Spider-Man : Into The Spider-Verse 3D Blu-ray (2018) [Region Free] READ FIRST POST

[Damon1281]

Originally Posted by 3D4ever

So the movie was pretty cool... sadly the 3D was underwhelming. For the first half of the film, it's very mild. Minimal depth and volume. Things improve after that (more depth) but that's about it. Zero pop outs. Overall it reminded me of early conversions. 2.5D mostly, and mild to medium 3D at the end. Exactly the type of movie that makes people think 3D is overrated. Shame as it had great potential.

Well that's disappointing. Since I'm on a subscription plan, I'll probably see it anyway depending on what else is out. I wasn't too stoked to see a cartoon to begin with but with mild 3d, my desire to see it is almost snuffed.

[3D4ever]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks for the details, 3D4Ever. That's disappointing to hear it's looking mostly mild. Oh no... The movie looks cool, but that 3D sounds dismal. What theater did you see it at? Thanks for the early 3D review. And good point that there are too many stereographers who don't really appreciate the power of strong 3D, and too often play it too safe, resulting in boring, mild 3D, and giving 3D a bad name from those who hope for a great 3D experience, and then get a nearly 2D one while wearing sunglasses, as they might feel about it.

So compared to a stronger 3D conversion like in Ant Man and the Wasp or Infinity War, would you say this definitely pales in comparison to those?

This sounds like something Laika would offer for their 3D films, if this is as weak as reported. So much potential... I want to see this, but now Mortal Engines 3D has a chance since they're both releasing on the same day.

I saw it in my local Odeon in Greenwich, London in Real D 3D. Yes yes, it absolutely pales in comparison to Infinity War and Ant-Man and the Wasp lol, not even in the same league by a mile! Think early Marvel conversions like the 1st Thor or Captain America for most of the movie, then a 3D boost for the last 45 minutes but still medium at best.

[3D4ever]

Originally Posted by Damon1281

Well that's disappointing. Since I'm on a subscription plan, I'll probably see it anyway depending on what else is out. I wasn't too stoked to see a cartoon to begin with but with mild 3d, my desire to see it is almost snuffed.

However the movie is very entertaining and better than expected, for a Marvel cartoon it delivers the goods. I thought it was more fun than Homecoming for instance, so worth seeing. But yeah the 3D is disappointing.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by 3D4ever

I saw it in my local Odeon in Greenwich, London in Real D 3D. Yes yes, it absolutely pales in comparison to Infinity War and Ant-Man and the Wasp lol, not even in the same league by a mile! Think early Marvel conversions like the 1st Thor or Captain America for most of the movie, then a 3D boost for the last 45 minutes but still medium at best.

Oh shit well there is a silver linings here. We won’t be that pissed if it doesn’t get a 3D Blu-Ray release

[Rickyrockard]

Saw this in 2D today (took my 5 year old son). As far as the movie goes, it’s very good. Visually very interesting to watch and in terms of the story, also engaging - something different. It held both mine and my son’s attention for the full 2 hours.

Something I will say is that the visual style is quite strange and they way they handle things being out of focus is to give it a sort of double-image; to the point that I wondered if they were showing the 3D version to start with. 3D4ever, how did the image look in 3D?



In terms of the strength of the 3D, would the filmmakers intentionally play conservative given that younger target audience naturally perceive 3D stronger than adults (because of the distance between their eyes)?

[3D4ever]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Something I will say is that the visual style is quite strange and they way they handle things being out of focus is to give it a sort of double-image; to the point that I wondered if they were showing the 3D version to start with. 3D4ever, how did the image look in 3D?

I don't remember any sort of double image, sorry... With the weak 3D, I would not be surprised if they showed you the 3D version by mistake though!

[Hardkore]

I just found out this is playing in Imax 3D nearby. Usually Imax 3D shows better depth than RealD so I am going to try it out there. They will also be showing Mortal Engines in Imax 3D there too so I will likely have a double showing that day.

[Interdimensional]

Bold, exuberant, visually breathtaking, fast-paced, witty. It quickly became clear that Into the Spiderverse was fundamentally conceived like images on the printed page, and the 3D reflects that.

There were a handful of scenes that showcased impressive depth effects. One is where Miles is free falling from the skyscraper as seen in the trailer. Another is a visual in the end credits with a sort of spiral of spidermen. Just bits and pieces here and there.

The large body of it felt like a grudgingly reluctant conversion. In addition to this, the Real D presentation I attended featured rather a lot of ghosting, even though I was ideally positioned. It was one of those very rare instances where 3D may have detracted from the whole more than it enhanced it. In addition to the ghosting artefacts of the polarisation process, you also have some stylistic effects which gave the impression of watching an anaglyph movie in Real D.

Stylistically, you will not find an animated film that presents such a vibrant splashy kaleidoscopic vision. It's absolutely wonderful. It's a tremendous piece of film-making. The excitement and atmosphere of NYC is brilliantly evocative. The characters are fully realised and as real as anything in the live-action movies. The wit and confidence of this movie made it pure joy from start to finish.

It's a shame about the 3D, I'd like to see it get a 3D-Bluray release somewhere in the world, but it might be for the best if the theatrical 3D release is as minimal as possible. This will do 3D no favours.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Saw this in 2D today (took my 5 year old son). As far as the movie goes, it’s very good. Visually very interesting to watch and in terms of the story, also engaging - something different. It held both mine and my son’s attention for the full 2 hours.

Something I will say is that the visual style is quite strange and they way they handle things being out of focus is to give it a sort of double-image; to the point that I wondered if they were showing the 3D version to start with. 3D4ever, how did the image look in 3D?

[Show spoiler]

In terms of the strength of the 3D, would the filmmakers intentionally play conservative given that younger target audience naturally perceive 3D stronger than adults (because of the distance between their eyes)?

When I was probably 4 years old or so, I looked into a viewmaster slide wheel and really enjoyed the 3D images in there, but then when I saw stereo 3D at theme parks as a tiny kid, I remember how amazing it was, even with tiny eyes (though technically I believe the eyes are the same size, but the skull grows larger as we age), how the strong 3D had objects seemingly inches in front of my view to reach for. I had no problem viewing it back then, and believe any studio intentionally offering weak 3D to keep things subtle so as not to strain anyone's eyes is doing 3D a major disservice and unintentionally turning people away from 3D by offering it so mild that it's nearly 2D, as with a few Laika films for example. And some Pixar, Sony Animation, etc. That's why NWave and Dreamworks, with their stronger 3D presentations, are a relief when they release a 3D film.

Dreamworks lately though, seem to have dropped off for awhile now. What was their last 3D release that could even compare to The Croods, Madagascar 3 or even The Guardians 3D?

But thanks for the heads up on the unusual style to the art.

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

Bold, exuberant, visually breathtaking, fast-paced, witty. It quickly became clear that Into the Spiderverse was fundamentally conceived like images on the printed page, and the 3D reflects that.

There were a handful of scenes that showcased impressive depth effects. One is where Miles is free falling from the skyscraper as seen in the trailer. Another is a visual in the end credits with a sort of spiral of spidermen. Just bits and pieces here and there.

The large body of it felt like a grudgingly reluctant conversion. In addition to this, the Real D presentation I attended featured rather a lot of ghosting, even though I was ideally positioned. It was one of those very rare instances where 3D may have detracted from the whole more than it enhanced it. In addition to the ghosting artefacts of the polarisation process, you also have some stylistic effects which gave the impression of watching an anaglyph movie in Real D.

Stylistically, you will not find an animated film that presents such a vibrant splashy kaleidoscopic vision. It's absolutely wonderful. It's a tremendous piece of film-making. The excitement and atmosphere of NYC is brilliantly evocative. The characters are fully realised and as real as anything in the live-action movies. The wit and confidence of this movie made it pure joy from start to finish.

It's a shame about the 3D, I'd like to see it get a 3D-Bluray release somewhere in the world, but it might be for the best if the theatrical 3D release is as minimal as possible. This will do 3D no favours.

Nice review, Interdimensional. Thanks! And for the details on the seemingly mild 3D most of the way. That's too bad they played it safe for what could've been an amazingly immersive 3D experience with the style this film has going for it.

But I agree, with mild 3D, it's not going to gain any new fans since it's almost like watching 2D. Not good they chose the safe, timid path for the 3D.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

Something I will say is that the visual style is quite strange and they way they handle things being out of focus is to give it a sort of double-image; to the point that I wondered if they were showing the 3D version to start with. 3D4ever, how did the image look in 3D?



In terms of the strength of the 3D, would the filmmakers intentionally play conservative given that younger target audience naturally perceive 3D stronger than adults (because of the distance between their eyes)?

That's an interesting theory that I hadn't considered.

From my own experience, with young nieces and a nephew and having attempted to show them 3D movies, almost inevitably they play around with the glasses, and half the time they have them off. The conclusion I reached was that films like Pixar's Up and others were composed with this in mind. Typically wherever the focal point of the image is, you have near perfect overlap, and the areas of wider parallax are in the soft-focus background, or unimportant foreground. This makes it very easy to watch without glasses, and it is so minimal that you might not even notice. If this is deliberate, it means that 3D is being hindered for the sake of those who are either too young, ignorant, or plain old curmudgeonly to enjoy it.

With regard to the double image stylisation for out of focus areas in Into the Spiderverse, here's another example, taken directly from the trailer:



Try looking at that with anaglyph glasses. 3D is already baked into this image. You look at the movie in its Real D version, you're still seeing those double images in both eyes. Actually, the anaglyph effect here is probably stronger than the true 3D!

[Zivouhr]

Cool, thanks Interdimensional! I just tried it with red/cyan glasses and it's in 3D! That's crazy. I'll bring my anaglyh glasses with me to the 3D show and place them over the stereo 3D ones to test it out. And then by themselves to test too.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

When I was probably 4 years old or so, I looked into a viewmaster slide wheel and really enjoyed the 3D images in there, but then when I saw stereo 3D at theme parks as a tiny kid, I remember how amazing it was, even with tiny eyes (though technically I believe the eyes are the same size, but the skull grows larger as we age), how the strong 3D had objects seemingly inches in front of my view to reach for. I had no problem viewing it back then

I think the point was that a child is accustomed to viewing the world with a narrower interocular distance, so what seems mild to an adult may not seem as mild to a child. I wonder if this may have something to do with why some of my early experiences with 3D were so dramatic. I remember ducking darts and things like that.

Originally Posted by Hardkore

I just found out this is playing in Imax 3D nearby. Usually Imax 3D shows better depth than RealD so I am going to try it out there. They will also be showing Mortal Engines in Imax 3D there too so I will likely have a double showing that day.

Go for it, I saw Mortal Engines in Imax 3D, and it was certainly stronger than the Real D Spiderverse presentation I saw. I would not especially recommend either for converting the uninitiated to our cause, but I'd hate to be the final say on the matter, especially when the 3D-Bluray release is unconfirmed. I would've liked the opportunity to see the Imax 3D version, not least for the superior image cancellation.

[gazadams]

watched this Saturday night with my son in 3d . Yes mostly mild 3d but it did get better and i did notice quite a few pop outs but they were very quick

[Rui]

not a good omen. Zavvi steelbook preorder is up and no mention of 3D

https://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/spider.../11997870.html

[Rickyrockard]

[levcore]

That's really weird about the background already being in 3D. I wonder why it's like that.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Rui

not a good omen. Zavvi steelbook preorder is up and no mention of 3D

https://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/spider.../11997870.html

You don't need to be looking out for omens. Unfortunately their recent history shows that Sony just don't care about releasing animated films in 3D any more.

This will probably be the third in a row to get dumped out flat so we will be lucky to get a 3D Blu-ray release of this at all, let alone as wide a 3D Blu-ray release as Venom.

[thethingwithnoname]

the 3D odd background on the 2D is a visual reference to the multi-colour printing of the comics when you used to get a shift of the printing on one page and have the colour blocks not lining up. Its meant to be as a homage to how the comics used to be physically in your hand.
Did read this somewhere, but can't think where or find a link

I'd like this in 3D but its not looking good, no 3D UK listing anywhere

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

I think the point was that a child is accustomed to viewing the world with a narrower interocular distance, so what seems mild to an adult may not seem as mild to a child. I wonder if this may have something to do with why some of my early experiences with 3D were so dramatic. I remember ducking darts and things like that.

I see what you're saying, though I bet the 3D films you saw were offering stronger 3D compared to much of what we see today. Correct me if I'm wrong, though for a tiny kid, the eyes are seemingly closer together since their skull is smaller, while as we get older, the further apart they grow in the skull, the stronger the 3D can be, as with a parallel stereo camera rig. If the eyes were right next to each other, the stereo 3D effect would be milder.

Originally Posted by gazadams

watched this Saturday night with my son in 3d . Yes mostly mild 3d but it did get better and i did notice quite a few pop outs but they were very quick

Thanks Gazadams. I bet if people bring red/blue glasses to a 2D show, if they'd get the 3D effect during some of those red/blue effects shots.

[jtchance]

Amazed my local IMAX is scheduling 3D IMAX screenings of this starting Friday. I wish they would give AQUAMAN the same treatment next week.