Has Lionsgate ever released a 3D movie with separate 3D and 2D BDs?

[jscoggins]

Since starting the OP, it turns out that Lionsgate has done this twice.

The Darkest Hour (The 3D disc would not output 2D in some hardware configurations, so Lionsgate quietly included the 2D disc in later pressings.)
The Divergent Series: Insurgent

----------

Has Lionsgate ever released a 3D movie with separate 3D and 2D BDs?

I ask this question because they are releasing two flagship blockbusters, Insurgent and Mockingjay Part 2, in 3D this year.

This makes me worried about the eventual BDs because as far as I can remember, all of Lionsgate's 3D BDs have had both 3D and 2D transfers on the same disc. This puts an obvious bitrate crunch on the video encodes.

[jwerk]

I don't think so

Off the top of my head, I can think of Dredd, Conan, Hercules, Nurse, Texas Chainsaw, I Frankenstein...all had 3d & 2d on same disc

[OrlandoEastwood]

Conan was released separately in 2D.

[Doombear]

Saw 3D/The Final Chapter

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

Conan was released separately in 2D.

Originally Posted by Doombear

Saw 3D/The Final Chapter

Yeah, but the 3D versions still crammed both transfers on 1 disc.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Yeah, but the 3D versions still crammed both transfers on 1 disc.

Nothing crammed about it. The 2d release for their films from what I have seen is just the left or right image and thus having both on one disc is fine. Dredds problems for example are not a result of both being on one disc, the issue is the master and transfer process. Hence why the french release also on one disc looks stunning (especially in comparison).

Avatar is also on one disc, 1.78:1 and a 2 hour and 40 minutes film and just fine.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The 2d release for their films from what I have seen is just the left or right image

That is not optimal because you're seeing part of what was meant to be a 3D image and not a dedicated 2D image.

[steve_dave]

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

That's Starz/Anchor Bay.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

That's Starz/Anchor Bay.

Dang it! Wait. So Lionsgate has the first one thanks to Miramax but Starz/Anchor Bay has the second due to The Weinstein Company. That means the only way to have gotten both was through the Walmart exclusive since that has both films in one set. Uh, so Anchor Bay licensed the first film from Lionsgate.

Sorry, I got confused because of that set. I figured both were Lionsgate deals. I guess the answer is that Lionsgate prefers to have 3D and 2D on the same disc.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Dang it! Wait. So Lionsgate has the first one thanks to Miramax but Starz/Anchor Bay has the second due to The Weinstein Company. That means the only way to have gotten both was through the Walmart exclusive since that has both films in one set. Uh, so Anchor Bay licensed the first film from Lionsgate.

Sorry, I got confused because of that set. I figured both were Lionsgate deals. I guess the answer is that Lionsgate prefers to have 3D and 2D on the same disc.

Yeah, this concerns me because I do not want both transfers on the same disc. This also has the potential to mess up the Exclusives that Best Buy, Target, and Walmart offer.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

That is not optimal because you're seeing part of what was meant to be a 3D image and not a dedicated 2D image.

That is exactly what the 2d image is. One of the 2d images that make up the 3d image. As long as compression isn't an issue (which it will be as they can't even get a standard 2d release right for Divergent or the Hunger Game films) then it is a moot point. With this company you should be more concerned about them just being competent, even in 'just' 2d with their transfers.

Every time the 2d release has been different (eg: Monster House) it has been provided in both ways. This does not apply to any of the films you are refereeing to though.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

That is exactly what the 2d image is. One of the 2d images that make up the 3d image.

And that's the problem. Whether shot natively or post-converted, the left- and right-eye images are customized. Showing only one of these sides does not provide a "centered" perspective.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

And that's the problem. Whether shot natively or post-converted, the left- and right-eye images are customized. Showing only one of these sides does not provide a "centered" perspective.

Sigh, they are often not customized (far more often then they aren't then they are changed). In fact few native productions do anything, and one eye in a conversion is always the original image though usually cropped slightly. However when this has been the case the 2d release has always been provided separately. What can also happen is little black bars can show up vertically to the left or right hand side of one of the images. For the releases this happens it has never been present with the 2d playback option as a separate option has been provided. Lionsgate 3d release in how they are made are fine as they currently are.

Name one Lionsgate release that has a poor 2d + 3d release on the same disc, where the fault for it is the presence of 3d and not an all around buggered transfer.

So once again, your worrying over nothing and the thing to be worried about is the companies ability to do competent transfers.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Sigh. That can be the case and when it has been a separate disc has been provided

Yes, but that's been done by other companies, not Lionsgate.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Yes, but that's been done by other companies, not Lionsgate.

You got to my post before I meant it to have been posted. My point is no Lionsgate 3d release has needed that thus far. The way they form/edit the 3d image thus far makes what you are saying a moot point as it simply has no effect. As is the case with Avatar and many other titles.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Has Lionsgate ever released a 3D movie with separate 3D and 2D BDs?

I ask this question because they are releasing two flagship blockbusters, Insurgent and Mockingjay Part 2, in 3D this year.

This makes me worried about the eventual BDs because as far as I can remember, all of Lionsgate's 3D BDs have had both 3D and 2D transfers on the same disc. This puts an obvious bitrate crunch on the video encodes.

What, because Lionsgate normally lavish massive encodes on 2D movies anyway?! They're one of the worst studios around when it comes to Blu-ray quality.

Look at it like this: there's no way that Lionsgate (or anyone else, for that matter) will be able to fit a 2+ hour 3D MVC encode plus nearly 3 hours of HD extras (typical of the Hunger Games series so far) plus chunky 7.1 sound & ancillary audio tracks on a single BD50.

Heck, if they put the 3D version on a separate disc and cram the 2D + extras on another then just the left eye encode of the 3D might have a higher bit rate than the 2D standalone!

As Suntory said, the other qualities of that left eye stream re: brightness and colour depend on whether it's mastered specifically for 3D to counteract the the light loss and altered colour saturation that comes from wearing the 3D goggles. Many 3D Blu-rays and indeed theatrical features are graded differently from the 2D in this way (heck, most 3D DCPs contain two different 3D versions with higher/lower brightness!) whereas some I've seen are virtually identical to each other, like Titanic and Avatar.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What, because Lionsgate normally lavish massive encodes on 2D movies anyway?! They're one of the worst studios around when it comes to Blu-ray quality.

Look at it like this: there's no way that Lionsgate (or anyone else, for that matter) will be able to fit a 2+ hour 3D MVC encode plus nearly 3 hours of HD extras (typical of the Hunger Games series so far) plus chunky 7.1 sound & ancillary audio tracks on a single BD50.

Heck, if they put the 3D version on a separate disc and cram the 2D + extras on another then just the left eye encode of the 3D might have a higher bit rate than the 2D standalone!

As Suntory said, the other qualities of that left eye stream re: brightness and colour depend on whether it's mastered specifically for 3D to counteract the the light loss and altered colour saturation that comes from wearing the 3D goggles. (Many 3D Blu-rays and indeed theatrical features are graded differently from the 2D in this way, whereas some I've seen are virtually identical to each other, like Titanic and Avatar.)

Um, you do realize that

1) I agree with everything you posted

2) all of those points are even more cause for concern with regards to Insurgent and Mockingjay Part 2

right?

[Geoff D]

But there's no physical way to fit everything on a single platter, not if they keep to the current template of film + extras on one disc.

I think we might see a 3D/2D movie disc + extras disc kinda deal. That way they can split the movie disc off at some point to sell on its own. Yes, it might well be a less than ideal 2D presentation BUT they make such a pig's ear of most of their releases anyway that I honestly don't think it'll make too much difference.

[Geoff D]

As for the issue of what the 2D left eye actually represents of the stereo 3D image, some conversion houses like to just create a new right eye image which leaves the left eye the same as the flat original, but some like to create two new L/R images from the original 2D photography because it gives them more control and flexibility. Then there's the issue of floating windows. Cameron hates them so you'll never see them on his movies, but other folks aren't so choosy and they can impinge on the 2D, although as Suntory said I've never seen a 3D/2D disc with floating windows, it's usually the 'locked' 3D discs that have them (perhaps they're locked for that reason?).