Blade Runner 2049 3D Blu-ray (2017) [Region Free]

[the13thman]

If you want to discuss 3D and 4K generally then please contribute to the relevant threads in the general discussion forum.

Back on topic...

Originally Posted by Lt_Cobretti

What's the consensus for this release among 3D enthusiasts?

Reading back through this thread you'll see that there is no consensus. Though we all tend to agree that the 3D isn't as strong as it could have been (more because of the cinematography than the conversion) some of us still love what it adds to the viewing experience, while others think it's unimpressive.

I personally was blown away by how much more immersive the film is in 3D than it is in 2D (I watched it in 2D first, but will never watch it in that format again).

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by the13thman

I personally was blown away by how much more immersive the film is in 3D than it is in 2D

Totally agree, I think this is a gorgeous 3D experience.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

I just don't get why Chinese manufacturers aren't just bucking the stupid industry trend and put 3d on their TVs. I mean if I was looking for a lounge room set, and saw TCL or lg had 3d I'd say stuff Sony and Samsung...

Passive 3d though. Hard pass. Aside from the image being interlaced, it is less attractive to panel manufacturers. It is a physical requirement. 3d active can be done with software/firmware with ANY panel.

But the glasses suck on active 3D. They're heavier, the batteries have to be charged often (seems to be more often as time goes on and the batteries don't last as long), not as easy to clean without worrying about shorting something out (i.e. can't immerse under water stream with soap & water like I do my regular glasses so getting oil off is harder).

With passive, you can even use a set you keep from the movie theater. I don't know that either picture is better/worse, necessarily at the same resolution. The problem is you need a 4K TV to get 2K passive.

[RitwikKN2002]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

But the glasses suck on active 3D. They're heavier, the batteries have to be charged often (seems to be more often as time goes on and the batteries don't last as long), not as easy to clean without worrying about shorting something out (i.e. can't immerse under water stream with soap & water like I do my regular glasses so getting oil off is harder).

With passive, you can even use a set you keep from the movie theater. I don't know that either picture is better/worse, necessarily at the same resolution. The problem is you need a 4K TV to get 2K passive.

I haven't tried active 3D, but it's passive 3D all day for me, probably because I've been using my passive 3D TV ever since I got it, and I wouldn't want to recharge my glasses with batteries very often.

[BluBonnet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this particular movie was never shown in 3D in theaters in the US, right? What about other countries?

[Okiephile]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

But the glasses suck on active 3D. They're heavier, the batteries have to be charged often (seems to be more often as time goes on and the batteries don't last as long), not as easy to clean without worrying about shorting something out (i.e. can't immerse under water stream with soap & water like I do my regular glasses so getting oil off is harder).

With passive, you can even use a set you keep from the movie theater. I don't know that either picture is better/worse, necessarily at the same resolution. The problem is you need a 4K TV to get 2K passive.

Glasses don't suck, charge last 20 movies. Active on DLP projector is awesome and I thought BR 2049 was great and looking forward to Atmos when I upgrade.

[presidentevil3d]

br2049 i enjoyed, the holograms, jnteriors and cityscapes looked really nice

[Okiephile]

Originally Posted by presidentevil3d

br2049 i enjoyed, the holograms, jnteriors and cityscapes looked really nice

I thought when he entered the city where Harrison was the 3D was exceptional.

[presidentevil3d]

Originally Posted by Okiephile

I thought when he entered the city where Harrison was the 3D was exceptional.

yeah,that, the giant girl stepping out onto a pavement near the hooker brothel scene i thjnk,
the fight with elvis etc appearing
fantastic

[vinnie97]

I won't debate anyone on the merits of the 3D on this film ever again. The examples above and more (the cockpit shot, the depth perception of the dilapidated factory) all speak for themselves, and I felt this way well before it earned an Academy award. I think this thread should be closed, lol. Oh, and while LG has manufacturing facilities in China, they are not a Chinese company!

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Okiephile

Glasses don't suck, charge last 20 movies. Active on DLP projector is awesome and I thought BR 2049 was great and looking forward to Atmos when I upgrade.

I'm not commenting on the picture one way or another, only the glasses themselves. You seem unable to separate the two.

I've got six pairs of active glasses by three different makers for my Epson projector including Epson themselves. This is because my home theater has six seats. Most of the time I'm only using one or two pairs. Yes, I initially found they lasted many movies, but two years later if I don't leave them on a charger, the seem to drain just sitting there for ones not being used.

It's turned out to be more of a pain than I thought. I can charge four at once, but that's not six if one is drained and there's sadly no way to tell until you start a movie. I've had one go out in the middle of a movie before even.

That simply doesn't happen with passive and you can keep 20 extra pairs free from movie theater visits around no problem.

[the13thman]

Please try and stay on topic. We already have a passive 3D vs active 3D thread where the merits of the two systems can be debated.

Any further discussion on the subject in this thread will be moved there.

[gentle_wookiee]

Maybe I'm just slow rofl, but both blade runner movies are strange and hard to follow for me. 3D was pretty good though.

[3dblurayofsunshine]

Originally Posted by gentle_wookiee

Maybe I'm just slow rofl, but both blade runner movies are strange and hard to follow for me. 3D was pretty good though.

I think it’s one of those movies where you have to be okay with not knowing what the hell is going on for most of it until it clicks. It could even take a rewatch to get there. I remember starting it feeling baffled but loving it by the end. Kind of like Dune.

[Tullebob]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Totally agree, I think this is a gorgeous 3D experience.

I regard the 3d experience in this film as being highly similar to that of Dune 3d. The point of departure for both films is that the imagery as such is simply drop dead gorgeous. Both films had academy award winning cinematography. Both films also have reference level 4k uhd transfers in flat 2d. But in my view the 1080p 3d MVC transfers of these films easily win over the 4k, as the image becomes so much more alive in 3d. The 3d is restrained in both, but tastefully converted nevertheless. The scenes mentioned in the posts above are all superior in the 3d version. My personal preference would, however, have been to crank up the 3d a bit more agressively, but I am more than happy with what we got. To see the resulting imagery of the award winning cinematography enhanced by 3d is enormously pleasurable. Allthough I am certainly a Marvel fan and have all the Marvel 3Ds, there is something special about watching a move that 1) is actually a truly good film in itself, 2) that has fantastic cinematography, and 3) that is in 3d. Does not get better than that. Fingers crossed for Dune 2 on 3d blu-ray! (just so annoying that Villeneuve does not have Camerons view on the benefits of 3d)

[aurian]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this particular movie was never shown in 3D in theaters in the US, right? What about other countries?

It did have a 3D US release. I saw it on Regal's Premium Format Screen (their version of Imax.) It looked incredible.

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this particular movie was never shown in 3D in theaters in the US, right? What about other countries?

If "this particular movie" is "Blade Runner 2049" then, YES, it did have 3D showings in theaters in the US as I saw it in a Regal Cinema in 3D upon its release.

[Zivouhr]

The movie was interesting and has a nice visual design, though with the dark silhouettes and tremendous fog everywhere outdoors, those elements are not ideal for 3D.

The 3D is in the mild to medium 3D layer range, but it really needed to be in the strong 3D layer range to bring out the vehicles and people standing against these isolated, barren landscapes.

bR2049flatscenery.jpg
Concept Illustration:
For example, if this is converted into mild 3D, it's barely going to have much impact in terms of separating itself from a 2D image. The dark silhouette character has no dimension, it's mostly just a dark shadow. The car gives some dimension since it has a bit of light on it. The dark ground is a flat black color. The fog distant scenery shows mild depth, but in order to get this scene to have a strong 3D impact, it needs stronger 3D.

Unfortunately, Blade Runner 2049 doesn't offer a more impactful 3D experience due to the plentiful fog and distinct, 2D visual style.

In 300 2: Rise of an Empire 3D, a lot of shots of characters are set against bright light that "blooms" and overlaps the edges of the character, like fog would do. Unless the volume of the character is given stronger 3D, it's going to merge with the light and look flatter due to the "fog" effect.

Fog is just not great for 3D unless you really push it with strong 3D layering, and even then, it's not ideal for 3D. Same with flat shades of a character, in dark silhouette against a semi-flat looking background with milder 3D.

In the new Avatar 2 for example, it'll be interesting to see if underwater is foggy looking as in most oceans deep underwater, or if it'll likely be closer to the shore, with crystal clear water to really showcase the stronger 3D possible.

bR2049flatscenery2.jpg

[Trekkie313]

Is the bitrate for this release really that low? Don't know how incredible it can be with only 10.14 Mbps.

Probably look better being played off the UHD converted by my Panasonic.

[3dblurayofsunshine]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Is the bitrate for this release really that low? Don't know how incredible it can be with only 10.14 Mbps.

Probably look better being played off the UHD converted by my Panasonic.

Where are you getting that bitrate from? Maybe you’re seeing the right eye view, which is encoded based on references to the left eye and needs much less bitrate to show full fidelity as a result.

Either way, this is stunning with a crisp transfer in 3D, and with decent 3D to boot. An auto conversion of a flat version isn’t even going to come close.