The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Blu-ray (2012) [Region Free]

[Dimaya]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

That's good to hear. It has cool action and during those moments, strong 3D.
At home, even Clash of the Titans looks better than it did at theaters. In that and Amazing Spider Man 3D, when a shot had weak 3D, it was practically 2D even wearing glasses, with almost zero double image separation when flipping up the glasses to check the 3D signal. I bet it'll look better at home on a sharper screen with better colors and HD. Sometimes the theater washes out the 3D if the screen is too big, from my experience, unless that's just the settings of the projector.

I'm not sure this one looks better at home. I mean, I have already watched it with my HMZ-T1 at home but the 3D isn't better than in the cinema, like other movies.

[Bluray3d4life]

The 3d had alot more depth at home than in the imax I saw.....atleast in the non-action scenes. It all about your set-up. Lots of variables!

[Dimaya]

Yeah it's all about set-up and I would imagine HMZ-T1 is one of the best out there with its OLED, no ghosting, no cross-talk etc. Yet I do not think there is any more depth in the none-action scenes.

Though I had a thrill looking down on the streets from the edge of the building were Parker were standing upside-down.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Dimaya

Yeah it's all about set-up and I would imagine HMZ-T1 is one of the best out there with its OLED, no ghosting, no cross-talk etc. Yet I do not think there is any more depth in the none-action scenes.

Though I had a thrill looking down on the streets from the edge of the building were Parker were standing upside-down.

Does this movie take advantage of the height? That's what I love most about 3D.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Watched it last night and I wasn't very impressed with the 3D. Ninety percent of the movie seemed flat and the action sequences looked nice but I still felt some of the bigger set pieces could have benefitted from a greater sense of depth. Maybe I'm nitpicking but I really wanted to be wowed by this and it came up a bit short for me.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Dimaya

I'm not sure this one looks better at home. I mean, I have already watched it with my HMZ-T1 at home but the 3D isn't better than in the cinema, like other movies.

Originally Posted by Bluray3d4life

The 3d had alot more depth at home than in the imax I saw.....atleast in the non-action scenes. It all about your set-up. Lots of variables!

I don't think the 3D set up can vary too much, but it still makes a difference, especially the angle you're watching the screen at, and the distance sometimes. Other than that, what are some of the variables that can improve the 3D, aside from the size of the screen?

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Does this movie take advantage of the height? That's what I love most about 3D.

Only during the action scenes for the most part.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

Watched it last night and I wasn't very impressed with the 3D. Ninety percent of the movie seemed flat and the action sequences looked nice but I still felt some of the bigger set pieces could have benefitted from a greater sense of depth. Maybe I'm nitpicking but I really wanted to be wowed by this and it came up a bit short for me.

Here's hoping they get it right on Amazing Spider Man 2 3D, now in pre-production.

[gamermwm]

So the 3D disc is 1:78?

[bhampton]

I just watched this and it was great.

I did wonder why most of it was a bit flat.

I guess they just saved the 3D-ness for certain scenes ... for whatever reason.

Still,... reading the reviews on the 2D and the 3D set they say the 2D set is superior and ... Why?...

The 3D set is the 2D set WITH a 3D copy... how can everything and more be inferior?....???

I bought it for $23 at Best Buy today (using a $5 RZ cert they gave me just simply because it's "holliday season") and I suppose the 2D set can be had for less but I always find it worth the little extra to build my 3D collection.

-Brian

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I just watched this and it was great.

I did wonder why most of it was a bit flat.

I guess they just saved the 3D-ness for certain scenes ... for whatever reason.

Still,... reading the reviews on the 2D and the 3D set they say the 2D set is superior and ... Why?...

The 3D set is the 2D set WITH a 3D copy... how can everything and more be inferior?....???

I bought it for $23 at Best Buy today (using a $5 RZ cert they gave me just simply because it's "holliday season") and I suppose the 2D set can be had for less but I always find it worth the little extra to build my 3D collection.

-Brian

i can only figure, like others have said, that the film makers backed off the 3d in non action scenes so as to make the 3d even stronger during the action scenes. yes it works. i just think they backed off too much. anyway, i still enjoyed it. im starting to appreciate a lot more every day. like i said earlier: now that i have it at home, i can stop comparing to raimis movies. amazing gets better and better. this time next week, itll be my favorite spidey film.

[Lovemy3D]

I must have gotten a different movie than most of the people posting here.

In mine, I'd consider the level of depth in the non action scenes somewhere in the mid range. As many movies are. Certainly not as week as people are trying to claim. And when things get going the 3D really is great. This movie is getting overly, and unjustly criticized in my opinion. When in actuality it looks damn good. And looks leagues better than any of the converted super hero movies that have been made. Do so few people really see the difference in quality? If so it's too bad. But that's not to say I'm not all for cranking it up a few notches in the next one. I guess that's the bright side to all the complaining. It might push them to put the entirety of it into the extra strong department next time. Unless they decide to just make the next one a conversion job super hero movie like all the others, since there is so much praise for some of those lol. That would be pretty damn sad.

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Okay, things didn't go as planned.

I couldn't wait to watch the movie, so instead of me and the wife watching it on our special movie night, I watched it with the family, which means; not enough glasses, hence 2D.

The movie was great, however! I really enjoyed it! I'll hold onto the disk for another week or so, give it a couple more watches, and a 3D viewing.

Cool, glad you liked it. Hope you will enjoy the 3D version.

[seregloth]

Surprised not to see this discussed here (or mentioned, but maybe I missed it).
Some copies of the 3D release of this title are redeeming as 3D digital copies via Vudu. Apparently it does so if you look up Amazing Spider-Man 3D on Vudu when you click on "redeem Ultraviolet Digital Copy" (as opposed to selecting the 2D or redeeming through Sony or Flixster).
People are having kind of random variance with the redemption (people wanting 2D but getting 3D, and visa versa), but the 3D Vudu codes for this are out there. I'm happy because as soon as Vudu gets their Android app off the ground, I'm hoping I'll be able to watch this (and Tangled Ever After) anywhere I want in 3D.
But for now, it is interesting to see them take this step.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by seregloth

Surprised not to see this discussed here (or mentioned, but maybe I missed it).
Some copies of the 3D release of this title are redeeming as 3D digital copies via Vudu. Apparently it does so if you look up Amazing Spider-Man 3D on Vudu when you click on "redeem Ultraviolet Digital Copy" (as opposed to selecting the 2D or redeeming through Sony or Flixster).
People are having kind of random variance with the redemption (people wanting 2D but getting 3D, and visa versa), but the 3D Vudu codes for this are out there. I'm happy because as soon as Vudu gets their Android app off the ground, I'm hoping I'll be able to watch this (and Tangled Ever After) anywhere I want in 3D.
But for now, it is interesting to see them take this step.

Interesting... I don't know which vudu copy I would prefer.

Usually, my vudu copies are used by my neighbor,... I have no reason to watch them since I have the Blu Ray and often the Itunes copy too.

I know she doesn't and won't have 3D for a long time.

Anyways,... how do you figure android is going to playback 3D?

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by seregloth

Surprised not to see this discussed here (or mentioned, but maybe I missed it).
Some copies of the 3D release of this title are redeeming as 3D digital copies via Vudu. Apparently it does so if you look up Amazing Spider-Man 3D on Vudu when you click on "redeem Ultraviolet Digital Copy" (as opposed to selecting the 2D or redeeming through Sony or Flixster).
People are having kind of random variance with the redemption (people wanting 2D but getting 3D, and visa versa), but the 3D Vudu codes for this are out there. I'm happy because as soon as Vudu gets their Android app off the ground, I'm hoping I'll be able to watch this (and Tangled Ever After) anywhere I want in 3D.
But for now, it is interesting to see them take this step.

I may be daft, but this whole post just confuses me. Blu ray's dont!

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

I must have gotten a different movie than most of the people posting here.

In mine, I'd consider the level of depth in the non action scenes somewhere in the mid range. As many movies are. Certainly not as week as people are trying to claim. And when things get going the 3D really is great. This movie is getting overly, and unjustly criticized in my opinion.

If we compare the "flatter" dialog scenes' 3D of Amazing Spiderman, directly next to most of the stronger 3D dialog scenes of Avatar, Hugo or Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, then it'll put things in perspective. Those have the consistent dialog scene 3D quality we're saying was lacking in Amazing Spiderman's 3D. That's all.

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

If we compare the "flatter" dialog scenes' 3D of Amazing Spiderman, directly next to most of the stronger 3D dialog scenes of Avatar, Hugo or Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, then it'll put things in perspective. Those have the consistent dialog scene 3D quality we're saying was lacking in Amazing Spiderman's 3D. That's all.

Yeah, I get that most here would like the strongest 3D possible in every moment of every movie seen. Me included. But we just don't always get that. Not even with the animated movies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DreamWorks are the only ones putting out consistently strong 3D in every movie they have been putting out. Maybe Blue Sky as well. (I've only seen two of theirs so far, that I'm aware of.) Even Silent hill 2 had much stronger 3D during it's Silent Hill moments than it did during it's real world scenes. I watched Coraline recently, and now that seemed quite flat in comparison to the the stuff I've been watching lately. I don't think there is a single moment in Spider-Man that is as flat as most of Coraline is. And yet there is much praise for Coraline.

I just find it a little irksome seeing Spider-Man crapped on so much, and even some comments stating that it's not even worth watching in 3D because it's so flat. Those kind of statements are simply not true at all. In reality, it's really good. Even If not the strongest 3D possible at all times.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

Yeah, I get that most here would like the strongest 3D possible in every moment of every movie seen. Me included. But we just don't always get that. Not even with the animated movies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DreamWorks are the only ones putting out consistently strong 3D in every movie they have been putting out. Maybe Blue Sky as well. (I've only seen two of theirs so far, that I'm aware of.) Even Silent hill 2 had much stronger 3D during it's Silent Hill moments than it did during it's real world scenes. I watched Coraline recently, and now that seemed quite flat in comparison to the the stuff I've been watching lately. I don't think there is a single moment in Spider-Man that is as flat as most of Coraline is. And yet there is much praise for Coraline.

I just find it a little irksome seeing Spider-Man crapped on so much, and even some comments stating that it's not even worth watching in 3D because it's so flat. Those kind of statements are simply not true at all. In reality, it's really good. Even If not the strongest 3D possible at all times.

Well said, LoveMy3D.

Paranorman and Coraline both have some nice 3D moments, but most of the 3D is weak at best I hate to say, when compared to more daring 3D movies.

And yes, here's hoping the 3D guys for Amazing Spiderman 2 take notes on this thread, and give us the awesome 3D from the action scenes, for the whole movie, this way every scene is worthy of the best 3D has to offer.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

Yeah, I get that most here would like the strongest 3D possible in every moment of every movie seen. Me included. But we just don't always get that. Not even with the animated movies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DreamWorks are the only ones putting out consistently strong 3D in every movie they have been putting out. Maybe Blue Sky as well. (I've only seen two of theirs so far, that I'm aware of.) Even Silent hill 2 had much stronger 3D during it's Silent Hill moments than it did during it's real world scenes. I watched Coraline recently, and now that seemed quite flat in comparison to the the stuff I've been watching lately. I don't think there is a single moment in Spider-Man that is as flat as most of Coraline is. And yet there is much praise for Coraline.

I just find it a little irksome seeing Spider-Man crapped on so much, and even some comments stating that it's not even worth watching in 3D because it's so flat. Those kind of statements are simply not true at all. In reality, it's really good. Even If not the strongest 3D possible at all times.

Not every scene needs to be eye-popping, but to create an immersive experience, every scene needs appropriate depth. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of TASM having a mid-level amount of depth in the non-action scenes. Glad you could enjoy it, but to me, the dialogue depth is some of the weakest I've ever seen in a native film. I'd compare it to A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas in that most everything was too weak, except for the CGI.

The difference with Coraline is that there is an obvious and somewhat acceptable reason within the story for flat 3D. The depth expands as she enters a crazy alternate world. Kind of like TRON: Legacy where depth expands from 2D in the real world to subtle but noticeable 3D in the Grid to strong 3D in the designated emotional IMAX scenes.

With TASM's story, flat 3D makes no sense, and some of the most important moments that define Peter Parker are abnormally and offensively flat. Take the scene where

[Show spoiler]Uncle Ben lays dying

as an example. Also, the

[Show spoiler]end scene with Aunt May in the doorway where they use depth of focus effects to create a sense of depth instead of 3D

. Really, it's almost every scene with a mid to close-up shot of a live human face. Other than appropriately flat distant cityscape shots, the only nice-looking and memorable 3D sequences are the animated hologram effects, web-slinging, and lizard fighting. What an abysmal depth script! Did they want us to just forget about the early emotional events? Did they think Emma Stone is ugly and want to hide her flaws by flattening all her close-ups? What gives? How disappointing! As a 3D enthusiast, I'm certainly with you on the 3D version being superior. The 3D web-slinging is wonderful, but I can understand if someone else desires a more wholesome experience that doesn't distract from the story with flat 3D.

Hopefully, the preference for smushed 3D was just inexperience and shyness by the director and cinematographer, and they will be more fundamentally sound with their 3D planning in the sequel. Next time, I hope they use the standard mathematical formulas for creating realistic depth proportions and consult their on-set stereographers about how to create the best 3D possible on a scene-to-scene basis. As evidenced by the 3D CGI, Marc Webb and his crew are very talented and creative, and I will be excited to see what improvements they can make to the sequel's live-action 3D.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Not every scene needs to be eye-popping, but to create an immersive experience, every scene needs appropriate depth. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of TASM having a mid-level amount of depth in the non-action scenes. The dialogue depth is some of the weakest I've ever seen in a native film. I'd compare it to A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas in that most everything was too weak, except for the CGI.

The difference with Coraline is that there is an obvious and acceptable reason within the story for flat 3D. The depth expands as she enters a crazy alternate world. Kind of like TRON: Legacy where depth expands from 2D in the real world to subtle but noticeable 3D in the Grid to strong 3D in the designated emotional IMAX scenes.

With TASM's story, flat 3D makes no sense, and some of the most important moments that define Peter Parker are abnormally and offensively flat. Take the scene where

[Show spoiler]Uncle Ben lays dying

as an example. Also, the

[Show spoiler]end scene with Aunt May in the doorway where they use depth of focus effects to create a sense of depth instead of 3D

. Really, it's almost every scene with a mid to close-up shot of a live human face. Other than appropriately flat distant cityscape shots, the only nice-looking and memorable 3D sequences are the animated hologram effects, web-slinging, and lizard fighting. What an abysmal depth script! Did they want us to just forget about the early emotional events? Did they think Emma Stone is ugly and want to hide her flaws by flattening all her close-ups? What gives? As a 3D enthusiast, I'm certainly with you on the 3D version being superior, but I can understand if someone else desires a more wholesome experience that doesn't distract from the story with flat 3D.

Hopefully, the preference for smushed 3D was just inexperience and shyness by the director and cinematographer, and they will be more fundamentally sound with their 3D planning in the sequel. Next time, I hope they use the standard mathematical formulas for creating realistic depth proportions and consult their on-set stereographers about how to create the best 3D possible on a scene-to-scene basis. As evidenced by the 3D CGI, Marc Webb and his crew are very talented and creative, and I will be excited to see what improvements they can make to the sequel's live-action 3D.

Now thats what I call a well thought out and written critical & polite response.

If only we all could make such an effort.

Thanks to you both.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I just watched this and it was great.

I did wonder why most of it was a bit flat.

I guess they just saved the 3D-ness for certain scenes ... for whatever reason.

Still,... reading the reviews on the 2D and the 3D set they say the 2D set is superior and ... Why?...

The 3D set is the 2D set WITH a 3D copy... how can everything and more be inferior?....???

I bought it for $23 at Best Buy today (using a $5 RZ cert they gave me just simply because it's "holliday season") and I suppose the 2D set can be had for less but I always find it worth the little extra to build my 3D collection.

-Brian

Lucky!!!! I'll have to try that this week lol

[Rupert305]

I finally picked this up in 3D last night, was going to go for the 2D only version after all the bad reviews. Figured I'd but the 3D version and if it's as bad as people say I'd just get rid of it. Watched the 2D version last night, I thought it was a really good movie. Can't wait to see the action scenes in 3D though.