The Polar Express 3D Blu-ray (2004) [Region Free]

[Just_Discovered_3D]

If the studio wasn't keen on doing the 3D right for this, what are the odds that they'll call back the staff and a hire a great team of colorists to really nail the HDR?

Can this movie gain anything from 4K? Without being re-rendered and reworked, I have my doubts because, well, I doubt this was being rendered in 4K back in the mid 00s.

[BluBonnet]

Polar Express was presented theatrically in 70mm dual-strip 3D IMAX... pretty sure it would look alright in any home video format

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

If the studio wasn't keen on doing the 3D right for this, what are the odds that they'll call back the staff and a hire a great team of colorists to really nail the HDR?

Can this movie gain anything from 4K? Without being re-rendered and reworked, I have my doubts because, well, I doubt this was being rendered in 4K back in the mid 00s.

I don't think anybody knows what happened with the 3D for this release. I have never seen anything like it before on blu-ray 3D. I don't know if they're errors in rendering (which doesn't make sense since it was fine in IMAX), or if those shots were converted poorly (which doesn't make sense, since it was rendered in 3D, not converted), or what. I can't imagine what went wrong, and if it's intentional for some reason but they botched it, or if it's a mistake, and they botched it.

That has nothing to do with the film getting remastered with HDR. Totally different people working on it.

Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within got a recent UHD release and it's indeed an improvement over the old blu-ray. Even if it turned out to be an upscale, like Final Fantasy, it could still contain finer details, like UHD upscales often do, and the HDR could definitely do wonders for the colors. As pointed out, if this was projected with 70mm dual-strip 3D IMAX, it should have no problem looking fantastic in 4k.

Lots of UHDs are upscales, due to many modern digital effects-heavy films being finished in 2k, yet still look stunning - often noticeably superior to the blu-ray. It depends on the sources used of course. But no, it doesn't have to be re-rendered in 4k for it to have an improvement. Not at all. A proper upscale of an animated film like this, with HDR applied, could look pretty amazing.

I wish it had gotten a corrected 3D re-release, but sadly nobody noticed this issue until years later, when there's zero chance of them correcting it now.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

The source material of a mid 2000s CGI film must have been made at far below the resolution of film.

In its review of another 2004 CGI film, The Incredibles, this site found little improvement WRT image clarity and HDR in the 4K version, and concluded that the visuals offered little incentive to upgrade over the bluray.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-I...201205/#Review

I see that the animators for this film mentioned that technical limitations of the motion capture resulted in them having to animate the eyes and mouths of the characters by hand. That helps to explain why the faces are in the uncanny valley/nightmare fuel.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

The source material of a mid 2000s CGI film must have been made at far below the resolution of film.

In its review of another 2004 CGI film, The Incredibles, this site found little improvement WRT image clarity and HDR in the 4K version, and concluded that the visuals offered little incentive to upgrade over the bluray.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-I...201205/#Review

I see that the animators for this film mentioned that technical limitations of the motion capture resulted in them having to animate the eyes and mouths of the characters by hand. That helps to explain why the faces are in the uncanny valley/nightmare fuel.

Again, I'll point out that the recently-released Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a nice improvement over the old blu-ray. That film is 20 years old and certainly wasn't rendered in 4k. The HDR did a lot to help. Same for The Phantom Menace. That one will never look spectacular, since it was shot in the early days of digital 2k, but the 4k is still hands-down the best release ever, again much of it due to the HDR, but also because it does bring out some minor detail that was not visible on the old blu-ray.

Releasing animated CGI upscales in not exactly new, and if Final Fantasy can see an improvement, I se no reason why Polar Express can't also.

I'd still like to see it get the proper 3D release it deserves, but that's ain't gonna happen. So the next best thing is the current 3D blu-ray which is flawed, and hopefully a nice 4k release.

I'll also remind everyone that the vast majority of people don't own 3D TVs. While we're all 3D fans in here, don't those who don't own a 3D TV deserve to see this film in the best quality they can? That means 4k streaming or UHD.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I'll also remind everyone that the vast majority of people don't own 3D TVs. While we're all 3D fans in here, don't those who don't own a 3D TV deserve to see this film in the best quality they can? That means 4k streaming or UHD.

Absolutely. And they can discuss it in the 4K section of the forums.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Again, I'll point out that the recently-released Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a nice improvement over the old blu-ray. That film is 20 years old and certainly wasn't rendered in 4k. The HDR did a lot to help. Same for The Phantom Menace. That one will never look spectacular, since it was shot in the early days of digital 2k, but the 4k is still hands-down the best release ever, again much of it due to the HDR, but also because it does bring out some minor detail that was not visible on the old blu-ray.

Releasing animated CGI upscales in not exactly new, and if Final Fantasy can see an improvement, I se no reason why Polar Express can't also.

I'd still like to see it get the proper 3D release it deserves, but that's ain't gonna happen. So the next best thing is the current 3D blu-ray which is flawed, and hopefully a nice 4k release.

I'll also remind everyone that the vast majority of people don't own 3D TVs. While we're all 3D fans in here, don't those who don't own a 3D TV deserve to see this film in the best quality they can? That means 4k streaming or UHD.

It was proposed in this thread that if you haven't seen TPE in 3D then you haven't seen TPE. Going by that, 4K streaming or UHD won't do anything that the bluray isn't already doing.

As for deserving, I know we're being tongue in cheek here, so I'll say that no mere TV does a film justice, it deserves to be seen on a projector, any projector deserving of being in a home theater is capable of 3D bluray.

As mentioned, this very site reached the same conclusion with the 4K UHD of The Incredibles: it's not really an upgrade. While its review of The Spirits Within is glowing praise, that gets us to a 50% success rate.

4K (3840*2160) is double the resolution of 3D bluray (1920*2160), but only "half" the depth. Is that really an improvement?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

It was proposed in this thread that if you haven't seen TPE in 3D then you haven't seen TPE. Going by that, 4K streaming or UHD won't do anything that the bluray isn't already doing.

As for deserving, I know we're being tongue in cheek here, so I'll say that no mere TV does a film justice, it deserves to be seen on a projector, any projector deserving of being in a home theater is capable of 3D bluray.

As mentioned, this very site reached the same conclusion with the 4K UHD of The Incredibles: it's not really an upgrade. While its review of The Spirits Within is glowing praise, that gets us to a 50% success rate.

4K (3840*2160) is double the resolution of 3D bluray (1920*2160), but only "half" the depth. Is that really an improvement?

UHD isn't just "4k" resolution. It's far better compression and grain management (far better codec) , and HDR delivering far better shadow detail and contrast, and far more accurate colors (billions of colors vs millions).

Only a small fraction of people can see this is 3D. That's an unfortunate fact. The large majority can only see this in 2D. Sad, but true. Which means then that they should at least be able to see it in the best possible experience possible in 2D. Which would be UHD. That's all I was pointing out.

Of course 3D is the way to go with this film. But between the flawed 3D blu-ray due to the unfortunate errors, and the fact that so many don't own 3D TVs, a nice 4k release would be the next best way to view the film.

And honestly, I get it - this is the 3D section, and the focus should be 3D. But I think it's not doing anybody any favors if we can't even use the term "4k" around these parts without setting off alarms. The natural question with any 3D film would be "is it worth seeing in 3D", and the answer is not always "yes". So discussion about which films use 3D well and which ones are worth skipping in favor of other formats is worth discussing. Shutting out all comparisons between 3D vs 2D releases is being overly strict imo. The focus should be on 3D of course, but that shouldn't mean we can't discuss the technical merits of any particular release, and how it compares to the 2D counterpart. Let's be honest - not all 3D releases are great. And despite being a life-long 3D fan, I also appreciate UHD as a home video format as well. Passengers looks stunning on UHD, despite a very decent 3D release too. I own both. It's unfortunate that the industry is making enemies by alienating 3D fans by pushing UHD, like Disney not even releasing their latest 3D films on blu-ray, but on it's own merits, as a next-generation home video format, it has great potential (though it too can have flaws like many 3D releases).

I didn't intend to take the discussion off of 3D. I did bring up again the technical flaw with this 3D release. Sadly, most everyone overlooked it when it was released. I think if the studio heard some complaints about the release early on, we might have gotten corrected discs. Now it's too late and we're stuck with what we've got. ~90% awesome 3D and ~10% botched 3D.

There's no need to continue the 4k discussion anyways since there's currently nothing on the horizon for it. If it happens, great. I'll give it a shot. Because as I said, as much as I love the 3D in this film, the numerous errors that pop up continuously throughout the disc ruins it for me, to the point where I've been skipping it to avoid the frustration.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

UHD isn't just "4k" resolution. It's far better compression and grain management (far better codec) , and HDR delivering far better shadow detail and contrast, and far more accurate colors (billions of colors vs millions).

Only a small fraction of people can see this is 3D. That's an unfortunate fact. The large majority can only see this in 2D. Sad, but true. Which means then that they should at least be able to see it in the best possible experience possible in 2D. Which would be UHD. That's all I was pointing out.

Of course 3D is the way to go with this film. But between the flawed 3D blu-ray due to the unfortunate errors, and the fact that so many don't own 3D TVs, a nice 4k release would be the next best way to view the film.

And honestly, I get it - this is the 3D section, and the focus should be 3D. But I think it's not doing anybody any favors if we can't even use the term "4k" around these parts without setting off alarms. The natural question with any 3D film would be "is it worth seeing in 3D", and the answer is not always "yes". So discussion about which films use 3D well and which ones are worth skipping in favor of other formats is worth discussing. Shutting out all comparisons between 3D vs 2D releases is being overly strict imo. The focus should be on 3D of course, but that shouldn't mean we can't discuss the technical merits of any particular release, and how it compares to the 2D counterpart. Let's be honest - not all 3D releases are great. And despite being a life-long 3D fan, I also appreciate UHD as a home video format as well. Passengers looks stunning on UHD, despite a very decent 3D release too. I own both. It's unfortunate that the industry is making enemies by alienating 3D fans by pushing UHD, like Disney not even releasing their latest 3D films on blu-ray, but on it's own merits, as a next-generation home video format, it has great potential (though it too can have flaws like many 3D releases).

I didn't intend to take the discussion off of 3D. I did bring up again the technical flaw with this 3D release. Sadly, most everyone overlooked it when it was released. I think if the studio heard some complaints about the release early on, we might have gotten corrected discs. Now it's too late and we're stuck with what we've got. ~90% awesome 3D and ~10% botched 3D.

There's no need to continue the 4k discussion anyways since there's currently nothing on the horizon for it. If it happens, great. I'll give it a shot. Because as I said, as much as I love the 3D in this film, the numerous errors that pop up continuously throughout the disc ruins it for me, to the point where I've been skipping it to avoid the frustration.

Correct, no need to continue the 4K discussion of this film. Agreed 100%.

[thestrangestick]

I rewatched this a few days ago and didn’t see any errors with the 3D?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by thestrangestick

I rewatched this a few days ago and didn’t see any errors with the 3D?

I haven't, either, when I've watched it in 3D

[mar3o]

We've been all through this before (twice). Read back a few pages. Screenshots are included and another member has verified that the blu-ray is indeed flawed due to many warped 3D shots (not true 3D).

Many will not notice this. Even the "pro" reviews didn't notice. To me, it's blatantly obvious. If it doesn't bother you, you're lucky, but to those who notice, it's a major distraction.

It did not have any 3D errors in IMAX theatres. It's a flaw with the blu-ray.

[thestrangestick]

Originally Posted by mar3o

We've been all through this before (twice). Read back a few pages. Screenshots are included and another member has verified that the blu-ray is indeed flawed due to many warped 3D shots (not true 3D).

Many will not notice this. Even the "pro" reviews didn't notice. To me, it's blatantly obvious. If it doesn't bother you, you're lucky, but to those who notice, it's a major distraction.

It did not have any 3D errors in IMAX theatres. It's a flaw with the blu-ray.

I don’t know if it’s possible my disc uses a different master because it’s the Mexican release, but I just looked at two of the scenes mentioned (kiss goodnight and outro bell) and couldn’t really see anything that looked too weird. I’m very tired right now though so it’s hard for me to be sure, but nothing stood out immediately. Even if the issue is present on my copy, if it’s only three brief scenes it’s tolerable. I certainly didn’t notice when watching and that’s what matters most.

[mar3o]

Some interesting info to share regarding the 3D in The Polar Express.

Since the UHD has been officially announced today, there's been some talk about the 3D conversion of this film over in the 4k thread for Polar Express. There's been some very interesting information shared over there regarding why the 3D on the blu-ray is so janky. For anybody who's interested in what happened, I suggest heading over to the 4k thread starting on page 1 and into page 2. Long story short, there were TWO separate conversions done apparently! One quick-and-dirty and one carried out by IMAX using their proprietary 2D>3D conversion process specifically for IMAX, which they were already using even way back then on some of their IMAX 3D features. They used their conversion technology heavily in their 3D feature "Cyberworld". The IMAX conversion of Polar Express looked stunning - so amazing that we all assumed it was rendered in 3D - and that's what we all saw if we saw this in IMAX 3D. The blu-ray release didn't use that master - they used the previous, quick-and-dirty conversion by I believe Prime Focus in their early days, who were responsible for the dreadful Clash of the Titans 3D conversion.

This explains why so many of the shots are borked on the blu-ray. This is literally not the same 3D master we saw in IMAX 3D. What a shame that this wasn't known back when the blu-ray was first released. Perhaps we could have raised a complaint and perhaps put pressure on them to release the IMAX version. Now it's too late for all that and we're stuck with the vastly inferior conversion we got.

I knew first time I watched the blu-ray it wasn't right.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Some interesting info to share regarding the 3D in The Polar Express.

Since the UHD has been officially announced today, there's been some talk about the 3D conversion of this film over in the 4k thread for Polar Express. There's been some very interesting information shared over there regarding why the 3D on the blu-ray is so janky. For anybody who's interested in what happened, I suggest heading over to the 4k thread starting on page 1 and into page 2. Long story short, there were TWO separate conversions done apparently! One quick-and-dirty and one carried out by IMAX using their proprietary 2D>3D conversion process specifically for IMAX, which they were already using even way back then on some of their IMAX 3D features. They used their conversion technology heavily in their 3D feature "Cyberworld". The IMAX conversion of Polar Express looked stunning - so amazing that we all assumed it was rendered in 3D - and that's what we all saw if we saw this in IMAX 3D. The blu-ray release didn't use that master - they used the previous, quick-and-dirty conversion by I believe Prime Focus in their early days, who were responsible for the dreadful Clash of the Titans 3D conversion.

This explains why so many of the shots are borked on the blu-ray. This is literally not the same 3D master we saw in IMAX 3D. What a shame that this wasn't known back when the blu-ray was first released. Perhaps we could have raised a complaint and perhaps put pressure on them to release the IMAX version. Now it's too late for all that and we're stuck with the vastly inferior conversion we got.

I knew first time I watched the blu-ray it wasn't right.

The IMAX version was re-rendered from the same digital models used for the 2D version, wasn’t it? Not really a conversion in the conventional sense…?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

The IMAX version was re-rendered from the same digital models used for the 2D version, wasn’t it? Not really a conversion in the conventional sense…?

I questioned in the 4k thread the use of the term "converted" and what they meant by that. The term was used in multiple articles at the time. You're right that if they went back and re-rendered it in 3D from the original files (like the Toy Story and Shrek films), then it would not be a conversion, but a true 3D rendering, like any modern 3D animated film. That would explain why it looked so incredible in IMAX, if the IMAX version was indeed re-rendered in 3D.

They mention IMAX's proprietary conversion process. Is their proprietary conversion process just getting the studio to re-render it in 3D? I mentioned how the CGI animation shorts in Cyberworld looked so stunning. I suppose those shorts and clips also could have been re-rendered, like the scenes form Antz and The Simpsons, and the music video from the Pet Shop Boys. That would again explain why they looked so incredible back then, many years before even the bad conversions were hitting mainstream theatres like Clash of the Titans.

I wish we could find out for sure what the real story is behind this, but in the end I guess we'll never see the IMAX version on blu-ray sadly.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I questioned in the 4k thread the use of the term "converted" and what they meant by that. The term was used in multiple articles at the time. You're right that if they went back and re-rendered it in 3D from the original files (like the Toy Story and Shrek films), then it would not be a conversion, but a true 3D rendering, like any modern 3D animated film. That would explain why it looked so incredible in IMAX, if the IMAX version was indeed re-rendered in 3D.

They mention IMAX's proprietary conversion process. Is their proprietary conversion process just getting the studio to re-render it in 3D? I mentioned how the CGI animation shorts in Cyberworld looked so stunning. I suppose those shorts and clips also could have been re-rendered, like the scenes form Antz and The Simpsons, and the music video from the Pet Shop Boys. That would again explain why they looked so incredible back then, many years before even the bad conversions were hitting mainstream theatres like Clash of the Titans.

I wish we could find out for sure what the real story is behind this, but in the end I guess we'll never see the IMAX version on blu-ray sadly.

From Wikipedia:

<< In addition to standard theatrical 35mm format, a 3-D version for IMAX was also released, generated from the same CGI digital models used for the standard version.>>

Looks like it was re-rendered. Would be nice to see this version on 3D Blu.

[3dblurayofsunshine]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

From Wikipedia:

<< In addition to standard theatrical 35mm format, a 3-D version for IMAX was also released, generated from the same CGI digital models used for the standard version.>>

Looks like it was re-rendered. Would be nice to see this version on 3D Blu.

I wonder if this comes down to being one of the first modern 3D movies and the terminology not being cemented yet. Maybe when they said it was ‘converted’ 3D they mean that they went back to the original files and rendered a 3D version considering 3D conversion weren’t even a thing yet I don’t think. It’s hard to imagine what we have on disc is a conversion, if there are any errors it’s more likely it was a mastering issue such as not reversing the polarity properly for all clips.

[emailking]

The 3D was great in this but I did have some of those issues occasionally which was a bummer.

[dartfrog298]

Originally Posted by emailking

The 3D was great in this but I did have some of those issues occasionally which was a bummer.

I watched this every Christmas since it's release and am always amazed at how great the 3D is. I have never noticed any issues that are being discussed here.