Clash of the Titans 3D Blu-ray (2010) [Region Free]

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

High def digest posted a review of this release

According to the highdef digest the 3D is improved over the theatrical presentation which is a definute good thing. However it still has problems not present in native 3D. The fact that Warner did further conversion on the movie for the Blu-Ray rather then simply slapping the lousy theatrical 3D conversion is a good sign. Im hoping its conversion gets further refinements when Clash of the Titans gets a 3D release here in the states. The movie was mediocre but if the 3D conversion was more improvements it would be the only way this movie would end up in my collection.

It's interesting to hear that it's been improved over the theatrical. I watched my copy of the German release the other night and was totally underwhelmed so if this is an improvement I'd hate to see how it looked before. The CG intro was nicely done with great depth, but once the live action kicked in, it was about as flat (maybe a little better) than what my TV does by itself.

[jw]

Marty will have a review up here shortly, hes in the process of moving

[bandapart]

I've seen many 3D movies in theaters, IMAX 3D when possible.

Journey to the Center of the Earth, G-Force , Avatar 3D IMAX, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3D.

To me Dolby 3D has a sharper image and I get no headache feeling due to less blurriness. One cineplex in my area uses this equipment.

But no 3D film that I've seen in a theater pushed the limits of the technology like Journey to the Center of the Earth. I literally ducked or involuntarily shut my eyes when images came flying off the screen into my face!

The first time I saw the technology pushed, was Michael Jackson's, Francis Ford Coppola directed, George Lucas produced, "Captain Eo" at Disney World in the 80's.

The current "home" technology has a way to go. The next wave has promise with "cell" technology, no glasses, sharper image. But content has to improve over current fare.

[Show spoiler]Jul 20, 2010
3D Toshiba Cell TV to make Australian debut during Xmas
By James Patterson


Samsung LED TV priced at $10,000 has in fact acted as a boon for Toshiba. The company is right now working on the launch of a high end Toshiba Cell of 55 inch size and they are hoping to complete the launch by Christmas 2010.

The Cell TV from Toshiba would have the capability of transforming 2D image to 3D. Their CEO Mark Whittard has stated that the price for this TV is going to be $7,999 for the same dimension that Samsung has launched their TV, which is 55 inch. The Toshiba Cell would be available in the Australian market first.

Not only Toshiba but Panasonic too have entered into the high end TV fray with their plasma TV which would be priced at $10,000. The TV would be of 60 inch and using the KURO technology. This technology has been famed to be the best technology for use in TV.

“We have a superior offering and the fact that Samsung has launched a $10,000 TV bodes well for Toshiba as our Cell TV is superior to other TVs that are currently being offered in Australia,” said Whittard.

Toshiba displayed their Cell TV and its features and capabilities during this year’s celebration of 25 years of their existence. The show took place at Sydney where they showed the capability of the Cell TV storing 8 streams of HD content simultaneously into its on board 1TB drive.

Toshiba is also in the process of testing the feasibility of using the Cell TV for viewing 3D format without the use of the goggles. Right now the technology has been made possible on a 40 inch Toshiba Cell. They are in the process of porting the technology to larger screens which are in demand from countries outside of Japan.

The process of converting 2D frames to 3D is using the software named Tri Vector which is proprietary software that analyses the 2d frames thereafter calculating depth of the field in each frame and thus rendering 3D image.
The difference of synch frequency is 100 MHz for the Cell whereas it is 50 Hz per eye in case of Samsung and LG.

The rendered image is in two parts, one for left and other for right eye. Right now shutter glasses are required which would be eliminated once Toshiba upgrades its technology next year.
Toshiba is also able to deliver images at 4X the resolution of 1080p or 4096×2160.

Speculation is also high that price of Cell TV fall to as low as $7,999 by Christmas as per statement from Toshiba executives.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by snappahead

It's interesting to hear that it's been improved over the theatrical. I watched my copy of the German release the other night and was totally underwhelmed so if this is an improvement I'd hate to see how it looked before. The CG intro was nicely done with great depth, but once the live action kicked in, it was about as flat (maybe a little better) than what my TV does by itself.

One of the problems with converting Clash of the Titans was its shacky cam action sequences. Shacky cam is awful in any dimension and is one of the worst trends ever to hit cinematography. However in 3D it looks twice as bad as it does in 2D and can be even more sickening. Probably Avatars biggest positive was the fact that it included big action that never used fast camera movements or shacky cam. I hope 3D forces more filmmakers to shoot there movies allowing you to know what the hell is going on.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I hope 3D forces more filmmakers to shoot there movies allowing you to know what the hell is going on.

Agreed. Did you hear that Michael Bay? I can't even tell who's fighting who and who's winning in those Autobot vs. Decepticon fights in Transformers 1 & 2.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

Agreed. Did you hear that Michael Bay? I can't even tell who's fighting who and who's winning in those Autobot vs. Decepticon fights in Transformers 1 & 2.

Add District 9, Star Trek (2009), The Expendibles, Inception, Prince of Persia, The Kingdom, Taken, and the Bourne Trilogy to otherwise good movies ruined by the shacky cam menace.

At least 3D is always optional and can be turned off with the press of a button. Where is the button that turns off the shacky cam on the above movies. Whats really bizzare is people who argue against 3D because it makes it more difficult for filmmakers to get away with cheap lazy camera tricks. In reality this may be 3Ds greatest benefit yet.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Add District 9, Star Trek (2009), The Expendibles, Inception, Prince of Persia, The Kingdom, Taken, and the Bourne Trilogy to otherwise good movies ruined by the shacky cam menace.

At least 3D is always optional and can be turned off with the press of a button. Where is the button that turns off the shacky cam on the above movies. Whats really bizzare is people who argue against 3D because it makes it more difficult for filmmakers to get away with cheap lazy camera tricks. In reality this may be 3Ds greatest benefit yet.

Jimmy, I haven't seen 3 of the movies you mentioned, but District 9 is supposed to be "Reality TV" based so shaky cam adds to the "realism". Other movies like Inception, Taken and The Bourne Trilogy all have shaky cam during the car chases or fight scenes. As long as the camera isn't severely zoomed in, I think it actually adds to the excitement. I mean, if a bunch of action is going down and the camera man is not affected, then it could be a really boring action sequence. I mean, it would be silly if the camera is completely still when the Starship Enterprise is bumped or jarred or hit with a missile, etc. Often times, these "bumps" are added in post-production too.

I see why director and DPs choose the shaky hand-held cam, but in the case of Transformers, it's done for a couple of reasons that I think is "cheating".

For one, it actually makes it easier in post production for compositing purposes because the 3D animated objects don't have to interact with the surrounding environment perfectly, like feet touching the ground (ground is part of the film plate, but characters are animated). Things can be cheated and still work.

Second, it's supposed to make us, as an audience, feel like we're in the action. Fine. But if we're too close, I'll get sick and not know what's going on. I like to be put into the action, but I AM watching the movie as an audience. I don't need to be right under Optimus Prime's crotch. And I don't mind being in the action as long as I can still tell what's going on.

A combination of shaky cam and short lenses equals cheap, cheap and, oh yeah, cheap.

I definitely don't think shaky cam + 3D is a very good idea. Especially if it's native 2D and not shot with 3D in mind. Directors are learning very quickly that shooting for 3D is a very different technique than shooting for 2D. Moreso than working with the various aspect ratios (including IMAX). They even have to consider how long they hold their shots and the transition between shots. This is why 3D animated (CG) films lend themselves well to 3D viewing. EVERYTHING can be controlled.

I'm definitely skipping Clash of the Titans in 3D. It's gonna be 2D BD rental for me.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

Jimmy, I haven't seen 3 of the movies you mentioned, but District 9 is supposed to be "Reality TV" based so shaky cam adds to the "realism". Other movies like Inception, Taken and The Bourne Trilogy all have shaky cam during the car chases or fight scenes. As long as the camera isn't severely zoomed in, I think it actually adds to the excitement. I mean, if a bunch of action is going down and the camera man is not affected, then it could be a really boring action sequence.

Shaky cam in those movies was awful awful awful. Shaky cam is always awful. It is a vicious cancer that has ruined otherwise great action sequences. In no way does it make you feel in the action. It just makes them a unwatchable nightmare where you don't know who is hitting who or what is going on. Its just a way for lazy filmmakers to save a buck. Coreographing a proper action sequence costs money. By shaking the camera its harder for the audience to spot mistakes. Its a great excuse for directers to not do there jobs. Avatar had some of the most exciting action sequences ever seen mostly because Cameron had the common sense to keep the ****ing camera steady. Im straped for cash but would gladdly spend the money to buy filmmakers some tripods. They are a great invention too bad they are out of style.

Shaky cam added nothing to District 9. Ive seen real videos shot on location with the camera still as can be. Shaky cam didn't make anything more realistic. All it did was ruin what was otherwise one of the most original science fiction movies in years. It turned an otherwise great movie into an unwatchable nightmare. That goes double for Inception. One of the most brilliant scripts for a movie Ive ever heard but the cinematography was absolutely horrid.

Its probably why I despite my increasing age I have gravitated towards 3D animated movies rather then live action action. It seems to me 3D animation is the one way to escape the shaky cam menace. Live action cinematography died in the 21st century. It was shook to death.

[ckenisell]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Although, I don't think shaky shots should be everywhere, I think they have their place.

And Inception was a fantastic film shaky or not shaky.