The 3D TV experience: Now being discussed in 2D!!

[Darth Geek]

Have any of the 2D converted to 3D flicks been more than "meh"? 

The 3D in the converted Nightmare Before Christmas was fantastic. But they spent a really long time on it, and I think it was mainly a test for the technology.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Have any of the 2D converted to 3D flicks been more than "meh"? 

The 3D in the converted Nightmare Before Christmas was fantastic. But they spent a really long time on it, and I think it was mainly a test for the technology.

Haven't seen that one in 3D, have it on regular Blu-Ray so not really interested in buying it again.

I really need to start looking up if a movie was actually shot in 3D before even considering it for home, because all the ones I've seen have been lackluster.  Switching on the 2D to 3D conversion built into the BD player or TV would be almost as good.

Just got an email from Amazon, per-order price guarantee just kicked in so I got about $5 back for John Carter, so it doesn't feel like I overpaid now.

[Space version 2.0]

Have any of the 2D converted to 3D flicks been more than "meh"? 

The 3D in the converted Nightmare Before Christmas was fantastic. But they spent a really long time on it, and I think it was mainly a test for the technology.

Haven't seen that one in 3D, have it on regular Blu-Ray so not really interested in buying it again.

Trade it in. Seriously, best 3D movie I've seen so far

[MrTorso]

I really need to start looking up if a movie was actually shot in 3D before even considering it for home, because all the ones I've seen have been lackluster.  Switching on the 2D to 3D conversion built into the BD player or TV would be almost as good.

I use this blog for that info:


http://realorfake3d.com/

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I use this blog for that info:
http://realorfake3d.com/

Thanks for that, so I will be skipping The Avengers in 3D but getting Prometheus.

[MontyServo]

Just watched Puss 'N Boots in 3D.  I thought the 3D was really good with lots of depth and some cool effects.  I think I enjoy the 3D when it is used for animation.  Next weekend I will probably check out Hugo or Tintin (not sure which one yet.)

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Just watched Puss 'N Boots in 3D.  I thought the 3D was really good with lots of depth and some cool effects.  I think I enjoy the 3D when it is used for animation.  Next weekend I will probably check out Hugo or Tintin (not sure which one yet.)

I'd say go with Hugo, better movie and I thought the use of 3D was great, I put it above Avatar for live action 3D since it fits with the story so well, all that mecanical clockwork stuff just looks great in 3D.

Tintin had good 3D also, so either one is worth it.   I have to watch it again to really say if it's as good or better than Dispicable Me.  If you haven't seen Dispicable Me in 3D definatly pick up that one.

[MontyServo]

It looks like a coin toss then between the two.  Will probably go with Hugo and save Tintin for later on.

I own Despicable Me on Blu 3D and you are right, that one is incredible.

[SJP]

I actually was underwhelmed with Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D. at least. the segments I viewed.  There seemed to be very little depth and use of the space.  And believe me when I say I like to crank up the viewing depth on everything I've got. I actually thought the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland looked better in terms of differentiation of space, but especially at the tea party you can tell the teapots and other objects are flat.  The depth BETWEEN them is good, but the object itself looks like crap.  Nightmare looked a little more "natural," but the amount of space seemed ill-used.

Puss in Boots looked excellent, Tintin looked OK, and any converted Disney or Pixar film look fantastic (Lion King 3D moreso than Beast 3D, Beast's is a little distracting if well-spaced).  As far as gimmick-effects in goofy horror films, I was impressed with the way The Final Destination looked (yes, I know the movie is terrible, but the 3D is pretty good in it, and it makes me laugh more than the others in the series, which I don't care much for), and Fright Night, though dark for 98.3% of its running time, looks a sight better on the TV screen than it did in the theater where I saw the sneak preview.  Man, that theater was AWFUL...Peter Vincent turns on a light, and you couldn't even tell it happened until the home video release.

For PS3 games, Arkham City's 3D is AWFUL.  Around the main characters, the screen bends like they are a cut-out being pushed forward out of a screen, and the depth never really registers clearly, which is a shame because the game is awesome.  On the other side, though I despise the game now, Uncharted 3 has absolutely phenomenal 3D, worth checking if you have it.  The way the laser scopes and bullet trails whizz by is really pretty cool, if only enjoyable on lower difficulty settings, and the 3D actually does help with platforming.  Naughty Dog really made an improvement on it compared to their Jak & Dakter HD remakes, which are only ho-hum.

[Space version 2.0]

For PS3 games, Arkham City's 3D is AWFUL.  Around the main characters, the screen bends like they are a cut-out being pushed forward out of a screen, and the depth never really registers clearly, which is a shame because the game is awesome.  On the other side, though I despise the game now, Uncharted 3 has absolutely phenomenal 3D, worth checking if you have it.  The way the laser scopes and bullet trails whizz by is really pretty cool, if only enjoyable on lower difficulty settings, and the 3D actually does help with platforming.  Naughty Dog really made an improvement on it compared to their Jak & Dakter HD remakes, which are only ho-hum.

Get Shadow of the Colossus. I've only played it a little bit, but it's spectacular.

And I hardly even notice the 3d in Jak & Daxter. Might as well just play it in 2D.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

The 3D in Dial M For Murder is quite good.  It seems like Hitchcock did make slight changes to the parallax but it's subtle.  Most of the movie takes place in one room and it does seem like the room gets deeper sometimes.  Not sure if he played around with the set or changed the distance between the 2 cameras, feels like he did both.  He did use just about every angle you could think of to shoot from so there are often room objects in front of the actors like bottles on the bar, this is another way he enhances the 3D effect.  As you would expect since this is a serious movie the bottles in front are the only 3D "gimmick" used.


 

[SJP]

I saw Dial M for Murder not too long ago, and joy of joys, my Universal Movie Monster Collection finally arrived and I put in the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Now, is it just me, or does the 3D in these older films actually look better than some 3D I've seen today?  I was underwhelmed with Dial M for Murder as a movie, but the 3D on my TV looked natural, clean, and overall very enjoyable.  Ditto with the few minutes of Creature I checked out.  I'm wondering if some of it has to do with digital 'tweaking,' which Ridley Scott referred to, where the filmmakers can take the composite shot in the editing computer and fiddle with distance and angles and get depth they can't normally realize.  All I can say is, these are movies from the 50s and 60s, and while the technology to make 3D may have changed, the quality of the effect itself hasn't.  Maybe they've done a few things to correct mistakes like lining up the shots more strongly (I did read that older 3D projectors sometimes ran the reels at different speeds and the movie frames ended up out of sync), but overall I really enjoyed seeing both films in this original presentation looking as good as they do.

Now, I do have a passive LG, which from fairly close up does add some 'jaggies' to the picture and something that looks very close to interlacing, but it does that with every movie.  But I do know the reviewer on Blu-ray.com brings up the issue of 'ghosting' and ringing on a lot of 3D films, which very rarely pops up on my TV unless I'm sitting or standing at a weird angle to the TV, and I didn't see that on either film...or on Hugo, which he said was a major problem and which I didn't notice at all (Hugo, by the way, being one I definitely recommend for movie AND 3D without question).

But yes, as much the movie itself just sort of sat there without a lot of the traditional Hitchcock tension, Dial M's use of space to make you feel like you were in the room was well done...except for one segment where it looked like they didn't film it in 3D at all.  I don't know if it was replacement footage that came from 2D source material, but there's about a 3 minute segment close to the end, before Ray Milland leaves the apartment, where it just sort of shuts off.  He then steps into the hallway and the effect is back.  I checked...those minutes look the same with glasses off as on, so that's the only explanation I can think of.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Now, is it just me, or does the 3D in these older films actually look better than some 3D I've seen today?

I was thinking the same thing while watching Dial M.  But if you pay attention to the movies that were shot in 3D vs. ones that were shot in 2D and converted, you'll notice the same thing.  The ones shot with dual cameras like these old movies were tend look more natural.  They just can't convert stuff like all the bits of a face or other small details so you get a 3D effect that is there but doesn't feel right.

.except for one segment where it looked like they didn't film it in 3D at all.  I don't know if it was replacement footage that came from 2D source material, but there's about a 3 minute segment close to the end, before Ray Milland leaves the apartment, where it just sort of shuts off.  He then steps into the hallway and the effect is back.  I checked...those minutes look the same with glasses off as on, so that's the only explanation I can think of.

I didn't notice that, I'll have to go back and pay attention.  At that point in the movie I sort of forgot about the 3D and was paying more attention to how they were going to catch the guy.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

The 3D in Prometheus was pretty good, the "holographic" effects look really cool, and since it was shot in 3D the people and sets look natural.

As for the movie, didn't like it all that much.

[LucasM]

I went ahead and bought it on release day, and I just finished watching Avatar in 3D for the first time (also the first time on a big screen, or in HD, but that's not what this thread's about).  Wow!  While there were times that backgrounds looked phenomenally 2D, the majority of the time the 3D was superb.  Heck, when characters faced sort-of toward the camera, it was clear that their nose was closer than their chin, which was closer than their ears, which was closer than their neck and shoulders (etc.).

There were more layers to the 3D than in anything I've yet seen (when the Na'vi are gathered around the tree and chanting/praying/swaying the 3D is just breathtaking, as there aren't simply 'levels' to the 3D, there appears to be just a constant gradient of distance from the viewer).  Granted, I haven't yet watched Despicable Me which I have read here and elsewhere is one of the definitive 3D-presented films, but I still suspect Avatar will retain it's 'holy shit!' status in the 3D collection.