Best 3D Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Japan
Harry Potter Hogwarts Collection (Blu-ray)
$97.23
 
War for the Planet of the Apes 3D (Blu-ray)
$9.99
20 hrs ago
Alita: Battle Angel 4K + 3D (Blu-ray)
$29.96
 
Aquaman 3D (Blu-ray)
$32.21
 
Pokémon: Detective Pikachu 3D (Blu-ray)
$29.99
 
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D (Blu-ray)
$9.99
 
The Meg 3D (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Walking with Dinosaurs: The Movie 3D (Blu-ray)
$9.99
20 hrs ago
The Great Gatsby 3D (Blu-ray)
$11.25
 
The Amityville Horror Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$29.99
 
Blade Runner 2049 3D (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
Predator 3D (Blu-ray)
$9.99
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > 3D > 3D News and General Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2017, 02:11 PM   #21
paul5939 paul5939 is offline
Active Member
 
Aug 2013
Default

Going back to Levcores original point....it was clear now looking back that there was a huge element of bullying . It stunk of playground politics. I couldn't believe I was hearing people saying "I'd never wear those stupid glasses!"....from the same people who wear sunglasses when its cloudy outside.

Most of the hyperbole and fury from so called AV forums and their owners / moderators was appalling. They were clearly bullying members and I had lots of experience of it. This is the same folk who say UHD is so realistic its almost 3D....WTF !?!?!??! Now they're starting to admit UHD is the emperors new expensive clothes !!!!

Anyway, 3D is hanging in there....hopefully avatar 2, 3 and 4 will bring it back ....along wiht the bullies.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
2112rushfan (11-20-2017), EVERRET (11-20-2017), levcore (11-19-2017), MercurySeven (11-18-2017), the13thman (11-18-2017)
Old 11-18-2017, 04:03 PM   #22
film11 film11 is offline
Special Member
 
Mar 2010
1
Default

C/NET is one of the worst, consistently anti-3D every chance they got. A zero-credibility site if ever there was/is one...on ANY topic.

Last edited by film11; 11-18-2017 at 10:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
2112rushfan (11-20-2017), 8traxrule (11-19-2017), EVERRET (11-18-2017), Joe D. (11-18-2017), the13thman (11-18-2017)
Old 11-18-2017, 07:36 PM   #23
Joe D. Joe D. is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Joe D.'s Avatar
 
Oct 2015
Bronx, NY
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalashaska View Post
Are you talking about RGBW pixel structures? I don't see how that's relevant. HDR's about extending dynamic range and contrast to a very noticeable degree, and improving upon colour depth (10-bit/12-bit) and colour gamut (DCI-P3/BT. 2020) for a much more accurate, real image.

I'm not sure where in that article it says "the human eye can only see at 60 Hz", but that's a complete lie. How do you explain to all the people who game on 144 Hz monitors that the big improvements they're seeing in smoothness and clarity is just a fabrication and it's impossible to see past 60 Hz?
Hi Shala,

Remember my original point was about the selling point. The hype was that people should upgrade. As mentioned earlier, the industry was trying to spin televisions as a commodity, to be replaced every few years. It was the typical exaggeration of these further enhancements that they tried to convince people they needed to change sets. And that was why 3D was marketed wrong. It was also put out as an upgrade instead of a new added feature.

Will admit to being a layman on the scientific end. But I remember seeing a demo on the difference a basketball would look between 60 and 120. The lower had it squished on one side. There was also a disclaimer saying exaggerated for demonstration purposes. I have yet to see such distortion on my secondary system. That is all I meant to talk about. What it matters to the average consumer.

Used backup material to show I did do research. Believe those articles both state it's not that the eye and brain cannot pick up the additional information but that it has very limited, if any, affect on what is ascertained. Again, looking at this in terms of the selling points and how 3D got caught up in the overall selling bull. In this case, the tremendous difference in picture quality the adding of primary colors and refresh rates would create for television viewers. That they did not provide.

Last edited by Joe D.; 11-18-2017 at 07:44 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2017, 01:37 AM   #24
MercurySeven MercurySeven is online now
Active Member
 
MercurySeven's Avatar
 
Sep 2015
England
61
4
Default

Fascinating thread, levcore!

Quote:
Originally Posted by levcore View Post
Part of me wonders if, due to the general nature of people, 3D was always destined to be niche and never take off as a format embraced by the vast majority. People are so apathetic toward stuff and especially anything that requires doing anything different (like wearing 3D glasses). I mean look at VR, it's absolutely amazing yet how many people have embraced it.
I don't think 3-D was destined to be a niche market. It caused a genuine, widespread sensation when audiences first experienced it in the 50's and it caused an even bigger one when Avatar came out. Studios don't fall over one another to adopt a fresh cinematic innovation unless it's causing a seismic shift. Think sound, colour, widescreen, digital. It needn't even be as epochal as the first two; but 3-D done right, consistently right, when it's impressing audiences so that they want to keep coming back for more, absolutely could have been--and still could be in the future--a game-changer for the medium.

I see it as a part of the inevitable evolution of cinema, one that's twice been strangled before it's been given a chance to reach its true potential. 2-D will always be around in some form, but in terms of evolution it has nowhere left to go. Whatever happens next to reinvigorate 3-D, in whatever form that is--glasses-free, VR, something else--will probably change home cinema irrevocably, IMO. Flatland simply can't be the end of the line, no matter what abuse the Flatlanders hurl at our heretical third dimension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by levcore View Post
I guess I struggle to understand people being so unenthusiastic about something I love but that's just life I guess.
It's useful to remember that the general public's indifference to 3-D at the moment has little to do with the concept of it; as we all know, it's the application of it to blame. When Ghosts of the Abyss, Polar Express and Beowulf came out in IMAX 3-D, I was so impressed I took several friends to see them, in turn, and without exception they were blown away. They could see the amazing potential of the format. Cut to this year and not one of those friends still watches 3-D regularly or owns a 3-D TV. Their enthusiasm has been eroded by years of gutless, mild 3-D. Apart from my dad, who likes 3-D but not enough to buy it for the home, I don't know a single person (apart from online) who admits to being a fan of the format.

One thing about having a passion no one else seems to share, though, is that it builds character. If you stick with it and feel strongly enough about it, it gives you conviction. That comes across strongly in your posts, levcore, especially when you go against the grain and defend titles few others seem to go for. And if you look at those around you, those who just don't "get" 3-D and what it means to you, you can be certain they'll be looking back at you from time to time with a similar frustration because you don't "get" one of their passions/interests. It's all good. We're all a bit weird.

Btw, I find VR amazing as well. Indescribably amazing. Can't wait to see how they eventually marry it to cinematic storytelling.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
EVERRET (11-19-2017), levcore (11-19-2017), revgen (11-19-2017), Zivouhr (11-19-2017)
Old 11-20-2017, 12:55 AM   #25
Interdimensional Interdimensional is offline
Special Member
 
Interdimensional's Avatar
 
Nov 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MercurySeven View Post
I don't think 3-D was destined to be a niche market. It caused a genuine, widespread sensation when audiences first experienced it in the 50's and it caused an even bigger one when Avatar came out. Studios don't fall over one another to adopt a fresh cinematic innovation unless it's causing a seismic shift. Think sound, colour, widescreen, digital. It needn't even be as epochal as the first two; but 3-D done right, consistently right, when it's impressing audiences so that they want to keep coming back for more, absolutely could have been--and still could be in the future--a game-changer for the medium.
I respectfully disagree on this one point. I think it's better for 3-D to be allowed to be a niche thing and a sometimes thing, rather than an all-the-time thing, and hyped up for the masses as the 'next big thing'. I think the big commercial wave that periodically happens with 3-D after a prolonged dry period is where people are turning out for the novelty-value, which wears off. Then a lot of people adopt a 'been there, done that' attitude.

I'd rather see under ten 3-D films per year with really well crafted stereography by directors that use it as an integral part of the film, than 50+ conversion jobs of middling quality by directors who couldn't care less.

Maybe it'll be a different situation if a truly viable autostereoscopic system comes along. But it genuinely doesn't bother me if the masses are mostly indifferent, so long as the general ecosystem for 3-D is allowed to remain in place for those of us that do enjoy it.

The narrative that 'everything will be 3D' and '3D will be an essential feature' probably helped speed things up in terms of establishing that ecosystem, getting cinema screens up and running, getting a lot of films made in 3D, getting 3D conversion houses going, getting 3DTVs to market, getting the 3D-Bluray format established. But it also set us up for the '3D is dead' backlash. It's always best to be sceptical of such absolutist talk.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Joe D. (11-20-2017), Paul H (11-20-2017)
Old 11-20-2017, 01:28 AM   #26
shinobipopcorn shinobipopcorn is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
shinobipopcorn's Avatar
 
Jan 2017
Cow Country
10
1
299
275
166
182
30
2
Default

I always found 3D interesting (if it was done well, not the gimmicky objects jutting out from the screen for the hell of it like the paddle ball man in House of Wax), the problem was that I simply can't tolerate it very long before I get intense headaches. I'd be open to seeing more if that problem was eliminated, but paying a surcharge for a headache and reduced enjoyability of a film turns me off. It's like that "why bother" attitude the general public has.

The only time I don't get a headache from 3D is on the Nintendo 3DS, but I believe it's due to the difference in 3D technology. If they get that up and running in large scale, I'll try it out again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 02:02 AM   #27
Interdimensional Interdimensional is offline
Special Member
 
Interdimensional's Avatar
 
Nov 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn View Post
I always found 3D interesting (if it was done well, not the gimmicky objects jutting out from the screen for the hell of it like the paddle ball man in House of Wax), the problem was that I simply can't tolerate it very long before I get intense headaches. I'd be open to seeing more if that problem was eliminated, but paying a surcharge for a headache and reduced enjoyability of a film turns me off. It's like that "why bother" attitude the general public has.
what was the last 3D film you had that issue with?

I have experienced eye-strain, but generally headaches aren't an issue for me. It's a well-known complaint and probably a reason why mainstream acceptance has been elusive. Even a film like Comin' At Ya, that has a lot of serious imperfections in the 3-D, I find I can look past them and enjoy the experience. When I sense that kind of misalignment, I don't even attempt to fuse the left/right images until the next cut to different camera angle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 02:44 AM   #28
shinobipopcorn shinobipopcorn is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
shinobipopcorn's Avatar
 
Jan 2017
Cow Country
10
1
299
275
166
182
30
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interdimensional View Post
what was the last 3D film you had that issue with?

I have experienced eye-strain, but generally headaches aren't an issue for me. It's a well-known complaint and probably a reason why mainstream acceptance has been elusive. Even a film like Comin' At Ya, that has a lot of serious imperfections in the 3-D, I find I can look past them and enjoy the experience. When I sense that kind of misalignment, I don't even attempt to fuse the left/right images until the next cut to different camera angle.
The Force Awakens. I took a triptan so I could get through it when the headache started, but it was still a bit annoying. I do have a history of migraines, but usually I can handle movie theaters without issues. When I saw Brave in 3D it wasn't too bad, but they didn't dim the lights too much in the theater that time so it could have helped a bit (we were the only 2 in the theater for that show).
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 09:06 AM   #29
RXP RXP is offline
Member
 
Mar 2008
Default

Seems to be dying slowly in N. America but China love it - https://qz.com/940399/americans-are-...-got-the-memo/

As long as there's a market somewhere in the world they'll continue to get released.

I'm really happy that we got the UHD format we did. It's a shame they didn't include 3D from the outset but with hardly any films actually containing 4k detail they pushed the boat out with the resolution which future proofs it for us videophiles.

The reason I say we are lucky is most will just stream HDR from their devices, they'll still enjoy it and it looks great at regular seating distances on regular sized screens. But at least us videophiles can get the disc to maximise quality.

I count myself lucky that I can still watch the latest block busters in 3D considering how niche it is. Lets hope China's home market continues to fuel demand too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 11:32 PM   #30
MercurySeven MercurySeven is online now
Active Member
 
MercurySeven's Avatar
 
Sep 2015
England
61
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interdimensional View Post
I respectfully disagree on this one point. I think it's better for 3-D to be allowed to be a niche thing and a sometimes thing, rather than an all-the-time thing, and hyped up for the masses as the 'next big thing'. I think the big commercial wave that periodically happens with 3-D after a prolonged dry period is where people are turning out for the novelty-value, which wears off. Then a lot of people adopt a 'been there, done that' attitude.

I'd rather see under ten 3-D films per year with really well crafted stereography by directors that use it as an integral part of the film, than 50+ conversion jobs of middling quality by directors who couldn't care less.

Maybe it'll be a different situation if a truly viable autostereoscopic system comes along. But it genuinely doesn't bother me if the masses are mostly indifferent, so long as the general ecosystem for 3-D is allowed to remain in place for those of us that do enjoy it.

The narrative that 'everything will be 3D' and '3D will be an essential feature' probably helped speed things up in terms of establishing that ecosystem, getting cinema screens up and running, getting a lot of films made in 3D, getting 3D conversion houses going, getting 3DTVs to market, getting the 3D-Bluray format established. But it also set us up for the '3D is dead' backlash. It's always best to be sceptical of such absolutist talk.
Those are fair points. And I like what you said in the horror thread about studios experimenting with smaller, more thrill-packed "3-D only" releases that could really push the format and cater to a slightly different audience. The way the ecosystem is set up right now, tentpole movies with retrofit conversions constitute most if not all of the 3-D output from Hollywood. Do you think it's going to stay that way? Also, are you currently satisfied with the number of “3-D films per year with really well crafted stereography by directors that use it as an integral part of the film?” What could conceivably happen to increase that number?

Would love to hear some (hopefully optimistic) opinions. 3-D has a future. What might that future be?
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Interdimensional (11-21-2017)
Old 11-20-2017, 11:44 PM   #31
Joe D. Joe D. is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Joe D.'s Avatar
 
Oct 2015
Bronx, NY
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MercurySeven View Post
Those are fair points. And I like what you said in the horror thread about studios experimenting with smaller, more thrill-packed "3-D only" releases that could really push the format and cater to a slightly different audience. The way the ecosystem is set up right now, tentpole movies with retrofit conversions constitute most if not all of the 3-D output from Hollywood. Do you think it's going to stay that way? Also, are you currently satisfied with the number of “3-D films per year with really well crafted stereography by directors that use it as an integral part of the film?” What could conceivably happen to increase that number?

Would love to hear some (hopefully optimistic) opinions. 3-D has a future. What might that future be?
That future is a continued niche following, merc. A product that reaches out to a healthy but specialized consumer market that could expand over time if simply included as a feature and marketed as part of what the set has to offer.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
MercurySeven (11-20-2017)
Old 11-21-2017, 12:46 AM   #32
Interdimensional Interdimensional is offline
Special Member
 
Interdimensional's Avatar
 
Nov 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn View Post
The Force Awakens. I took a triptan so I could get through it when the headache started, but it was still a bit annoying. I do have a history of migraines, but usually I can handle movie theaters without issues. When I saw Brave in 3D it wasn't too bad, but they didn't dim the lights too much in the theater that time so it could have helped a bit (we were the only 2 in the theater for that show).
I wish I knew what to say to you, I thought, if nothing else The Force Awakens was easy on the eyes.

To some extent it's a personal comfort issue, like when someone finds the weather freezing, and I think it's relatively mild. As others have suggested, some of us have grown accustomed to converging our vision at various distances, but if you're not used to that, your eye muscles may find it a strain. I also suspect, at least from personal experience, once I have a headache, all kinds of things will bother me more than they ordinarily should. I might be inclined to blame it on whatever is annoying me at that particular point, whether it be noise, oppressive brightness, unwelcome visual stimulation, confusing information, really whatever's at hand.

Last edited by Interdimensional; 11-21-2017 at 12:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2017, 01:15 AM   #33
Interdimensional Interdimensional is offline
Special Member
 
Interdimensional's Avatar
 
Nov 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MercurySeven View Post
Those are fair points. And I like what you said in the horror thread about studios experimenting with smaller, more thrill-packed "3-D only" releases that could really push the format and cater to a slightly different audience. The way the ecosystem is set up right now, tentpole movies with retrofit conversions constitute most if not all of the 3-D output from Hollywood. Do you think it's going to stay that way? Also, are you currently satisfied with the number of “3-D films per year with really well crafted stereography by directors that use it as an integral part of the film?” What could conceivably happen to increase that number?

Would love to hear some (hopefully optimistic) opinions. 3-D has a future. What might that future be?
- to be honest, no, I'm not especially satisfied with the number of films that use 3-D to good effect. It mostly seems like an afterthought.

I have been happy that we've managed to get some good movies, and also some movies I liked, that also happened to feature acceptable 3D. Generally speaking, what I've grown weary of is the giant CGI spectacle movies, which seem to dominate the 3D medium. I'd like to see more smaller scale 3-D movies. It goes against the current logic about what gets released in 3D, but I feel 3-D can be more effective on a smaller scale.

For films depicting things on an epic colossal scale... I don't know if that's the best situation for 3D. What makes for a more dramatically 3-D photo: Mountains and scenery miles off in the distance, or something much smaller and closer like some kittens (for example)? I also have my biases; I often find it easier to relate to films made with obvious limitations, than bloated epics with apparently endless resources.

I don't expect things to stay as they are indefinitely, it often seems like they will, but history shows things are constantly in flux. The past decade of digital 3D has seen a number of developments and things that apparently ran their course. I don't think there've been as many slipshod rush-job conversions in more recent years than early on. There aren't as many 3D horror movies as a few years back. Are they still releasing 3D concert movies? I do not see big blockbuster movies ditching 3D any time soon. There will be new trends that emerge that none of us saw coming. This could include some 3D films that really surprise us. My feeling is that even if 3D were to die down significantly, that just creates a situation that will feed pent-up demand for an inevitable comeback.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
MercurySeven (11-21-2017)
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > 3D > 3D News and General Discussion


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM.