which ones were farther behind.

Here's what it all boils down to: if you could have a dial that controlled how much (or how strong) the 3-D was, and the dial went from 0 to 10, then I'd say that in my opinion Lucas left it at 6 or 7. Some people think it would have been better at 9 or 10 - and then there are those that would want it to go up to 11.

But having it at 6 or 7 on a 10 scale was a lot better for me than not having the choice to see it in 3-D at all.

I'm not going to speculate any more on whether I would have enjoyed it if the 3-D factor had been closer to a 10.

But maybe Lucasfilm will consider making the 3-D stronger for the other movies. Of course, if they do that then someone is bound to start complaining that it was giving them a headache because it was so strong...

[AlexSing]

So reading what others have said, it seems the 3D was underwhelming and not so visually striking - but this was deliberate and seemingly for the best?

So this prompts a couple of questions - did the 3D carry a "wow" factor like Avatar, Tron Legacy or Hugo etc (which is maybe unfair as it wasn't shot in 3D) or was it just another example of bland retro-fitted 3D like Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter etc? Please be honest, because nothing I'm reading from either side makes me think that this is worth investing my time and money to go and see.

Surely 3D should be about the spectacle and quite literally bringing another dimension to the movie so I genuinely don't understand when some here say that it's a good thing that the image doesn't pop out of the screen at you, and that this is deliberate

I really hope this isn't now going to be another several hundred pages of fanboys excusing what others feel is a mediocre product - what's the truth??

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

So reading what others have said, it seems the 3D was underwhelming and not so visually striking - but this was deliberate and seemingly for the best?

To me, it was more than adequate and visually striking. Maybe not striking in the way that only movies filmed in actual 3-D can be, but pretty good nonetheless.

Originally Posted by AlexSing

So this prompts a couple of questions - did the 3D carry a "wow" factor like Avatar, Tron Legacy or Hugo etc (which is maybe unfair as it wasn't shot in 3D) or was it just another example of bland retro-fitted 3D like Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter etc? Please be honest, because nothing I'm reading from either side makes me think that this is worth investing my time and money to go and see.

Isn't it a matter of taste, though? I'd agree that "Avatar" and "Hugo" had pretty good 3-D that pushes it to the max, or close to it. "Tron Legacy" felt very underwhelming, even though I watched it in an IMAX theater.

Originally Posted by AlexSing

Surely 3D should be about the spectacle and quite literally bringing another dimension to the movie so I genuinely don't understand when some here say that it's a good thing that the image doesn't pop out of the screen at you, and that this is deliberate

Well, what good is 3-D that makes everything "pop out" when the movie itself doesn't fully engage you on its own merits?

To me, at least, the 3-D in TPM was more satisfying than the 3-D in Avatar, though I readily concede that the one in Avatar is more impressive or "eye-popping".

You couldn't pay me enough money to sit through "Avatar" once more in theaters. But with TPM 3-D, I just hope I can watch it at least 7 or 8 times while it is still in theaters.

As with so many other things having to do with movies, YMMV.

If you want 3-D that pops out big time, I wouldn't recommend that you watch TPM 3-D. It really doesn't sound like it would be your cup of tea.

[AlexSing]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

To me, it was more than adequate and visually striking. Maybe not striking in the way that only movies filmed in actual 3-D can be, but pretty good nonetheless.



Isn't it a matter of taste, though? I'd agree that "Avatar" and "Hugo" had pretty good 3-D that pushes it to the max, or close to it. "Tron Legacy" felt very underwhelming, even though I watched it in an IMAX theater.



Well, what good is 3-D that makes everything "pop out" when the movie itself doesn't fully engage you on its own merits?

To me, at least, the 3-D in TPM was more satisfying than the 3-D in Avatar, though I readily concede that the one in Avatar is more impressive or "eye-popping".

You couldn't pay me enough money to sit through "Avatar" once more in theaters. But with TPM 3-D, I just hope I can watch it at least 7 or 8 times while it is still in theaters.

As with so many other things having to do with movies, YMMV.

If you want 3-D that pops out big time, I wouldn't recommend that you watch TPM 3-D. It really doesn't sound like it would be your cup of tea.

Firstly, I think 3D is the most overrated medium ever. I personally hope it dies a slow and painful death. That's why, if I am forced to watch it, I want to be wowed - but purely in the context of it being inkeeping with the movie - and obviously it has to be a good movie first and foremost.

Thanks for answering in such detail though, I really wanted to know if they had done a good job or just a standard 3D conversion of the film, like so many others.

I do maintain however, that if you have no clarity and dimensionality to the background and what appears in the foreground doesn't "pop" out at you, what's the point in the 3D?

[Jumpman]

The 3D was excellent, if you knew going in what Lucas wanted to achieve with it.

It's all about depth of field with this post-conversion and ILM aced it with flying colors.

As an aside, I got giddy when the digital Yoda made his debut on the big screen. Talk about photo real...the 3D helped out the digital characters tremendously.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

I do maintain however, that if you have no clarity and dimensionality to the background and what appears in the foreground doesn't "pop" out at you, what's the point in the 3D?

Well, to me it "pops" just enough, though admittedly it isn't as dramatic as what you get with other movies that are either native 3-D productions or were filmed keeping in mind that they would be converted in post-production.

So with my own modest expectations, I come away satisfied and grateful that it was converted at all.

And I also understand if other people's expectations and preferences are different from my own.

That is why I found it so amusing that they used 3-D to such an exaggerated effect in the last "Harold & Kumar" movie - almost everything was done so that something or other practically touched the camera lens. Guess some people like that kind of 3-D use... not that there's anything wrong with that!

Originally Posted by Jumpman

The 3D was excellent, if you knew going in what Lucas wanted to achieve with it.

It's all about depth of field with this post-conversion and ILM aced it with flying colors.

As an aside, I got giddy when the digital Yoda made his debut on the big screen. Talk about photo real...the 3D helped out the digital characters tremendously.

Yes, absolutely, CG Yoda is great in TPM. And Lucas has gone on the record crediting James Cameron for figuring out that if you have CG characters interacting with live actors, it's going to look much more convincing in 3-D that it would if you're just looking at flat images, no matter how carefully done.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

That is why I found it so amusing that they used 3-D to such an exaggerated effect in the last "Harold & Kumar" movie - almost everything was done so that something or other practically touched the camera lens. Guess some people like that kind of 3-D use... not that there's anything wrong with that!

The point of the 3D in Harold & Kumar was to use it in such an absurd and over the top way that you would leave the theater thinking to yourself: "I don't think that is what they ever intended to use 3D for..." I LOVED the 3D effects of Harold & Kumar (its an exceptional movie too). However, the best 3D I have ever seen was used in Hugo (perhaps the best movie of the year imo).

I haven't seen TPM (nor do I intend to do so), but I would think the 3D effect would be somewhere in the middle of Harold & Kumar and Hugo. Not popping out at you and distracting, but also gimicky at certain moments (pod race comes to mind). However, I am glad you enjoyed it!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Yeah, I enjoyed the 3D effects in Harold and Kumar largely because it was purposely over the top and they were making a joke out of it. I even bought the 3D combo pack of that movie to have the 3D for when/if I ever get a 3DTV, even though I'm largely not a fan of 3D (but I figure when I upgrade my TV eventually 3D will be a standard feature) and I generally don't bother getting the 3D combo packs of movies unless there is some reason other than the 3D disc to make me want to buy it (i.e. Pirates 4 and Cars 2 in which the Blu-Ray bonus features discs were only included in those sets).

That being said, I certainly don't want the kind of 3D in Harold and Kumar to become the norm. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of "gimicky" 3D. While I'm not a big fan of 3D in general, when I do see a movie in 3D, I prefer it to just add visual depth to 'normal' scenes rather than have things specifically meant to pop out at you. But that being said, there should be a happy medium between it not being too gimicky, and not being so subtle that it practically becomes pointless.

[goresnet]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Episode 1 is soft, apart from a few shots. 3D effect was quite subtle, sometimes it worked (when you see the Gungan army for example) but falls flat in other scenes (the one where Obi, Qui and Jar Jar talk in the forest. They are in the foreground, but the forest doesn't have any depth, making it look as if they are in front of a matte painting).

More interested how Ep.2+3 look on the big screen, considering the complaining that they are only 1080p..

Weren't they only 1080p the first time they were in theaters?

[phansson]

Originally Posted by goresnet

Weren't they only 1080p the first time they were in theaters?

Ep II and III were filmed natively in 1080p....

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Jay444

The point of the 3D in Harold & Kumar was to use it in such an absurd and over the top way that you would leave the theater thinking to yourself: "I don't think that is what they ever intended to use 3D for..." I LOVED the 3D effects of Harold & Kumar (its an exceptional movie too). However, the best 3D I have ever seen was used in Hugo (perhaps the best movie of the year imo).

Yeah, the thing with "Harold & Kumar" was just to use it in the most absurd way imaginable, and in the context of the movie it is good fun. In regards to "Hugo", well, it's a movie that I have very mixed feelings about - even being a life-long Scorsese fan - but that has mostly to do with things other than the 3-D. Some of it was interesting, like the shot of the German shepherd or whatever dog that was racing towards the camera. So whatever I think of "Hugo", I don't fault it for the 3-D use - but I do wish Scorsese had used the 3-D in a more unconventional way.

Originally Posted by Jay444

I haven't seen TPM (nor do I intend to do so), but I would think the 3D effect would be somewhere in the middle of Harold & Kumar and Hugo. Not popping out at you and distracting, but also gimicky at certain moments (pod race comes to mind). However, I am glad you enjoyed it!

I still think it's a bit of an unfair comparison because the movies that have been made since "Avatar" have either been filmed in 3-D or, at the very least, filmed with the eventual conversion in mind. So that already may be affecting the way the directors stage some scenes, and in a way the movies come "ready" for the conversion in a way that might not have happened otherwise (i.e., the studios not telling the directors that they want to release the film in 3-D).

In any event, I'll let you in on a little secret: practically any movie can be made to feel a little like 3-D if you watch it with just one eye. Yeah, I know, who wants to watch an entire movie with just one eye, right? But if you just want to see scenes of it, and you're sitting at the right distance from the TV, the effect is somewhat similar - you're using one eye to see an image captured with just one camera, so it's a similar thing to using both eyes to watch a stereoscopic image that was either filmed with two cameras or altered to look like it was. It doesn't work always, but when it does, it's really fun to do for a few scenes at a time.

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

So reading what others have said, it seems the 3D was underwhelming and not so visually striking - but this was deliberate and seemingly for the best?

So this prompts a couple of questions - did the 3D carry a "wow" factor like Avatar, Tron Legacy or Hugo etc (which is maybe unfair as it wasn't shot in 3D) or was it just another example of bland retro-fitted 3D like Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter etc? Please be honest, because nothing I'm reading from either side makes me think that this is worth investing my time and money to go and see.

Surely 3D should be about the spectacle and quite literally bringing another dimension to the movie so I genuinely don't understand when some here say that it's a good thing that the image doesn't pop out of the screen at you, and that this is deliberate

I really hope this isn't now going to be another several hundred pages of fanboys excusing what others feel is a mediocre product - what's the truth??

I think chances are TPM will carry more of a "D'oh!" factor than a "wow" factor...in any case, don't have too high hopes for it.

Bear in mind that 3D conversions will never have the same quality as native 3D films, such as Avatar. So far, 3D converted films such as Alice in Wonderland, POTC: On Stranger Tides, and (especially) the last Harry Potter have been completely atrocious in the 3D presentation.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

In any event, I'll let you in on a little secret: practically any movie can be made to feel a little like 3-D if you watch it with just one eye. Yeah, I know, who wants to watch an entire movie with just one eye, right? But if you just want to see scenes of it, and you're sitting at the right distance from the TV, the effect is somewhat similar - you're using one eye to see an image captured with just one camera, so it's a similar thing to using both eyes to watch a stereoscopic image that was either filmed with two cameras or altered to look like it was. It doesn't work always, but when it does, it's really fun to do for a few scenes at a time.

LOL

Yea, I have been doing that for a few years now.

If I see something on TV that has a great depth of field, I will try that little trick, which also works like a charm on movie trailers shown over the internet too.

Kind of ironic since the ONLY 3D movie that I have seen so far has been AVATAR.


Maybe someday I will go ahead and buy an-

.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Bear in mind that 3D conversions will never have the same quality as native 3D films, such as Avatar. So far, 3D converted films such as Alice in Wonderland, POTC: On Stranger Tides, and (especially) the last Harry Potter have been completely atrocious in the 3D presentation.

Well, I can understand that many people will judge the 3-D entirely by itself, which is perfectly understandable. But please remember that for many of us, a nice movie with *some* 3-D can be a more satisfying experience than the most spectacular 3-D in a movie that doesn't particularly excite us.

When I watched "Avatar" for the first time, I was blown away by the 3-D but the story was so trite that, eventually, I just started wishing it would be over already - it felt overlong by at least half an hour. And I'd never had that reaction to any James Cameron movie before, even the ones that were nearly 3 hours like "Titanic" or "The Abyss".

There have been other movies that had a relatively modest 3-D, including "Alice", "TPM" and "Toy Story 3", all of which I enjoyed tremendously, and was actually glad to have watched in 3-D.

So, again, YMMV when it comes to 3-D. To some of us, more "popping" 3-D is not going to automatically mean we'll enjoy the movie... and the more subtle 3-D sometimes makes an already good movie even better.

The potential for using new technology for an enhanced 3-D was very clear to me since way back in the early 90s, that is when I watched "Across the Sea of Time" in IMAX 3-D. It was mind-blowing. Especially when they showed the older stereoscopic photos of NYC in the early 1900s.

But it has to be done in a way that enhances a movie that you'd enjoy even if it *wasn't* in 3-D. With movies that would be boring in any dimension, well, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

@Duffy - good luck with the eyepatch

[The_Donster]

Alright, coming to the experts and asking a little advice. Long story short, I got a rock(a card) for Valentine's Day from my wife and I'm looking to cash that in with the Star Wars BD sets. I see that Amazon has them for $37 each and was wondering if this is a good deal or should I wait? I'm also curious if they have the same extras as the dvd sets? Thanks in advance for your advice.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Alright, coming to the experts and asking a little advice. Long story short, I got a rock(a card) for Valentine's Day from my wife and I'm looking to cash that in with the Star Wars BD sets. I see that Amazon has them for $37 each and was wondering if this is a good deal or should I wait? I'm also curious if they have the same extras as the dvd sets? Thanks in advance for your advice.

Different extras by and large. If you're into extras and like both trilogies, I'd get the 9-disc set.

[The_Donster]

You mean there's yet another boxed set Chordata? Is this the one you are talking about? Looks like about a $15 dollar difference between that and the one's I was looking at. Kind of disappointing to hear that it doesn't have all of the extras in the individual sets. I definitely like my extras and it would be a easier leap if they were closer in price to each other

[Breather]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

You mean there's yet another boxed set Chordata? Is this the one you are talking about? Looks like about a $15 dollar difference between that and the one's I was looking at. Kind of disappointing to hear that it doesn't have all of the extras in the individual sets. I definitely like my extras and it would be a easier leap if they were closer in price to each other

The separate trilogy sets for $37 each have no extras other than a commentary on each film. If you want extras, you have to buy the 9-disc set that you linked to for $90.