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

[BleedOrange11]

I agree that most of the impressive 3D in Spider-Man was in the action sequences with heavy CGI effects. I thought those were gorgeous. A large majority of the live-action did have very weak parallax and flat characters.

Shooting with 3D cameras doesn't automatically result in quality 3D with strong depth though. You can create the unappealing, flat and shallow look by filming a subject from far away with a small interaxial distance. The filmmakers design what the 3D will look like, and, for better or worse, those responsible for Spider-Man chose flat subtle 3D to theoretically help the viewers focus on the content of the dialogue scenes and amaze them with the finale. The unknown is how much of the film had to be converted and which scenes.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not entirely true. 3D roundness does not change with the size of the screen, but only with viewing distance. Assuming quality projection and a good seating position, 3D should look deeper in cinemas than it does from 6-10 feet away at home.

I think when people talk about 3D looking better at home, they usually mean increased brightness and clarity, compared to a mediocre projection at the theater.

[BleedOrange11]

This is a link to a great experiment that helped me understand 3D roundness.

http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/315roundness.html

[aaaa6344]

Well that is interesting isn't it.....I tested out one of the the spheres on that link (the 1000mm one) and zoomed in and out at the same viewing distance and the roundness didn't change (though the radius obviously did). But moving further away from the screen did oblong it, and moving closer did compress it. Perhaps being further away is still a kind of solution for films with weak parallax? I'll have to check out the rest of that article to get a better understanding though.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by therainberg

I can't see the 3D effect most of the time at the cinemas. Watch the same movie on a 3D TV and I can see the depth and shape of people.

It makes sense that improved brightness from a backlit display and improved resolution from sitting closer to the screen would help someone delineate the details and contours of 3D shapes better. However, the actual roundness and depth of the 3D increases the further away the viewer is from the screen. There is a roundness formula for 3D filmmakers.

Roundness:
(Distance of audience to screen)/(Interocular distance or 65mm) = (Distance of camera to subject)/(Interaxial distance)

Ideally, you want Roundness to be 1:1 for an orthoplastic 3D experience. Theoretically, if the filmmaker has created something very flat with Roundness less than 1:1, the audience can improve the realism of the 3D proportions by sitting further away.

[aaaa6344]

I think this brings up a good question, since only distance from the screen impacts roundness, is it even possible to re-create the theater experience at home? I assumed that the "size ratio" was correct because it would enable a "scaled down" theater experience, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I mean, you'll be hard pressed to find a theater with CLOSEST seats 10 feet from the screen, and the ones all the way in the back may be more than 100 ft away. It is incredibly unlikely a person at home who even has room for a viewing distance 50 ft back, and that's even IF their screen would be satisfactorily viewable from there! Considering how drastic a difference viewing distance makes, it seems proper that most movies seem to have "weak" 3d, since the average audience member would be (let's say) 50 feet away from the screen in a movie theater. To keep the back row within tolerable roundness levels (and not ridiculously exaggerated), the same stereo pair would have to appear remarkably flat at a distance of 6-10 feet away. I mean I SERIOUSLY doubt most (if any) studio re-renders the movie for a home setting, must less have a THIRD camera shooting for a closer viewing distance. Hmmph.

[BleedOrange11]

Yeah, that's the dilemma. 3D has to be designed for a particular audience viewing distance, so nothing designed for theaters will look orthoplastic at home unless they went overkill with the depth like in underwater IMAX documentaries. Sammy's Adventures is the only one I can think of that might have been re-rendered for home viewing because of how deep and round it looks. That's just speculation though.

I have very low expectations for Spider-Man. Of course, it probably wasn't even designed to be orthoplastic in theaters. I really hope they take a different 3D approach in the sequel.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 3Dfan

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.

The majority of The Amazing Spider-Man was shot native 3D. I am disappointed by the fact that the screen credits do not list the first unit stereographer, Eric D. (who came on-set after about the first month), nor, for that matter, the second unit stereographer, Jason G. Both being active and experienced in the 3D realm.

Of note, the former also served as the stereographer on Gnomeo and Juliet which, I think, got favorable reviews from the 3D public. Dissatisfaction with the depth or *3D-ness* of TASM should not be thought of as secondary to incompetency, or lack of experience in 3D filmmaking on the part of the stereographic crew.

[Lovemy3D]

I saw a trailer for this on my Underworld Awakening Disc. It looked pretty good even though they didn't show hardly any of the best looking action stuff. They did show the clip where you are in first person mode, climbing and leaping with Spider-Man. That looked pretty cool.

Since I'm a Spider-Man fanatic and loved the movie, I'll be buying regardless.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

I saw a trailer for this on my Underworld Awakening Disc. It looked pretty good even though they didn't show hardly any of the best looking action stuff. They did show the clip where you are in first person mode, climbing and leaping with Spider-Man. That looked pretty cool.

Since I'm a Spider-Man fanatic and loved the movie, I'll be buying regardless.

I second this motion and reserve my right to speak.

[Lunasicc]

I really enjoyed the 3D at the threatre. Definitely a day 1 purchase for me. November can't come any sooner!

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by Lunasicc

I really enjoyed the 3D at the threatre. Definitely a day 1 purchase for me. November can't come any sooner!

Cool, November? I didn't realize there was a release date yet. But I guess it's already been a while since it was in the theater. Time fly's... I must have missed it last time I was looking at the schedule.

[BleedOrange11]

Review is up. Seems like a pretty good assessment to me. I'm excited for the 3D special features.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-A.../28098/#Review

[srinivas1015]

Is the 3D really that bad? Does it atleast get better for the action sequences (with lots of foreground,parallax,etc)?

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Is the 3D really that bad? Does it atleast get better for the action sequences (with lots of foreground,parallax,etc)?

I saw it on an IMAX screen and have to say 3D is very satisfying in all the action scenes. Spiderman is an ideal candidate for 3D and they did a great job. In the dialog scenes it was inconsistent when you could see the 3D collapse to 2D intermittently in the same scene!

[Dubstar]

so unless I'm reading the review wrong, the opening of the screen vertically for select scenes in the IMAX version aren't retained as such for the bluray version - correct?

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Is the 3D really that bad? Does it atleast get better for the action sequences (with lots of foreground,parallax,etc)?

Yes. The 3D is a mixed bag. Dialogue scenes are the flattest, most boring 3D I've ever seen from a native production. However, some of the action scenes, especially those with heavy CGI, have superb 3D.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

so unless I'm reading the review wrong, the opening of the screen vertically for select scenes in the IMAX version aren't retained as such for the bluray version - correct?

That's how I understand it too. There's no mention of the 1.90:1 IMAX scenes.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I agree that most of the impressive 3D in Spider-Man was in the action sequences with heavy CGI effects. I thought those were gorgeous. A large majority of the live-action did have very weak parallax and flat characters.

Shooting with 3D cameras doesn't automatically result in quality 3D with strong depth though. You can create the unappealing, flat and shallow look by filming a subject from far away with a small interaxial distance. The filmmakers design what the 3D will look like, and, for better or worse, those responsible for Spider-Man chose flat subtle 3D to theoretically help the viewers focus on the content of the dialogue scenes and amaze them with the finale. The unknown is how much of the film had to be converted and which scenes.

Agreed. 3D storytelling stuff can ruin the 3D in a film. Had every shot had the great 3D of the action scenes, I would have bought this movie day one. I'll wait till it's in the $20 range, being a bigger fan of the original trilogy's more comic book, over the top style.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I have very low expectations for Spider-Man. Of course, it probably wasn't even designed to be orthoplastic in theaters. I really hope they take a different 3D approach in the sequel.

They'll need a new stereographer or whoever it was who made the decision to make most (not all) of the dialog shots flat as pancakes.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The majority of The Amazing Spider-Man was shot native 3D. I am disappointed by the fact that the screen credits do not list the first unit stereographer, Eric D. (who came on-set after about the first month), nor, for that matter, the second unit stereographer, Jason G. Both being active and experienced in the 3D realm.

Of note, the former also served as the stereographer on Gnomeo and Juliet which, I think, got favorable reviews from the 3D public. Dissatisfaction with the depth or *3D-ness* of TASM should not be thought of as secondary to incompetency, or lack of experience in 3D filmmaking on the part of the stereographic crew.

Thanks for the info Penton-Man. If this is the same person who did Gnomeo and Juliet's stereography (3D planning) then I think he might have been influenced to lose the very well done quality and 3D consistency of Gnomeo and Juliet for the sake of 3D storytelling for ASpiderman 3D.

I would say 3D storytelling is another word for inconsistent 3D, whatever they may choose to call it. It's kind of like saying, "During the dialog shots, we'll make everything black and white, and during the action shots, we'll crank up to full color! Yeah, that'll be cool."

[levcore]

I've got this on pre-order, blind buy. I'm really looking forward to seeing it. Very intrigued as to what i'll think of the 3D after a lot of the comments here

[3Dizzle]

I think people/reviewers are being a bit harsh on the dialog scenes.

I personally enjoyed the 3D in Spiderman and didn't think anything looked flat.

Some of the swinging scenes really made my stomach go when I saw this at the IMax....