Predator 3D Blu-ray (1987) [Region Locked]

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

I just watched this one again (as per old Levcore’s prompting a couple of days ago in the I Robot thread - cheers mate..!), first time in almost a decade.

Thought the conversion was pretty poor, and overall would say the same thing I’ve said about I Robot: This is not how I think 3D is supposed to look. It’s one of those movies that certainly looks “dimensionalised” but for the most part looks very little like real 3D (and when I say “real 3D” I don’t mean just native).

Of all the conversion errors, I thought the most ridiculous was when a shot of Arnold’s face fades into a view of the moon - and the part of the moon that overlaps his face actually is placed in the same z-space as his cheekbone!

I’ve seen plenty of bad movies with good 3D that are far more watchable that way, but a good movie with bad 3D has the opposite effect for me: I’ll only ever watch this one in 2D again.

Your problem is that you watch with some understanding of how it works and how it's supposed to look. My 3D eye is way more educated than it used to be, but not enough to be that bothered by the way 3D is used in this movie. This further convinces me that I might not hate I,Robot. But then I read the reviews which correlate to what you are saying and I just can't make myself buy a copy lol.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by cdx47

Your problem is that you watch with some understanding of how it works and how it's supposed to look. My 3D eye is way more educated than it used to be, but not enough to be that bothered by the way 3D is used in this movie. This further convinces me that I might not hate I,Robot. But then I read the reviews which correlate to what you are saying and I just can't make myself buy a copy lol.

Ha ha, no, I'm just a grumpy & fussy old man! I hope you do get a copy of I Robot, I'd like to hear your views. Personally, I think its 3D is fairly dreadful, worse than Predator's.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

We can't lose our focus here... it's a 1987 movie, without the tech of today and 3D remastered mostly by a machine with few human elements to supervise in 2013.

By those standards that's why i say it is on par with good to great MCU movie conversions, done with millions of dollars and dozens of human elements supervising and magnify the effect. And Thor Ragnarok colors are the most important factor to its 3D because the colors gives it more depth, that's why Predator can't be on the same level as i stated.

If going by how the 3D is created for each film, then can I understand your point of view.

If going by the end result of what the 3D onscreen looks like, then it's a different situation understandably.

Originally Posted by cdx47

There is some foreshortening which I didn't notice until you mentioned it but I also see some shots where the distance looks properly rendered. I am watching on a very large screen so maybe it isn't as noticeable? But I see that you are also watching on a large screen too. The weird thing about this movie is that it somehow looks bigger than other movies of the same size.

Thanks. Yes, there are some high medium shots that look really good, scattered sometimes throughout the film, which probably has a little to do with the camera being still and not moving. When the camera is moving at some point in the shot, those shots tend to suffer more from a short 3D range of layering and short depth into the screen.

I was also watching Justice League 3D, and that has an excellent sense of depth, where the distant scenery looks really far away in 3D space in many shots compared to the layers in the mid and foreground. A nice example.

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

I just watched this one again (as per old Levcore’s prompting a couple of days ago in the I Robot thread - cheers mate..!), first time in almost a decade.

Thought the conversion was pretty poor, and overall would say the same thing I’ve said about I Robot: This is not how I think 3D is supposed to look. It’s one of those movies that certainly looks “dimensionalised” but for the most part looks very little like real 3D (and when I say “real 3D” I don’t mean just native).

Of all the conversion errors, I thought the most ridiculous was when a shot of Arnold’s face fades into a view of the moon - and the part of the moon that overlaps his face actually is placed in the same z-space as his cheekbone!

I’ve seen plenty of bad movies with good 3D that are far more watchable that way, but a good movie with bad 3D has the opposite effect for me: I’ll only ever watch this one in 2D again.

Good point that while it's cool they were able to auto-convert it to give it dimension over 2D, there is still something off about it, where the background tends to be flat, and looks almost like a wall that is closer to the characters than it ever should be, for Predator's 3D much of the time (but not always).

I'll have to rewatch I Robot 3D, Gamer 3D, and Jumper 3D. Also part of the Auto-conversion hyped technology. I remember they were hoping to apply it to a lot more films.
If it eventually improved in quality of the 3D, I may have been open to supporting it. But I waited till the blu ray 3Ds were at discount prices, after supporting I Robot blu ray 3D on release day and being very disappointed in the almost flat, mild 3D for much of it.

[levcore]

OK i'm happy to eat my words a bit on this one. I rewatched this yesterday and I was actually far more impressed with the 3D than i ever have been previously. it's still a wonky conversion but it definitely does the job and there are plenty of great shots to showcase the 3D attempt. Whilst there is warping galore and plenty of times certain parts of the shot are on the wrong depth plane, they mostly did a decent job, considering the technique/ technology they used.

[3dblurayofsunshine]

Originally Posted by levcore

OK i'm happy to eat my words a bit on this one. I rewatched this yesterday and I was actually far more impressed with the 3D than i ever have been previously. it's still a wonky conversion but it definitely does the job and there are plenty of great shots to showcase the 3D attempt. Whilst there is warping galore and plenty of times certain parts of the shot are on the wrong depth plane, they mostly did a decent job, considering the technique/ technology they used.

I agree. I just watched this tonight and was surprised how overall decent the 3D is. There are a few conversion errors and some shots that look more like pop-up book style 3D than natural 3D, but I think it works far more often than it doesn’t and gives a good sense of depth and separation to the image. The full screen ratio helps sell the depth even more but yeah, I think is one is probably underrated considering it’s an early conversion of a classic and I found it to be a far more entertaining experience than it could have been in 2D.

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by 3dblurayofsunshine

I think is one is probably underrated considering it’s an early conversion of a classic and I found it to be a far more entertaining experience than it could have been in 2D.

I wouldn't say that it is far more entertaining than in 2D. This is a clasic movie whichever way you watch it. But it is definitely entertaining with some very nice 3D moments that add to the enjoyment of the movie.

[demonbeast]

I was worried about some of the reviews about the 3D version especially given how dark it can be in the jungle scenes but I really liked the 3D in Predator. I was impressed with the separation of the foliage in the jungle while it doesn't really have any popouts but it has decent depth I recall Billy on the log scenes being quite effective.
A classic film either way but the 3D presentation certainly isn't as bad as some make it out to be.
If only we had gotten Comando in 3D!

[DVD Josh]

Originally Posted by levcore

OK i'm happy to eat my words a bit on this one. I rewatched this yesterday and I was actually far more impressed with the 3D than i ever have been previously. it's still a wonky conversion but it definitely does the job and there are plenty of great shots to showcase the 3D attempt. Whilst there is warping galore and plenty of times certain parts of the shot are on the wrong depth plane, they mostly did a decent job, considering the technique/ technology they used.

I've always thought the 3D is better than people have said it is. Still, I prefer the 4K.

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by demonbeast

I was impressed with the separation of the foliage in the jungle while it doesn't really have any popouts but it has decent depth I recall Billy on the log scenes being quite effective.

I would have to take another look but there is definitely a nice 3D effect (possibly pop out) from muzzle flash when guns are firing straight at the camera. I remeber there being mild pop outs at the start of the movie with the stationary helicopters.

Originally Posted by demonbeast

I was worried about some of the reviews about the 3D version especially given how dark it can be in the jungle scenes but I really liked the 3D in Predator. ... A classic film either way but the 3D presentation certainly isn't as bad as some make it out to be.
If only we had gotten Comando in 3D!

I think many of us went through that process of being worried then being pleasantly surprised at how decent the 3D actually is after watching the movie.

[pzadvance]

i guess 3D truly is in the eye of the beholder. since i started collecting last year ive amassed almost 150 3D movies and this is the first disc I've watched since then that I'm considering selling. The 3D, after the impressive first shot in space, was completely unremarkable and offered so little in the way of depth that I found it almost entirely worthless. I definitely have watched way worse films in the format but this is the first movie i finished with the impression that I probably would have been better off watching a 4K instead of the 3D transfer.

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by pzadvance

this is the first disc I've watched since then that I'm considering selling. The 3D, after the impressive first shot in space, was completely unremarkable and offered so little in the way of depth that I found it almost entirely worthless.

That's a shame because this disc is a nice conversion. The jungle scenes in particular are surprisingly good and I love what they do with the muzzle flash. GFF is a pretty hard reviewer and even he finds merit in this conversion.

Originally Posted by pzadvance

i guess 3D truly is in the eye of the beholder. ...

It's multiple things including what you said, environment and setup. With a software setup I have been forced to regularly review, test and make changes to improve my 3D experience. With hardware setups we kind of accept what we see. But my personal experience and that of others on here suggests that maybe we shouldn't.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by pzadvance

i guess 3D truly is in the eye of the beholder. since i started collecting last year ive amassed almost 150 3D movies and this is the first disc I've watched since then that I'm considering selling. The 3D, after the impressive first shot in space, was completely unremarkable and offered so little in the way of depth that I found it almost entirely worthless. I definitely have watched way worse films in the format but this is the first movie i finished with the impression that I probably would have been better off watching a 4K instead of the 3D transfer.

If someone wanted to write an uncharitable review for Transformers Rise of the Beasts 3D, that sentence would do double duty there.

I'm not sure any movie is better with the 4K rather than 3D though.

In my experience, GFF oversells 3D in his videos. To get the 3D experience that GFF shows, you have to pause the 3D film while you're watching it and physically move your head back and forth. Assuming your player and/or the disc allow the 3D to be engaged when the disc is paused.

[Zivouhr]

For a mostly automated Artificial Intelligence 3D conversion with some manual input from what I understood, Predator 3D is decent 3D and interesting to have for a classic like Predator.
But comparing this milder 3D conversion (with some rare better 3D shots) to strong 3D films like from 3-D Film Archive's collection of restored films or the strongest 3D native films like NWave's Turtle's Tales, or strong conversions like some of the Marvel films, definitely puts this film's 3D conversion into perspective.

The sales of this weren't plentiful enough, and after Jumper 3D, Gamer 3D and the very weak conversion of I Robot 3D (where only the end scenes really improve a lot), this trend of AI converted 3D films ended quickly if not mistaken. I remember reading how the company responsible seemed to be planning more 3D AI converted titles depending on the success of this.
If given more time in the oven, I think the AI could've potentially developed the software more to improve the AI conversions.

I think I remember reading that it would play back the film, and determine what got foreground, mid and background layering based on the movements, though not everything moving is in the foreground understandably. That must have been complicated for the computer AI to solve, and probably where manual adjustments were needed. I'd have to rewatch/read again about it.

I watched this a few times in 3D, and notice the backgrouind jungle looks like it's only a wall cardboard background only a few feet away from the mid or foreground characters, where in true 3D dimensional space, it would be hundreds of feet back there, but with less layering since layers get weaker the further back in space they go, due to the limited interaxial distance of human eyes.

What's interesting is Richard Rubinstein paid something like $12 million dollars to manually convert Romero's Dawn of the Dead, and aside from a few medium layered shots and brief strong pop outs, it's a mostly underwhelming, mild 3D conversion yet to hit blu ray 3D.