Gravity 3D Blu-ray (2013) [Region Free]

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Agreed. People clearly chose the 3D version for this film. I'm sure some will try to argue that "they weren't playing any 2D screenings where I live, so I had no choice but to go 3D", and that may be true in some areas perhaps, but in my local area (which is certainly not near any big cities), all the cinemas within driving range were playing it in both 2D and 3D.

3D is far from dead. I think it will get a second wind when 4k sets become the norm.

[ccinsf]

Talk about conversion... Thanks to this film my very anti3D spouse now gets it. The IMAX 3D presentation is stunning and the film itself is incredible.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There was a long close-up shot of her inside one of the stations and her face looked quite odd to me - it seemed misshapen somehow. It was the only time I really noticed anything unusual. Overall I thought the conversion was very impressive, though Pacific Rim was better in my opinion. Pacific Rim was flat-out amazing. This was excellent but I guess it had an issue or two since I noticed one and you noticed a few too. Still an outstanding job I feel. This is very precise work and it's a miracle they can do it at all - turning a 2D film into believable 3D is quite a feat when you think about it.

I thought the 3d conversion was very impressive for gravity as well and quite seamless at times with the native CG too! I thought the errors were very blink and you'll miss it for just about the whole movie honestly

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I thought the 3d conversion was very impressive for gravity as well and quite seamless at times with the native CG too! I thought the errors were very blink and you'll miss it for just about the whole movie honestly

I didn't notice errors either, but wasn't looking for them, just enjoying the experience.

Originally Posted by mseeley

[Show spoiler]i was a little peeved too that they got rid of kowalski when it looked like the rope was strong enough to stay stuck to her foot long enough for him to climb back to her. On the bright side I think it gave a chance for her character to grow and her action scenes were truly awesome (again the space station explosion inside the satellite was one of the highlights I honestly though have never seen fire behave in zero gravity though, which took me by surprise lol)

Originally Posted by Cocophone

[Show spoiler]Exactly. Kowalski had to die for Bullock's character story to cover her leaning to let go and live. Which she had not done since her daughter's death.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Great movie, great use of 3D, but the actual 2D-3D conversion's technical quality was surprisingly poor. Prime Focus had been doing some pretty solid work lately, but this was more reminiscent of Immortals than The Wizard of Oz or World War Z. Most of the movie was pure CGI, so that wasn't often an issue, but when Bullock was out of her space suit she was usually quite warpy and icky and unconvincing. That long shot of her in the airlock, while a powerful image, has one of the least convincing conversions of a human body I've ever seen outside of just leaving it flat - and there it is, in the center of the screen for an extended period of time, floating around like a misshapen lump of clay. They kind of dropped the ball in a lot of places.

Still, the 3D really adds to the experience and it should totally be seen in the format; preferably in IMAX or any of those many IMAX knock-offs.

You have a great eye for conversion errors UFAlien. I'd have to watch it again to spot those.

Originally Posted by thatscifiguy

For the naysayers that are always declaring the death of 3D, WB is reporting that a whopping 80% of all tickets sold this weekend were for the 3D version. It pulled in $55.6 million, setting a new record for an October release (prior champ: $52.5 million for "Paranormal Activity 3" in 2011).

I know folks around here don't place a lot of weight on Rotten Tomatoes, but its worth noting that Gravity has a 98% rating from critics and is pulling in 90% from viewers. With praise from all sides it will be interesting to see where this one ends up.

Nice. Thanks for posting the info.

Originally Posted by mar3o

There was a long close-up shot of her inside one of the stations and her face looked quite odd to me - it seemed misshapen somehow. It was the only time I really noticed anything unusual. Overall I thought the conversion was very impressive, though Pacific Rim was better in my opinion. Pacific Rim was flat-out amazing. This was excellent but I guess it had an issue or two since I noticed one and you noticed a few too. Still an outstanding job I feel. This is very precise work and it's a miracle they can do it at all - turning a 2D film into believable 3D is quite a feat when you think about it.

Well said.

I spoke to non 3D fans who saw this and they were happy with the pop outs most of all. I had to agree, the pop outs had me flinching back and I wish there were a few more, but very nice.

[Mikeatron85]

It's been quite funny coming in and reading this thread after seeing the film last night with no prior knowledge about its use of 3D. I actually thought I remember reading that all live-action stuff was shot native.

But as others have said, that one shot where she first removes the suit, made me realise that it absolutely had conversion techniques used. I didn't find her to be too misshapen, but there were certainly depth errors around her frame (instances of the background being at the same depth as her face for example).

As UFAlien said - it was really noticeable because of how long that particular shot lasted for. I'm sure general audiences wouldn't even realise... but 3D heads like us would definitely see it.

Besides that, the movie and its 3D were exceptional. I really enjoyed it and can't wait to see it again.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Yes, mix of CGI 3D with converted 2D to 3D live action for Hybrid

About 25 min. of the motion picture was 2D -> 3D converted.

Heads-up to locals….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...up#post8221476

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Most of the movie was pure CGI...

Well not “pure CGI” because within the CG environments, such as the space stations, it was actually a hybrid. The environment was created in a similar fashion to the exterior scenes with Ryan Stone part real and part CG projected onto geometry as part of the VFX process.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

As UFAlien said - it was really noticeable because of how long that particular shot lasted for. I'm sure general audiences wouldn't even realise... but 3D heads like us would definitely see it...

Just be happy that you and UFAlien aren’t also astrophysicists -
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/#53212570

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

3D is far from dead. I think it will get a second wind when 4k sets become the norm.

4K in 3D should be awesome. Though I imagine 4K won't take off till another 5 years minimum, since many have just bought an upgraded 3DHDTV.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

About 25 min. of the motion picture was 2D -> 3D converted.

Heads-up to locals….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...up#post8221476

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well not “pure CGI” because within the CG environments, such as the space stations, it was actually a hybrid. The environment was created in a similar fashion to the exterior scenes with Ryan Stone part real and part CG projected onto geometry as part of the VFX process.

Thanks Penton-Man. And for the links.
How did you like the movie Gravity and the 3D use?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks Penton-Man. And for the links.
How did you like the movie Gravity and the 3D use?

I enjoyed the flick very much and I think that it provided a good shot in the arm for 3D theatrical presentations in general…i.e. it’s got *the common man* talking about 3D again, at least in my neighborhood at the dog park.

Sure there are some technical 3D imaging hiccups that could have been corrected given unlimited time and budget but overall I’d say that the 3D experience was excellent esp. in showing the relative scale of distances and objects which was important to the storytelling.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it is a nice feather in the cap for the 3D movement and you guys should use this flick to *work* 3D amongst your friends, neighbors, etc.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I enjoyed the flick very much and I think that it provided a good shot in the arm for 3D theatrical presentations in general…i.e. it’s got *the common man* talking about 3D again, at least in my neighborhood at the dog park.

Sure there are some technical 3D imaging hiccups that could have been corrected given unlimited time and budget but overall I’d say that the 3D experience was excellent esp. in showing the relative scale of distances and objects which was important to the storytelling.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it is a nice feather in the cap for the 3D movement and you guys should use this flick to *work* 3D amongst your friends, neighbors, etc.

Glad you enjoyed it and the 3D.
You're right, it's nice to hear general audiences talking about 3D in a more positive light regarding Gravity 3D.

I spoke with some people who never watch 3D, and they mentioned they had fun with the 3D in Gravity, but mostly I was surprised they saw the 3D version at all.
Way to go Gravity 3D.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Glad you enjoyed it and the 3D.
You're right, it's nice to hear general audiences talking about 3D in a more positive light regarding Gravity 3D.

I spoke with some people who never watch 3D, and they mentioned they had fun with the 3D in Gravity, but mostly I was surprised they saw the 3D version at all.
Way to go Gravity 3D.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...rs-sets-643469
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/gr...ce-1200709672/

As an aside to the production, the filmmakers actually wanted to shoot some of the scenes natively (and even tested for that) but, they just couldn’t get the 3D rigs into the confined spaces or provide enough support for them on the robotic arms.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...rs-sets-643469
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/gr...ce-1200709672/

As an aside to the production, the filmmakers actually wanted to shoot some of the scenes natively (and even tested for that) but, they just couldn’t get the 3D rigs into the confined spaces or provide enough support for them on the robotic arms.

Thanks Penton-Man. Glad to see Gravity 3D has already broken the 100 million dollar mark and still going.

[sookymonster]

Just saaw Gravity again. It really is good.


But what excited me the most was the trailer for the new Thor movie. It looks great. I love how good these conversions are getting now.

[Dumbhuman]

I think this was unfortunately a big step back in quality for Prime Focus after a surprisingly competent job on The Wizard of Oz (not without its own more forgivable problems). Gravity wasn't quite as awful as their work on Immortals, but the last half of the film is just littered with distortion in Sandra Bullock's shaping that unfortunately took me out of film and made me literally shake my head and swear quietly in disappointment. There are instances where her temple seems smashed behind her eyeball, her cheeks swell up like a battered wife, her fingers/hand are stretched way too long from the control panel, etc. During the fetal shot, her hair edges and more fall right to the background, ruining what should be an iconic moment. Even worse (because it's a CGI element) is one of the first tears that floats dramatically towards us while leaving its left half on the background!

Personally I think they played things too conservatively particularly in the first half of the film, though at least that part was comfortable to watch and not too distracting, but as the errors just kept piling up and taking me out of the experience towards the end, I was very glad that my first viewing of the film was in 2D so that I could just appreciate it on its own without bad associations. I guess I'm also somewhat glad I can save some money and only buy the 2D version on Blu-ray, but I'm more disappointed that Gravity didn't turn out better in 3D because it was something I had really been anticipating.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

I think this was unfortunately a big step back in quality for Prime Focus after a surprisingly competent job on The Wizard of Oz (not without its own more forgivable problems). Gravity wasn't quite as awful as their work on Immortals, but the last half of the film is just littered with distortion in Sandra Bullock's shaping that unfortunately took me out of film and made me literally shake my head and swear quietly in disappointment. There are instances where her temple seems smashed behind her eyeball, her cheeks swell up like a battered wife, her fingers/hand are stretched way too long from the control panel, etc. During the fetal shot, her hair edges and more fall right to the background, ruining what should be an iconic moment. Even worse (because it's a CGI element) is one of the first tears that floats dramatically towards us while leaving its left half on the background!

Personally I think they played things too conservatively particularly in the first half of the film, though at least that part was comfortable to watch and not too distracting, but as the errors just kept piling up and taking me out of the experience towards the end, I was very glad that my first viewing of the film was in 2D so that I could just appreciate it on its own without bad associations. I guess I'm also somewhat glad I can save some money and only buy the 2D version on Blu-ray, but I'm more disappointed that Gravity didn't turn out better in 3D because it was something I had really been anticipating.

Well, I guess, opinions vary.

You have very unique standards in that I can tell you more than a couple professional stereographers (whom have been stereographers on feature films in the past which you guys have reviewed very favorably on this 3D forum) although having noticed some of the technical hiccups or imperfections in Gravity, they were not ‘taken out’ of the 3D experience at all and really felt that they had been taken on a trip to space, and in fact, are recommending colleagues see the 3D version (over the 2D version). Keep in mind, these are people who pull no punches when it comes to their 3D assessment of any imagery….true nit-pickers.

I’m actually a little surprised in your critique that you didn’t mention the technical hiccup which has been the one most privately discussed (and labeled as easily noticeable and distracting) by both the stereographers involved in the film and fellow stereographers with no affiliation whatsoever to the motion picture… namely, that being the water on the lens during some of the imagery which makes audiences aware of the camera (i.e. you are ‘watching a movie’)….rather than ‘being there’.

[Dumbhuman]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, I guess, opinions vary.

You have very unique standards in that I can tell you more than a couple professional stereographers (whom have been stereographers on feature films in the past which you guys have reviewed very favorably on this 3D forum) although having noticed some of the technical hiccups or imperfections in Gravity, they were not ‘taken out’ of the 3D experience at all and really felt that they had been taken on a trip to space, and in fact, are recommending colleagues see the 3D version (over the 2D version). Keep in mind, these are people who pull no punches when it comes to their 3D assessment of any imagery….true nit-pickers.

I’m actually a little surprised in your critique that you didn’t mention the technical hiccup which has been the one most privately discussed (and labeled as easily noticeable and distracting) by both the stereographers involved in the film and fellow stereographers with no affiliation whatsoever to the motion picture… namely, that being the water on the lens during some of the imagery which makes audiences aware of the camera (i.e. you are ‘watching a movie’)….rather than ‘being there’.

Water on the lens would absolutely play on the level of the lens and be the most negative part of the scene. That's expected. It's the same reason that lens flares play they way they do (and are also solely the product of the camera and therefore a reminder of its existence to anyone who's well-versed in film). So, no, I wouldn't list that as a critique.

If I had wanted to get really really nitpicky, I'd also have pointed out the way in which the reflections on the space helmets were always played at the level of the glass. Yes, technically the refraction will cause parts of the image to play closer to the surface dependent on the viewing angle, but there would also be quite a bit that would play in more positive space (as the shot of Bullock in Clooney's mirror did). The helmet they currently have on display in the lobby of the Chinese Theater is a useful prop for seeing this effect for yourself if you'd like. As I said though, that would be really nitpicking and even though I knew it wasn't correct, it wasn't something that took me out of the experience and I understand that in some ways playing it "correctly" would've likely been more distracting for some people and certainly would've been more work.

I'm aware that I have much higher standards than the average movie-goer who's never given much conscious thought to the principles of stereography (which is one of the reasons why I don't review very often here). That said, I'm also well aware that in order to meet deadlines battles need to be chosen. Consequently, as long as the errors don't pile up enough to really take me out of the experience, I let them slide. Every film has its errors, even natively shot ones. Pina is one of my favorite 3D films, but the very first shot and more than a few others are miniaturized from the inter-axial being too high. Dial M for Murder has a shot with brain-melting vertical disparity and a long one that goes 2D (to name just two). Mistakes happen.

For me, Gravity's conversion simply had a few too many errors in the second half. I don't expect to sway anyone's opinion to match my own, because believe me I envy the people who can watch it and think it's the best 3D they've ever seen. I wanted that to be my experience as well, but it just wasn't.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

4K in 3D should be awesome. Though I imagine 4K won't take off till another 5 years minimum, since many have just bought an upgraded 3DHDTV.





Thanks Penton-Man. And for the links.
How did you like the movie Gravity and the 3D use?

Yes, should look great. I wonder how far we are from impressive glasses free.

[Big3dfan]

I am so itching to see it in IMAX 3D, hopefully next week.

For those of you who has seen Startreck 3D, the menu scene is one of the best 3D of space theme with full screen + infinite depth awesomeness. Too bad even the actual screen didn't look as good as it was not full screen and immediately takes you out of full immersion.

Can you compare Gravity 3D to that menu?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

I'm aware that I have much higher standards than the average movie-goer who's never given much conscious thought to the principles of stereography

You didn’t notice the disparity in the eyes in some images? Definite giveaway as to a less than perfect render.