3D Top 30 Must Own 3D Blu-Ray Releases (3 Viewers)

[tbaio]

Good points again, Ronald. All new formats from what I remember took time. In worse case scenario, if 3-D for home viewing does not catch on (like laser discs), the 3-D TV & player that I purchased are wonderful machines regardless. The picture quality & internet capabilities make them a great investment I'll never regret.

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by dana martin /img/forum/go_quote.gif






Originally Posted by tbaio /img/forum/go_quote.gif






Originally Posted by dana martin /img/forum/go_quote.gif





Originally Posted by Chas in CT /img/forum/go_quote.gif



[SIZE= 12px]Hey folks! Santa has an announcement to make, so listen up! There will be no House of Wax or Dial M for Murder or Kiss Me Kate waiting under the tree for you to enjoy on those expensive 3-D systems you invested in this year. No sir. Here's what you're getting, and you'd better by God like it...[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 16px]Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D[/SIZE]

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: December 23, 2010



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/arts/television/24yule.html

and that is what is wrong with the current trend in 3D entertainment, a continuous spate of stuff that really isn't watchable, or the rush to go in and do a post conversion that doesn't do any thing for the film, i know or have heard the rumblings of Lucas wanting to do this to star wars, hey George i want the original trilogy as originally shown first, OK, not the special editions, the original trilogy, hell all three cuts work.



now for what all the studios havent figured out, it's called catalog titles, the films that people have known for years, that were originally shot with 3D in mind, Creature From The Black Lagoon, House Of Wax, Dial M, Friday The 13th Part 3D, yes i know that one is out, but, its not in this new 3D format, The thing is IF all of the studios who are wanting to push this new and more expensive format along with the manufacturing industry, are really looking for this to work, along with the advancement of having this and not needing glasses in the future, well then it is going to need the titles that people are going to watch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#The_.22golden_era.22_.281952.E2.80.931955.29 , is a decent primer of what we could be seeing, lets see Hondo in 3D, all of the studios need to take this to heart, Hitchcock, Dial M, in 3D i say yes day one purchase, but if it was original shot flat, and is just a conversion to refresh the title, they can keep it,





Great wiki list of 3-D films; thanks for including that link for everyone. I hope the list of upcoming 3-D films for 2011 & on are up to par because they are going to determine the future of getting 3-D into consumer's homes for viewing.



Not to be a stickler here, but if you happen to come upon the blu ray for Friday the 13th Part 3-D at a good price, pick it up. Yes, you'll have to put up with the old blue & red glasses & the picture quality is overall bad, but the 3-D quality makes up for all the shortcomings. I can't stress enough at how surprized I was at the quality of the images. This is good stuff; & in addition, it can be shown to anyone with a regular blu ray player so those without a player made for 3-D can enjoy it as well. If you're able to see it, post a comment & let us know what you thought of it.






Friday the 13th Part 3-D , i own it , and it is a fun watch, i wonder how it would look in the new 3D, because it was filmed with 3D in mind, same as my three stooges shorts, they are fun





I don't ordinarily double-dip (purchase the same title twice) , but if Friday the 13th Part 3-D came out in the new 3-D format, I'd only get it if the picture quality was cleaned up. As mentioned already, there's nothing wrong with the 3-D; but the film can use some work on sharpness, clarity & all the "ghosting." You got me curious now, what is the name of the 3-D Three Stooges disc?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by tbaio
I don't ordinarily double-dip (purchase the same title twice) , but if Friday the 13th Part 3-D came out in the new 3-D format, I'd only get it if the picture quality was cleaned up. As mentioned already, there's nothing wrong with the 3-D; but the film can use some work on sharpness, clarity & all the "ghosting." You got me curious now, what is the name of the 3-D Three Stooges disc?

The two 3-D Stooges shorts are on The Three Stooges Collection: Volume Seven- 1952 To 1954.

I don't know the technical aspects of 1980's 3-D movies but is it really even possible to clean up the PQ on Friday The 13th Part III? I'm sure they could spend a million dollars but I thought the way that it was filmed basically means that it'll always look pretty rough and have dirt.

 

[Robert Harris]

My perspective on 3D is simple. As studios race to convert catalog titles (never designed to be viewed as 3D), and pull original 3D out of the vaults (most were not very good), the tiny playing field is being undermined as yet another Beta vs. VHS, Red vs. Blu war.

Unless consumers can easily add titles to their libraries, 3D is ripe to fail.

Few consumers need 3D monitors in each room of their homes, and only if said consumers had the optic systems of the creatures in the 1953 War of the Worlds, might they need a Sony, a Samsung, and a Panasonic.

Want access to pretty 3D programming. Own at least 3 3D monitors.

I understand that people today have more money than they know what to do with. With our Federal government in heavy surplus mode, our economy in overdrive, and the majority of our populace earning in high six figures, some not working on Wall Street may still balk at the idea of buying a third or fourth estate in which to mount their multiple monitors.

The only upside that I can see, is a population explosion, as couples find the need for more children, enabling them to actually use all of those 3D monitors. With enough youth oriented programming in 3D, subsidized by the likes of GM, infants in their cribs can be bombarded by Cadillac ads attached to Disney films, and with the minimum age of drivers, forced down to 12 or 13, each and every boy and girl will need to start out their lives on the road behind the wheel of pretty little Cadillac CTS-V coupes. Enough of those, and we'll finally be able to begin deleting those pesky gasoline surpluses.

I'm beginning to miss that old red vs. Blu war.

RAH

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Robert,

I am not certain I understand where you are going with this.

This is the way I see 3D technology...

It's not a format war. 3D is not competing against any
other format for supremacy in the manner that if you
invest in it and it fails, you lose.

Truth is, you don't lose. The cost of owning a 3D display
over a standard is getting more marginal by the week. With
the surplus of 3D displays this holiday season you would be
surprised how inexpensive many of them are.

If you invest in a 3D display and the format goes belly up
you still have equipment that is backwards compatible.

I do agree that the stuff the studios are converting from
2D to 3D are not very good compared to those titles that
were shot for the format. However, there is enough good
3D content out there right now to watch and with what we
are seeing released theatrically now, I expect a lot more
in the upcoming months.

I am lost on where you are going with the multiple monitor
explanation so again, here is my perspective....

One not need to run out and buy a 3D display if what they
own now is working perfectly. I was in a position where
my 5-year-old HP was starting to wither.

Quite simply, when it comes time to replace your current
display, the option will be there to buy 3D ready or not.
As time goes on, I would not be surprised if the 3D will
be incorporated in all displays.

That one display you buy will be your main viewing device.
You'll use it as you always have, mostly enjoying 2D content.
Outside of reviewing 3D titles, I don't spend much time with
3D content simply because nobody's broadcasting it 24/7.
Right now I look at 3D as a secondary option to my display.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Robert is commenting on the "big picture" as it were. State of the world/consumerism, etc. I can't say I disagree.

Is this what people really want or is it a studio ploy to offset the effects of piracy? For me this is just something else to contribute to the dumbing-down of cinema. Movies made cheaply with digital cameras, more movies made in 3d, more brainless "entertainment", all color and motion and sensory overload, cheap CGI effects, 5 amazing blockbuster events released every week, less literate audiences who are basically desensitized to traditional storytelling, wow I can't wait to see the latest video game turned into a 3D special effects extravaganza.

Besides, with the economy in the toilet I can't see this mad dash for everyone to go out and buy new expensive 3d monitors. Here we are, city and county governments basically shutting down for lack of funds, companies laying off workers left and right, people having their pay cut and benefits slashed...I don't think cutting edge 3d "entertainment" in their homes is exactly the first priority...

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Scott,

I understand.

I agree this is a bad economy and it's going
to hinder growth.

As for 3D being a studio ploy? No doubt to
an extent. Still, from someone who has watched
a lot of it, I do think it greatly enhances the overall
enjoyment of watching a film.

There really is a benefit to the technology.

 

[Professor Echo]

One of my old studio friends has told me, obviously not for the record, that at her studio they have acknowledged that 3D, at least for the home, will be short lived. I guess we will just have to wait and see, but it truly does seem to have "gimmick" prominently, at times even ostentatiously, written all over it and has going all the way back to it's 50's prototype. And gimmicks are not a priority with the pathetic economy we are mired in. All of which makes me agree with everything Robert and Scott so cleverly and insightfully wrote above.
My question is, with the next generation poised to embrace streaming content on handheld devices, what is the future not just of 3D, but of all home theater? Will it once more become just the bastion of middle aged men?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Point-Blank
My question is, with the next generation poised to embrace streaming content on handheld devices, what is the future not just of 3D, but of all home theater? Will it once more become just the bastion of middle aged men?

Unless data streaming to the home can equal the quality of a Blu-ray disc, I'm seeing two totally incompatible sets of consumers.

One is quite happy to view a high-end, beautifully shot production on an airline, or in lower rez on a home monitor, and not be troubled by compression artifacts, less than stellar color bit depth, etc...

while the other will still demand precisely what Blu-ray keeps telling us that's it represents, and in some cases has proven - that being, cinema quality in the home.

I don't see those in the second group settling for Lawrence of Arabia on an iphone. They're still going to try for 70mm first, and then the experience at home on Blu-ray, and for those who "long for the vanished gardens of Cordoba" in the highest possible quality, your wishes will be met at the highest possible level in due course.

RAH

 

[tbaio]

Guys,

I agree that the push for 3-D is happening at not the best time due to the economy; granted. However, as for the cost of the machinery, that's typical of every new device/technology. I personally lucked out by buying at the right time (Independence Day sale). A 40-inch LED Samsung TV, the 3-D disc player, & 4 glasses cost me just over $1,500.00. I've seen televisions alone that cost hell of a lot more. Just like everything else, the price of the devices are sure to drop over time (if the format is successful).

Going back to the push for 3-D, I think its bigger than its ever been. More and more televisions are being made that are 3-D enabled. More 3-D films are being produced now that at any point in the existence of 3-D. And its not just films involved here. I'm seeing camcorders being made to record 3-D motion, still cameras that produce 3-D shots & computer programs that enable 3-D; and video games are sure to join. I hope the push for format is successful (I'm not part of the studio or gadget business, folks; I just like 3-D that much). On the flip side though, this is probably unrealistic thinking on my part, I hope the format remains a choice for the consumer. I would not like to see standard definition or regular blu ray players disappear in favor of 3-D players (even if the 3-D players are made compatible for the other discs). I personally hate to change/throw away a device that works perfectly all because of a new format. I guess we'll just have to wait & see how it turns out.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Unless data streaming to the home can equal the quality of a Blu-ray disc, I'm seeing two totally incompatible sets of consumers.

One is quite happy to view a high-end, beautifully shot production on an airline, or in lower rez on a home monitor, and not be troubled by compression artifacts, less than stellar color bit depth, etc...

while the other will still demand precisely what Blu-ray keeps telling us that's it represents, and in some cases has proven - that being, cinema quality in the home.

I don't see those in the second group settling for Lawrence of Arabia on an iphone. They're still going to try for 70mm first, and then the experience at home on Blu-ray, and for those who "long for the vanished gardens of Cordoba" in the highest possible quality, your wishes will be met at the highest possible level in due course.

RAH

Correct.

My concern is that the size of the second group is dwarfed by the size of the first, and is continually shrinking. Maybe it's always been that way, I dunno.

It's obvious that technology has progressed by leaps and bounds but it has come at a steep price with the satiation of the desire for convenience at the expense of most everything else. I'm also concerned about the devaluation of the content when just about anything you ever wanted is available within 30 seconds after a few keystrokes. Movies today are nothing more than disposable diversions, even the best ones. The bins at Walmart are overflowing with movies for 5 bucks, in bluray quality no less. The lack of outcry resulting from the hasty push to convert older movies to 3D says a lot. 25 years ago there would have been considerable noise about that. Maybe not deafening but it would have been there, because more people then valued and respected the content, not so much the technology.

 

[Phoebus]

My own 3d route is via DLP projector, which means I'm waiting for an additional piece of kit, due to be released in a few weeks, that should allow me to project 3d blu-rays.

In terms of content. I'm amazed there are no catalogue titles available yet.

Kiss Me Kate is my favourite of all the 3d movies I've seen. It is fair to say there are rather a lot of 3d movies I haven't seen, but of those I have, I can appreciate them in terms of their 3D imagery and ideas, much the same way as a colour film can be appreciated solely on its colour palette. It is fair to suggest that some of these fifties movies have rather more interesting 3d on display than many of their 21st century equivalents.

I agree with a previous suggestion on this thread that a sensible method would be to release many as double features on bluray 3d. Many were cheaply made with all the charms of a B-movie, but not all. There are really just a handful of true classics here, the jack arnold sci-fi usually having very imaginative 3d ideas, for instance despite their low budgets - his Revenge of the Creature also being a favourite of mine.

Dial M for Murder is a must for all cinephiles, but there is little that excites at a pure 3d level, apart from the murder itself. There are interesting shots from floor and ceiling level, and the use of 3d to suggest a prominent item in the room being unnoticed by the other characters, but one can argue that the 3d itself is somewhat redundant to the piece.

House of Wax is fun but gimmicky. Paired with Price's The Mad Magician and the bluray would probably work very pleasantly as a double bill.

Now we have the technology to enjoy these titles at home, I see no good reason to hide them away in the vaults.

Kiss Me Kate has lovely 3d; it is imaginative and aborbing entertainment and completely blew me away when I last saw it screened. I can't recommend it highly enough as a demonstration of what 50's 3d was all about, and where it was probably going to go to next.. A real masterclass.

 

[Edwin-S]

I've looked at several 3D monitors and so far I remain unimpressed. The quality of the 3D is good, but as I suspected the actual 3D experience is vastly diluted because the screen sizes are too small. "3D" only works if the screen is large enough to fill your field of view and a 40 to 50 inch TV is incapable of doing that. I also find wearing glasses over glasses to be uncomfortable. Wearing 3D glasses over glasses in the theatre is not very comfortable, but the ones supplied for 3D TVs are even worse. I find that there have been very few movies that lose anything when I have rewatched them in 2D: The Owls of Gahoole being an exception. TRON: Legacy may be another, mostly because the 3D was used to differentiate the "electronic world" from the "real world", since most of the scenes in the "real world" were shot in 2D. Still, even those films would lose a lot of their impact because of the tiny screen sizes on 3D TVs.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by tbaio
Good points again, Ronald. All new formats from what I remember took time. In worse case scenario, if 3-D for home viewing does not catch on (like laser discs), the 3-D TV & player that I purchased are wonderful machines regardless. The picture quality & internet capabilities make them a great investment I'll never regret.

Having been a viable format with new releases for over 20 years, I think you could hardly say that Laserdisc did not catch on. Of course it was a niche format, but a successful niche.

Doug

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by Phoebus
Now we have the technology to enjoy these titles at home, I see no good reason to hide them away in the vaults.

Kiss Me Kate has lovely 3d; it is imaginative and aborbing entertainment and completely blew me away when I last saw it screened. I can't recommend it highly enough as a demonstration of what 50's 3d was all about, and where it was probably going to go to next.. A real masterclass.

I'm hoping these films eventually become available for home viewing in 3-D. I've never seen Kiss Me Kate but based on this thread & others, I'm looking forward to seeing it eventually. When your piece of hardware for your system arrives, I hope you're able to enjoy the films mentioned on these last few pages. Good luck.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Unless data streaming to the home can equal the quality of a Blu-ray disc, I'm seeing two totally incompatible sets of consumers.


RAH

Its getting close with Vudo's streaming 1080p in its HDX codec.with 5.1 DD+. I watched a demo of The A-Team yesterday and I must say I was VERY impressed with the quality. With out eyeballing it with in inches of the screen, I'm not sure I would have been able to tell the difference between it and a blu-ray.

Doug

 

[tbaio]

The two 3-D Stooges shorts are on The Three Stooges Collection: Volume Seven- 1952 To 1954.

I don't know the technical aspects of 1980's 3-D movies but is it really even possible to clean up the PQ on Friday The 13th Part III? I'm sure they could spend a million dollars but I thought the way that it was filmed basically means that it'll always look pretty rough and have dirt.

Good question. I'm not sure if it can be done for that particular film either. I have however, seen some beautiful remasters of low budget films. Speaking of low budget horror movies though, Dark Night of the Scarecrow, a low-budgeted TV horror film (which was in rough shape), was recently put onto DVD & looks fabulous.......and that was standard def. DVD. As for Friday the 13th Part 3-D, you may have answered why it may not be cleaned up: either it can't be done or the money it takes to do so isn't worth it. If the sales were not that good for the regular blu ray, the film company will probably not invest the efforts (time & $) to remaster it. If it can be cleaned up without affecting the 3-D, I'd pick that up in a heartbeat.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
The lack of outcry resulting from the hasty push to convert older movies to 3D says a lot. 25 years ago there would have been considerable noise about that. Maybe not deafening but it would have been there, because more people then valued and respected the content, not so much the technology.

What "hasty push to convert older movies older movies to 3D" are you talking about? The only non-current movies that I'm aware of that are actually being converted are Star Wars & Titanic and they've been talking about those for years and George Lucas & James Cameron are involved with the conversions.

 

[Phoebus]

"When your piece of hardware for your system arrives, I hope you're able to enjoy the films mentioned on these last few pages. Good luck."

I had a lot of success experimenting last year with my first projector (800x600), some field sequential dvds, flicker spectacles and a weirdly configured pc to suit an nvidia graphics card for stereographic output.

Not very practical nor portable to keep it set up that way, though, but the effect was quite stunning.

I expect a frame-sequential bluray HD solution to be equally stunning, but hopefully with greater comfort and portabliity.

 

[tbaio]

Having been a viable format with new releases for over 20 years, I think you could hardly say that Laserdisc did not catch on. Of course it was a niche format, but a successful niche.

Doug

Wow, laser discs were around for 20 years? I learned something new. I agree it must have been a small "niche" as you put it, but as for being successful, I have my doubts. I remember that hardly anyone owned such a device. Also, the discs were only available for sale, not rental (except for a few small exceptions). The format was supposed to overtake VHS tapes but never did. In fact, I think they died out before VHS tapes did. Despite their improved quality, they were cumbersome because only 45 minutes were able to be played per side; which meant the disc had to be flipped over. I think they were successful in that they paved the way for DVDs, but that's about all.