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

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Heading out soon to see this at the Cinemark XD I've just now discovered is right by me. Would've preferred to see it in actual IMAX Digital for those opened-up shots, but the nearest one is back in Boston so I'll need to settle for off-brand IMAX Lite. I'll post impressions later.

I'm getting a Cinemark XD near me soon I can't wait to check it out!

[UFAlien]

I liked the movie - definitely better than Spider-Man 3, maybe even almost as good as the first movie, but not up to Spider-Man 2. Some of the changes they made were smart and interesting and the Lizard was a good villain.

As for the 3D, I agree with most of the people here. Really shallow a lot of the time, but quite impressive when they really went for it. The inconsistency was a bit annoying. It certainly wasn't BAD 3D though - obviously it helps that it was native.

As for Cinemark XD - it was pretty good I guess. Better than a regular theatre for sure. The seats were great - really heavily padded, what seemed like vinyl coating, plenty of legroom, and they even had a sort of "rocking chair recliner" thing going on. The screen was probably about the same size as the IMAX Digital in Boston, maybe a bit smaller - something between 25 and 30 feet wide. But it FELT smaller than the IMAX - the rows of seats weren't quite as steeply angled, so you got farther from it faster the more you sat back, and the screen was further back to begin with. Additionally, it was in a smaller auditorium, which by association reduces its perceived "bigness". This was also a scope movie which didn't fill the screen - preferable to cropping it but it absolutely affected the perceived size and immersion. Since this is not an official IMAX screening, the image never opened up to use the full screen as it does in a real IMAX digital.

The image quality was all right, but nothing super-special. 2K, like IMAX Digital, but out of just one projector. As a result it wasn't quite as bright, which made it appear less sharp (though this is probably an optical illusion). Since the RealD glasses used are darker than IMAX 3D glasses, the brightness seemed even more inferior. The screen is curved like an IMAX Digital one, and the projector was actually overcompensating a bit, creating a noticeable "curve" in the image. It wasn't severe but it was noticeable.

The sound was a letdown. It sounded like normal theatre sound to me. The IMAX in Boston has a system noticeably more powerful and precise. It was pretty good sound, but not the kickass sound they advertise.

I liked it, but it's definitely a step-down knockoff from IMAX Digital. It's also $4.50 cheaper than the IMAX Digital in Boston, though - so that seems fair.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I liked the movie - definitely better than Spider-Man 3, maybe even almost as good as the first movie, but not up to Spider-Man 2. Some of the changes they made were smart and interesting and the Lizard was a good villain.

As for the 3D, I agree with most of the people here. Really shallow a lot of the time, but quite impressive when they really went for it. The inconsistency was a bit annoying. It certainly wasn't BAD 3D though - obviously it helps that it was native.

As for Cinemark XD - it was pretty good I guess. Better than a regular theatre for sure. The seats were great - really heavily padded, what seemed like vinyl coating, plenty of legroom, and they even had a sort of "rocking chair recliner" thing going on. The screen was probably about the same size as the IMAX Digital in Boston, maybe a bit smaller - something between 25 and 30 feet wide. But it FELT smaller than the IMAX - the rows of seats weren't quite as steeply angled, so you got farther from it faster the more you sat back, and the screen was further back to begin with. Additionally, it was in a smaller auditorium, which by association reduces its perceived "bigness". This was also a scope movie which didn't fill the screen - preferable to cropping it but it absolutely affected the perceived size and immersion. Since this is not an official IMAX screening, the image never opened up to use the full screen as it does in a real IMAX digital.

The image quality was all right, but nothing super-special. 2K, like IMAX Digital, but out of just one projector. As a result it wasn't quite as bright, which made it appear less sharp (though this is probably an optical illusion). Since the RealD glasses used are darker than IMAX 3D glasses, the brightness seemed even more inferior. The screen is curved like an IMAX Digital one, and the projector was actually overcompensating a bit, creating a noticeable "curve" in the image. It wasn't severe but it was noticeable.

The sound was a letdown. It sounded like normal theatre sound to me. The IMAX in Boston has a system noticeably more powerful and precise. It was pretty good sound, but not the kickass sound they advertise.

I liked it, but it's definitely a step-down knockoff from IMAX Digital. It's also $4.50 cheaper than the IMAX Digital in Boston, though - so that seems fair.

Thanks for analysis I'm probably still gonna try it out when it comes near me, just to see what it's like

[3Dizzle]

Saw this on a IMax screen on Friday and loved it - easily the best Spiderman

I thought the 3D was great - I think when background objects are not in focus like in Spiderman it does shallow the depth a bit but I still thought it was pretty effective throughout and then when the action kicked in WOW!?! I found myself clutching to the bottom of my seat for some of the swinging scenes.

Like people have mentioned before the scene at the end is probably one of the best 3D effects used in recent years.

Can't wait to get this on Blu

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I liked the movie - definitely better than Spider-Man 3, maybe even almost as good as the first movie, but not up to Spider-Man 2. Some of the changes they made were smart and interesting and the Lizard was a good villain.

As for the 3D, I agree with most of the people here. Really shallow a lot of the time, but quite impressive when they really went for it. The inconsistency was a bit annoying. It certainly wasn't BAD 3D though - obviously it helps that it was native.

Yes, Spider Man 2 is tough to top. Lizard Man was tough, and that is always great for a villain.

The 3D in Amazing Spiderman 3D could've been Amazing, but it was only average as a whole, agreed. Part 2 better change up the 3D stereographer and give us something great through the whole movie, not just 5%...

[Blu Tiger]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I liked the movie - definitely better than Spider-Man 3, maybe even almost as good as the first movie, but not up to Spider-Man 2. Some of the changes they made were smart and interesting and the Lizard was a good villain.

As for the 3D, I agree with most of the people here. Really shallow a lot of the time, but quite impressive when they really went for it. The inconsistency was a bit annoying. It certainly wasn't BAD 3D though - obviously it helps that it was native.

Yep, I agree with everything you said here. Saw this on Sunday night.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by aaaa6344

so apparently spiderman will have scenes that will open up to full screen (i assume 1.77:1) exclusively in imax 3d like tron legacy and dark knight/transformers 2 (but not shot on imax film).

The Amazing Spider-Man IMAX TV Spot with Marc Webb Intro - YouTube

sony BETTER release this version on the 3d blu-ray.

while I didn't see this in 3D, the 15/70 IMAX presentation still looked utterly amazing and I thought when the screen went to 1.77 (not quite full screen on a standard 4:3 IMAX 'film' screen) - the 'wow' factor was insane!

maybe Sony will let the filmmakers shoot select scenes in actual IMAX for the sequel (fingers crossed).

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

while I didn't see this in 3D, the 15/70 IMAX presentation still looked utterly amazing and I thought when the screen went to 1.77 (not quite full screen on a standard 4:3 IMAX 'film' screen) - the 'wow' factor was insane!

maybe Sony will let the filmmakers shoot select scenes in actual IMAX for the sequel (fingers crossed).

[BleedOrange11]

Early rumors for TASM's bonus features:

Supplements
Deleted Scenes and Alternate Takes
Audio Commentaries with Cast and Crew
Stunt Rehearsals
Screen Tests
The Oscorp Archives – Art and Promotional Materials Gallery

Exclusive HD Content
Interactive 3D Film School with Director Marc Webb

I love the idea of that last one.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Early rumors for TASM's bonus features:

I love the idea of that last one.

me too!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Early rumors for TASM's bonus features:

I love the idea of that last one.

hope there is more than this because that is not many bonus features for such a big movie

will the IMAX version be on like TDK?

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Early rumors for TASM's bonus features:

I love the idea of that last one.

A bonus feature on how to make 3D sounds like a great idea for an extra feature. I'm guessing it'll only be 5 minutes if we're lucky, but hopefully they'll deliver up to 15 minutes worth of lessons.
And the last lesson will be how Mark Webb forgot to spread the cameras farther apart for most of the dialog/non-action scenes. To be fair, the action scenes in 3D looked great as he probably intended, "3D storytelling" and all.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

....It's too bad, really. I walked out of the movie thinking it was a conversion, but after looking it up I was shocked to learn it was native. I don't think I'll pick this one up on 3DBD. Directors and cinematogrophers really need to be thinking about the most effective way to use 3-D during shooting, but it's clearly not something all of them are yet skilled at.

Actually, for the complete contribution record, and to give credit where credit is due, although not listed on the IMDB site at the current time of this post, The Amazing Spider-Man does contain some 2D -> 3D conversion content….work having been provided by Gener8 and Legend3D.

[UFAlien]

Doesn't pretty much every modern 3D movie use some conversion? It'd be neat to know how much went into this one.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Actually, for the complete contribution record, and to give credit where credit is due, although not listed on the IMDB site at the current time of this post, The Amazing Spider-Man does contain some 2D -> 3D conversion content….work having been provided by Gener8 and Legend3D.

Good to know, thanks.

I'm guessing a number of the "flatter" looking dialog shots were easy conversions cranked out fast, based on the near lack of 3D in them.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Doesn't pretty much every modern 3D movie use some conversion? It'd be neat to know how much went into this one.

Excluding computer animated movies, the next trick is trying to figure out which shots are converted or filmed in 3D. It doesn't matter too much either way, as long as the 3D is strong.

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

This is being filmed natively in 3D and sony are usually great at putting out amazing (pardon the pun) 3d transfers on the whole. I look forwards to it after watching it in imax.

I'm actually tempted to speed up my purchase of Underworld awakening not only to witness the amazing 3d said to be in that but also this trailer you all speak of

Why does everyone keep saying this was shot natively and has great 3d.

When I watched it in the theatre, I was very disappointed with the so-called 3D in it.

It looked like a 2d to 3d conversion to me. And I once again felt ripped off by it being advertised as 3D.

Especially since I read other people saying it was shot natively in 3D before I went to the theatre.

So I stayed during the end credits. And according to the end credits, it's a 2D movie converted to 3D.

The end credits even say it's a conversion.

I have seen other live-action 3D movies which were actually filmed in 3d and the 3D in those look great. Those actually do look 3D.

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

I saw this tonight in IMAX 3-D and I'm inclined to agree with the previous comments that much (most, really) of this movie felt very flat; the 3-D hardly seemed to be used at all. What depth there was felt very shallow, and pop-out was extremely rare. There were only a small handful of scenes that genuinely appeared 3-D at all, and 90% of them seemed to happen in the last 5 minutes of the film... with the only exceptional "pop-out" scene occurring in the last 5 seconds, lol. As someone else mentioned, the only particularly effective 3-D during the main body of the film were the aerial views of New York; but once we left those, everything flattened out again.

.

yes. I thought the 3d was horrible throughout the movie (flat) even mostly flat during the action scenes. Although there was a poput or two.

The end credits of the movie say it's a 2d to 3d conversion, not native 3d.

Which leads me to believe the action scenes only looked a bit 3d due to the pulfrich illusion.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by 3Dfan

The end credits of the movie say it's a 2d to 3d conversion, not native 3d.

Nearly every big budget live-action movie shot in 3D has some amount of 3D conversion work. Spider-Man is no exception. Google it, and you'll find that Spider-Man was shot with Red Epic cameras and 3ality Technica 3D rigs.

[3Dfan]

maybe it was, but it sure didn't look like it to me.

However, it was a good movie.

So whenever and if I get the blu ray 3d, then I can examine it better and see if I then think it was or not.

For some reason, the 3D looks better to me at home on my 3d tv than it does at the movie theatres.

At least when I'm watching blu ray 3d discs it does.

I can't say the same for espn 3d or the on demand 3d channels.

Every 3d cable tv broadcast available to me (including the on demand channels) all use 720p top/bottom format.

[aaaa6344]

The 3d might be looking "better" at home because as the ratio between the size of the screen against viewing distance increases, "roundness" also increases----meaning the further away from the screen you are, the deeper the 3d looks. and since a tv screen (or even projector screen) is many times smaller than a movie theater screen, it's easy to get twice, 3 times, or even more times the display size's distance away relatively easily. You can test this property out by viewing a freeze frame at different distances and see the "movie world" compress and expand.