3D PREDATOR (1987) 3-D... (1 Viewer)

I heard this was announced at Comic Con as a limited 3-D edition with sculptured head or whatever, and they ones I can find (UK, mostly) are priced way-y-y out of my price range. Is the 3-D Blu-ray (all by itself) going to be available for us paupers?

Yep. You apparently missed the huge 50% off sale that Fox had last week.I ordered this without the head for anout 12 bucks.

I am so upset I missed that sale. I kept procrastinating and by the time I got
around to trying to order Predator 3D, the sale was one day gone.

So, at the moment, not ordered. Will wait for reviews.

Wow, bummed about missing out. Would have been nice to hear about this here!

What sale? Where?

Jari,

FoxConnect was running a sale for about a week or two. 50% off everything.

I got a notice in my email, but I procrastinated. The day I went to order PREDATOR 3D,
the sale was over by a day.

Fox doesn't generally send out 3D screeners for us to review, so this was an opportunity
for me to pick this up at a steal.

Why the hell isn't the 3-D edition available at "normal" prices without all the added crap? Doesn't Fox want to make a few bucks from their conversion?

Added crap?

It's just another cheap JVC conversion, it's not going to be very good, of course buy it by all means.

FoxyMulder said:

It's just another cheap JVC conversion, it's not going to be very good, of course buy it by all means.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you can magically make such an assumption. It may indeed turn out to be another "cheap" conversation, but some conversions have been rather awesome. I think I will await reviews before passing judgment. This film could be splendid if done right, separating and adding contour to the scenes of the camouflaged predator moving amongst the jungle foliage. It would be awesome to see this "invisible" creature somewhat separated from the backgrounds.

This is coming from Fox, so hopefully some thought, time and expense went into the conversion. If not, we still have the 2-D edition.

It is apparently coming out in December (according to Blu-ray Review), but there is no date nor are there specifications.

The last time I can remember such a strong rejection of a new format by so many on the HTF is when circuit city came out with their rental discs. Not singling anyone out, but I think there are some who would eliminate 3D if they could. 3D movies are available in 2D, if you don't like 3D you've got a choice. I'm looking forward to seeing the camouflaged predator in 3D.

Dick said:

Interesting that you can magically make such an assumption. It may indeed turn out to be another "cheap" conversation, but some conversions

Click to expand...

Its a cheaper conversion process developed by JVC, you can Google it, the info is out there, already released using this format have been I Robot and Jumper, both unimpressive, so yes i can sit here and say i have no faith in this new cheaper conversion process, it does not give me the type of 3D i enjoy, your mileage may vary.

@Johnny

I love the 3D format, in no way would i eliminate it, i just want better native shot 3D and i want an end to these cheaper conversions, so far they have been very disappointing, there is nothing to suggest this will be better than I Robot or Jumper.

FoxyMulder said:

Its a cheaper conversion process developed by JVC, you can Google it, the info is out there, already released using this format have been I Robot and Jumper, both unimpressive, so yes i can sit here and say i have no faith in this new cheaper conversion process, it does not give me the type of 3D i enjoy, your mileage may vary.

@Johnny

I love the 3D format, in no way would i eliminate it, i just want better native shot 3D and i want an end to these cheaper conversions, so far they have been very disappointing, there is nothing to suggest this will be better than I Robot or Jumper.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... So, what is the difference between JVC's conversions and, say, that used by Cameron for TITANIC? Is it simply a matter of not taking the time needed to do it up right? I have not seen either I ROBOT or JUMPER, but I've seen a few conversions I didn't care for, namely Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND and , but for every one I don't like I've seen a dozen I think are pretty amazing (any Pixar title, WIZARD OF OZ, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, etc.) I will probably wait for it to show up on 3-D Rentals.com and check it out before purchasing.

Dick said:

Hmmm... So, what is the difference between JVC's conversions and, say, that used by Cameron for TITANIC? Is it simply a matter of not taking the time needed to do it up right? I have not seen either I ROBOT or JUMPER, but I've seen a few conversions I didn't care for, namely Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND and , but for every one I don't like I've seen a dozen I think are pretty amazing (any Pixar title, WIZARD OF OZ, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, etc.) I will probably wait for it to show up on 3-D Rentals.com and check it out before purchasing.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that perhaps we don't share the same views on what makes for a great 3D film, i personally think the format needs to utilize all of the technology, it should have great depth and great pop out, this can also be referred to as negative and positive parallax, i do not think Pixar are fully taking advantage of the technology and the same goes for these Fox conversions, if you enjoy the PIxar movies then it's highly possible you will enjoy the Fox converted titles as well.

I do not view pop out as a gimmick, i view it as a vital part of 3D, it is also known as positive parallax in the industry, i feel studio's and filmmakers are far too often just using 50% of the technology and ignoring positive parallax,

I haven't watched Alice In Wonderland yet, i viewed the opening scenes only, i thought those opening scenes looked very good, i won't say more until i see the whole thing, my favourite 3D films are still the ones actually shot using native camera systems.

Michael Bay ( he who is much hated but not by me ) said a few years ago that a top shelf conversion cost between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute of footage, other estimates depending on who you speak to quote $40,000 to $100,000 per minute, usually there can be a team of upto 700 people working on the conversion and they can take upto 9 months to complete the work.,

The JVC system doesn't require as much rotoscoping as other conversion systems, that saves Fox a lot of time and money, indeed the claims i have read state it requires only 3 people and takes 3 months at one third of the price of a normal conversion.

A few links below, the first just backs up my information, the second link is a very entertaining read about the more expensive 3D conversion process which they used for Titanic and other films.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/i-robot-is-back-on-3d-blu-ray-but-can-it-and-jvcs-new-conversion-tech-solve-3ds-content-drought/

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art-of-stereo-conversion-2d-to-3d-2012/

What is interesting is that there has been a decline in films being shot in native 3D, the studio's seem to believe the conversion process ( not JVC's ) is good enough, this has led to a massive drop off in films shot using 3D camera systems, they are also playing it safe with the conversions, depth is in plentiful supply but positive parallax ( pop out ) is under utilized if they even use it at all, while others may find this approach acceptable i do not.

FoxyMulder said:

It's just another cheap JVC conversion, it's not going to be very good, of course buy it by all means.

Click to expand...

Your last comment went into more substance, after reading it, I concede you could be right. But this comment came across to me as condescending. "I haven't seen it, but it's bad, only fools would buy it." That inspired my reply.

To further comment on your last post, I agree that many current 3D films are not using the technology to it's fullest. There could be more depth and there definitely could be more in-your-face. House of Wax is a real eye-opener (pun intended) when compared to current films.

Why the heck wasn't Ender's Game in 3D?

Johnny Angell said:

Your last comment went into more substance, after reading it, I concede you could be right. But this comment came across to me as condescending. "I haven't seen it, but it's bad, only fools would buy it." That inspired my reply.

To further comment on your last post, I agree that many current 3D films are not using the technology to it's fullest. There could be more depth and there definitely could be more in-your-face. House of Wax is a real eye-opener (pun intended) when compared to current films.

Why the heck wasn't Ender's Game in 3D?

Click to expand...

Someone said "I haven't seen it, but it's bad, only fools would buy it." - Who said that. ?

Dick said:

Hmmm... So, what is the difference between JVC's conversions and, say, that used by Cameron for TITANIC? Is it simply a matter of not taking the time needed to do it up right? I have not seen either I ROBOT or JUMPER, but I've seen a few conversions I didn't care for, namely Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND and , but for every one I don't like I've seen a dozen I think are pretty amazing (any Pixar title, WIZARD OF OZ, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, etc.) I will probably wait for it to show up on 3-D Rentals.com and check it out before purchasing.

Click to expand...

Most of the "good" ones (realizing that the term is subjective and "in the eye of the beholder") have been done by Stereo D, who use a fairly comprehensive process of firstly producing a "depth map", then going through and adjusting the 3D on a scene by basis and tweaking and adjusting to give objects volume. What is sometimes done is, rather than using the original film as one of the "eyes" for the 3D process, generating separate left and right eyes in order to optimise the 3D and using the original film as a midpoint. Stereo D conversions include Jurassic Park, all Marvel titles, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, and many others. Prime Focus World did the horrid Clash of the Titans, but rather than being company-specific, it appears that two factors play into a successful 3D conversion: time, and how the film was shot. PFW also did The Wizard of Oz, Gravity and World War Z, among others. To be fair, you can take all the time in the world to do a conversion, but if the original photography doesn't lend itself to 3D (shallow focus, fast editing, visual "cheats" that don't work in 3D, etc), you'll wind up with a polished turd.

I didn't know who did The Wizard of Oz, but it was simply superb. Among the best 3D conversions I've seen.

Wizard of Oz was Prime Focus World. They seem to be Warner's go to 3D conversion company.

Warner Brothers spent almost two years closely working with Prime Focus on the WIZARD OF OZ 2D to 3-D conversion. That's why it looks so good.

Jim Cameron spent 18 mill and over a year on TITANIC. Universal (with Spielberg sitting in on conversion sessions) spent 11 million on JURASSIC PARK.

Eight weeks was spent on CLASH OF THE TITANS conversion, which was trashed by reviewers and press as a quickie cash-grab.

PREDATOR, like I, ROBOT, was reportedly run through a JVC automated 2D to 3-D converter, with the "some" human intervention & manipulation at certain points.

So... If I were a betting man, when it comes to the 2D to 3-D conversion, I would not be surprised at all to find out CLASH OF THE TITANS might actually be a better conversion than this one.

I really do like this movie, and would love to be wrong. I hope I am. But in the meantime: Buyer beware. ...Big time.