3D Top 30 Must Own 3D Blu-Ray Releases (6 Viewers)

[TonyD]

Tv is a passive vizio 80" m801.Went into some more detail in the other topic I started called "New to 3D"Bought a sony player about a year ago.Have about 25 3D movies.One good thing is if I need more glasses I can get them next time I go to the movies.

 

[Tino]

But aren't passive 3D sets and glasses only half resolution?

 

[TonyD]

Could be but it was best we could do. Looks great

 

[FoxyMulder]

But aren't passive 3D sets and glasses only half resolution?

This is a direct quote from a TV review from HDTV Test about passive 3D.

Vertical resolution is effectively halved, and so eagle-eyed viewers may notice dark horizontal scanlines, jagged edges or a softer picture depending on how far you sit.

The above doesn't mean you can't enjoy the 3D though and i'm certainly not putting passive down, 80 inches is a great size for a TV and can make up for a lot, like anything you just have to be aware of the shortcomings, active shutter 3D has some issues too but i personally prefer it's issues over the passive issues and find it enjoyable on my television.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I would like to add some more to the native vs. conversion discussion as it pertains to the differences in the image size to seating distance ratio. Obviously there are many people who (literally) see not much difference between top shelf conversions and quality native 3D and I am not about to straight up dismiss such experiences. Nor am I going to discount my own personal experience where there is a very clear difference between the two and conversions are visibly inferior but are decent. I hypothesized that maybe screen size and seating distance might be a major factor in such a difference of opinion so I spent some time testing it with my setup.I have a Sony 95ES projector at 16' back that can project from the largest my screen can display at 11' wide down to 7' wide due to the projector's lower zoom limit at that distance. I attempted to simulate smaller TV viewing at typical distances compared to my normal 11' wide at 11' back 1:1 ratio.First let's talk about how changing screen size or seating distance changes the 3D effect.If the seating distance is fixed then increasing the screen size actually decreases the apparent 3D depth relative to the 2D size (compresses 3D) and makes all objects move closer to the viewer even those behind the screen as you "zoom in". Decreasing the size of the screen has the opposite effect where the apparent depth is increased while the X and Y dimensions are reduced so objects appear stretched in the Z direction and everything appears to move further from the viewer.If on the other hand, the screen size is fixed and a person moves their seat closer to the screen, the 3D depth will appear to compress while the 2D get larger, reducing the depth to 2D ratio (i.e. everything look flatter). Moving farther away from the screen increases the 3D pop out while reducing the apparent FOV of the displayed image and thereby increasing the Z depth to 2D ratio.So to do my best to simulate how people with 3D HDTV would typically see 3D, I set my screen to 7' wide (96" diagonal) and sat 14' back to give a typical 2:1 seating distance for a 55" TV with seating 8' back and tossed in Titanic 3D. First, viewing at twice the screen width almost no one can fully resolve 1080p and that creates a smoother picture look. The 3D itself doesn't look too bad either however it does not hold up at all when reducing the seating screen size ratio to 1:1. This was made very clear in one scene at the 33:26 mark where someone is saying "The Titanic is the largest moving object ever made by man" or something like that and then it switches to a person sitting at a dining table with hands folded in front of him. At 14' back his head and chest appear to have some depth and his hands are clearly farther in front. Move up to 7' back however and his head and chest are clearly almost completely flat and looks like a popup book. Keep going through the scene as we get wider shots of everyone sitting around the table and from 14' back your brain uses other cues to fool you into thinking there is a continuous and natural 3D look to each person and object but move a bit closer and it becomes apparent they are all effectively flat. There is only a small attempt at making each object fully 3D and mostly they cut out each object and shifted the whole thing in the made up eye to get each object to appear at an appropriate depth relative to all other objects, giving it the popup book look.I also tested what I consider to be the best modern 3D movie: Madagascar 3 and played the Fur Power circus scene. It looks fantastic at 11' wide @ 11' back but it also looks great 7' wide @ 14' back but also different. The Z is noticeably increased relative to the X-Y size and takes some getting used to, which lead to another observation - Viewing at one seating distance to screen size for a length of time causes a person to adjust to that 3D look to be "normal" and causes what used to be normal to look at a little off. So normally sitting close causes everything to look abnormally stretched out in Z when sitting farther back and normally sitting farther back causes everything to look compressed in Z when sitting closer. Now this assumes reasonable 3D effect. If the movie is naturally too compressed in Z then sitting farther back might actually improve the look.I also tossed in Tron: Legacy, a movie I love and am very familiar with. It does not have much in front of the screen but I find the 3D still enhances the movie. However, sitting 2:1 screen widths back really killed the 3D enhancing the movie. Everything was now way back in the screen with the screen being really far away and it kind of sucked, although I am sure part of that was my extreme familiarity with the 1:1 ratio look at 11'.There is one other observation I have made over time and also trying all these different ratios: At a fixed seating to screen width ratio, 3D looks better sitting farther away with a proportionally bigger screen. So 11' wide @ 11' back looks better and is easier on my eyes than 7' wide @ 7' back. I don't have the screen size or light output to test if there is a practical limit like 15' back is effectively the same as 20' or might starting getting worse but 7' to 11' is a major improvement. A person cannot simulate accurately what I see by sitting 4' back from a 55" 3D HDTV.So this seriously long winded post may help explain such a wide disparity between people's opinions on the quality of any given 3D movie and cause others to further research this topic. For me I still stand by my current opinion on conversions - Conversions are not at the same level as quality natively shot 3D movies and are not "good enough".I think Hollywood is at a crossroads with 3D with the choice of1) Saving money and effort by creating all 3D movies by conversion2) Spending the time and effort to shoot native 3D to make it something special, using conversion as a helping tool when required3) Dropping 3D almost completelyI understand a person's desire to have more 3D and if conversion is a way to get it and it isn't bad, why not support it? I really don't want to see them choose #1 so I cannot support the previous sentiment at all and I'm willing to risk #3 if it means Hollywood takes the attitude "If we are going to do 3D then we are going to do it right or not at all". Of couse therein lies another whole can o' worms as we can't all agree on what "3D done right" even means.

 

[FoxyMulder]

For me i sit around 7.3 feet from a 60inch screen, so far i haven't seen any 3D conversions but i own several, i will be watching some later in the year, indeed probably next month as the darker nights start, unfortunately my projector is only 2D.

I have to say i felt the pop out scenes were more impressive on Journey To The Center Of The Earth on my 2D projector, that is using anaglypth against the full 3D disc on the television, the minecart scene for example, the cable really seemed to fly out of the screen on the projector, and i ducked, but the effect wasn't as good on the TV, i believe the screen size and seating position meant it was more effective on the projector despite anaglypths failings, i sit around 8.5 feet from the projections 104inch screen.

Madagascar 3 is for me the second best 3D film i have seen, the best still goes to A Turtles Tale although Madagascar 3 was a more entertaining film.

I would prefer they drop 3D completely if they do not intend to shoot native, i will buy 3D titles which are converted but watch the 2D disc, i think they will have more sale value when/if i sell them on, that's the only reason for buying them, contradicting myself a little there.

 

[RolandL]

Greg Kintz, Jack Theakston and I are meeting with five studio archive departments next week. Their holdings account for 90% of the Golden Age features, shorts and cartoons.

Fingers crossed for some progress on getting a few titles onto Blu-ray!

Thats great news! Let us know how the meeting went. Are you meeting with all five studios in one meeting or five separate meetings?

 

[revgen]

This is a direct quote from a TV review from HDTV Test about passive 3D.

Vertical resolution is effectively halved, and so eagle-eyed viewers may notice dark horizontal scanlines, jagged edges or a softer picture depending on how far you sit.

The above doesn't mean you can't enjoy the 3D though and i'm certainly not putting passive down, 80 inches is a great size for a TV and can make up for a lot, like anything you just have to be aware of the shortcomings, active shutter 3D has some issues too but i personally prefer it's issues over the passive issues and find it enjoyable on my television.

In my experience, the stuttery look of active shutter glasses is reduced when I sit closer to the TV set. If both left and right sides of the set are within my entire field of vision, the stuttering is almost never noticeable. If I sit farther away, it's not so great.

The higher resolution of active shutter glasses makes sense if you're sitting closer to the set. If you're sitting farther away, you probably won't notice the halving of the vertical resolution so much if you wear passive glasses.

I prefer sitting closer to the set, so the active glasses suit me better.

 

[Joe Bernardi]

Until now, I haven't had much interest in getting a 3D TV or projector, but the rave reviews for House of Wax and The Wizard of Oz (both of which I purchased) have got me interested. I have three or four other 3D Blu-rays including Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Now I plan to replace my excellent two-year-old projector with the new Epson Pro Cinema 6030UB as soon as it is available later this month.

So now I'm hoping for a lot of good movies in 3D, although I'll probably start by getting some not-so-good 3D movies just to feed the new projector. I'm not interested in animated 3D movies; I already have the standard versions of the ones I like, such as the Toy Story collection, Wall-E and Up.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

List has been updated and we have a new title taking over the #1 slot.

List has also been expanded from Top 24 to Top 26.

 

[Charles Smith]

Nice! Agree with the new #1.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Looking forward to watching the new #1. It'd be really nice if it arrived this week.

 

[Tino]

Watched half of Wax today and unfortunately tons of ghosting on my Sony LED display.

 

[schan1269]

Watched half of Wax today and unfortunately tons of ghosting on my Sony LED display.

LCD ghosting can be minimized by turning your sharpness down.

 

[Tino]

Isn't LED different than LCD regarding 3D?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

LED strictly refers to the method of backlighting an LCD panel. It's still LCD. OLED, on the other hand, is a full display technology all its own.

 

[Tino]

LCD ghosting can be minimized by turning your sharpness down.

Didn't work for me. Ghosting renders the film for me almost unwatchable. Film is ok...very dated. #1 though?? Different strokes I guess.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Then the next questions are: Is your display calibrated; and have you made any adjustments to the 3d settings?

 

[TonyD]

Still adding to my collection.Picked up 6 today for $90 in a previously owned sale.All three Toy stories, Framenweenie, Nightmare Before Christmas and Epic.

 

[Tino]

Framenweenie.....is that the one with the monster made out of ramen noodles?