Blade Runner 2049 3D Blu-ray (2017) [Region Free]

[dartfrog298]

All I will say about all this is that I personally thought the film and the 3D were very good. I really enjoyed this movie a lot!

[vinnie97]

This one was well earned, end of.

[MC123ABC]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

But you don't care what I think anymore than I care what you think so let's not pretend.

Whether the world should be in that bad of condition given the "happy ending" versions of the original (which showed once you got outside smoggy L.A., forests, etc. still existed) is questionable, but that's the direction they went. I don't think the story depended on it that much either way. Ana de Armas is a goddess in the movie too. The whiskey glasses are awesome as well and it features the old ones plus a few new ones.

You see, it is not bladerunner. They re-titled some other scifi movie and did a mild conversion, with a couple strong reference scenes.

They Figure heck, lets throw Ford in there at the end and slap a Bladerunner title on it, they wont notice..




Yeah, that chick was hot. Great 3D work on her for sure.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by MC123ABC

You see, it is not bladerunner. They re-titled some other scifi movie and did a mild conversion, with a couple strong reference scenes.

They Figure heck, lets throw Ford in there at the end and slap a Bladerunner title on it, they wont notice..

Well, if it wasn't Blade Runner, it was better than Blade Runner.

[Blu-Ray 3D President]

I just have to have it to complete the HALLOWED SIX OF 3D MOVIES (based on cinematography awards). I already have the 5 -- Titanic, Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi and Gravity.

So I pulled the 2049 Trigger!!

Total for $25.5. Good deal!

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray 3D President

I just have to have it to complete the HALLOWED SIX OF 3D MOVIES (based on cinematography awards). I already have the 5 -- Titanic, Avatar, Hugo, Life of Pi and Gravity.

So I pulled the 2049 Trigger!!

Total for $25.5. Good deal!

You can’t count retro-fitted 3D in that category, surely. Titanic is as much of a 3D film as Citizen Kane.

[Blu-Ray 3D President]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

You can’t count retro-fitted 3D in that category, surely. Titanic is as much of a 3D film as Citizen Kane.

Why not? All 6 won based on 2D cinematography. The 3D are bonus treats.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

You can’t count retro-fitted 3D in that category, surely. Titanic is as much of a 3D film as Citizen Kane.

Many of the best quality 3D movies these days have 3D applied afterwards. Done well, it has the advantage of not having odd interactions of two seperate lenses that can sometimes have odd lighting interaction effects in only one lens (e.g. one eye has a speculative reflection and the other does not resulting in a weird look at that point, some of which may be caused by uneven film degradation over time with older titles) plus you get double grain on film since each eye is filmed independently. Converted films share a single grain field. Both look fine when done well. Terminator 2 looks more impressive in 3D than Parasite or Metalstorm, both of which were filmed in 3D, but Avatar stands out as great filmed 3D.

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Many of the best quality 3D movies these days have 3D applied afterwards. Done well, it has the advantage of not having odd interactions of two seperate lenses that can sometimes have odd lighting interaction effects in only one lens (e.g. one eye has a speculative reflection and the other does not resulting in a weird look at that point, some of which may be caused by uneven film degradation over time with older titles) plus you get double grain on film since each eye is filmed independently. Converted films share a single grain field. Both look fine when done well. Terminator 2 looks more impressive in 3D than Parasite or Metalstorm, both of which were filmed in 3D, but Avatar stands out as great filmed 3D.

Sorry, you misunderstand, I wasn’t referring to converted 3D films. I was referring to retro-fitted 3D and that they (Titanic & BR:2049) can’t be classed in the same category as films where 3D is integrated into the film-making (all the others).

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray 3D President

Why not? All 6 won based on 2D cinematography. The 3D are bonus treats.

You think Hugo got recognised for the achievement it made in cinematography, over The Tree of Life, because of how it looks in 2D?!

[Blu-Ray 3D President]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

You think Hugo got recognised for the achievement it made in cinematography, over The Tree of Life, because of how it looks in 2D?!

Shouldn't it be?

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray 3D President

Shouldn't it be?

Should or shouldn’t isn’t part of the discussion. Only did or didn’t.

[Blu-Ray 3D President]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Should or shouldn’t isn’t part of the discussion. Only did or didn’t.

Ah, so I guess what you are saying is Hugo won cinematography award due to 3D. If it is only 2D merits, you think Tree of Life would have won. Correct?

I've not really put my personal thought into the subject but just based the Hallowed Six list on which movies got the award for Best Cinematography.

Also, have not seen Tree of Life but looking at the Trailer, it looks like a great movie with great cinematography. Will check it out.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Sorry, you misunderstand, I wasn’t referring to converted 3D films. I was referring to retro-fitted 3D and that they (Titanic & BR:2049) can’t be classed in the same category as films where 3D is integrated into the film-making (all the others).

There's no functional difference at all except perhaps certain shots were planned to stick out or have more depth on purpose rather than simply using what is there naturally. My example of Terminator 2 was on purpose as it was never filmed with 3D in mind, but the conversion is excellent and the 3D works well. The quality of the 3D itself is dependent on the software and time put into it in both cases. Some have been poor (e.g. Piraña 3D) while others have been great (T2).

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

There's no functional difference at all except perhaps certain shots were planned to stick out or have more depth on purpose rather than simply using what is there naturally. My example of Terminator 2 was on purpose as it was never filmed with 3D in mind, but the conversion is excellent and the 3D works well. The quality of the 3D itself is dependent on the software and time put into it in both cases. Some have been poor (e.g. Piraña 3D) while others have been great (T2).

For fear of derailing the thread, I’ve responded here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ght=integrated

On topic, I asked Roger Deakins about 3D’s consideration during production:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...8&postcount=53

[levcore]

Rewatched this at the weekend, my feelings haven't changed hugely, the 3D is OK, some really nice shots throughout, depth and separation could be a lot stronger but the 3D does the job. I think the movie is about 30 minutes too long for the story it is trying to tell so i always struggle a bit to get through this movie and enjoy myself doing so. Amazing visuals throughout, seriously fantastic VFX and production design.

[Lt_Cobretti]

Can't say I vibe with Deakins' quote about the 3D much, comes off a tad curmudgeonly. I feel like complaints about the 3D come from an appreciation for his cinematography and the potential to view this incredibly incredibly tactile world in a kind of window box fashion.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking it? What's the consensus for this release among 3D enthusiasts?

[spider-neil]

I have BR2049 on 3D and 4K and to me, they are both on the same level with neither version because vastly superior to the other. Unlike (for example) Doctor Strange where the 3D is vastly superior to the 2D 4K.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I have BR2049 on 3D and 4K and to me, they are both on the same level with neither version because vastly superior to the other. Unlike (for example) Doctor Strange where the 3D is vastly superior to the 2D 4K.

Imagine what it could look like if they would make a 4K 3D format and get both together. I don't get the massive resistance. 3D is very popular in China and certainly more popular in Europe than the US, at least for home systems. Even if it were just a niche market, it would be acceptable. 4K passive on an 8K set would be awesome and a reason to actually buy 8K as opposed to now, where there us very little improvement to be had beyond screens in the 120"+ range.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Imagine what it could look like if they would make a 4K 3D format and get both together. I don't get the massive resistance. 3D is very popular in China and certainly more popular in Europe than the US, at least for home systems. Even if it were just a niche market, it would be acceptable. 4K passive on an 8K set would be awesome and a reason to actually buy 8K as opposed to now, where there us very little improvement to be had beyond screens in the 120"+ range.

I just don't get why Chinese manufacturers aren't just bucking the stupid industry trend and put 3d on their TVs. I mean if I was looking for a lounge room set, and saw TCL or lg had 3d I'd say stuff Sony and Samsung...

Passive 3d though. Hard pass. Aside from the image being interlaced, it is less attractive to panel manufacturers. It is a physical requirement. 3d active can be done with software/firmware with ANY panel.