HTF TOP 30 MUST OWN 3D TITLES

What you need for this Christmas 4 Stars
bluray3D.png
HTF TOP 30 3D BLU-RAY RELEASES
HTF 3D ADDICT Reviewer Ron Epstein picks his favorite 3D releases. These are the titles that he feels give the viewer the biggest WOW factor, and certainly demo worthy when showing off your 3D system to friends and family. These are not necessarily the top rated picks of the HTF membership or staff. These titles will be updated regularly so please check back oftenNote: Some reviewed titles have been issued placement demerits due to crosstalk. However, please be aware that different display technologies may not produce the same results. Crosstalk is a problem related to certain displays, not the disc.Please don’t observe the numbering system as “absolute.” It’s very hard to place these very best 3D titles in perfect order. Consider this list to be the very best 3D titles that are available and worthy of your purchase consideration.​

Updated January 21, 2017

1. [​IMG]

3-D Rarities is the most important release of its kind. Not only does it document the earliest experiments with the stereoscopic format right through the “golden era” of the 1950s, but it also offers the best combination of depth and pop-out for those two camps who can never agree which is more important.

2.[​IMG] 
The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (Gaumont) is a marvel to behold. The best live-action 3D film that can currently be purchased. Unfortunately, if you live in the United States it must be imported and the disc is region locked. A modified Blu-ray player is necessary.

3. [​IMG] 

The Mad Magician (Twilight Time) is the ultimate 3D movie night. Not only do you get the most superior 3D transfer of any of the Golden Age classics, but also included are 2 Three Stooges 3D shorts. It doesn’t get any better than this!

4. [​IMG] 
It Came From Outer Space (Universal) is a true sci-fi gem of the golden age of cinema. With its pristine digital restoration from the 3-D Archive, this is an essential watch that you will thoroughly enjoy.

5. sammy100.jpg
A Turtle’s Tale: Sammy’s Adventures (Optimum) is the most amazing use of 3D that I have seen in any film to date. Sadly, most won’t be able to obtain this Blu-ray disc as it is only coded for region B.

6. [​IMG] 
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Disney) is best post production conversion we have seen to date. To watch this in 3D is absolutely thrilling. It reinforces how wonderful this format really is.

7. [​IMG] Everest (Universal) is the second best post production conversion we have seen to date. It’s 3D is so convincing that it’s often dizzying to watch as the climbers reach new heights.

8.[​IMG]
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Warner) looks stunning on 3D Blu-ray thanks to its pristine image and level of depth that brings Middle Earth to life.

9.[​IMG] 
Gravity (Warner) is not the best 3D I have seen, however combined with one of the most intricate sound mixes brought to film, this becomes an immersive experience like no other.

10. [​IMG] 
House of Wax (Warner) is the epitome of what classic 3D film is all about. It represents an era that even though is long gone, pretty much surpasses the garbage 3D Hollywood produces today.

11.[​IMG]

The Bubble (Kino) epitomizes everything that makes a great 3D presentation. One of the true “classics” from the golden era of 3D with lots of “Space-Vision” 3D gimmickry.

12.[​IMG]

Thunder and The House of Magic (Shout! Factory) is a wonderfully produced and entertaining animated feature with terrific depth and lots of forward projection.

13.[​IMG]

Mad Max Fury Road (Warner) quickens one’s pulse with some of the most amazing action sequences ever staged in film. The 3D puts it right over the top. One of the better upconversions out there.

14.[​IMG] 

Kung Fu Panda (Dreamworks) brings a fresh 3D experience to the recent barrage of average fare. Terrific depth and the subtle sense of objects coming off the screen make for very satisfying dimensional entertainment.

15. [​IMG] 

A Turtles’s Tale 2: Sammy’s Escape From Paradise (Vivendi) is the next best choice if you can’t obtain the original film. It’s filled with a chock-load of 3D pop-outs that will make for crucial demo material. Additionally, it’s actually more entertaining to watch as well.

16. avatar100.jpg

Avatar (Fox) was originally ranked in our top 5 list upon its release. The home 3D experience exceeds that of the theatrical. This is the title that sets the benchmark for the format.

17. lifeofpi100.jpg

Life of Pi (Fox) is the ultimate visual treat for 3D enthusiasts who wish to be immersed into the storytellng like never before.

18. [​IMG]

Inferno (Panamint) is one of those rare films from the golden age of 3D that supports as strong a story as the 3D itself. A thoroughly enjoyable 3D presentation with a tremendous level of separation. NOW ALL REGION

19. [​IMG]

Imax Hubble 3D (Warner) is my favorite of all the IMAX titles. With remarkable images taken from space, and the infinite sense of depth the 3D provides, this is a viewing that will be nothing short of awe-inspiring.

20. [​IMG]

The Walk (Sony) is the best upconverted effort I have seen thus far. Some of the best levels of depth I have seen in any 3D film.

21. [​IMG]

Guardians of the Galaxy (Marvel) is fantastically fun, and in 3D, offers a thrill-ride experience with at least two prominent pop-outs.

22.[​IMG]

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (Paramount) is an astounding mix of animation and live-action in glorious 3D. It’s just plain “fun” for the entire family….adults, too!

23. oz100.jpg

Oz The Great And Powerful (Disney) fell very short of my expectations. That being said, its 3D presentation is highly enjoyable and among the best on Blu-ray at this moment.

24. madagascar100.jpg 

Madagascar 3 Europe’s Most Wanted (DreamWorks) ranks nearly as the best animated title available. It’s dizzying, spectacular imagery draped in neon and translated in 3D is completely fun and stunning to watch.

25. titanic100.jpg 

Titanic (Paramount) is the second best upconverted 2D-3D film ever produced (after THE WALK). It’s amazingly stunning to watch and it’s no coincidence that 2 of the top 6 ranked titles are shared by a single director who has embraced this format like no other.

26. hugo100.jpg 

Hugo (Paramount) is such a rare wonder; a children’s film that is more for the child in all of us than strictly for the young. An exceptional 3D presentation, though many have reported problems with excessive crosstalk.

27. classicmonsters100.jpg 

Creature From The Black Lagoon (Universal) takes us back to the golden age of 3D. The film remains as appealing today as it did in 1954. Outstanding transfer and appreciable level of depth makes this one of the must-have classics.

28. [​IMG]

Pacific Rim (Warner) Yes, it’s loud and noisy, but darnit, this ranks as one of the best unconverted films since Titanic , making it an ever-so-perfect 3D home experience that is demo worthy.

29. harold.jpg 

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (Warner) is the most obscene and outrageously hilarious 3D spectacle I have ever seen. Play it at your next adult gathering.

30. [​IMG] 

Despicable Me 2 (Universal) is just plain “fun” and one of the best 3D releases of 2013.

Honorable Mentions

nemo100.jpg 

Finding Nemo (Disney) will literally have your jaw dropping to the floor with its vibrant colors, HD clarity and 3D presentation. The best up-converted animated 3D title I have seen to date.

megamind100.jpg 

Megamind (DreamWorks) is wickedly funny and is an outstanding 3D presentation.

despicable100.jpg 

Despicable Me (Universal) is the rarest of sorts. Providing exceptional laughs and highly effective 3D immersion, it makes for the perfect family film.

[​IMG]
Wreck-It Ralph (Disney) May not be filled with pop-up gimmickry, but represents the best use of 3D enhanced animation to tell a story. Thoroughly enjoyable and one 3D Blu-ray that should not be passed up.

[​IMG]
The Wizard Of Oz (Warner) is a film you have seen countless times in 2D, but now newly converted to 3D, it’s an entirely new viewing experience. You have never seen Oz like this before.

[​IMG] 

Pan (Warner Bros.) is quite immersive thanks to being one of the better upconversions. 3D is so well done, it feels like being on a theme ride.

coraline100.jpg 

Coraline (Universal) is a wonder to behold as its intricate story and amazing visuals slowly unfold in glorious 3D.

yogi100.jpg 

Yogi Bear (Warner) is perfect family entertainment enhanced with 3D that reaches far out to its audience.

[​IMG]

The Hobbit (Warner), epic in scope, is a marvel to watch in 3D thanks to it depth and dimensionality that puts characters and their Middle Earth surroundings in proper perspective.

monsters100.jpg

Monsters, Inc. (Disney) is more expansive and impactful than its 2D counterpart. This is one monstrous presentation and ranks up there with the best Disney 3D releases.

toystory100.jpg

Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3 (Disney) whether bought individually or in the trilogy set, these are perhaps the finest examples of 3D without added gimmickry.

monstersaliens100.jpg

Monsters vs. Aliens (DreamWorks) boasts highly enjoyable animation and effective 3D, though it is plagued with some ghosting issues on some displays.

born100.jpg

Born To Be Wild (Warner) is the most visually appealing of all the IMAX documentaries. Overpriced for 41 minutes of content, but if you can nab this for about $20, do grab it.

deepsea100.jpg

Deep Sea 3D (Warner) is one of the most entertaining of the IMAX documentaries. Fantastic 3D, though overpriced for content under 45 minutes.

undersea100.jpg

Under The Sea 3D (Warner) just placed itself behind Deep Sea 3D. Highly entertaining and effective underwater 3D photography. Lackluster narration by Jim Carrey. Best 3D moment in any title to date as a Cod fish comes inches before your face.

stepup100.jpg

Step up 3D (Touchstone) with its thrilling dance sequences is amazing to watch. Don’t judge this movie by its cover!

journey100.jpg

Journey to the Center of the Earth (Warner) places the viewer dead smack in the middle of an adventure that mimics a wild theme park ride with plenty of projected effects.

[​IMG]

Man In The Dark (Twilight Time) has fantastic levels of depth and some nice pop-out moments that either fail or succeed pending on your display.

[​IMG]

The Lego Movie: Everything Is Awesome Edition (Warner) sports wonderful depth throughout, but overall, didn’t make the major list because it falls short of providing a really AWESOME 3D experience. Still, a recommended 3D purchase.

Published by

Ronald Epstein

administrator

10932 Comments

  1. I just watched Coraline in 3D bluray and it was a real treat.
    Great depth and lots of "in your face" moments.
    Lots of beautiful colors too.
    And no ghosting!

    I'm going to watch Despicable Me on 3D bluray right now.

  2. I think it's a problem when you've reviewed nearly 20 titles and the 3 I'm most interested in are not available for purchase. Are they trying to kill 3D at home on purpose? The people buying now are early adopters and I think I bunch of these people would be interested in 3D movies from the 50's. Release Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came from Outer Space in 3D and you'll here me pleading "Honey, now's the perfect time to upgrade to 3D."

    Attaching films to hardware is short sighted, IMHO.

  3. You're right. There are a number of quality 3-D films made in the 50's which would most definitely help spur interest in owning a 3-D TV set – at least there'd be something to show off to your friends. They're not only live action (how many animated titles can one watch?) but the 3-D effect is more natural looking than most of the recent live action stereo films I've seen in the theatres recently. Mind you a lot of bad stuff was made to cash in on the 3-D boom in the 50's but I'd love to see the following titles made available on 3-D Blu-ray: the MGM musical Kiss Me Kate, Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, Charles Bronson & Vincent Price in House of Wax, John Wayne & Geraldine Page in Hondo. Other lesser known 3-D titles could be packaged as double bills. The 3 Stooges made a couple of shorts in 3-D and even such stars as Bugs Bunny & Donald Duck appeared in a couple of 3-D cartoons. They could be used as added attractions to help sell some of the less known features such as Gun Fury with Rock Hudson and Miss Sadie Thompson with Rita Hayworth.

    How about it Hollywood? You got 'em, we want 'em!

  4. I would probably pick up that Despicable Me 3D BD combo pack for the extra ~$10 (ie. ~50% premium) *IF* the 3D BD landscape looks much more promising than it is right now. But like others pointed out, things do not look good at all w/ this format launch so far — and it doesn't look to change for the better anytime soon…

    _Man_

  5. Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool
    I would probably pick up that Despicable Me 3D BD combo pack for the extra ~$10 (ie. ~50% premium) *IF* the 3D BD landscape looks much more promising than it is right now. But like others pointed out, things do not look good at all w/ this format launch so far — and it doesn't look to change for the better anytime soon…

    _Man_

    Check the HD Deals thread. You can get the 3D four disc pack from NBC with free shipping for a penny cheaper than the 3 disc pack at Amazon. I think the biggest problem now is a lack of titles. Most of the non-special interest documentary titles are tied to HW sales.

  6. Thanks, Adam.

    Yeah, I saw your post in the Consolidated Bargains thread and went ahead and bit on that deal — it's actually still a bit more than I originally wanted to spend on the BD (at ~$24 after tax), which is why I hadn't bought the regular BD combo pack sooner, but it's close enough, especially since the 3D disc is actually a separate disc. Hope the backorder wait doesn't turn out to be much longer than the stated 12/27 date (plus shipping time).

    Not sure when I'd actually be able to give the 3D disc a whirl though…

    Thanks again (and to ScottJH as well for the original heads up)…

    _Man_

  7. Hmmm… I wonder if the studios will eventually do 3D BD upgrade offers for those of us who already bought some of the 2D BD versions…

    I could probably go for a $5-10 upgrade price for some titles if/when I do the needed hardware upgrades…

    _Man_

  8. Hi Dee!

    The simple answer (and I am certain a more
    technical one will follow) is that the 3D Blu-ray
    player needs to have the ability to decode the
    3D content to send to the 3D capable monitor.

    Older Blu-ray players do not have the encoding
    capability.

  9. FWIW, the only older player that can (after software update) is the PS3 because it's just that much more powerful than standard standalones. So if you have a PS3, it can playback those discs in 3D (w/ some limitations nonetheless).

    _Man_

  10. I know this recommended film is going to be groan inducing, but have you seen the Blu-ray release of Friday the 13th Part 3-D? Yes, the video quality (sharpness, clarity, detail, etc) is overall dreadful. However the 3-D is, in my opinion, unrivaled. I'm not kidding here, its truly outstanding. Fans of "in your face" 3-D quality are bound to be amazed. Shots of clothes on a line blowing towards the camera, poles, antennas, a baseball bat, a rake & a projectile spear (my favorite effect) went beyond the limits of the TV right onto the viewers lap! I was very surprized by how good these effects were. I'm guessing since the 3-D back in the day was "real" rather than digitally added, it makes that much of a difference. If I'm correct about that, then I'd love to see other older 3-D movies make their way to Blu-ray 3-D such as:

    • House of Wax (1953)
    • Jaws 3-D
    • Parasite
    • Treasure of the 4 Crowns

    These may not be classics (except for House of Wax), but I do remember the 3-D for these films being very good at the time. I welcome any & all comments.

  11. The best attribute of 3D is in the marketing. That and some occasionally superb software.

    Unfortunately, the worst attribute of 3D is in the marketing.

    The fact that those who invested in Samsung, Sony and other 3D systems can't simply order a copy of Avatar is simply wrong-headed.

    Can you image a situation via which there might be competing systems, and if one wished to own HD software from various studios, you would have to have two players?

    Same thing, only far more ridiculous. If anything is going to bring 3D down, this is it.

    RAH

  12. There are some films that I would love to see in 3D. Among them It Came From Outer Space and Creature from the Black Lagoon, which I saw at a double feature in 3D when I was a kid in the 70's. But also I'd KILL to see Dial M for Murder in 3D.

    Beyond those there isn't much that gets me excited about the format.

    Doug

  13. As I said in a 3D thread in the DVD section of the forum, Warners is sitting on three marvelous 3D classics: Dial 'M' for Murder, Kiss Me Kate and House of Wax. (I don't guess they own the rights to Hondo.) While we wait for new 3D films to come down the pike, why not make new 3D masters of these films for distribution on Blu-ray? I saw two of these at theaters during the 3D craze of the 1980s, but I've never seen Kiss Me Kate in 3D.

    If 3D in the home is going to catch on, there has to be all kinds of product out there to tempt folks of all ages to dive into the format.

  14. Originally Posted by MattH.
    I saw two of these at theaters during the 3D craze of the 1980s, but I've never seen Kiss Me Kate in 3D.

    Best 3D movie–ever! Bob Fosse dancing across the rooftops is a religious experience.

  15. Larry Geller

    Best 3D movie–ever! Bob Fosse dancing across the rooftops is a religious experience.

    Having never seen it, naturally it's the one I most want to see. Come on, Warners! Do us all a favor and release this in 3D!

  16. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
    Wow…now I know why I'm NOT investing in 3d.

    Doug

    3D is very big joke even for someone with millions of dollars. Am not interested movie studios and not interested in Avatar. James Cameron cannot make good movies anymore. All is plagarism from Dances with Wolves Ferngully The Last Samurai The Smurfs Dune Pocahontas but set in space.
    Yes, only reason why is top grossing movie currently is because the added fee for IMAX and 3D to watching.

  17. Originally Posted by SergeiShadow
    Yes, only reason why is top grossing movie currently is because the added fee for IMAX and 3D to watching.

    Avatar made earned 2.7 billion dollars. If you think a movie made that much just because it charged $3 or $4 more a ticket, you're wrong.

  18. TravisR

    Still dead setting on defending film? Where is sites ignore button?

    He isn't defending anything, he is only pointing out how silly, uninformed and delusional the opinion that Avatar made nearly 3 Billion dollars simply due to 3D surcharges (despite the fact that the film played in 3D in only 50% of overseas theaters, which is where the film grossed 2 Bil alone) is

  19. Originally Posted by SergeiShadow
    Still dead setting on defending film?

    No and I don't see how you can get that from what I've said. For what it's worth, I liked Avatar well enough but there's plenty of valid criticism to make about the movie. All I'm saying is that the movie made alot of money because many people really enjoyed it & saw it multiple times and not simply because they charged a few dollars more a ticket.

  20. I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

  21. Time recently just published its top list of Tech fails of 2010, and it has 3D TV at #8, and also at #16..Poor Quality of 3D-Converted Films.

    I am inclined to agree.

    I see 3D becoming a feature to go along with TVs eventually because its the next logical step, but for now…people just don't 'need' it to enhance their viewing experience. The public is just now getting used to having digital cable be a standard and have widescreen TVs a part of their household…now they hear that the extra price they pay at the movie theater to see a movie in 3D that probably wont benefit much from the use of 3D is now becoming a part of TV sets…and again, with a larger price tag attached to it…they have to have a 3D compatible player, TV set, and glasses.

    I understand that the number of titles available is limited and is expected to grow, but with what is available and where studios try to make the most money is what will hurt 3D, IMO. the top 9 list for example, has a number of titles that are priced over $40 for a feature that is less than an hour and has little to no features…it may have some replay value, but to the overall movie-going public, probably next to none. The same goes for most mainstream title that have 3D available with them now. Family friendly films like Despicable Me and Alice in Wonderland may have found a large audience in theater and will sell many DVDs and BDs…but how many will actually watch the 3D version of either title and have all of the items necessary to take advantage of the format in their homes..now?

    Movie prices are high enough as they are, and add a few more dollars to the price tag because it's feature in 3D just to turn a higher profit…now make it available for home viewing but make all of the components highly priced and not educate the public on how it works and what they need…and may I also add its at a time when people are less likely to shell out the extra cash because of a fragile economy. There isn't much 3D content out there and what is available will not make a big difference to the casual movie goer…all they know is $100 for each pair of glasses is more of a hindrance than anything they are to gain from watching the feature in 2D as opposed to 3D…do they wonder why the format hasn't been popular for so many years?

    Finally, titles people 'want' to see to in 3D, that they feel may actually be worth the investment, Avatar for example, are only available with the hardware as an addition. So to buy the film that has been out for close to a year already, which many already own, you have to spend a few thousand more dollars? Many films just don't benefit from the 3D boost, and if the film doesn't make a profit or return in theaters (some of the titles out now come to mind) then how is the format expected to survive long enough to convince the public its a worthwhile investment. Tron: Legacy for example (I haven't seen it) would make great use of the technology, but it doesn't seem like the film will have the wide appeal (or box office return) the studio was expecting to win over the public like Avatar did…how do they expect to sell 3D if the vast majority of the films only have so much replay value or mainstream appeal?

    I think studios were too eager and in my mind, greedy, to jump on the 3D bandwagon to make the most out of it while its still in the public consciousness…they are just not going to win people over with the technology they way they were able to with DVD vs. BD, for example. I do think that 3D will become more common place, especially in regards to digital programming, but I fear that films and the movie-going experience will suffer because studios will compel director's and filmmakers to embrace the new technology in order to justify the need for a film to be 3D so that returns will be greater and they can convince the average movie goer that they want to see the 2D film instead of the 3D one.

    I said more than I expected to, but after sitting on the sidelines for a while, I came to the conclusion that wait it out, a year or three and 3D will be built into TVs as a feature…no need to may the extra cash.

  22. 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…

    Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D

    By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

    Published: December 23, 2010

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

  23. I have to agree that thus far, the push for 3-D has been pretty abyssmal. I think it starts at the theater phase. Although there have been quite a few 3-D films to hit the big screen, none of them have been greatly appealing. It is in large part due to post converting 2-D titles into 3-D. After viewing such films as Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3-D, & My Soul to Take, there were always a ton of fellow movie-goers asking, "Where was the 3-D?" And then there are films like The Final Destination which utilizes 3-D very well, but only during the first 15 minutes! In the case of Saw 3-D, the 3-D is only seen in maybe 3 brief scenes. The points being:

    1. Post-conversion of 2-D to 3-D sucks.
    2. If the audience is not crazy about the 3-D technology as seen on the big screen, they're not going to purchase the film for home viewing or the additional machinery to view it.
    3. Post-conversion of 2-D to 3-D sucks.

    If the powers that be at these film studios were to go all out & make a good kick-ass 3-D film (for example, the next Die Hard featuring fire, bullets, cars, body parts, etc. flying at the audience on a regular basis), then I'm sure things would be different. When watching My Bloody Valentine & the last Resident Evil movie in the theaters, both had awesome scenes showing an axe being thrown in the direction of the audience. If there were a way to rewind those scenes, the majority of the crowd would have done so. When done right, 3-D is an awesome experience. When done the way its been as of late, 3-D to an audience only means a more expensive ticket price. Its a shame that these big film companies haven't figured that out yet.

    There is some hope though. I'm seeing posters for Drive Angry that are advertising that the film is "Shot in 3-D." If this is a sign that a studio is starting to understand that people prefer real 3-D as opposed to the post converted crap, then I'm all for it & I hope to see this trend continue.

  24. Originally Posted by Chas in CT
    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…

    Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D

    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,

  25. Originally Posted by tbaio
    I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

    Avatar = Ferngully

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

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

    I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

    Avatar = Ferngully

    Yes, Ferngully was probably an inspiration for Avatar as well. If one were to dig further, other titles would pop up as well. And then again, I think that is the case for many of not all movies. Good catch.

  27. Never say never but I think any similarities between Fern Gully and Avatar are coincidental. I know he's got a kid or two but I just find it hard to believe that he's even seen an obscure cartoon from 20 years ago let alone is 'borrowing' from it.

  28. I do agree that the similarities between Ferngully & Avatar can be coincidential; absolutely. As for doubting that Cameron has seen Ferngully, I don't think that's impossible at all. Directors watch movies as well as make them. In fact, I think they watch more movies than the average movie fan does. They get their ideas from numerous sources (books, foreign movies, cartoons, documentaries, word of mouth, dreams, songs, real life experiences, etc). Cameron is a huge sci-fi fan & what better source to tell a sci-fi story than through drawings in either a comic book or a cartoon? It is very possible that he saw Ferngully. Also, he's in his mid 50's. When Ferngully came out (1992) he could have easily seen it.

    I don't mean to make claims of a rip-off here, but there is no doubt (at least to me) that he was inspired by Dances With Wolves. And so was Edward Zwick for The Last Samurai. Again, it does not matter though because many directors/writers get their ideas from other movies. I loved both Cliffhanger & the first Under Siege which were clearly made because of Die Hard.

  29. ok, when avatar came out my son who is now 22, said it was ferngully, the faries are the na'vid, there is the tree of life, the loggers are the army, really a lot of similarties,both are fox titles the bat (robin williams) could be the Sigourney Weaver role

  30. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't believe that that many people, outside of children under the age of 10 in 1992, saw or remember Fern Gully. The similar elements are obvious enough to come up with separately.

  31. well imitation is the best form of flattery, if it gets people interested in a good family film or animation, i am happy, well it's not don bluth but it is still good for that time, but it always happens that way seven samurai/ magnificent seven

  32. Id never even heard of Ferngully and I was a kid when it supposedly came out.

    The Avatar comparison that is the most bunk is the Pocahontas one, as you can trace back the inspirations pretty clearly, like John Carter of Mars, and other Burroughs stories, and this is freely admitted by Cameron. In fact id say the clearest analogue that Cameron was aiming for with Avatar was a Burroughs type epic.

    But hey, one of the first things that Cameron ever said about Avatar before showing even a single image of the film to the public was that the film was the melting pot of all the books and stories he absorbed throughout his life, but some people still seem to think they are clever by pointing out the movies inspirations. So, yeah, whatever helps the detractors feel superior, in the end it still won't change what an incredible cinematic feat the film is. Titanic went through the same bull as well, but in the end that changed nothing, to this day its still one of the most impressive productions of all time, the likes of which no other modern director could ever achieve.

  33. I totally agree here again. No matter where the inspiration for the story came from, Avatar is a great movie period. And its one hell of an awesome Blu ray disc! I don't think the 3-D version is going to improve on (in my opinion) an already perfect reference quality disc. But, I guess we'll find out about that eventually.

  34. The storyline to the animated sci-fi movie Battle for Terra (2007) has similarities to Avatar too –

    Earthforces plan to terraform alien planet Terra (wink), human hero in sympathy with alien race, joins them to fight off Earth invaders.

  35. dana martin

    , 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.

  36. Well Avatar was written 13 years before that movie ever came out, the Avatar script even predates The Last Samurai. It just goes to show that the story trope is universal, and many, many people have fished from that pond, but in the end what matters is how these stories are executed and presented.

  37. Originally Posted by AlexS2
    Id never even heard of Ferngully and I was a kid when it supposedly came out.

    The Avatar comparison that is the most bunk is the Pocahontas one, as you can trace back the inspirations pretty clearly, like John Carter of Mars, and other Burroughs stories, and this is freely admitted by Cameron. In fact id say the clearest analogue that Cameron was aiming for with Avatar was a Burroughs type epic.

    But hey, one of the first things that Cameron ever said about Avatar before showing even a single image of the film to the public was that the film was the melting pot of all the books and stories he absorbed throughout his life, but some people still seem to think they are clever by pointing out the movies inspirations. So, yeah, whatever helps the detractors feel superior, in the end it still won't change what an incredible cinematic feat the film is. Titanic went through the same bull as well, but in the end that changed nothing, to this day its still one of the most impressive productions of all time, the likes of which no other modern director could ever achieve.

    If I had an buck for every time I've read a review of a singer, an author, at poet, a playwright, a film maker detailing how they were influenced by the works of others, I'd be a rich man. Creative thought does not happen in a vacuum (except for maybe the first guy who created the shadow of his hand on a cave wall). It's one thing to dislike a film because it doesn't appeal to you, but to criticize it because another work of art already contains elements of the later film, I think that's bogus. Now if you think the earlier film did it better, that's different.

    Frankly, I hope there are more films, or books, plays concerning one civilization raping another. It's a valid subject to pursue.

    BTW, that guy Shakespeare was always borrowing plots.

  38. I got around to watching Avatar on blu-ray last week. I must say that I found the writing typical of Cameron, in that all the characters talk with the same voice. Cameron has never been good at writing people who are unique, and everyone ends up sounding like a truck driver.

    The digital animation and backgrounds were terribly unconvincing I thought. It felt like watching a Pixar movie and was particularly jarring when cutting back and forth with the live action. It probably would have been fine if everything were digital, but the live action makes the comparison pretty obvious

    I also found the story line to be insulting to my intelligence.

    Doug

  39. Johnny Angell

    If I had an buck for every time I've read a review of a singer, an author, at poet, a playwright, a film maker detailing how they were influenced by the works of others, I'd be a rich man. Creative thought does not happen in a vacuum (except for maybe the first guy who created the shadow of his hand on a cave wall). It's one thing to dislike a film because it doesn't appeal to you, but to criticize it because another work of art already contains elements of the later film, I think that's bogus. Now if you think the earlier film did it better, that's different.

    Frankly, I hope there are more films, or books, plays concerning one civilization raping another. It's a valid subject to pursue.

    BTW, that guy Shakespeare was always borrowing plots.

    There are already countless movies of Alien empires raping our civilization, its only fair we finally turn the tables, heh

  40. 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

    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…

    Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D

    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

  41. I'm surprised that many of you have bought into this 3-D fiasco. Didn't we learn from the HDDVD/BD war. You're spending your hard earned money for a few animated features and a few cable channels. Gos bless you that have the money to throw away. Do you really think that all the movies that haven't even been released onto DVD, will somehow be released as 3-D???

    Me. I just installed an Epson 9500 UB PJ and a JKP Affinity Screen in my new HT and that will last me until I die.

    Fool me once with HDDVD/BD…shame on you…fool me twice with 3-D…shame on me!!!

  42. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce /forum/thread/306751/htf-top-9-must-own-3d-titles/30#post_3765250

    I got around to watching Avatar on blu-ray last week. I must say that I found the writing typical of Cameron, in that all the characters talk with the same voice. Cameron has never been good at writing people who are unique, and everyone ends up sounding like a truck driver.   The digital animation and backgrounds were terribly unconvincing I thought. It felt like watching a Pixar movie and was particularly jarring when cutting back and forth with the live action. It probably would have been fine if everything were digital, but the live action makes the comparison pretty obvious   I also found the story line to be insulting to my intelligence.   Doug

     Completely agree with this. I probably would have loved it if I had been 10 years old, but I found everything to be overwhelmingly simplistic and juvenile, same as I have most Cameron screenplays. He is a talented director, but a terrible writer. And anyone who doesn't think that Cameron has not liberally borrowed from other films for his entire career must surely be such the devoted fan that far be it from me to convince them otherwise.

  43. Originally Posted by John Sparks
    I'm surprised that many of you have bought into this 3-D fiasco. Didn't we learn from the HDDVD/BD war. You're spending your hard earned money for a few animated features and a few cable channels. Gos bless you that have the money to throw away. Do you really think that all the movies that haven't even been released onto DVD, will somehow be released as 3-D???

    Me. I just installed an Epson 9500 UB PJ and a JKP Affinity Screen in my new HT and that will last me until I die.

    Fool me once with HDDVD/BD…shame on you…fool me twice with 3-D…shame on me!!!

    I don't see 3-D TVs really catching on either (at least not until there's alot more content and the cost of 3-D TVs drop) but your HD-DVD/Blu-ray analogy doesn't work at all. There's only one 3-D format so it's not like you run the risk of buying the losing format.

  44. TravisR

    I don't see 3-D TVs really catching on either (at least not until there's alot more content and the cost of 3-D TVs drop) but your HD-DVD/Blu-ray analogy doesn't work at all. There's only one 3-D format so it's not like you run the risk of buying the losing format.

    I guess that depends on how one looks at it, but at this point, 3D BD could very well become the losing format anyway (w/ no winning format to speak of)…

    _Man_

  45. Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool

    I guess that depends on how one looks at it, but at this point, 3D BD could very well become the losing format anyway (w/ no winning format to speak of)…

    But the TV, player and discs would all still work perfectly fine in 2-D and the TV and player would still play all future TV broadcasts and Blu-rays.

  46. Travis hit the nail on the head.

    This isn't a "shame on you" format war.

    This isn't a format competing with another for
    dominance.

    Everyone has the choice as to whether to buy
    3D capable equipment or don't. If they do, nobody
    loses because the format is backwards compatible.

    Typically I have found that most people that
    complain about 3D have not seen it. Those that
    own 3D displays seem to really enjoy it.

    Adoption has been slow, but so has been the
    start of every single new format to date. Meanwhile,
    Hollywood continues to release new 3D titles theatrically
    each month with a promise of a Blu-ray release
    next year. In other words, content will continue to
    arrive.

    Those complaining certain titles are not yet
    available have a right to gripe, but how different
    is this from when Blu-ray and DVD were new
    formats and the studios were holding back on
    titles waiting to see how well the technology adopted?

  47. 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.

  48. 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

    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…

    Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D

    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?

  49. 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.

  50. 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

  51. 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.

  52. 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…

  53. 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.

  54. 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?

  55. 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

  56. 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.

  57. Robert Harris

    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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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

  61. 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.

  62. Robert Harris

    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

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. "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 (800×600), 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.

  66. 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.

  67. ^ Yeah, laserdiscs started in the late 70's and only really died because all the people who bought LDs pretty quickly transitioned to DVDs in the late 90's. While they never caught on with a mainstream audience, you can't really knock something that lasted 2 decades.

    And not to nitpick but CLV laserdiscs held 60 minutes and CAV laserdiscs held 30 minutes.

  68. At a cinematographer symposium I attended at the Los Angeles County Museum Of Art in the early 90's, every single DP on the panel, all famous and well regarded within the industry, said that if it weren't for laserdiscs widescreen movies would have faded away. They all agreed that with the advent of letterboxed films on laserdisc, directors, led by Scorsese with CAPE FEAR, once more felt comfortable shooting in widescreen. Prior to that they did not want their legacy to be that a constant stream of half movies, i.e. pan and scan versions.

    So while laserdiscs may have been a small niche with the general public, they played a significant part in the history of movie making.

  69. TravisR

    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.

    Here's an article I found after a 5 second google search.
    http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2010/02/05/sony-looks-to-convert-old-movies-to-3d/

  70. And don't forget JVC's short-lived VHD laserdisc players of the early 1980s, many built to display 3d discs, and viewable with lcd glasses.

    Both House of Wax and Dial M for Murder were commercially available in this format. [field sequential fans tend to be weirdly knowledgeable about such matters.. 🙂 ]

    I think VHD found its niche in the karaoke market eventually.

  71. Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
    Here's an article I found after a 5 second google search.
    http://www.hdtvreview.com/news/2010/02/05/sony-looks-to-convert-old-movies-to-3d/

    So nealy a year ago, Sony talked about converting some of their movies and only mentioned 2 titles specifically? Considering that 3-D adoption isn't anywhere near where studios had hoped and that 2012 and a Michael Jackson concert movie probably aren't going to drive many sales, I'd imagine that those plans have changed or at least are going to wait until when or if things pick up for 3-D. And in the end, all 3-D releases have to have a 2-D version included so that might be why there's no outcry (and not because people today aren't as good movie fans as they used to be).

  72. Originally Posted by Robert Harris
    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.

    Say no more.

  73. TravisR

    about converting some of their movies and only mentioned 2 titles specifically? Considering that 3-D adoption isn't anywhere near where studios had hoped and that 2012 and a Michael Jackson concert movie probably aren't going to drive many sales, I'd imagine that those plans have changed or at least are going to wait until when or if things pick up for 3-D. And in the end, all 3-D releases have to have a 2-D version included so that might be why there's no outcry (and not because people today aren't as good movie fans as they used to be).

    I should have known someone was going to hone in on a specific comment and ignore the gist of my overall point. My opinion is that, in the macro, that technology has advanced so that it seems there are more people today who are more interested in the gee-whiz factor of the technology itself than in the content, and that the instant gratification the technology provides has devalued the content. That is not necessarily 3-d related but more a comment on the state of entertainment media delivery in general. I admit that's drifting off topic. I guess my tangents were inspired by Robert Harris' satiric post earlier.

  74. I'm learning alot more about Laser discs now than when they were at the "height" of their time. However, 3-D even now at its slow start, is bigger than what Laser discs accomplished throughout their entire run. It sounds like laser disc was only for a small audience base such as film-makers; like someone else mentioned earlier. 3-D on the other hand is, as mentioned already, for a wide wide consumer base/distribution; not just film-makers. Also, if anyone purchased a laser disc (I'm guessing not many people), they're stuck with something now taking up closet space. This will not be the case with 3-D devices. They're compatibility with all formats & WiFi features make them worth the buy. Thanks for the info on the LD's, guys.

  75. 3-D on the other hand is, as mentioned already, for a wide wide consumer base/distribution; not just film-makers. Also, if anyone purchased a laser disc (I'm guessing not many people), they're stuck with something now taking up closet space. This will not be the case with 3-D devices. They're compatibility with all formats & WiFi features make them worth the buy. Thanks for the info on the LD's, guys.

    Laserdisc was an enthusiast's format that paved the way for a LOT of things that were taken for granted on DVD including:

    a) Preservation of Original Aspect Ratio formatting.
    b) Multi-channel sound formats.
    c) The concept of a Special Edition release of a film with features such as:
    – Supplementary content that augmented the film experience.
    – Audio Commentary tracks (a supplement to be sure, but such an important feature that I listed it separately.)

    3D will likely achieve a wider install base but its contributions to the appreciation of film in the Home Theater environment will never approach that of Laser Disc (IMHO.)

    – Walter.

  76. Originally Posted by Walter Kittel
    3D will likely achieve a wider install base but its contributions to the appreciation of film in the Home Theater environment will never approach that of Laser Disc (IMHO.)

    – Walter.

    Well said and I completely agree. Laserdisc had their drawbacks but they were for serious people. Distribution lables knew this and catered to that audience. Some of those sets were absolutely reverential. Look at the difference between the way Disney treated their animated classics on laserdisc compared to bluray. They've turned those films into kitsh for bluray which is rapidly becoming a lowest common denominator format, and much faster than DVD enentually did as well.

  77. All this information about laser discs & all this nostalgia is beautiful, folks! Thanks again for the information.

    Now, back to 3-D: it seems the latest (& perhaps greatest?) 3-D release is Resident Evil Afterlife. Here's an early review:

    http://hcc.techradar.com/playback/blu-ray/blu-ray-review-resident-evil-afterlife-3d-22-12-10

    Looks pretty good by this opinion. If anyone else has seen it, can you share your thoughts as well? Thanks in advance.

  78. Originally Posted by tbaio
    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.

    Laserdisc was NOT intended to over take VHS, because at the time of Laserdiscs introduction, prerecorded movies had not yet appeared on VHS. The first 3 films would appear on VHS about 6 months later from Magnetic Video. Jaws was the first film to be released on Laserdisc in 1978, and would not appear on VHS until about 5 years later. This was the case with many films on laserdisc, some of which NEVER ended up on tape, thought that was rare.

    Laserdiscs WERE available for rent, normally in mom and pop video stores, but even some Blockbuster locations had a selection of laserdiscs for rent. I was a frequent renter of Laserdiscs.

    Another laserdisc innovation was the use of anamorphic wide screen video on a release of Terminator 2 in 1996, a full year before the release of DVD. You could also say that home theater started with laserdisc. People surely weren't building home theaters systems based on the picture quality of VHS or Beta!

    By the way the first 3 films to show up on VHS were The Sound of Music, Patton, and MASH.

    Doug

  79. Originally Posted by tbaio
    All this information about laser discs & all this nostalgia is beautiful, folks! Thanks again for the information.

    Now, back to 3-D: it seems the latest (& perhaps greatest?) 3-D release is Resident Evil Afterlife. Here's an early review:

    http://hcc.techradar.com/playback/blu-ray/blu-ray-review-resident-evil-afterlife-3d-22-12-10

    Looks pretty good by this opinion. If anyone else has seen it, can you share your thoughts as well? Thanks in advance.

    Seriously? It looks like the WORST of the 1950's 3D films with everything AND the kitchen sink being thrown at the camera! Talk about a gimmick! If this is the best 3D has to offer it will die a 3rd death!

    Doug

  80. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
    Seriously? It looks like the WORST of the 1950's 3D films with everything AND the kitchen sink being thrown at the camera! Talk about a gimmick! If this is the best 3D has to offer it will die a 3rd death!

    Doug

    When you were a kid, what did you remember most about 3-D? Was it the technical aspects of depth, separation, etc or was it objects coming at you? I remember the latter. As a kid, after viewing the House of Wax, I didn't say, "Wow, the depth ratio of the paddle ball scene was outstanding!" No, I remember being amazed at those things flying out of the screen right at me. Why else did 3-D become so popular? I'm sure people remember the objects coming at them. Yeah, its gimmicky. But that's what gets the audience's attention.

  81. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

    Laserdisc was NOT intended to over take VHS, because at the time of Laserdiscs introduction, prerecorded movies had not yet appeared on VHS. The first 3 films would appear on VHS about 6 months later from Magnetic Video. Jaws was the first film to be released on Laserdisc in 1978, and would not appear on VHS until about 5 years later. This was the case with many films on laserdisc, some of which NEVER ended up on tape, thought that was rare.

    Laserdiscs WERE available for rent, normally in mom and pop video stores, but even some Blockbuster locations had a selection of laserdiscs for rent. I was a frequent renter of Laserdiscs.

    Another laserdisc innovation was the use of anamorphic wide screen video on a release of Terminator 2 in 1996, a full year before the release of DVD. You could also say that home theater started with laserdisc. People surely weren't building home theaters systems based on the picture quality of VHS or Beta!

    By the way the first 3 films to show up on VHS were The Sound of Music, Patton, and MASH.

    Doug

    Another great effort of research. You are indeed the first that I encountered to have seen laser discs for rent. I only remember hearing of 1 place which did so & it was very much out of the way for me. Consider yourself lucky to have had a place to rent them. I now have a new respect for the late great laser disc. Whereas laser disc did not see the audience it deserved, I hope 3-D will not suffer the same fate.

  82. tbaio

    , I didn't say, "Wow, the depth ratio of the paddle ball scene was outstanding!" No, I remember being amazed at those things flying out of the screen right at me. Why else did 3-D become so popular? I'm sure people remember the objects coming at them. Yeah, its gimmicky. But that's what gets the audience's attention.

    Honestly I remember the depth of the layers of smoke after the space ship crashed in It Came From Outer Space. I remember the stuff floating near the camera in the under water shots of Creature from the Black Lagoon.

    For the most part films where they were constantly poking my in the eye gave me a headache.

    And 3D DIDN'T become popular! Thats the whole point. 3D was dead with in 3 years of its introduction in the 1950s, I think it lasted an even shorter time in the 80s. With films like Treasure of the Four Clowns (sorry Crowns) and Coming At Ya!, its not surprising. For the most part I'm not finding anything released today much more interesting.

    Doug

  83. Originally Posted by 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.

    Over the next year or two 3D will work its way further down the line-up into more TVs. I would expect the CEA to announce a standard for glasses at this years CES, so glasses will get much cheaper. More and more BD players will have 3D capabilities included, and more titles will become available. I think the economy combined with a real lack of software is the reason its not a huge success at the moment, but it will slowly catch on. It was a huge hit at my home over the holidays with relatives who either didn't even know it was available in the marketplace, or who hadn't scene it. 3D will never replace 2D, but its not intended to, but it will catch on.

  84. Douglas Monce

    For the most part films where they were constantly poking my in the eye gave me a headache.

    And 3D DIDN'T become popular! Thats the whole point. 3D was dead with in 3 years of its introduction in the 1950s, I think it lasted an even shorter time in the 80s. With films like Treasure of the Four Clowns (sorry Crowns) and Coming At Ya!, its not surprising. For the most part I'm not finding anything released today much more interesting.

    Doug

    Wow, again you are a first: I never as a kid noticed the "depth." I remember things coming up to the screen & wanted to see more. So, 3-D didn't become popular? Well, its been around since the 1920's (maybe even earlier) and it has resurfaced again and again. That's something laserdisc is not likely to do. As for the headache reaction, yeah I can see that happening. Be honest here, did you actually see Resident Evil Afterlife in the theaters? My point is that if you didn't, please wait to see it before bashing it.

  85. Douglas Monce

    in the theaters? My point is that if you didn't, please wait to see it before bashing it.

    No I didn't. The Resident Evil films aren't the sort of films that I would pay to see in the theater much less buy on blu-ray. I did however see the trailers, and it looked exactly like those bad films from the 50s. You can always tell when they turn up on TV that they were shot for 3D, because they are constantly shoving things at the camera, saying "hey look! We're in 3D!!!" It was stupid then and its stupid now.

    There are some films where the 3D was handled brilliantly. The aforementioned Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space, both directed by Jack Arnold, are two examples. They save the off the screen effects for very specific moments in the film. Arnold uses 3D to help tell his story rather than just goosing the audience every 5 min. I've never seen it in 3D but my understanding is that the only off the screen effect in Dial M for Murder is when she reaches back to grab the scissors. In effect reaching out to the audience for help. At another point an object important to the plot becomes obvious because of its placement in the frame and its depth.

    Only when filmmakers stop treating 3D as a gimmick and start using it as a story telling tool, will it actually stop BEING a gimmick and be taken seriously.

    Doug

  86. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

    No I didn't. The Resident Evil films aren't the sort of films that I would pay to see in the theater much less buy on blu-ray. I did however see the trailers, and it looked exactly like those bad films from the 50s. You can always tell when they turn up on TV that they were shot for 3D, because they are constantly shoving things at the camera, saying "hey look! We're in 3D!!!" It was stupid then and its stupid now.

    There are some films where the 3D was handled brilliantly. The aforementioned Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space, both directed by Jack Arnold, are two examples. They save the off the screen effects for very specific moments in the film. Arnold uses 3D to help tell his story rather than just goosing the audience every 5 min. I've never seen it in 3D but my understanding is that the only off the screen effect in Dial M for Murder is when she reaches back to grab the scissors. In effect reaching out to the audience for help. At another point an object important to the plot becomes obvious because of its placement in the frame and its depth.

    Only when filmmakers stop treating 3D as a gimmick and start using it as a story telling tool, will it actually stop BEING a gimmick and be taken seriously.

    Doug

    Ok, fair enough. We both come from 2 very different schools. I like the gimmick; you could live without it. For your sake, I hope 3-D for the home utilizes the aspects you prefer (depth, spacing, distance, etc.). Another question for you: if the 3-D format goes the route you want, will you then opt to get the machinery for 3-D home viewing? I ask because if the answer is still no, then the back & forth discussions on these threads is sadly a waste of time.

  87. Originally Posted by tbaio
    Ok, fair enough. We both come from 2 very different schools. I like the gimmick; you could live without it. For your sake, I hope 3-D for the home utilizes the aspects you prefer (depth, spacing, distance, etc.). Another question for you: if the 3-D format goes the route you want, will you then opt to get the machinery for 3-D home viewing? I ask because if the answer is still no, then the back & forth discussions on these threads is sadly a waste of time.

    My biggest problem with home 3D, at least at the moment, seems to be a technical one. It may have something to do with the refresh rate of the TVs, but what I've seen so far has a problem. Whenever there is a fast moving object on the screen, it looks to be suffering from what I can best describe as a rolling shutter effect. Its almost as if only half of the frame is refreshing and one eye seems to betting the wrong information. It causes me to go cross eyed. If that can be corrected, and if a good collection of quality films become available, I would considering investing when the price comes down to that of a regular non-3D TV.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not apposed to 3D, its just that I've seen very few films that really do the format justice.

    Doug

  88. Two things could be causing the rolling shutter effect that you are seeing. The first is all systems that use (time) sequential based systems, providing one view, then the other. This can cause a "phasing" effect when something moves at just the right speed on screen. Ditto for camera pans. This is less noticeable at higher refresh rates. Most 3DTVs run at 120hz, theatrical Real-D and Dolby 3-D run at 144hz. I believe some new consumer displays will operate at 240hz, which would reduce this effect even further. Most don't see this occasional artifact. I can see it, but like many video "quirks", I can also easily ignore it. The second factor could be a pulldown quirk used in a given 3DTV.

    *If* a passive (polarized) 3DTV doesn't use a sequential based display, then this issue would be eliminated, as both eyes see the same view simultaneously. Ditto for dual projection.

    —————-

    I think (based on your previous postings) upon re-watching, you would like most of the fifty or so 1950's 3-D features. I was fortunate enough to make it to both World 3-D Film Expos, which featured almost all of the Golden Age selection of 3-D titles. It was a real treat.

    If you do not like most or none of the recent 3-D theatrical releases, then yes – in the long run, you would have a lack of 3-D programming.

  89. Going back to the original topic: I also heard a lot of positive reviews on STEP UP 3D during its original theatrical 3-D run – in that the 3-D seemed to really enhance the overall presentation, and was not merely tacked on as an afterthought. Thanks for the review, Ron. I'll likely pick this up sometime soon, as I know both of my daughters will be sure to enjoy it. (And "Dad" likely will as well .. but don't tell anybody!)

  90. Originally Posted by GregK
    Two things could be causing the rolling shutter effect that you are seeing. The first is all systems that use (time) sequential based systems, providing one view, then the other. This can cause a "phasing" effect when something moves at just the right speed on screen. Ditto for camera pans. This is less noticeable at higher refresh rates. Most 3DTVs run at 120hz, theatrical Real-D and Dolby 3-D run at 144hz. I believe some new consumer displays will operate at 240hz, which would reduce this effect even further. Most don't see this occasional artifact. I can see it, but like many video "quirks", I can also easily ignore it. The second factor could be a pulldown quirk used in a given 3DTV.

    *If* a passive (polarized) 3DTV doesn't use a sequential based display, then this issue would be eliminated, as both eyes see the same view simultaneously. Ditto for dual projection.

    —————-

    I think (based on your previous postings) upon re-watching, you would like most of the fifty or so 1950's 3-D features. I was fortunate enough to make it to both World 3-D Film Expos, which featured almost all of the Golden Age selection of 3-D titles. It was a real treat.

    If you do not like most or none of the recent 3-D theatrical releases, then yes – in the long run, you would have a lack of 3-D programming.

    When I first saw it I suspected it had something to do with the refresh rate, though the TV I was seeing it on was a Panasonic 240hz. Of course this was in a Best Buy show room so who knows if it was set up correctly. I have seen it on more than one setup. I'm one of those people who can also see rainbows on LCD projectors. It may just be something that I will always have a problem with.

    I've enjoyed many of the 50's 3D films that I've had the chance to see. To be honest my judge of if a 3D movie is good or not, is if you can't tell that it was a 3D movie when watching it in 2d.

    Doug

  91. Yeah.. It's always a tough call if an electronics store has something set up correctly. When my local Best Buy first set-up a Samsung LED 3DTV demo, they had "Monsters VS Aliens" in a 2D to 3D conversion mode instead of true stereoscopic 3D for a couple of weeks before it was corrected. Then there' was the Panasonic 3DTV display where the (likely heavily used and abused) display glasses were flickering, and then later died. To this date, my local BB has the Panasonic demo playing in 3-D with a dead pair of 3D glasses hooked up to view it.

    The movies that would fail your 3-D test almost 100% of the time are the movies from the 1980's 3-D wave. During that time period, I think literally everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at the camera at some time or another.

  92. Originally Posted by GregK

    The movies that would fail your 3-D test almost 100% of the time are the movies from the 1980's 3-D wave. During that time period, I think literally everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at the camera at some time or another.

    OH yeah I saw many of the 3D films of the 80's. In fact in Coming at Ya! they literally do throw the kitchen sink at you.

    Doug

  93. With regard to the laserdisc vs. blu-ray discussion, I'm not entirely sure the argument makes sense to me.

    Didn't Philips' Laserdisc technology get incorporated into the new CD format? The laserdisc never really entered the market sufficiently to drive prices down, certainly not here in the UK at least, where Laserdiscs themselves seemed to be marketed more as a luxury item.

    But once the concept of a laserdisc became CD sized in 1999 it caught the imagination and took off. Surely all the delights of a laserdisc, all those years of producing them to the highest cinephile quality were rapidly assimilated into the DVD format. And the OAR was a rather democratic decision, IMHO, led by film experts and fans, but if the public would have preferred pan and scan, then dvds would have ended up that way.

    But blu-ray is an odd variant, as the format was initially marketed to the ps3 player to a large extent. Thus we ended up with a glut of "boys" movies at first, sci-fi, action, horror, CGI kids, etc. It hasn't really lost that flavour in terms of its main stock.

    It is fair to suggest that now there is a growing audience for older movies encoded onto the blu-ray format, and that many classic movies from the major studios tend not to region code, to allow for a world market, even if published in the USA.

    And what else are we seeing with the bluray format? A new appreciation of VistaVision, Todd-AO, Cinerama, Super/Ultra Panavision – Technirama has been a revelation to me, in particular.

    We're also seeing beautiful Technicolor restorations such as Gone With the Wind, The Red Shoes and Fantasia which are often wondrous and "painterly" to view – particularly when I project them with a HD projector. (I'm particularly looking forward to Bambi, as the old dvd worked surprisingly well when projected – the fine details in the watercolor backgrounds really transform the piece into something rather more expressionistic and emotional than you'd expect, IMHO)

    But we have to comprehend that there was a HD format war and this war was won by the Sony PS3.

    As for me I find the whole unfolding of product rather slow but also quite exciting, as each new 70mm film, say, becomes as much an event as in the old days. Surely we are living in interesting times, and we should acknowledge laserdisc, dvd and bluray as progressions of very similar tech, with very similar aspirations.

  94. Douglas Monce

    OH yeah I saw many of the 3D films of the 80's. In fact in Coming at Ya! they literally do throw the kitchen sink at you.

    Doug

    Guys, I have to tell you, the most memorable 3-D experiences are those in which the picture seems to extend beyond the screen & gets close to the audience. Another thing: what did you expect from a movie called Commin at Ya! & in 3-D? You were given a fair heads up about what to expect. If you still chose to see the movie and were disappointed, that's your fault.

  95. Originally Posted by GregK
    Going back to the original topic: I also heard a lot of positive reviews on STEP UP 3D during its original theatrical 3-D run – in that the 3-D seemed to really enhance the overall presentation, and was not merely tacked on as an afterthought. Thanks for the review, Ron. I'll likely pick this up sometime soon, as I know both of my daughters will be sure to enjoy it. (And "Dad" likely will as well .. but don't tell anybody!)

    Step Up 3-D is a movie where the saving graces are its impressive dance sequences & 3-D. Be prepared for that as the plot & characters are laughable. Also, judging by your dislike for gimmicky 3-D effects, be prepared to be disappointed because the 3-D is very gimmicky (I thought it saved the movie personally). I thought the 3-D & dancing was enough to save the story & sincerely hope you & your family appreciate it as well.

  96. I am taking Thomas' response as a recommendation.

    Despite all the shortcomings that Thomas pointed out
    (which are indeed true), this is one of my favorite 3D titles
    to demo for friends.

    The dance sequences, in 3D, are pretty impressive. On
    top of that, the audio packs a walloping punch.

    Yes, there is a lot of "gimmicky" 3D here, but as Thomas
    points out, that greatly enhances the film. I don't know why
    some people are against gimmicky 3D. I wish things were
    thrown at the camera more often. Isn't that one of the
    reasons why people enjoy the format? The best WOW
    moments come when objects protrude out of the screen,
    and out towards the viewer's face.

    Yes, absolutely when overused, gimmicky 3D can wear
    thin and ruin a movie. There are limits to its use. That being
    said, I don't think it's used enough.

  97. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    I am taking Thomas' response as a recommendation.

    Despite all the shortcomings that Thomas pointed out
    (which are indeed true), this is one of my favorite 3D titles
    to demo for friends.

    The dance sequences, in 3D, are pretty impressive. On
    top of that, the audio packs a walloping punch.

    Yes, there is a lot of "gimmicky" 3D here, but as Thomas
    points out, that greatly enhances the film. I don't know why
    some people are against gimmicky 3D. I wish things were
    thrown at the camera more often. Isn't that one of the
    reasons why people enjoy the format? The best WOW
    moments come when objects protrude out of the screen,
    and out towards the viewer's face.

    Yes, absolutely when overused, gimmicky 3D can wear
    thin and ruin a movie. There are limits to its use. That being
    said, I don't think it's used enough.

    Ron, I think like any tool in the filmmakers bag, it can be used effectively, or it can be over used. When over used, in my opinion, it looses its effectiveness and its value as a tool to tell the story.

    Just as an example, many people, myself included were complaining about the recent Shakycam trend in action movies. It never became so obvious too me as when I saw A Passage to India on blu-ray after not having seen the film sense I saw it in the theater in 84.

    Now of course Passage is NOT an action film, but was struck me was Lean's use of the hand held camera. As far as I can tell there is only one hand held shot in the whole movie. Its when Judy Davis's character gets up and walks to the witness stand, and she is followed by a not very steady hand held camera. That shot was SO unnerving exactly because it was the only shot in the film.

    Of course this is an extreme example, but the lesson from it is valid. I guess I'm from the old school where you save your big guns for the point at which it can be most effective in the story. If you just use it willy nilly, the audience becomes numb to it.

    In addition, many people, again myself included, have a very hard time with the off the screen effects. Repeated use of that effect gives me eye strain and by the end of the film I have a massive headache.

    Doug

  98. Douglas Monce

    In addition, many people, again myself included, have a very hard time with the off the screen effects. Repeated use of that effect gives me eye strain and by the end of the film I have a massive headache.

    Doug

    Luckily for you, most 3-D titles (thus far) have a 2-D option as well. The 3-D discs I've seen in 2-D: Monster House, My Bloody Valentine, Monsters vs Aliens, Friday the 13th Part 3-D were just fine in 2-D. Avatar, which was shot in 3-D, looks absolutely beautiful without the 3-D. So you're in luck. You & others can still enjoy the film without suffering eyestrain, headaches, etc.

  99. Douglas Monce

    , which was shot in 3-D, looks absolutely beautiful without the 3-D. So you're in luck. You & others can still enjoy the film without suffering eyestrain, headaches, etc.

    But you see this is the problem. I LIKE 3D and I would like to see some quality films made in 3D.

    Doug

  100. I've seen a few "3D" films now, and I have yet to see any effect where an object feels like it is protruding from the screen. Even with 3D, I am acutely aware that there is a plane between me and the image. The closest time I have felt that I was right in the film was in "Avatar". In that film, there was a scene involving dust motes that made it seem like they were floating right in front of you. You felt like you could reach out and grab them. That scene lasted only a few seconds and it is the only time I have felt that any 3D effectively extended beyond the plane of the screen. To me, 3D is like any other tool. If it serves to advance the story then use it. TRON is an example of where it is at least used in service to the story. I know a lot of people think the 3D in TRON was less than effective, but AFAIAC it worked well enough because it was first and foremost used to differentiate the electronic world from the real world. It wasn't just used entirely as a gimmick.

  101. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    I've seen a few "3D" films now, and I have yet to see any effect where an object feels like it is protruding from the screen.

    Out of curiosity, which films were they? I've got a feeling the ones you saw were surely post-converted; which won't have any of the "wow" shots (the ones which come out at the audience) in them.

  102. Please allow me to clarify my own standpoint. I don't mind the occasional gimmick shot when it fits the story. There are some movies where I can tell it was staged for 3-D, including off screen effects …but if they are crafted into the feature then some thought has been put into it. I specifically mentioned "Comin At Ya" because that's all the movie is about – Take away the 3-D and whats left? Ditto for the Treasure of the Four Crowns and a couple of others. When I revisited these titles, it was a shock on how bad some the other minor things in the movie were: Things like plot, character development, pacing, etc .. If you want 3D to die a quick death, just make some more of these.

    Can "Comin At Ya" be fun? If you just want to see random objects thrown out of screen almost non-stop for an hour and a half, then yes. I first enjoyed it during it's original theatrical run in 3-D because it was the first polarized 3-D feature shown locally in years. It also kicked off the 1980s 3D wave. Re-watching it was not so great. On that note, even the creators of "Comin At Ya" said you can only pull off a movie like that once – after that, you need substance. But for a lot of the 1980's 3-D movies that never happened.

    Doug mentioned his bar for 3-D standards, so I'll mention one of mine: If the movie can't stand on its own in 2-D, then most of the time its probably not worth watching. So with that in mind, look at most of the 1950s titles. Ditto for the recent features. They are targeted for BOTH 2D and 3D audiences and are not solely gimmick driven. Many of the 1980s titles were not. 3-D has been labeled by many as just a gimmick, and its something many in the industry have worked very hard to move past.

    Ron mentioned I probably won't like STEP UP and I'll respectfully disagree, as I have the trailer in 3-D. STEP UP (like It Came From Outer Space, Creature, Kiss Me Kate and others) appears to have craftfully blended off screen effects into the story line, unlike the blatant "lets stick my hand out at the camera" crap we've seen before. This is something many reviewers also noted during its theatrical 3D run.

    Originally Posted by tbaio
    Guys, I have to tell you, the most memorable 3-D experiences are those in which the picture seems to extend beyond the screen & gets close to the audience. Another thing: what did you expect from a movie called Commin at Ya! & in 3-D? You were given a fair heads up about what to expect. If you still chose to see the movie and were disappointed, that's your fault.

  103. I for one like 3-D movies – if they're shot correctly. I just wish that our current crop of filmmakers would learn that you have to compose your shots differently when you're photographing a stereoscopic film. Alfred Hitchcock figured it out right away when he made Dial M for Murder, his one and only feature in 3-D. The way he grouped the actors one in front of the other and how he used his camera angles all contributed to the drama. And when he did have something poking out of the screen at you it was to focus your attention on a specific piece of action that furthered the plot. Maybe all of Hollywood should be forced to watch this movie in 3-D to see how it's done.

  104. Excellent post Greg. Your point about a film playing just as well in 2D as 3D is one I intended to make in my other post, but I forgot!

    Its interesting to note that James Cameron never had the chance to view Avatar in 3D before the release. Now I'm not a fan of the film, but I recognize it as quality filmmaking, and its clear that the story was first and for most the point of the film. It just happens to be in 3D.

    Doug

  105. Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt
    I for one like 3-D movies – if they're shot correctly. I just wish that our current crop of filmmakers would learn that you have to compose your shots differently when you're photographing a stereoscopic film. Alfred Hitchcock figured it out right away when he made Dial M for Murder, his one and only feature in 3-D. The way he grouped the actors one in front of the other and how he used his camera angles all contributed to the drama. And when he did have something poking out of the screen at you it was to focus your attention on a specific piece of action that furthered the plot. Maybe all of Hollywood should be forced to watch this movie in 3-D to see how it's done.

    This is a VERY good point. But I think that a film that is well composed in 2D, will also be well composed for 3D. The problem is technology has, frankly, made a lot of Hollywood filmmakers lazy.

    Many filmmakers today don't know how to light, (they just use soft boxes for everything) and they don't know how to create a strong composition in the frame. Of course why would they need to. Most films today are just a bunch of extreme close ups broken up by the occasional master shot.

    Doug

  106. Ron mentioned I probably won't like STEP UP and I'll respectfully disagree, as I have the trailer in 3-D. STEP UP (like It Came From Outer Space, Creature, Kiss Me Kate and others) appears to have craftfully blended off screen effects into the story line, unlike the blatant "lets stick my hand out at the camera" crap we've seen before. This is something many reviewers also noted during its theatrical 3D run.

    Dude,

    prepare for a shock when you finally watch Step Up 3-D. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the plot, characters, etc. are laughable. If you are indeed such a strong advocate for good plot, dialogue & acting, then you're going to see (like many others) that the only things worthwhile in this film are the dance sequences & the 3-D (gimmicks and all). This is a case where 3-D was necessary. You'll see. As for re-visiting old films, who has not watched a movie again after years passing & found that the story didn't hold up? This happens with all types of films & is normal. I think Comin at Ya! gave exactly what that title suggested. I'll say again, anyone who was looking for anything else otherwise shouldn't complain about the film; they should just complain about their choice to see the film in the first place.

  107. I've watched almost every 3-D film from the 50s, 70s and 80s many times, and some from all of these time periods mentioned not so long ago. My previous statement stands.

    I'm fully aware STEP UP (in 2D or 3D) would make many sick for a variety of reasons. As mentioned previously- I have two daughters. They like these kind of features. So, hence, I can stomach these better than most critics. And as I mentioned before, reviewers (who didn't trash it) during it's theatrical release said the 3-D was used effectively, and was well woven into the story. I've seen the trailer in 3-D, and it looked well done.

  108. Originally Posted by GregK

    I've watched almost every 3-D film from the 50s, 70s and 80s many times, and some from all of these time periods mentioned not so long ago. My previous statement stands.

    I'm fully aware STEP UP (in 2D or 3D) would make many sick for a variety of reasons. As mentioned previously- I have two daughters. They like these kind of features. So, hence, I can stomach these better than most critics. And as I mentioned before, reviewers (who didn't trash it) during it's theatrical release said the 3-D was used effectively, and was well woven into the story. I've seen the trailer in 3-D, and it looked well done.

    You saw the trailer…..ok? I saw the movie. From the standpoint of someone who saw the entire movie (not just the trailer) please be aware that the 3-D in large part is of the "gimmiky" kind. Any critic that did not trash this film probably let it slide due to its dance sequences and 3-D; which are the only reasons for seeing this movie. I'm going to bet your kids will love these mentioned aspects as well. I'll bet they'll especially have a blast with all the gimmicky 3-D shots; just like I did when I viewed 3-D as a kid. As for you, as mentioned already, brace yourself. And then again, you may like the gimmicky shots as well. Post a comment when you finally see it.

  109. tbaio

    Out of curiosity, which films were they? I've got a feeling the ones you saw were surely post-converted; which won't have any of the "wow" shots (the ones which come out at the audience) in them.

    I'm not Edwin but I've seen nine 3-D movies (My Bloody Valentine, Avatar [theatrical cut and special edition], Alice In Wonderland, Clash Of The Titans, Toy Story 3, Piranha, My Soul To Take, Jackass 3D and Saw 3D) and the only ones that went for the really gimmicky 3-D were My Bloody Valentine, Piranha and Jackass. I don't mean gimmicky in a bad way either because those movies were primarily supposed to be fun and silly and the gimmick added to that.

    Overall, I think the best use of 3-D that I've seen is Avatar where it added to the movie but not enough where it overshadowed things.

  110. Originally Posted by GregK

    And as I mentioned before, reviewers (who didn't trash it) during it's theatrical release said the 3-D was used effectively, and was well woven into the story. I've seen the trailer in 3-D, and it looked well done.

    Not to beat this over the head again & again, but how do you interpret what these critics meant by "the 3-D was used effectively"? Do you know for sure that they weren't talking about the "wow" (gimmicky) effects? Also, you say you liked what you saw in the trailer. You don't think those numerous shots are of the gimmicky kind? If not, then it looks like you & me are in the same boat after all.

  111. tbaio

    Overall, I think the best use of 3-D that I've seen is Avatar where it added to the movie but not enough where it overshadowed things.

    Many of the films you listed were post-converted. I personally think Avatar looked great in either 2-D or 3-D. I've mentioned it already that I don't think I'll be picking up the 3-D version of it because the blu ray which is out already looks incredible. I don't remember any gimmicky shots in that film; I don't think any were meant to be in the film in the first place. If it were shot only in 2-D, I still think the visuals would have been great. Thanks for adding to this post.

  112. Originally Posted by Robert Harris
    As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single
    good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder.

    RAH

    I thought House of Wax utilized the technology greatly. I've still yet to see Dail M for Murder in 3-D. I hope the push for 3-D succeeds so that I'm able to do so one day.

  113. Originally Posted by Robert Harris
    As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single
    good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder.

    RAH

    I disagree completely.

    Here's a quick list of some1950's title that have effective use of 3-D …and far better than Dial M:

    * KISS ME KATE
    * INFERNO
    * HOUSE OF WAX
    * HONDO
    * MISS SADIE THOMPSON
    * CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
    * IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (this one can have a couple of slight misalignments on vintage prints that is now easily correctable)

  114. I received my copy of Avatar yesterday from Panasonic. This is such an incredible 3D transfer. I can never watch the 2D version again, which is in itself a great 2D Blu-ray transfer. The 3D BD really brings home the theatrical 3D experience, minus of course the huge screen. It's to bad that Panasonic has the exclusive rights for so long. I do want to check out some of Step Up 3D.

  115. Originally Posted by tbaio
    Not to beat this over the head again & again, but how do you interpret what these critics meant by "the 3-D was used effectively"? Do you know for sure that they weren't talking about the "wow" (gimmicky) effects? Also, you say you liked what you saw in the trailer. You don't think those numerous shots are of the gimmicky kind? If not, then it looks like you & me are in the same boat after all.

    If the off screen effect was blended effectively with the dance number, and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in 2-D, then – no I'd probably not call it a gimmick. But as you pointed out, I haven't seen STEP UP 3D yet. I want to check it out eventually and have already answered previously in a few different posts on exactly why I wish to view it.

    I will agree with you that HOUSE OF WAX utilized the 3-D quite effectively. It's easily one of my top ten all time favorite 3-D features.

  116. GregK

    I disagree completely.

    Here's a quick list of some1950's title that have effective use of 3-D …and far better than Dial M:

    * KISS ME KATE
    * INFERNO
    * HOUSE OF WAX
    * HONDO
    * MISS SADIE THOMPSON
    * CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
    * IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (this one can have a couple of slight misalignments on vintage prints that is now easily correctable)

    Hondo was interesting. Saw it recently via the work that Gretchen Wayne did toward restoring the film. Very nicely done.

    Kiss Me Kate was in one's face 3D, which was not a part of the film. The 3D effects were physically cut into 3d prints,
    and not in 2D versions. The major effect in House of Wax was the paddle balls or whatever, neatly replicated in
    Monsters vs. Aliens.

  117. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
    Excellent post Greg. Your point about a film playing just as well in 2D as 3D is one I intended to make in my other post, but I forgot!

    Its interesting to note that James Cameron never had the chance to view Avatar in 3D before the release. Now I'm not a fan of the film, but I recognize it as quality filmmaking, and its clear that the story was first and for most the point of the film. It just happens to be in 3D.

    Doug

    On a related note, I find it ironic one of the things that made "House of Wax" such a great feature was its director Andre DeToth had only one eye, so he had to first and foremost make a good feature. According to a Cinefantastique article, director DeToth would go to the rushes and say, ‘Why is everybody so excited about this?’

  118. GregK

    Hondo was interesting. Saw it recently via the work that Gretchen Wayne did toward restoring the film. Very nicely done.

    Kiss Me Kate was in one's face 3D, which was not a part of the film. The 3D effects were physically cut into 3d prints,
    and not in 2D versions. The major effect in House of Wax was the paddle balls or whatever, neatly replicated in
    Monsters vs. Aliens.

    Only a very brief section of Kiss Me Kate had the "3D exclusive" trims. That brief section aside, there were still a number of "3D effects" throughout the movie, not including, of course – the depth, which was throughout.

    Speaking of depth- "Inferno" is a feature where 3-D's depth enhances the feature far better than when viewed in 2-D. The lead is stranded in the dessert- When viewed in 3-D the isolation becomes much more realistic to the viewer.

    Hopefully WB (and Fox for the latter) will eventually do a 3D Blu release of this title.

  119. One Warner 3D title from the 1950s that I never saw in 3D was Phantom of the Rue Morgue. I used to see the 2D version turn up on TV all the time, but I don't think I've seen that movie in thirty years. Does anyone remember if 3D was used effectively in it or not?

  120. GregK

    Only a very brief section of Kiss Me Kate had the "3D exclusive" trims. That brief section aside, there were still a number of "3D effects" throughout the movie, not including, of course – the depth, which was throughout.

    Correct. There are all sorts of in-your-face photography that's obvious in the 2D DVD: Ann Miller throwing various things at the camera in "Too Darn Hot," Tommy Rall's legs swinging into the lens in "Why Can't You Behave," Kathryn Grayson flinging the tankard at the camera at the end of "I Hate Men," Keel throwing all sorts of things at us during several of his numbers, and Keel and Grayson extended out toward the audience at the end of the movie.

    I've never seen the film in 3D, but those appear to all be shots designed to extend outward toward the audience in 3D. If this 3D boom is short-lived, I hope I get a chance to see Kiss Me Kate somewhere in 3D if at all possible.

  121. There are silly elements to Kiss Me Kate, such as why would a stage, with a solid back wall, suddenly extend away into infinity during a performance of the "show". Also, Howard Keel suddenly gets a song on a platform that extends into the middle of the audience, a walkway that hasn't been seen before, nor afterwards.

    The effect for me when I've watched it, though, is of several star performances with depth and texture. One of these stars has to be the 3d itself which is used with constant wit and invention. The blocking and placement of the actors for certain scenes utilises depth creatively, as does the choreography, as do the construction and shooting of the backstage sets.. Even the Brush Up Your Shakespeare gangster two-hander, simply done in the theatre's alley, is compelling to watch. Indeed the whole movie seems to take a delight in being a 3d production, as though a lot of new thinking had gone into its filming and that they expected Kate to be the first of a series of MGM 3D musicals.

    It really deserves the 3d Bluray treatment. I first saw the movie several years ago, when it played in 3D during a Fosse season at a London BFI cinema. Very magical experience.

    As far as Hondo is concerned, I don't think the restoration has been shown in the UK to date. I'm sure a premiere, or short run, at the BFI would be most appreciated if it this is indeed the case. It is also a fine candidate to be the first of the Golden Age features to be released on bluray.

    [btw, Disney has beaten everyone here by making their 1950's Donald Duck short "Working for Peanuts" available on a promotional 3d Bluray disc! ]

  122. TravisR

    Many of the films you listed were post-converted.

    Yeah, Clash Of The Titans is fairly notorious for being converted. I thought the movie was lousy on its own but the poor 3-D made it even worse. My Soul To Take was converted and there's so few 3-D shots in that movie that it was a very odd choice to convert. I think now that Hollywood has had time to catch up with the success of Avatar, most 3-D movies will be true 3-D and there will be much fewer conversions.

  123. Originally Posted by Phoebus
    There are silly elements to Kiss Me Kate, such as why would a stage, with a solid back wall, suddenly extend away into infinity during a performance of the "show". Also, Howard Keel suddenly gets a song on a platform that extends into the middle of the audience, a walkway that hasn't been seen before, nor afterwards.

    The effect for me when I've watched it, though, is of several star performances with depth and texture. One of these stars has to be the 3d itself which is used with constant wit and invention. The blocking and placement of the actors for certain scenes utilises depth creatively, as does the choreography, as do the construction and shooting of the backstage sets.. Even the Brush Up Your Shakespeare gangster two-hander, simply done in the theatre's alley, is compelling to watch. Indeed the whole movie seems to take a delight in being a 3d production, as though a lot of new thinking had gone into its filming and that they expected Kate to be the first of a series of MGM 3D musicals.

    It really deserves the 3d Bluray treatment. I first saw the movie several years ago, when it played in 3D during a Fosse season at a London BFI cinema. Very magical experience.

    As far as Hondo is concerned, I don't think the restoration has been shown in the UK to date. I'm sure a premiere, or short run, at the BFI would be most appreciated if it this is indeed the case. It is also a fine candidate to be the first of the Golden Age features to be released on bluray.

    [btw, Disney has beaten everyone here by making their 1950's Donald Duck short "Working for Peanuts" available on a promotional 3d Bluray disc! ]

    I too would love to see the 3D films from the 1950's released on Blu-ray in 3D.

    I saw Working for Peanuts in 3D at a movie theatre a few years ago. It was included with one of the 3D films released at the time. I don't remember any out-of-the-screen scenes in that cartoon.

    I also saw Dial M For Murder in dual projection 3D at the Film Forum in New York City years ago. Excellent 3D with no ghosting.

  124. I saw Tron: Legacy this afternoon and while the movie wasn't really my thing, the use of 3-D was excellent. Granted, the virtual reality world really lends itself to 3-D but the 3-D helped pull you into the Tron world rather than being gimmick-y. The eventual 3-D Blu-ray will be the demo disc that electronics stores have playing on their 3-D TVs.

  125. [btw, Disney has beaten everyone here by making their 1950's Donald Duck short "Working for Peanuts" available on a promotional 3d Bluray disc! ]

    And it looks fantastic!

    I heard a rumor that Ron ended up with a copy of Avatar. I wonder if that means we are going to need to rename the thread to the Top 10 titles and where it will fit?

  126. I've no doubt that Avatar is the most satisfying 3D movie I've seen of the 21st Century batch. My only 3D criticism, which is so minor as to be petty, is that there was no sense of long distances, far away mountains, dramatic Big scenery and the like that adjusts the focus of the eye to take in a wide and deep landscape. Other than that, it is very assured 3D film making that seems very aware of its cinematic (3D) history.

    This Golden Age discussion has led me to check out a number of reports from the 3D Expos in Hollywood in 2003 and 2006.

    One element that hasn't really entered much into discussion so far is the ratio. 1953 was a time of revolution in terms of aspect ratio, and in many respects sounded the death knell of the old "4:3" shape and size. Some films were being filmed twice to suit differing shapes, such as seven brides for seven brothers.

    There appears to be some flexibility as to whether some of these 3d features were projected at a wider ratio, though the negatives would often conform to the 1:1.37 standard.

    So, in terms of 3D HD blurays from a 1950's source, do we automatically go to the academy ratio, or to a wider screen compromise that would propbably have been perfectly acceptable at the time. In the 2006 expo they were showing Kiss Me Kate in "widescreen and stereo".

    An interesting and perhaps controversial point for the future as we begin to see the first trickle of Golden Age 3D turn up in HD widescreen.

    Of course 2006 was also a time of revolution as the first HD-DVD and Blu Ray players hit the market then. Since that time we've had a couple of generations of new bluray players, incorporating picture-in-picture, and now 3D. All this serves to make 2006 seem a long time ago in terms of our common sense home theatre expectations, and I doubt that many people watching the extraordinarily clarity of many of these features would imagine they'd ever be able to fully recreate the experience at home. Certainly not in their foreseeable future, that's for sure.

  127. I did my system upgrade the year before everything became 3D capable. Since I really enjoy 3D at the theater, there's been a little tinge of regret at getting in just before it was available. If I'd waited six more months, I could have bought everything for 3D. Thankfully, this list cures of me that.

    If seven of nine "best 3D" discs are dreck like Monsters v Aliens or IMAX docs, and the powerhouses like Avatar and Coraline cost $2000 (free TV with movie), then I'm missing nothing.

    As another said, it's like the studios are trying to kill home 3D.

  128. The Top 9 list has been expanded to Top 10.

    If there are any titles missing from this list that you
    want to recommend us to review we will certainly take
    it under advisement.

    As of this reply I am trying to secure a copy of Resident
    Evil Afterlife which Sony only sent out the 2D version of.

    Will be posting my review of Coraline on Sunday.

  129. Avatar at home on a 50" to 60" screen and consumer audio is better than Avatar on 60' IMAX screen with visceral audio? 😕 Can you expand on that? It seems you've either got terrible theaters or a home system like I've never experienced!

  130. Hi Dave!

    I did not have the opportunity to view Avatar on a
    60' Imax screen.

    The home viewing was far more personable than the
    theatrical. I felt more engrossed in the film than I did
    in the theater. For me, a 60" screen, with immaculate
    HD quality and surrounds that were inches from my seat
    made for a more satisfying 3D experience.

    The biggest factor for me was the audio. The sound was
    far more intricate in the home. I could hear things that
    I never noticed in the theater I originally watched the film in.

    Let's see if others who have watched this disc in their
    home with a similar sound system share the same thoughts.

  131. Originally Posted by DaveF
    I did my system upgrade the year before everything became 3D capable. Since I really enjoy 3D at the theater, there's been a little tinge of regret at getting in just before it was available. If I'd waited six more months, I could have bought everything for 3D. Thankfully, this list cures of me that.

    If seven of nine "best 3D" discs are dreck like Monsters v Aliens or IMAX docs, and the powerhouses like Avatar and Coraline cost $2000 (free TV with movie), then I'm missing nothing.

    As another said, it's like the studios are trying to kill home 3D.

    As mentioned in earlier posts, 3-D for the home is still in its early push. Don't condemn it so soon. More films, hopefully to your liking, are on the way.

  132. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    The Top 9 list has been expanded to Top 10.

    If there are any titles missing from this list that you
    want to recommend us to review we will certainly take
    it under advisement.

    As of this reply I am trying to secure a copy of Resident
    Evil Afterlife which Sony only sent out the 2D version of.

    Will be posting my review of Coraline on Sunday.

    Ronald,

    If the following films can be looked at, it would be greatly appreciated:

    Friday the 13th Part 3-D
    Monster House
    My Bloody Valentine
    Resident Evil Afterlife

  133. Thomas,

    Check out our newly created Blu-ray 3D Archive.
    You will find a review to Monster House there.

    I should hopefully have a copy of Resident Evil
    Afterlife once everyone returns to Sony in a week.

    The other two horror titles I will look to hopefully
    purchase in two weeks.

    As 2011 progresses I will be doing less and less
    3D reviews as I hand over the job to our reviewers
    who will have 3D displays of their own. Matt Hough
    and Kevin Koster will be the first of the group.
    Eventually, I plan to go back to civilian life here on
    HTF.

    Thanks for the suggestions.

  134. Ron,

    If you have the opportunity, I urge you to see Avatar in IMAX. I saw it twice in IMAX and once in the theater (all 3D). That first viewing in a new, well-maintained IMAX was possibly the best theatrical experience I've had in a decade. I was immersed in the screen and the 3D immaculate. The audio was visceral: it shook the seats and could be felt in my chest during the battle scenes, but was immersive and subtle during the quiet scenes. And it was a true "audience" movie; one of the few times I get to see a grand movie with a full house bringing that extra energy to the experience.

    Home viewing of movies is great (and some movies are more comfortable on a couch than in a stadium). But Avatar in IMAX 3D is spectacular.

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Hi Dave!

    I did not have the opportunity to view Avatar on a
    60' Imax screen.

  135. Quote:

    Originally Posted by GregK

    Speaking of depth- "Inferno" is a feature where 3-D's depth enhances the feature far better than when viewed in 2-D. The lead is stranded in the dessert- When viewed in 3-D the isolation becomes much more realistic to the viewer.

    Hopefully WB (and Fox for the latter) will eventually do a 3D Blu release of this title.

    INFERNO remains my favorite 3D film and I have seen nearly all of the original 50's 3D films under optimum conditions as well as many of the 3D films from earlier and later eras. It was so beautifully photographed and thematically effective, it was the only time I came out wishing EVERY film could be in 3D.

    The only 3D experience to ever come near it has been CORALINE, which was stunning. In fact, the "effect" at the conclusion of the end credits has to be the finest 3D effect I have ever seen.

  136. Ron, though I am not yet 3D capable, I did pick up RE: A in 3D (getting ready for the future), so if you want me to ship it to you for you to review, let me know.

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

    As of this reply I am trying to secure a copy of Resident
    Evil Afterlife which Sony only sent out the 2D version of.

  137. In an effort to sway consumers to certain brands
    of 3D displays the manufacturers teamed up with
    the studios to make certain titles available only
    with the purchase of their product.

    Initially (and still) the only way you can obtain
    How To Train Your Dragon, Monsters vs. Aliens,
    and now Shrek 3D is with the purchase of a
    Samsung display.

    Sony initially was bundling Bolt and Alice In
    Wonderland with their displays exclusively.
    Alice in Wonderland recently has become
    available to all consumers.

    Panasonic made a deal with Fox to offer
    Avatar 3D exclusively for the next 2-3 years.
    You can't buy that title without purchasing a
    Panasonic display.

    It's an evil practice for sure, and it has
    certainly angered enthusiasts. However,
    I fear this practice of holding up prime titles
    exclusively bundled with hardware will continue.

  138. Are the exclusives only available with each new purchase? In other words, I got Ice Age and Coraline with my Panasonic a few months back. Suppose I wanted Avatar. Is it available to me as a certified Panny 3D owner, or only if I buy another TV? And another TV. And another.

    The answer doesn't really matter to me personally. I'm just interested in the extent to which this arrogant, ridiculous scheme goes. I don't understand why the sheep– I mean the public isn't already collectively throwing eggs and tomatoes at the studios and telling them what they can do with this whole idea of exclusives.

  139. Chas,

    You may very well be in luck.

    Here is some information to get you started:

    Panasonic Customer Loyalty Program — Panasonic is also offering current owners of 2010 VIERA Full HD 3D Plasma TVs (VT25 Series, GT25 Series, TC-P50VT20, and TC-46PGT24) who purchased their TVs between March 10, 2010 and November 30, 2010 an opportunity to receive a complimentary copy of AVATAR on Blu-ray 3D DiscTM via a mail-in request program. Complete details on the 3D Ultimate Pack, System Solution, and the Customer Loyalty Program are available at http://www.panasonic.com/avatar.

  140. Any rumors on how much they paid for those 3D rights? I'd guess sales of Avatar 3D exclusive to a Panasonic TV must be a small percentage of what sales would be sold normally, despite the small number of 3D TV owners. Or, assuming all costs are passed on the the consumer, does that copy of Avatar add $100+ to the cost of the TV?

  141. Thanks for the information, Ron. Wow, I wish I could say it's hard to believe, but the studios/manufacturers have been shooting themselves in the foot every chance they get for decades now. Imagine the day when certain channels will only be available exclusively to those who bought certain televisions. What if specific restaurants said you could only eat there if you owned a certain brand of car? The analogies are endless and maddening. For an industry that depends and consistently seems to foster innovation, the electronics industry can be so woefully short sighted at times.

  142. Dave,

    Adam may have the answer you are looking for.

    We all know nobody gets anything for free these
    days so certainly the cost of the disc may be
    factored into the price of the display somehow.

    It kind of makes sense what Fox is doing here.

    They have the ability to offer Avatar 3D right now
    to a select group of consumers who buy Panasonic
    products.

    Then, in 2013, when anticipated 3D market penetration
    is much higher, they can break home sales records with
    this title for a second time.

  143. I think we've already had Friday the 13th 3-D reviewed on Blu-ray. I reviewed the DVD version of it, and the Blu-ray version which came out some months later was also reviewed here. Both used the anaglyph system for 3-D. I do not believe Paramount has issued Friday the 13th 3-D with new 3D technology.

  144. Speaking of Coraline, I have only the anaglyph 3D Coraline and watched it for the first time the other day. I was shocked by how good it was using the old home 3D methodology, so I'm eager to read about its incarnation with the new technology.

  145. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    I did not have the opportunity to view Avatar on a
    60' Imax screen.

    In that case, shouldn't you at least qualify your statement about the home 3D exceeding the theatrical experience? That was a bit misleading me thinks.

    One other thing though. Not all IMAX 3D are equal. Many are the so-called Digital IMAX 3D, which is inferior to true IMAX 3D that's only available in a small number of IMAX theaters. I'm not sure though how much diff that makes for Avatar itself.

    _Man_

  146. Thanks for info on Avatar. It's not that I'm interested in the movie, but I'll order my copy and watch it in 3D.

    I have both 3D versions of Coraline too, and I haven't even watched that film yet in any format — if you can believe that. (Believe it.) It'll be fun to compare those two.

  147. Originally Posted by Chas in CT
    Thanks for info on Avatar. It's not that I'm interested in the movie, but I'll order my copy and watch it in 3D.

    If you don't care for it, you can always sell it for a good return on eBay or something.

    _Man_

  148. Originally Posted by MattH.
    Speaking of Coraline, I have only the anaglyph 3D Coraline and watched it for the first time the other day. I was shocked by how good it was using the old home 3D methodology, so I'm eager to read about its incarnation with the new technology.

    I consider it a tough call between Coraline and Avatar as to which was the better 3D movie. Coraline's 3D felt organic; it was a movie meant to be in 3D. I've not tried the Anaglyph version at home, though.

  149. Originally Posted by DaveF
    Any rumors on how much they paid for those 3D rights? I'd guess sales of Avatar 3D exclusive to a Panasonic TV must be a small percentage of what sales would be sold normally, despite the small number of 3D TV owners. Or, assuming all costs are passed on the the consumer, does that copy of Avatar add $100+ to the cost of the TV?

    I work in a retail store that sells Panasonic 3D TV's. We were told recently to not take any more orders for certain models, as they will no longer be available. Could there be problems with sales of the Panasonic 3D TV's?

  150. Dana,

    I would absolutely not call this bad news.

    Quite frankly, I look forward to what Disney is
    doing here, if it is done correctly.

    I had mixed feelings about Alice In Wonderland
    in 3D. Like Beauty and The Beast and The Lion King
    it was not choreographed for 3D and upconverted.
    For the most part, the 3D looked passable. I can
    say that I don't think I would have liked the film
    as much if not for the 3D. I have said this many
    times before — 3D can actually make a mediocre
    film seem much better than it actually is.

    Animation tends to work much better when being
    upconverted. I can imagine that The Lion King and
    Beauty and The Beast will look pretty damn good
    in 3D.

    Nobody is going to force anyone into buying

    the 3D versions. So, if you feel that you are

    contributing to a studio cashing in on the 3D

    format you could choose just not to purchase

    that title. I am certain a single Blu-ray release

    will still be available.

  151. Ron,

    That is the purest in me crying out, i know that the 2D version will be released in the package, i have extremely mixed feeling about this technology, its like when Turner started to add bad color to films, yes it gave some new life, but does that make it right? some boards say Walt would be turning over in his grave, well Mr. Disney was a business man, and if its good for business, then maybe i am wrong.

  152. Dana,

    I understand.

    You know, I can't argue with you. That is how you feel
    and I agree that these films were not originally imagined
    to be shown in this manner.

    One can never say for certain, but I would imagine
    if Walt were alive today he would not protest these
    films being converted to 3D.

    Time will tell if this is a good move or not.

  153. Originally Posted by dana martin
    Ron,

    That is the purest in me crying out, i know that the 2D version will be released in the package, i have extremely mixed feeling about this technology, its like when Turner started to add bad color to films, yes it gave some new life, but does that make it right? some boards say Walt would be turning over in his grave, well Mr. Disney was a business man, and if its good for business, then maybe i am wrong.

    Walt was a geek in his time: multiplane camera (some scenes in Sleeping Beauty have a 3D "depth" to them), surround sound. If todays 3D technology were available then, he would have been all over it, plus he was a business man. It would be one thing if they were "Lucasizing" the films and pretending that the 2D version didn't exist and were no longer making it available, but they aren't. I realize that YOU personally aren't saying this about Walt, but I think that those who are saying that are overreacting….

  154. If we're for Original Aspect Ratio (OAR), why aren't we for Original Dimensionality (OD)? 🙂

    Will we one day look at the 3D conversion as awful as the "Turnerization" — colorization–of black and white films to cartoon colors? Will a modern day Orson Welles say the equivalent to, "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."

    Han Solo shot first, and it was in 2D.

    (I love the quality 3D movies, like Coraline. But I wonder if the move to post-process old movies into 3D is nothing more than modern colorization or Pan-and-Scan, or upconverting mono soundtracks to 5.1 — moves to modify the original film to meet the needs of modern consumers who simply need the picture to fill their screens, their speakers, and now their 3D glasses?)

  155. I hope you guys that have no problem with 3D conversions of old 2D animated films feel the same way if Warner Bros. ever decides that a 3D version of Casablanca would be a good idea. However, I'm sure that won't be the case.

  156. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    I hope you guys that have no problem with 3D conversions of old 2D animated films feel the same way if Warner Bros. ever decides that a 3D version of Casablanca would be a good idea. However, I'm sure that won't be the case.

    The 3-D standard dictates that the disc has to include a 2-D version so it's a moot point. If that changes then I'll care.

  157. Edwin,

    I could care less if Warner did a 3D Blu-ray of Casablanca
    (though I know that is a highly hypothetical example).

    The studios can do anything they want. It's a matter if
    people buy it or not.

    Colorized titles? I'm against it but there's always someone
    at the lower end of the consumer chain that will buy it.
    Apparently colorization wasn't a huge success as I see
    little to none being done to any title these days.

    Travis made a good point in saying that the studios can
    upconvert all films they want in 3D. There will always be
    a standard Blu-ray copy that can be bought alongside it.

    But really, I am being rather optimistic that the studios
    are going to be very smart about which titles they choose
    to convert and the amount of care that goes into making
    them look great on 3D. After all, they need to convince
    the public that this is a good idea. I don't believe Disney
    is going to do a subpar job with The Lion King or Beauty
    and The Beast. In fact, given their reputation I would
    bet both these titles are going to look damn good.

  158. I was listening to NPR and a techi was talking about upcoming developments and he thought that 3D without glasses would start coming out in about 2 years. In fact, there's a hand held video game (forget which one) either out or soon to be out in 3DWG and smaller and expensive TV screens will soon be available.

    I think I've seen this discussed some before on this forum, so this is not a news flash. This makes me more reluctant to invest in the current 3D. I'm also wondering, will the current 3D blu's be compatible with this new 3DWG technology?

    If this new technology keeps moving forward and the public becomes more aware of it, it could kill the current 3D technology.

  159. Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
    Walt was a geek in his time: multiplane camera (some scenes in Sleeping Beauty have a 3D "depth" to them), surround sound. If todays 3D technology were available then, he would have been all over it, plus he was a business man. It would be one thing if they were "Lucasizing" the films and pretending that the 2D version didn't exist and were no longer making it available, but they aren't. I realize that YOU personally aren't saying this about Walt, but I think that those who are saying that are overreacting….

    Agreed, his methods were ahead of there time, as a matter of fact everthing post has some form of dimentional plane to it, but this is going back all the way to Snow White

    http://www.mouseplanet.com/fairytales/ft010622.htm intresting read,

  160. 3D without glasses would start coming out in about 2 years

    I think it would be much longer than that. In fact, latest
    estimates are 5 years at the very least and I don't even
    foresee it then.

    They have accomplished 3D without glasses in portable
    devices. The problem is, the technology is limited to
    tiny screens. The other problem is that once you move
    away from the center of the screen you lose the effect.
    With that being said, Toshiba seems to be making strides
    with displays that do not lose the 3D image at side angles:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1317736/Toshiba-unveils-worlds-3D-TV-glasses.html

    Even if the technology was somehow perfect in 2 years,
    which I highly doubt, I still think you are looking at smaller
    screens and there would be viewing limitations. The prices
    of the larger displays would be exorbitant and it would take an
    additional 2 years to see costs come down.

    I also don't think you will see the kind of depth that
    the glasses provide nor can I possibly imagine how
    objects would seem to leap out of the screen viewed
    only by the naked eye. That concept sounds far-fetched
    unless a holographic display is invented.

    The only reason we saw current 3D displays drop so
    dramatically this year was because people were not
    buying them. There is a surplus.

    Here is a statement from Toshiba on their glass-less
    3D TV's:

    The new LCDs are "first step into the 3D future in the
    consumer home cinema market," Toshiba European
    marketing chief Sascha Lange said in a statement.
    "But it will take several years to develop larger 3D TVs
    without glasses with screen sizes of 40 inches and
    more at a yet reasonable price point."

    (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20018421-17.html)

    I am not in a position to promise you that the better
    3D technology is just around the corner. I can only
    give you my viewpoint based on all the reading I have
    done about where this "glass-less technology" is right
    now. I think that we are just coming into the stage
    where you'll see them in laptops next year. Beyond
    that is anyone's guess.

  161. Anyone here with a 3-D player & television get to see the new Resident Evil movie yet? I thought the 3-D was amazing! Its this type of movie which makes the investment worthwhile, folks. I hope to see more of this type of thing being made.

  162. Originally Posted by tbaio
    Anyone here with a 3-D player & television get to see the new Resident Evil movie yet? I thought the 3-D was amazing! Its this type of movie which makes the investment worthwhile, folks. I hope to see more of this type of thing being made.

    Yes, I have. And I agree that it's both a visual and sonic feast! I've seen most of the 3D "Top 10's" listed in the forum, and I'd bump one of the other 9 to give this title a place (near the top) imho.

    If there's any ghosting, I didn't notice it. Lots of "in your face" action. And it's an entertaining "popcorn" movie to boot!

  163. When a movie is shot specifically for 3-D, it's such a great viewing experience than what can be offered if its post converted & the Resident Evil Afterlife disc is solid proof of this. I was looking at upcoming 3-Discs on the way, but there's not much coming. The waiting game continues.

  164. Originally Posted by MattH.
    The glasses are a small price to pay to have large 3D images in one's home. For someone who was eager to experience 3D at home, I wasn't willing to wait.

    My concern is having to wear the glasses, but investing in a technology that might be replaced in just a couple of years. I know Ron doubts it will happen that quickly, but it's a concern. And I grew up in the 50's. Back than technology didn't change so quickly. You bought a TV and you kept it a long time. You even got it (gasp) repaired! Shocking. So I buy a current 3D TV, a bunch of 3D blus and 5 years later…obsolete. If you want the new tech, gotta replace both hardware and software. I am assuming the new tech won't use the old 3D blus.

  165. Johnny, I'm with you 🙂 I bought two new TVs, new receiver and Blu-ray player in 2009. In 2010, everything became 3D capable. I'm not going to rush out and re-buy $3000+ of home gear for 3D. And even if 3D doesn't become obsolete per se, there's increasing news about making TVs do the heavy lifting so that we can wear passive glasses. So in five years, everyone may be replacing old 3D for new 3D to have lighter, more comfortable glasses. 🙂

  166. Originally Posted by DaveF
    Johnny, I'm with you 🙂 I bought two new TVs, new receiver and Blu-ray player in 2009. In 2010, everything became 3D capable. I'm not going to rush out and re-buy $3000+ of home gear for 3D. And even if 3D doesn't become obsolete per se, there's increasing news about making TVs do the heavy lifting so that we can wear passive glasses. So in five years, everyone may be replacing old 3D for new 3D to have lighter, more comfortable glasses. 🙂

    I totally agree. One manufacturer has already announced that a polaroid 3-D system is just around the corner. Besides, any glass free system ever developed so far requires the viewer to sit in a certain position and usually a specific distance from the screen. The Russians were able to do this in the 50's. It worked but as you can see, it wasn't practical. I'm hoping the polaroid system will do the trick. All you'll have to do is save your glasses from when you go to the movies and you'll have enough viewers for a roomful of people.

  167. Jon Lidolt

    I totally agree. One manufacturer has already announced that a polaroid 3-D system is just around the corner. Besides, any glass free system ever developed so far requires the viewer to sit in a certain position and usually a specific distance from the screen. The Russians were able to do this in the 50's. It worked but as you can see, it wasn't practical. I'm hoping the polaroid system will do the trick. All you'll have to do is save your glasses from when you go to the movies and you'll have enough viewers for a roomful of people.

    The current 3D TV'S that use passive glasses only give you half the resolution of 1080p. Go to the bottom of this page for a review – http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19763033#post19763033

    I don't think 3D movies on TV with no glasses will ever happen. How is the display going to tell your left eye to only see what the left eye is supposed to see and vice/versa?

  168. After reading that blurb, I'm assuming that Panasonic has secured exclusivity for any 3D home video release of the STAR WARS franchise. If they haven't, why would they be involved in any way with a SW press release?

  169. Edwin,

    I am very nervous about Panasonic's involvement in
    all this as well.

    I had hoped that any Star Wars release would be made
    available to everyone. I hope the studio has not secured
    any 3D deals with the manufacturer. Please, no.

    It even seems awfully early to even talk about Star Wars
    3D Blu-ray as the films were supposed to be going
    theatrical first starting with one per year.

  170. Never say never but I'd be surprised if Panasonic has exclusive rights to Star Wars 3-D. LFL really only has the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies to make money from so, unless Panasonic gave them an insane amount of money, I don't think LFL would want to limit its ability to earn from Star Wars.

    Now that I said, you can bet that I'm wrong.

  171. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Edwin,

    I am very nervous about Panasonic's involvement in
    all this as well.

    I had hoped that any Star Wars release would be made
    available to everyone. I hope the studio has not secured
    any 3D deals with the manufacturer. Please, no.

    It even seems awfully early to even talk about Star Wars
    3D Blu-ray as the films were supposed to be going
    theatrical first starting with one per year.

    It does seem to be too early, but the TV manufacturers have chosen the exclusivity path and appear to be pursuing it rather aggressively. Star Wars is considered to be such a high profile franchise that I can see a manufacturer pursuing a deal on 3D home distribution even before Lucas does a 3D theatrical release. Maybe I'm totally off-base, but I just can't see any reason for Panasonic's involvement in any Star Wars press release if they haven't signed an agreement granting them exclusive 3D home distribution rights for some specified period of time. Gaining exclusive rights would be considered a big coup and they would be eager to announce it; although, judging by the comments being left behind, I think a lot of people are becoming very jaded toward Lucas's endless Star Wars re-releases and marketing.

  172. I think it's possible that Pansonic just want to be the booth where the biggest announcement of the show is going to take place. Fox's booth seems to be the logical place for LFL to make the announcement but maybe Panasonic offered them money or equipment to do it at their booth.

  173. Edwin-S

    I think it's possible that Pansonic just want to be the booth where the biggest announcement of the show is going to take place. Fox's booth seems to be the logical place for LFL to make the announcement but maybe Panasonic offered them money or equipment to do it at their booth.

    I suppose another possibility is that the CES announcement is where Lucas officially confirms that the "Star Wars" franchise is going to undergo conversion to 3D. Up to now, I think everything regarding SW in 3D has been mainly speculation.

  174. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    I suppose another possibility is that the CES announcement is where Lucas officially confirms that the "Star Wars" franchise is going to undergo conversion to 3D. Up to now, I think everything regarding SW in 3D has been mainly speculation.

    The 3D conversion was officially announced on starwars.com in September. Episode 1 won't be released in 3D theatrically until 2012, so don't expect a 3D blu-ray announcement this week.

    http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

    Doug

  175. Douglas Monce

    The 3D conversion was officially announced on starwars.com in September. Episode 1 won't be released in 3D theatrically until 2012, so don't expect a 3D blu-ray announcement this week.

    http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

    Doug

    We already know that the SW franchise is coming to Blu-ray and now, thanks to your link, I know that the 3D conversions were announced quite awhile ago. Regarding the SW franchise, I cannot see what earth-shattering news could be announced at Panasonic's CES booth that we didn't already know, except who gets the home distribution rights for any 3D release. Well, I guess we'll find out on Thursday what the big news is supposed to be.

    Edit: I should have added…..maybe the official release day and date for the BD versions?

  176. I just read a plausible sounding theory that says that the reason that LFL is making their announcements at Panasonic's booth is because the new Star Wars: The Old Republic game is coming to Panasonic's new handheld gaming system.

  177. LAS VEGAS – TV makers are blaming disappointing sales of 3-D TVs last year in part on the bulky glasses they came with. They're trying to tackle that this year by introducing sets that work with lighter, cheaper glasses of the kind used in movie theaters.
    Manufacturers don't plan to completely supplant the 3-D TVs that require the heavier, battery-powered glasses, which went on sale last year for the first time. But Samsung Electronics Co. estimates 1 million 3-D sets were sold in the U.S in 2010, far short of its initial estimate of 3 million to 4 million, and the introduction of a competing technology a year later is another sign that the first 3-D TVs didn't live up to expectations.
    LG Electronics Inc. was the first major TV to announce new 3-D sets Wednesday, a day ahead of the opening of the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. LG, a South Korean company, said it will start selling two models, a 47-inch and a 65-inch one, later this year that use the lighter, cheaper glasses. Each will include four pairs. Current 3-D sets usually include one or two pairs of the bulkier glasses; some don't include any, requiring consumers to pay about $100 per pair.
    "We're meeting consumers' needs by eliminating some of the pain points" by addressing the 3-D glasses issue, said Tim Alessi, director of new product development at LG Electronics USA. "It's going to be the most comfortable viewing experience, just like going to the movies."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_gadget_show_tvs

  178. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    I am so happy Panasonic is abstaining from adopting the passive technology.
    Sure, the glasses are lighter but you lose half the HD resolution.

    I don't know the details of the passive tech, but I'd think the reduced res won't matter to most people since they probably won't have the kind of setup to make full use of 1080p res anyway.

    BTW, what exactly do you mean by half res? Is it half the pixel count, ie. 1920×1080 / 2 w/ res loss spread evenly across the image area, or half in *both* dimensions, ie. 1920/2 x 1080/2? If it's the first case, then it probably won't matter to most. Even if it's the latter case, it'd still be a tad better than 3D at DVD res.

    One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

    _Man_

  179. Man, There should be a link that I provided a few posts up to an article that talks more about the downfalls of passive technology. That would be the best explanation as I could provide as it is information from that article I am referencing.

  180. A quick read tells me the passive systems will produce a 1080i resolution. You're getting half the vertical fields every frame; once for each eye. I don't know if it cycles at 60Hz for each half field (for a 30Hz full picture) or double that for an effective 60 Hz visual experience. If the latter, it will be a 3D experience that's superior to a 1080i broadcast.

    That is, the passive 3D, running in 2D, should be visually equivalent to the best HD broadcast TV (1080i), which is really good and better than much of what you find on cable TV.

    But it won't be quite as good as the best 1080p Blu-ray content.

    (And I'm doing some extrapolation based on a brief read of how the passive system works and my own bit of knowledge of TVs and stereoscopy. I might have missed an important detail in my hasty analysis .)

  181. Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool
    One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

    _Man_

    Yes, they probably could. If these systems work they way I think they do, I think you could make a TV capable of using either method. But that will make the TV more expensive, not less, and they're trying to cut costs and complexity to sell these things to Joe Consumer. For what many think is a fad. In a recession.

  182. Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool

    One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

    _Man_

    Ron Epstein posted a thread in the displays forum about Samsung and RealD cooperating on a system where the TV does all the processing work of the present active shutter glasses. The result, apparently, is that people could use the standard RealD passive glasses in order to see a 3D image. The image would also be full 1080p rather than a reduced resolution image like pattern retarder system that is presently being touted. This is the system I would wait for, if it wasn't for the fact that I think all the present TV screen sizes are too small for really immersive 3D. To me, 3D needs to be front projected for real effectiveness. Unfortunately, a good 3D ready front projector is going to be out of my price range for the forseeable future.

  183. Haven't been checking over in the display section, so didn't see Ron's post about the Sammy + RealD collaboration for passive glasses. I'll take a look in a bit…

    Also, not sure if this approach by LG has been discussed over in the displays section, but it was referenced in the AVS thread posted a bit earlier (and the particular detail of interest highlighted over there by David Boulet, who used to be a regular here in HTF):

    http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/05/lg-display-shows-why-it-thinks-3dtv-has-a-shot-with-passive-glas/

    If you're actually gonna upgrade from an existing 1080p LCD in the near future just to get 3D and want full res, maybe you should give this some consideration.

    For those of us not really looking to upgrade anytime soon (and cannot realistically move to FP), maybe a big 4K2K OLED will be where we eventually land, if this approach pans out.
    _Man_

  184. Wow, these 1st generation 3-D TVs haven't even sold to capacity, yet alone died out & we're already talking about getting new 3-D TVs 5+ years from now?! I got a feeling that most people wishing for these new 3-D TVs haven't even experienced the current equipment; they're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Even if these new TVs that everyone is wishing for were to come out tomorrow, you're still not going to buy into them for the same reasons you don't now:

    1. You don't want to buy yet another TV.
    2. They're too expensive (really, if you think the current 3-D TVs are too pricey, do you think these new ones without glasses & all the other perks are going to be any less expensive??).
    3. You don't like the selection of movies (this is the biggest reason I think why most people are on the fence about bringing 3-D home; even more than the economy. If you don't like the selection of movies, it doesn't matter on what TV you view the movie through; you'll still be unsatisfied).

    I think 3-D without glasses is an awesome idea. However, 3-D has always been associated with glasses & will continue to be until this new technology becomes available. Until then, if you don't like the current 3-D with glasses….. fine, then don't buy into it; over & end of discussion. My beef is complaining about the glasses when you don't have a 3-D TV, a player or glasses to complain about. Ordinarily I'd say give this current format a chance before condemning it, but that's not possible being that the majority has no intention of buying the equipment in the first place. To your defense, I do understand that you just can't get up & purchase them; after all these things do cost some money.

  185. Thomas,

    I have found, from reading opinions across the Internet
    that most all the individuals who are attacking 3D are
    people who don't yet own a display.

    Absolutely, there are too many people condemning the
    technology without even spending considerable time
    in front of it.

    There are some (not on this board) condemning the
    format simply because they can't afford it.

    Everyone else is waiting patiently until it's time to
    upgrade their display and I would estimate at that
    point, 3D is going to become more of a standard
    option included with the best televisions.

    It's going to be a number of years before we get to
    enormous displays that don't require eyewear. Even
    then, I am uncertain whether it can produce the kind
    of depth and/or out-of-screen experience that shutter
    glasses can.

    As for the passive displays that require lighter eyewear,
    I have my doubts that they are as absolutely good as
    the shutter technology.
    What's interesting is that those few of us here on HTF
    that own 3D displays aren't complaining at all about it
    or the eyewear. In fact, from what I read, everyone is
    exceedingly satisfied with the 3D experience.

    I know the technology is still a bit expensive. I know
    there's eyewear involved. However, the prices will
    continue to fall and the eyewear will be constantly
    redesigned. Anything without glasses is still many
    years ahead so anyone looking to wait is just missing
    out on a terrific viewing experience.

  186. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Thomas,

    I have found, from reading opinions across the Internet
    that most all the individuals who are attacking 3D are
    people who don't yet own a display.

    Absolutely, there are too many people condemning the
    technology without even spending considerable time
    in front of it.

    There are some (not on this board) condemning the
    format simply because they can't afford it.

    What's interesting is that those few of us here on HTF
    that own 3D displays aren't complaining at all about it
    or the eyewear. In fact, from what I read, everyone is
    exceedingly satisfied with the 3D experience.

    Anything without glasses is still many
    years ahead so anyone looking to wait is just missing
    out on a terrific viewing experience.

    With the above comment/quote, the nail has been hit directly on its head. Perfect; no reason to add to the above.

  187. I do not see why you would have to own a display to have a legitimate opinion on the value of 3D TVs. There are plenty of demos that a person can view in-store. In fact, most purchase decisions on a 3D TV would be made based on viewing an in-store demo. If the TVs are underselling then, obviously, a lot of potential purchasers are not impressed enough to want to replace displays that they may have bought only a couple of years ago. A lot of people think that 3D is just a gimmick that will once again disappear when the novelty wears off. Secondly, 3D TVs were introduced too soon. Flat panel high definition sets were making finally making big in-roads into homes, as consumers replaced their old CRTs. Many of the HD displays in people's homes were only purchased a couple of years ago and all of a suddenly manufacturers introduce 3D capable sets. Did they really think that people who have two or three year old HD sets were going to shell out big dollars and replace all their equipment yet again? Thirdly, the tech is in even worse flux than Blu-ray versus HD DVD was. There are at least three potentially competing 3D technologies that are on or making their way to the market: active shutter glass displays, pattern retarder displays and (soon?) the Samsung/RealD 3DZ active shutter display. Are all of these systems compatible? If one wins out over the others, does that make anyone who bought into the other two technologies losers?

    Personally, I'm like a crow when it comes to shiny, new home electronic toys, but even I'm undecided as to whether 3D TVs are anything more than the 21st century equivalent of CED. Right now, the manufacturers themselves are so unimpressed with sales that they are now introducing yet another variation of the tech in order to try to boost sales.

  188. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    I do not see why you would have to own a display to have a legitimate opinion on the value of 3D TVs. There are plenty of demos that a person can view in-store. In fact, most purchase decisions on a 3D TV would be made based on viewing an in-store demo.

    I totally disagree here. An opinion on the demo is one thing. Blasting of the entire equipment, without having experienced it is another. Also, most demos (especially early on) were of only cartoons. Not all 3-D discs are the same. Its like having a bad experience with a cashier & then telling everyone that all cashiers these days are disrespectful. I for one will take the word of someone more seriously if they have a legitimate point based on experience; not just a ramdom "out there" opinion (or, my favorite: repeating what they've heard or read without seeing it themselves). What would you say to someone who had something not so nice to say about you & then finding out that this same person is a total stranger? You'd probably ask how they could say something like that even though they've never talked or worked with you, right? Same thing here. A lot of these people I know don't have the equipment but are complaining anyway. That makes what they say, to me anyway, about as reliable as an ice cube not melting in the summer.

  189. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    If the TVs are underselling then, obviously, a lot of potential purchasers are not impressed enough to want to replace displays that they may have bought only a couple of years ago.

    Not to be on the attack here with your post (I respect it by the way), but what you said here coincides with what I stated earlier:

    "people don't want to purchase yet another TV."

    Regardless why people don't want to buy another TV (the cost, they hate the domo, etc) is totally fine & understandable. In fact, I only bought my 3-D television when I found out while shopping for a new TV that the model I had in mind was only $60.00 less than the 3-D TV I eventually bought!

    If everyone complaining here thinks 3-D is just a gimmick, why are they looking at other 3-D TVs for the future? Why are they giving opinions on what could make the technology better? In fact, why would they care about where 3-D is going in the first place? I think its wiser to take the time to: research, ask questions, watch 3-D movies in the theater to see if its the type of thing you wouldn't mind owning for home use, etc. than to just complain without doing either of these.

    Not to make this personal but, have you watched an entire 3-D movie on the current home 3-D systems (at a friends house or equivalent)? If so, what did you think about it?

  190. Its not that I'm apposed to 3D. I would probably enjoy a 3D film from time to time. However having recently bought 2 new HDTVs, I'm not going to be investing in a new tv for another 5 to 8 years.

    My biggest problem at the moment is that frankly there is nothing to watch. I mean really, 3 of your top 10 films are IMAX films, not actual feature films. The majority of the rest are computer animated family films. Really not a whole lot here to get excited about at this point.

    For me content is everything, and at the moment home 3D is a big looser when it comes to content.

    Doug

  191. Is 3D free now? Are all new TVs, Blu-rays, and receivers 3D capable? I imagine that if I were shopping for a new HT system, I'd get 3D since it's part of the package now.

    But that's the kicker, it's the system. People talk as if it's just about buying a new TV, but it's worse: you need an entirely new HT system. New TV. New AVR. New Blu-ray player. (New HDMI cables?) And then extra pairs of 3D glasses for family and friends. The TV is the biggest expense, but the receiver is easily 20% of the TV. And blu-ray player plus glasses might add another 20%.

    I'd like to go 3D at home; I enjoy it at the theater. The store demo was very cool. But it's a replace-the-entire-HT-system sort of upgrade. SAF puts that off by 4+ years, I think 🙂

  192. I've no interest in home 3D, nor do I do know anyone who owns a home 3D setup or wants to. But if I did I'd be more enticed to check it out if, say, FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN or the 50's flicks were available. Given rapidly declining interest on the part of studios to explore their catalogs in 2D it's hard to imagine them pressing 3D discs or Blu-rays for a rather limited audience, though.

  193. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
    Its not that I'm apposed to 3D. I would probably enjoy a 3D film from time to time. However having recently bought 2 new HDTVs, I'm not going to be investing in a new tv for another 5 to 8 years.

    My biggest problem at the moment is that frankly there is nothing to watch. I mean really, 3 of your top 10 films are IMAX films, not actual feature films. The majority of the rest are computer animated family films. Really not a whole lot here to get excited about at this point.

    For me content is everything, and at the moment home 3D is a big looser when it comes to content.

    Doug

    Doug, your reasons for not purchasing a 3-D TV, player, movies, etc. has been touched upon already & is again, totally understandable. What gets me is, why would you (or anyone else) reply to a post called The Top 10 Must Own 3-D Titles when you clearly have no intention of investing in home 3-D? You say you're not opposed to 3-D, but look at most of your posts; they seem to be condemning all aspects of home 3-D. Don't get me wrong, your opinions are respected & you're definitely not alone in those same opinions. When I signed onto this post, I thought I'd be chatting about the list of 3-D films mentioned as well as comparing them with others. Instead however, this has turned into an anti-home 3-D thread; and the majority of people complaining are those who never seen any of the listed films in the home 3-D format. It's really too bad. Maybe a new post for those people should be made entitled, Why We Don't Care for 3-D.

  194. Allow me to add to Thomas' response.

    This thread has become one of the most active
    discussions in our software area. It really surprises
    me because I thought I would have to keep bumping
    this thread back up to the top every time I updated
    the list.

    I am shocked we are here on page 8 already and
    it's rather wild as to where this discussion has been
    going.

    I don't want to dissuade anyone from voicing their
    opinion here in favor or against 3D. I completely
    understand why people who don't even own the
    technology are here asking questions and even
    voicing their concerns about price, glasses and
    even the possibility that newer technology is on
    the way.

    Please continue to voice your concerns. It's cool.
    All of you are here to learn from our experiences.

    You need to understand there are two different
    camps participating in this thread. Those of us
    that own 3D displays are very happy with our
    investment. I have yet to read anyone who has
    purchased 3D to say, "Oh man, I made a mistake,
    this sucks."

    And as much as some of you put down the type
    of titles that are available — I think you would be
    feeling quite differently if you owned and watched
    a few of them. Don't judge a book by its cover.
    All those titles in my Top 10 list (and there are
    several more than that) are exceptional.

    It's all fine and good to watch a few demos in the
    store and gain an opinion. My only concern is
    what they are showing, if the display is properly
    calibrated, and if its under ideal conditions. Then,
    until you get these displays in your home, sit down
    and watch some of this content, it's hard to really
    grasp how better the entertainment experience becomes.

    Then there's the other camp…..

    Yes, the displays are expensive. Yes, you have
    to buy a 3D BD player. Yes, you may have to upgrade
    your receiver — that is, unless you buy a dual HDMI
    BD player which would be the cheapest alternative to
    going that route.

    I understand people just bought new displays in the
    past year. I completely sympathize with the fact that
    people don't like to wear glasses. And of course, there
    is always newer technology on the horizon.

    The bottom line is that I hope everyone remains
    respectful to each other's opinion.

  195. I responded to this thread exactly because I AM interested in 3D. As I said before I'm a big fan of some of the classic 3D films of the 1950's. Even one or two from the 80's (Spacehunter anyone?) would be fun to see again. Imagine my disappointment when I looked at the list and saw very little of interest.

    In response to Ron, I'm just not interested in watching a movie for 3Ds sake. It has to be a compelling, interesting film. And while I'm sure I would find some of the animated family films entertaining, they really aren't the sort of films that I would buy or collect. I found Avatar to be mostly a retread of everything else Cameron has done, so there is nothing for me there. The list of coming titles is truly lack luster. If something inspiring came along, I might reconsider investing in 3D, but at this point the sales are so dismal that I don't see it lasting very long.

    Doug

  196. Actually, I think some of y'all are forgetting the camp that got dissed by Samsung (and their ilk), eg. the group of 3D-capable DLP owners who's quite likely still larger than all the 3D plasma and 3D LCD owners combined (barring potentially high display failure rates due to crappy Samsung reliability), etc.

    Yeah, there are at least a few of us here in HTF. But just because I actually do own a 3D TV, doesn't mean the studios and CE makers care about me and want to build a loyal customer base for their wares that includes me — they are really just too shortsighted as a whole and too individually selfish and self-serving as usual.

    Now, I'm not saying all this because I'm upset that Samsung & Co. decided to abandon us. But I am saying this because that's precisely part of the reality of this 3D tech beast we're looking at so far. Things are changing fast, and it's mostly every big corporate for itself. Although there's no Blu-Red media format war here, we still might as well be walking thru a warzone of competing 3D gear tech at this rate — unless you generally love to be on the bleeding edge.

    Even if I go thru all the trouble (and additional expenses) to playback my BD 3D copy of Despicable Me — yep, see, I even bought a copy hoping I'd someday enjoy what y'all are raving about — that doesn't mean the 4-plus pairs of $100-120 glasses, the IR sync module that might cost extra, the $150(?) homebrew(?) 3D DLP adapter and getting my PS3 fixed (hopefully w/ just an inexpensive cleaning) and updated — yep, I got the player 1/2-way covered already too — will be all worth it because there's how many worthwhile titles to own or rent on the market? And you know, although my movie collection certainly ain't the biggest around these parts, people who visit my house do tend to think I own a bigger collection (especially BDs) than the local Blockbuster (or that's their impression anyway), and I do own more than my fair share of animated titles, etc. too, so it's not like I wouldn't make a good potential customer of BD 3D for the studios *IF* they all gave a darn.

    And oh, don't even remind me about Samsung's crappy reliability (at least for their DLP TVs). I can see it now. I finally do everything I need for the family to enjoy some BD 3D titles, and then, B-L-A-M !!! My luck runs out w/ Samsung, and then, I'm probably stuck w/ glasses, modules and adapters that may well not be reuseable on the next 3D TV I finally upgrade to. Oh, JOY!

    And then, some of you are wondering why the rest of us are so reluctant to jump in and join y'all for some fun (even though some of us can be considered 1/2 way there already).

    But no, the real/main point in all this is that 3D is just not ready for primetime yet much like the Blu-Red format war along w/ the crappy Blu Profile XYZ situation was not ready for primetime — and even now, BD-Live (and the use of BD-J to a large extent) is not really ready for primetime, but (at least some of) the studios don't care about that anyhow since there's apparently enough of us eating it all up (including myself) anyway…

    So please do cut the rest of us some slack and forgive us for being a touch cynical about 3D right now. It's not just about us hating or fearing what we don't understand or can't own (w/in reason anyway). Meanwhile, I'm sure we can forgive y'all for suggesting we're mainly about sour grapes disguised as reality check…

    Peace and much joy to y'all even though the Christmas season is officially over now! (And honestly, I do mean that as I'm sure Mike Frezon would understand my meaning )

    _Man_

    PS: BTW, although I can't enjoy my copy of Despicable Me in 3D yet, I want to say that it's a very fun, entertaining flick in 2D for the family anyhow. And I haven't really regretted buying the BD 3D combo pack (from the NBC online store) either even though I still ended up paying a good bit more than I would've if I stuck w/ the 2D combo pack and bought it a few days later from B&N — thems the breaks I guess…

  197. Well I have to say that the recent 3D blu reviews have made for very interesting reading. They are a good starter place to seek out other forums and reviews – happily there seems to be a healthy consensus out there as to which are the best of the bunch, and why.

    My route to 3D here has been via a PS3 and a 3d ready DLP HD projector, nothing overly expensive so far. The conversion box I'm waiting for from Optoma is delayed for a month for the UK market, this whole delay presumably being to produce adequate numbers of their latest flicker specs model to suit conversion box sales demands. The need for a projector conversion box at all is liable to be superceded quite rapidly by dedicated 3d blu capable units projecting in full 1080p, but for me, and for now, I'm happy to have something to experiment with that isn't too bulky and hasn't cost me the earth.

    Thus, to all the current nay-sayers, there are cheaper routes available. And once the PC market embraces this tech more – bluray-roms and "3d capable" monitors – it should all become much cheaper via mass production.

    This is all new tech of course, which often seems to evolve yearly, so it is no real wonder that the average consumer is taking their time to jump in and upgrade, here. There's no real doubt that in a decade's time, most homes will have a 3d display unit of some kind, whether this be relegated to the living room, the kid's bedroom or some lavish "home theatre" study with some ungodly number of speakers [14.2?] dangling everywhere.

  198. Honestly, I'm not trying to pick on you…please forgive if my tone comes off the wrong way here. Once again you say you're a fan of 3-D. Then you state strongly how you won't watch any of the movies, show no intention of supporting the push for the format, & then to top it off: positively state (to point of wishing for it) that the format is going to die out. In fact, you openly don't even care for the strongest rated 3-D title mentioned at the start of this tread………and you didn't even see it. You see where I'm coming from? Its like a guy wearing a Yankee cap & jersey going to Yankee stadium just to root against the Yankees!

  199. Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool
    Actually, I think some of y'all are forgetting the camp that got dissed by Samsung (and their ilk), eg. the group of 3D-capable DLP owners who's quite likely still larger than all the 3D plasma and 3D LCD owners combined (barring potentially high display failure rates due to crappy Samsung reliability), etc.

    Yeah, there are at least a few of us here in HTF. But just because I actually do own a 3D TV, doesn't mean the studios and CE makers care about me and want to build a loyal customer base for their wares that includes me — they are really just too shortsighted as a whole and too individually selfish and self-serving as usual.

    Now, I'm not saying all this because I'm upset that Samsung & Co. decided to abandon us. But I am saying this because that's precisely part of the reality of this 3D tech beast we're looking at so far. Things are changing fast, and it's mostly every big corporate for itself. Although there's no Blu-Red media format war here, we still might as well be walking thru a warzone of competing 3D gear tech at this rate — unless you generally love to be on the bleeding edge.

    Even if I go thru all the trouble (and additional expenses) to playback my BD 3D copy of Despicable Me — yep, see, I even bought a copy hoping I'd someday enjoy what y'all are raving about — that doesn't mean the 4-plus pairs of $100-120 glasses, the IR sync module that might cost extra, the $150(?) homebrew(?) 3D DLP adapter and getting my PS3 fixed (hopefully w/ just an inexpensive cleaning) and updated — yep, I got the player 1/2-way covered already too — will be all worth it because there's how many worthwhile titles to own or rent on the market? And you know, although my movie collection certainly ain't the biggest around these parts, people who visit my house do tend to think I own a bigger collection (especially BDs) than the local Blockbuster (or that's their impression anyway), and I do own more than my fair share of animated titles, etc. too, so it's not like I wouldn't make a good potential customer of BD 3D for the studios *IF* they all gave a darn.

    And oh, don't even remind me about Samsung's crappy reliability (at least for their DLP TVs). I can see it now. I finally do everything I need for the family to enjoy some BD 3D titles, and then, B-L-A-M !!! My luck runs out w/ Samsung, and then, I'm probably stuck w/ glasses, modules and adapters that may well not be reuseable on the next 3D TV I finally upgrade to. Oh, JOY!

    And then, some of you are wondering why the rest of us are so reluctant to jump in and join y'all for some fun (even though some of us can be considered 1/2 way there already).

    But no, the real/main point in all this is that 3D is just not ready for primetime yet much like the Blu-Red format war along w/ the crappy Blu Profile XYZ situation was not ready for primetime — and even now, BD-Live (and the use of BD-J to a large extent) is not really ready for primetime, but (at least some of) the studios don't care about that anyhow since there's apparently enough of us eating it all up (including myself) anyway…

    So please do cut the rest of us some slack and forgive us for being a touch cynical about 3D right now. It's not just about us hating or fearing what we don't understand or can't own (w/in reason anyway). Meanwhile, I'm sure we can forgive y'all for suggesting we're mainly about sour grapes disguised as reality check…

    Peace and much joy to y'all even though the Christmas season is officially over now! (And honestly, I do mean that as I'm sure Mike Frezon would understand my meaning )

    _Man_

    PS: BTW, although I can't enjoy my copy of Despicable Me in 3D yet, I want to say that it's a very fun, entertaining flick in 2D for the family anyhow. And I haven't really regretted buying the BD 3D combo pack (from the NBC online store) either even though I still ended up paying a good bit more than I would've if I stuck w/ the 2D combo pack and bought it a few days later from B&N — thems the breaks I guess…

    Man, I'm clearly not hearing you, buddy. I guess I'm not that technically sound or don't understand where you're coming from. I have a Samsung 3-D TV & have watched Despicable Me with no problem.

  200. In all this excitement, I just noticed that reviews were entered for Resident Evil Afterlife & Coraline. I rated the Resident Evil movie higher that what was stated on the review & am looking forward to viewing Coraline. Has anyone else seem them?

  201. I saw Coraline 3D in the theater and watched the (2D) Blu-ray at home. It's a fantastic film and I think the use of 3D rivals Avatar for being part of the very essence of the movie. It's the sort of movie that makes me wish I had 3D at home.

    Following up on Man's comments: are the 3D glasses "universal" or manufacturer specific? If I bought a Samsung TV and Samsung glasses, could I use those glasses with a Sony TV, if bought another or newer 3D TV later?

  202. Originally Posted by DaveF
    I saw Coraline 3D in the theater and watched the (2D) Blu-ray at home. It's a fantastic film and I think the use of 3D rivals Avatar for being part of the very essence of the movie. It's the sort of movie that makes me wish I had 3D at home.

    Following up on Man's comments: are the 3D glasses "universal" or manufacturer specific? If I bought a Samsung TV and Samsung glasses, could I use those glasses with a Sony TV, if bought another or newer 3D TV later?

    Coraline in the theaters was something else. If the transfer to home 3-D is anywhere near as good, then I'll be happy with that. As for the glasses, I don't thing Samsung's glasses will be compatable with a Sony system. That's what I remember hearing when shopping for my system.

  203. Those XPAND YOUNIVERSAL Glasses look like the
    bees knees but I am just bracing myself as to how
    expensive they will be considering on average people
    buy 2-4 of these in a clip.

    They need to get the cost of eyewear down considerably.

  204. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Thomas,

    I have found, from reading opinions across the Internet
    that most all the individuals who are attacking 3D are
    people who don't yet own a display.

    Absolutely, there are too many people condemning the
    technology without even spending considerable time
    in front of it.

    There are some (not on this board) condemning the
    format simply because they can't afford it.

    Everyone else is waiting patiently until it's time to
    upgrade their display and I would estimate at that
    point, 3D is going to become more of a standard
    option included with the best televisions.

    It's going to be a number of years before we get to
    enormous displays that don't require eyewear. Even
    then, I am uncertain whether it can produce the kind
    of depth and/or out-of-screen experience that shutter
    glasses can.

    As for the passive displays that require lighter eyewear,
    I have my doubts that they are as absolutely good as
    the shutter technology.
    What's interesting is that those few of us here on HTF
    that own 3D displays aren't complaining at all about it
    or the eyewear. In fact, from what I read, everyone is
    exceedingly satisfied with the 3D experience.

    I know the technology is still a bit expensive. I know
    there's eyewear involved. However, the prices will
    continue to fall and the eyewear will be constantly
    redesigned. Anything without glasses is still many
    years ahead so anyone looking to wait is just missing
    out on a terrific viewing experience.

    HI just got my 3DTV from Panasonic. I think the glasses (after a charge) are perfect!
    Reading some of the forums I was expecting that the glasses would weight a ton and I believe that to be incorrect. My husband and I both think that the glasses are lightweight compared to what we were expecting.

  205. By the way, a little digging around trying
    to find the price on those XPAND YOUNIVERSAL
    GLASSES.

    The best I can tell you comes from PC MAGAZINE
    who states, "Pricing was not announced, but the
    company says they'll cost more than the $129
    Universal 3D glasses, which will remain on the
    market as an entry-level option."

    That's not good news. I want these glasses!

    They are being sold in family 4 packs which I
    hope can be bought at a lower pricepoint than
    if purchased individually.

  206. tbaio

    with no problem.

    He must own an older Samsung DLP set that they were selling as being "3D capable". IIRC, Samsung was telling owners of those sets that there would be some sort of adapter made available that would allow them to view 3D content. Apparently, Samsung must have ditched the idea and left owners of those "3D capable" sets high and dry. Typical corporate bullshit. They falsely advertise that the set is "futureproof" because it has the "capability" of supporting a future format and then tell purchasers, who paid a premium for that "capability", that they are SOL.

  207. Towergrove

    Reading some of the forums I was expecting that the glasses would weight a ton and I believe that to be incorrect. My husband and I both think that the glasses are lightweight compared to what we were expecting.

    Out of curiosity, which film came with your system's starter kit? Monsters vs. Aliens came with mine & I found it awesome.

  208. Edwin-S

    Ron Epstein posted a thread in the displays forum about Samsung and RealD cooperating on a system where the TV does all the processing work of the present active shutter glasses. The result, apparently, is that people could use the standard RealD passive glasses in order to see a 3D image. The image would also be full 1080p rather than a reduced resolution image like pattern retarder system that is presently being touted. This is the system I would wait for, if it wasn't for the fact that I think all the present TV screen sizes are too small for really immersive 3D. To me, 3D needs to be front projected for real effectiveness. Unfortunately, a good 3D ready front projector is going to be out of my price range for the forseeable future.

    Samsung says this is not for the consumer market:

    http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Samsung-Execs-No-Immediate-Plans-for-Passive-or-Glasses-Free-3D-TV.shtml

  209. tbaio

    Honestly, I'm not trying to pick on you…please forgive if my tone comes off the wrong way here. Once again you say you're a fan of 3-D. Then you state strongly how you won't watch any of the movies, show no intention of supporting the push for the format, & then to top it off: positively state (to point of wishing for it) that the format is going to die out. In fact, you openly don't even care for the strongest rated 3-D title mentioned at the start of this tread………and you didn't even see it. You see where I'm coming from? Its like a guy wearing a Yankee cap & jersey going to Yankee stadium just to root against the Yankees!

    Thomas again I think you misunderstand me. I'm not for nor against 3D, I simply want some good movies in 3D before I spend thousands of dollars on it. I don't want home 3D to die out, but the powers that be are surely doing nothing to help the situation, and the sales figures show that. If the title you are talking about is Avatar, I HAVE seen it and didn't care for it. No I didn't see it in 3D, but a bad movie is a bad movie and all the 3D in the world won't help it.

    Frankly I won't watch just any old POS movie just because its in 3D, just as I won't watch just any old film because it was shot in 65mm or Technicolor etc. The format of a film is not what gets my butt in the seat. Its the story telling that does.

    Doug

  210. Edwin-S

    I haven't seen a complete film on any home 3D system. No one that I know has bought any 3D set. I have watched several 3D movies at the theatre. In those cases, RealD was the installed system. I found that watching a film in 3D has a great novelty factor in that it is a different experience at first; however, I find that I can watch the same movies that I saw in 3D in 2D and, for the most part, I do not miss the extra "dimensionality" of 3D. If a film entertains me in 3D then it will entertain me in 2D as well. If the film is not entertaining to me, the addition of 3D does not improve the experience for me. There are films where I think 3D didn't add anything. "The Voyage of The Dawn Treader" is a good example. I had no choice but to watch that film in 3D because the theatre was not running a 2D version. Frankly, I would rather have watched that film in 2D. I was annoyed that I had to pay an extra 3.00 dollar fee for an effect that added nothing to the film.

    The above may make it sound like I'm totally against 3D, but I'm not. I do not feel confident that this wave of 3D will be anything more than the usual fad; however, I do not actively want to see it fail, either in the theatre or the home. The biggest problem I have with 3D TV has nothing to do with the 3D process. It is the lack of screen size. AFAIAC, 3D only really has impact when the image fills a person's field of view. For me, 3D loses all of its impact when I can see the frame of the image and its surroundings: in the case of 3D TV, the bezel and the wall behind it. For me, 3D in the home is useless unless I can project a large enough image to occupy most of my field of view. A 50 to 60 inch TV doesn't cut it. Only front projection could approach the screen size needed. 3D front projectors are only starting to come out and, typically, they are expensive as hell. I only recently purchased a 2D front projector which I have no intentions of replacing for the forseeable future. I'll make good use of what I have and keep an eye on the development of home 3D over the next few years. If it survives, I'll look at purchasing a 3D capable projector when they become affordable.

    Ok. I hear you about seeing how 3-D can't add anything to a movie. I can tell you however that the Narnia movie you saw was most likely originally shot in 2-D & then post-converted into 3-D; which does not have the same impact as a movie shot specifically for 3-D. Some films are dependent on the 3-D. The best examples being Step Up 3-D & Resident Evil Afterlife. To be honest, without the 3-D, these films would have been less enjoyable. Some may say then that those movies are not worth viewing, which is a strong point. However, being that these films were made to be enjoyed in 3-D, then it is what it is. That's like saying porn is not enjoyable without the sex scenes……yeah, no kidding. I do hope that one day you're able to see the above mentioned movies (as well as others) to see the point I'm trying to make about how 3-D (when done correctly) can greatly enhance the viewing experience.

  211. Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

    Thomas again I think you misunderstand me. I'm not for nor against 3D, I simply want some good movies in 3D before I spend thousands of dollars on it. I don't want home 3D to die out, but the powers that be are surely doing nothing to help the situation, and the sales figures show that. If the title you are talking about is Avatar, I HAVE seen it and didn't care for it. No I didn't see it in 3D, but a bad movie is a bad movie and all the 3D in the world won't help it.

    Frankly I won't watch just any old POS movie just because its in 3D, just as I won't watch just any old film because it was shot in 65mm or Technicolor etc. The format of a film is not what gets my butt in the seat. Its the story telling that does.

    Doug

    Doug buddy, you got a stronger will than I do; that's for damn sure. You watched a 3-hour movie twice, just to be sure you were correct in not liking it the first time you saw it? Whew! I would have tried to find an excuse to leave the theater after the first 45 minutes; never mind giving it a second chance by watching it again. Ok, so you've proven that you have an open mind by at least giving something a second chance. With that, I hope that you're able to give this 3-D format a chance before giving up on it.

  212. tbaio

    Doug buddy, you got a stronger will than I do; that's for damn sure. You watched a 3-hour movie twice, just to be sure you were correct in not liking it the first time you saw it? Whew! I would have tried to find an excuse to leave the theater after the first 45 minutes; never mind giving it a second chance by watching it again. Ok, so you've proven that you have an open mind by at least giving something a second chance. With that, I hope that you're able to give this 3-D format a chance before giving up on it.

    Thomas, you are confusing me with Jbug. I did not nor would I sit through Avatar twice. I'm not a masochist.

    Doug

  213. tbaio

    Doug buddy, you got a stronger will than I do; that's for damn sure. You watched a 3-hour movie twice, just to be sure you were correct in not liking it the first time you saw it? Whew! I would have tried to find an excuse to leave the theater after the first 45 minutes; never mind giving it a second chance by watching it again. Ok, so you've proven that you have an open mind by at least giving something a second chance. With that, I hope that you're able to give this 3-D format a chance before giving up on it.

    Doug,
    ignore my last post….I got you mixed up with another person (J-Bug) who was the one who saw Avatar twice; my bad.

  214. tbaio

    A Yankees fan can surely go to the stadium and complain that the pitching staff sucks!

    Doug

    Doug I think I know what you're trying to say here, but it looks like you're as out of your element in baseball like you are in 3-D. The Yankees had a 21 game winner, an 18 game winner, Andy Pettitte went an incredible 11-3, & Mo Rivera was among the leaders in saves again. It looks like you watched as many Yankee games as 3-D movies, buddy. LOL.

  215. Originally Posted by dmiller68
    I just ordered the Panasonic TC-P65VT25 so in a couple weeks I'm going to be ready for some 3D!

    Welcome aboard. This post needs more people who actually have a 3-D system, believe me. I hope you enjoy your new investment like the rest of us here.

  216. Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt
    Skip the 3-D… bring on the CinemaScope LCD sets. Long live 2.35.

    I did look at that option since so many where announced at CES, several where 3D as well. For me however I have 60-70% Video games / TV viewing habit. So I would think it would get old looking at the side black bars for 16:9 material.

  217. Originally Posted by Edwin-S
    He must own an older Samsung DLP set that they were selling as being "3D capable". IIRC, Samsung was telling owners of those sets that there would be some sort of adapter made available that would allow them to view 3D content. Apparently, Samsung must have ditched the idea and left owners of those "3D capable" sets high and dry. Typical corporate bullshit. They falsely advertise that the set is "futureproof" because it has the "capability" of supporting a future format and then tell purchasers, who paid a premium for that "capability", that they are SOL.

    I have one of those Sammy DLP sets from 2007 as well, and agree completely that Samsung has lost itself another customer since they did not support their installed 3D-ready customer base. However, there is a fairly simple workaround which allows those display owners to use the 3DA-1 adapter by Mitsubishi with their Samsung 3D-ready DLPs. I've done it myself and am extremely satisfied with the home 3D experience so far, though I only have 2 discs: 'Coraline' and 'Resident Evil: Afterlife'.

  218. tbaio

    Doug I think I know what you're trying to say here, but it looks like you're as out of your element in baseball like you are in 3-D. The Yankees had a 21 game winner, an 18 game winner, Andy Pettitte went an incredible 11-3, & Mo Rivera was among the leaders in saves again. It looks like you watched as many Yankee games as 3-D movies, buddy. LOL.

    Admittedly I know next to nothing about baseball, but of course it was only a hypothetical. But still everyone knows that the Yankees can't get the puck through the hoop to save their lives. They are always 5 over par!

    Sheesh!!!

    Doug

  219. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /forum/thread/306751/htf-top-10-must-own-3d-titles/240#post_3768981

    Hi Sarah!   Welcome to the forum.  Hope you stick around.   You and your husband made an outstanding choice. The Panasonic displays are rated the best for 3D. So happy to hear you are enjoying it.

     Thanks Ron! I have been very pleased with our purchase so far. 

  220. tbaio

    Doug I think I know what you're trying to say here, but it looks like you're as out of your element in baseball like you are in 3-D. The Yankees had a 21 game winner, an 18 game winner, Andy Pettitte went an incredible 11-3, & Mo Rivera was among the leaders in saves again. It looks like you watched as many Yankee games as 3-D movies, buddy. LOL.

    Oh, I don't know about that. Pettitte's not likely to return at this rate. And the rest of the rotation (after CC) is in a state of flux right now, especially since they couldn't manage to buy Cliff Lee afterall.

    _Man_

  221. Ok, let's get this discussion back to 3-D. Here's something else I just noticed. VUDU (the movie site who's subscription came with the 3-D TV) has just added 3-D movies to its library. Its small & mostley made up of trailers, but its great!! The trailers are free & their content has to be adjusted with the remote control, but once its up, as I mentioned already…its great. If I could just stream future 3-D movies in HD for $2-$4, I have to say kudos to this idea & hope it spreads. Has anyone else seen this in other on-line movie rental sites (Net-Flix, Blockbuster, etc)?

  222. Whoa! I just read the updated Top 10 list & can't believe how well the 3-D quality was rated for Piranha 3-D. I admit to not having seeing the 3-Disc, but I did see this in the theater & remember the 3-D being very cheap. Being a film which was post-converted to 3-D, I wasn't too surprised that the 3-D wasn't good. After reading the review, its like I saw a totally different movie. Did anyone else see the movie in the theaters? Did anyone else think the 3-D was good? I'm a fan of the "gimmicky" shots where an object comes through the screen & right at me. I only remember the opening credits & 1 scene involving a power boat motor coming at me. I do however agree with everything else in the review. The movie is a blast & not to be taken seriously. The gore effects are terrific, the humor hits is mark & the finale packs enough of a wallop to warrant a repeated viewing. If the quality of this disc is that good, it'll be the first time a converted film transfers that well to disc.

  223. I saw PIRANHA 3D in Real-D at the theaters, and also thought the 3-D in some sections came off as very artificial. Like Thomas, I wasn't that surprised, given I knew it was a 2D to 3D conversion. Some scenes that the filmmakers thought would look great in 3-D must have been a nightmare for those doing the actual conversion. For example during the opening credits, there is a camera pan through a fence. If this was shot in true 3-D, it would have looked great, but instead the conversion looked chunky and blocky from a depth standpoint. There is another shot later where the foreground is littered with reeds. Again – would have looked great if shot in native 3D, but the conversion was less than impressive. Ditto for other torture tests- strands of blowing hair against background shots often highlighted depth artifacts.

    I haven't seen the 3-D bluray yet, and it's always possible further conversion work was done after the theatrical 3-D release. The good news is the sequel will be shot in native 3-D.

    Originally Posted by tbaio
    Whoa! I just read the updated Top 10 list & can't believe how well the 3-D quality was rated for Piranha 3-D. I admit to not having seeing the 3-Disc, but I did see this in the theater & remember the 3-D being very cheap. Being a film which was post-converted to 3-D, I wasn't too surprised that the 3-D wasn't good. After reading the review, its like I saw a totally different movie. Did anyone else see the movie in the theaters? Did anyone else think the 3-D was good? I'm a fan of the "gimmicky" shots where an object comes through the screen & right at me. I only remember the opening credits & 1 scene involving a power boat motor coming at me. I do however agree with everything else in the review. The movie is a blast & not to be taken seriously. The gore effects are terrific, the humor hits is mark & the finale packs enough of a wallop to warrant a repeated viewing. If the quality of this disc is that good, it'll be the first time a converted film transfers that well to disc.

  224. So far, Blockbuster has had the 3-D Bluray versions of GRAND CANYON and DINOS ALIVE listed as "on order".

    If one has Comcast, some of the free On-Demand programming is 3-D, which includes some IMAX 3-D features. MUMMIES, HAUNTED CASTLE, THE MAGIC BOX, etc Other titles are $4.99 to $6.99 JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, SCAR, and if I recall correctly- STEP UP 3D.

    HBO on-demand (no charge if one already has HBO) on Comcast also started offering 3-D movies.

    HBOs 3-D titles include: MONSTERS VS ALIENS / CORALINE / ICE AGE III

    Originally Posted by DavidJ
    Is anyone renting 3D titles? I recently got a display and have a couple of titles, but there are some I'd like to see without having to buy them (read Piranha 3D).

  225. Listening to some tech and CES news this weekend, a claim was made that using two-lens 3D cameras often cause problems and studios are looking at going single-lens, full conversion 3D in the future for all 3D filmmaking.

    This really belongs in a different thread, but I'm not sure which one. In any case, I'd enjoy some further information on this — if it's true and how's the conversion technology progressing, or it's not so and I heard some who passed on poor info.

  226. Like Thomas, I wasn't that surprised, given I knew it was a 2D to 3D conversion.

    Greg,

    You know, I didn't know that this was an upconvert.

    Well, actually, I should have because I am reminding
    myself of the comments James Cameron made about
    the film.

    I thought the 3D looked quite good. However, I am
    going tweak the Top 10 list because now I feel guilty
    about placing the title so high on the list when it wasn't
    even shot for the format.

    Thanks for reminding some of us.

  227. Didn't they shoot Piranha knowing that it would be converted to 3-D? While that isn't the same as shooting with 3-D cameras, it's got to be better than conversions of movies where there was no intention of 3-D when they were filming it.

  228. It certainly looks as if they had 3D in mind and shot
    it for the purpose of getting the best results with an
    upconvert.

    For instance, the underwater shots are cleverly
    composed so that plant life is put at the front of
    the lens to give that added feel of depth. In
    addition, there is so much stuff towards the
    camera you knew that there was an intended
    purpose behind it.

    The 3D is very effective. I was fooled that
    this was an upconvert. That being said, I bet
    the reason why I saw a lot of ghosting/double
    imaging was due to the process not being
    seamless rather than the transfer itself.

  229. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    It certainly looks as if they had 3D in mind and shot
    it for the purpose of getting the best results with an
    upconvert.

    For instance, the underwater shots are cleverly
    composed so that plant life is put at the front of
    the lens to give that added feel of depth. In
    addition, there is so much stuff towards the
    camera you knew that there was an intended
    purpose behind it.

    The 3D is very effective. I was fooled that
    this was an upconvert. That being said, I bet
    the reason why I saw a lot of ghosting/double
    imaging was due to the process not being
    seamless rather than the transfer itself.

    Yeah, I'm no expert but if I hadn't read that Piranha wasn't shot 3-D, I would have thought that it was a legitimate 3-D movie. I can't say that about Clash Of The Titans or My Soul To Take or even Toy Story 3.

  230. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

    Greg,

    You know, I didn't know that this was an upconvert.

    Well, actually, I should have because I am reminding
    myself of the comments James Cameron made about
    the film.

    I thought the 3D looked quite good. However, I am
    going tweak the Top 10 list because now I feel guilty
    about placing the title so high on the list when it wasn't
    even shot for the format.

    Thanks for reminding some of us.

    While upconverting will have its artifacts and/or mistakes, how much time is spent on the conversion is also very important. I remember seeing a very early teaser trailer of PIRANHA in 3-D and thinking "This is going to be utter crap!" 3-D artifacts were everywhere. Some months later, a second trailer showed up, and it was agreed by most that the 3D conversion had improved dramatically. Not perfect, but again – far better. It also helped the CGI and various post effects scenes were able to be done in 3-D natively. I previously mentioned the panning fence in the opening because the filmmakers thought that would look great in 3-D, but I'm sure the 3-D conversion team looked at that shot and screamed. So it wasn't in the budget to spend a lot of $$ to correct a shot of the panning fence. Ditto for strands of hair, reids, and other complex scenes that would take a lot of work to refine. I'm probably a little more forgiving of PIRANHA because its a movie that knows what it is … and I mean that in a positive way.

    ALICE IN WONDERLAND had a lot of TLC applied to the 2D tp 3D conversion – plus it helps most it wasn't "real" to begin with, so CGI was able to rendered in 3-D natively . Jim Cameron's is taking over a year to convert TITANIC, and knowing his drive for perfection – I for one will be very curious to check it out.

    But the CLASH OF THE TITANS and AIRBENDER conversions were 3-D rush jobs. Initiated not by the film makers, but by the studios eager to cash in on higher ticket prices.

  231. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    It certainly looks as if they had 3D in mind and shot
    it for the purpose of getting the best results with an
    upconvert.

    For instance, the underwater shots are cleverly
    composed so that plant life is put at the front of
    the lens to give that added feel of depth. In
    addition, there is so much stuff towards the
    camera you knew that there was an intended
    purpose behind it.

    The 3D is very effective. I was fooled that
    this was an upconvert. That being said, I bet
    the reason why I saw a lot of ghosting/double
    imaging was due to the process not being
    seamless rather than the transfer itself.

    I have several friends who worked on this film. It was being called Piranha 3D while in production.

    Doug

  232. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    I thought the 3D looked quite good. However, I am
    going tweak the Top 10 list because now I feel guilty
    about placing the title so high on the list when it wasn't
    even shot for the format.

    Thanks for reminding some of us.

    Shouldn't such a review rating be based on what *you* thought from the actual experience? Not on how the movie was made?
    _Man_

  233. Man,

    Yes, absolutely! However, now knowing that this was an upconconvert,
    it clearly explains the double imaging/ghosting problems that were more
    frequent here than other titles.

    Initially I blamed it on hardware. Now I believe it is related to the upconversion.
    I only changed the Top 10 status of the title as I did not feel comfortable placing
    it as #2. However, I did not change the in-review rating I gave it.

  234. I'm definitely on the fence about seeing the Piranha 3-D disc. As I mentioned earlier, I thought the film's 3-D only succeeded in making for a more expensive movie ticket. The 3-D did not impress anyone in that theater. Its a shame because the opening credits, which were great, set everyone up for what was expected to be a great visual piece. The movie's abundance of nudity & blood-letting did its job to distract from the lack of 3-D pop (which peaked only for the second time during the 75 minute mark). I think the movie by itself in the flat format would have been just as good if not better. If indeed more conversion work was done on the disc, then I commend the folks responsible for doing this. Too bad the movie didn't undergo this extra work.

  235. Thomas,

    I feel the opposite.

    You know what one of the worst movies in 2D right now must be?
    Step Up 3

    Yet, time after time I grab that disc and show it as a 3D demo. In
    fact, it's one of my favorite 3D discs in my entire collection.

    I feel the same way about Piranha 3.

    As a 2D film I would have probably hated it. However, as I always
    say, the format has a way of turning the worst movies into the best.

    In the case of Step Up 3D, the dance sequences take on an
    awesome new look because of the process. I can watch some
    of those dance scenes over and over again in 3D because of the
    way they are expertly choreographed for the format.

    Piranha 3D without the "D" is just another shlocky horror film.
    However, with dimensionality added, the film turned out to be
    a rollicking, hilarious experience to watch. I got what the
    filmmakers were after and they perfectly exploited 3D in ways
    that I never imagined. It was fun!

  236. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Step Up 3

    it's one of my favorite 3D discs in my entire collection.

    I feel the same way about Piranha 3.

    Ron,

    that's a bold statement. Now before I begin, let me first stress that I'm strictly referring to 3-D quality only (believe me, I would never defend Step-Up 3-D against any other film ordinarily; I found that story laughably bad). Step-Up 3-D had the format going for it which nicely offset its predictable script. I give a strong kudos to the people responsible for choosing to shoot the film in the 3-D format & choosing to shoot it right. Its a beautiful display of everything 3-D: depth, spacing, separation & my favorite…..in your face wow moments. None of the 3-D effects in Piranha 3-D (at least in the theater) came close to the work seen in Step-Up 3-D. I think its impossible for post conversion to match actually shot 3-D. Its like the best up-converted SD disc; as good as it is, it'll never match HD. I know I said this already, but Piranha 3-D was the opposite……its outrageous gore & nudity made up for the bad 3-D. I think the only thing the two movies had in common was that their scripts were both bad & both had aspects which distracted from those awful scripts. I understand that we're not comparing apples to apples here as I have only seen both theater version & disc version for Step-Up 3-D only; I've yet to see the disc version of Piranha 3-D. Based on your review, I will eventually give Piranha 3-D a look. I honestly think the Resident Evil Afterlife disc deserved the praise you gave for Piranha 3-D. But, we movie watchers have been known to see opposite sides & if nothing else, it makes for great discussion which I hope to continue with you.

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

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Step Up 3

    it's one of my favorite 3D discs in my entire collection.

    I feel the same way about Piranha 3.

    Ron,

    that's a bold statement. Now before I begin, let me first stress that I'm strictly referring to 3-D quality only (believe me, I would never defend Step-Up 3-D against any other film ordinarily; I found that story laughably bad). Step-Up 3-D had the format going for it which nicely offset its predictable script. I give a strong kudos to the people responsible for choosing to shoot the film in the 3-D format & choosing to shoot it right. Its a beautiful display of everything 3-D: depth, spacing, separation & my favorite…..in your face wow moments. None of the 3-D effects in Piranha 3-D (at least in the theater) came close to the work seen in Step-Up 3-D. I think its impossible for post conversion to match actually shot 3-D. Its like the best up-converted SD disc; as good as it is, it'll never match HD. I know I said this already, but Piranha 3-D was the opposite……its outrageous gore & nudity made up for the bad 3-D. I think the only thing the two movies had in common was that their scripts were both bad & both had aspects which distracted from those awful scripts. I understand that we're not comparing apples to apples here as I have only seen both theater version & disc version for Step-Up 3-D only; I've yet to see the disc version of Piranha 3-D. Based on your review, I will eventually give Piranha 3-D a look. I honestly think the Resident Evil Afterlife disc deserved the praise you gave for Piranha 3-D. But, we movie watchers have been known to see opposite sides & if nothing else, it makes for great discussion which I hope to continue with you.

    It looks like the 3-D on the Blu-ray is better than what was shown in the theatre as Piranha 3-D has gotten good reviews from a number of web sites:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Piranha-3D-Blu-ray/17553/

    http://blu-news.com/index.php/2011/01/piranha-2010-3d-blu-ray-review/

  238. Originally Posted by RolandL /img/forum/go_quote.gif

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

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Step Up 3

    it's one of my favorite 3D discs in my entire collection.

    I feel the same way about Piranha 3.

    Ron,

    that's a bold statement. Now before I begin, let me first stress that I'm strictly referring to 3-D quality only (believe me, I would never defend Step-Up 3-D against any other film ordinarily; I found that story laughably bad). Step-Up 3-D had the format going for it which nicely offset its predictable script. I give a strong kudos to the people responsible for choosing to shoot the film in the 3-D format & choosing to shoot it right. Its a beautiful display of everything 3-D: depth, spacing, separation & my favorite…..in your face wow moments. None of the 3-D effects in Piranha 3-D (at least in the theater) came close to the work seen in Step-Up 3-D. I think its impossible for post conversion to match actually shot 3-D. Its like the best up-converted SD disc; as good as it is, it'll never match HD. I know I said this already, but Piranha 3-D was the opposite……its outrageous gore & nudity made up for the bad 3-D. I think the only thing the two movies had in common was that their scripts were both bad & both had aspects which distracted from those awful scripts. I understand that we're not comparing apples to apples here as I have only seen both theater version & disc version for Step-Up 3-D only; I've yet to see the disc version of Piranha 3-D. Based on your review, I will eventually give Piranha 3-D a look. I honestly think the Resident Evil Afterlife disc deserved the praise you gave for Piranha 3-D. But, we movie watchers have been known to see opposite sides & if nothing else, it makes for great discussion which I hope to continue with you.

    It looks like the 3-D on the Blu-ray is better than what was shown in the theatre as Piranha 3-D has gotten good reviews from a number of web sites:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Piranha-3D-Blu-ray/17553/

    http://blu-news.com/index.php/2011/01/piranha-2010-3d-blu-ray-review/

    Unfortunately not every reviewer knows what a genuine 3-Dimensional film looks like. The fact remains that two dimensional films converted to 3-D look as fake as B&W movies that have been colorized. I have a few hundred 3-D slides that I shot years ago and when they're projected onto a big screen it still amazes friends who've never seen a 3-D picture before. People have rounded faces and there's space between them and the background. Not to mention that reflections on shiny surfaces actually appear to shine and the sunlight that's reflected off waves in a lake actually sparkle. A well shot 3-D film can be a magical experience.

  239. tbaio

    It looks like the 3-D on the Blu-ray is better than what was shown in the theatre as Piranha 3-D has gotten good reviews from a number of web sites:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Piranha-3D-Blu-ray/17553/

    http://blu-news.com/index.php/2011/01/piranha-2010-3d-blu-ray-review/

    Thanks so much for forwarding the links! In the second link, a few things were stated which concern me:

    • "Unfortunately, Piranha’s conversion fails to always impress."
    • "Many scenes however just look very flat and certain intended ‘pop out of the screen’ effects failed to have any real impact."
    • "Overall the film does have some great and impressive 3D effects, but so much more could have been done to make this one of the best 3D releases at least from a gimmicky perspective."

    I hate to nit-pick but all these aspects were the opinion of the audience members when I saw this film in the theater. As stated in the last quote, this film had so much opportunity to be a great 3-D movie, but post conversion simply can't deliver that type of pop. I'm still going to give Piranha 3-D a look, but I just can't help having such low expectations for it.

  240. Unfortunately not every reviewer knows what a genuine 3-Dimensional film looks like. The fact remains that two dimensional films converted to 3-D look as fake as B&W movies that have been colorized. I have a few hundred 3-D slides that I shot years ago and when they're projected onto a big screen it still amazes friends who've never seen a 3-D picture before. People have rounded faces and there's space between them and the background. Not to mention that reflections on shiny surfaces actually appear to shine and the sunlight that's reflected off waves in a lake actually sparkle. A well shot 3-D film can be a magical experience.

    Based on the comparisons I've seen between movies actually shot in 3-D & those which were post-converted, I couldn't agree with you any more. But, its not in me to condemn something without seeing it for myself. As I've mentioned already, I'll give Piranha 3-D a fair shot.

  241. Originally Posted by Robert Harris
    As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single
    good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder.

    RAH

    Funny you say that. I saw it in 3D a few years ago and found the 3D very distracting. I thought the movie played better in 2D. I did enjoy House of Wax in 3D, and the gimmick might have helped there.

  242. I think you really need to add "Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of Ga'Hoole" to your list somewhere, that is one incredible-looking movie, stunning even in 2D…some really jaw-dropping animation. The 3D version should be intense! I would have it on my own list at #2 right behind Avatar…

  243. I just saw the 3-D documentary Wild Ocean & it was incredible. The 3-D is great with bubbles that come right at you & just awesome all around effects in total. There's some ghosting at the conclusion, but the unexpected wow shots at around the same time make up for it. The 3-D in this Imax film was just as good if not better than that of Deep Sea & Under the Sea but the price was more than 50% less. Its weird but definitely the better buy if you ask me. Highly recommended, folks.

  244. Outside of Legend of The Guardians, I have found at least two other films that lose something without the "third dimension". They are Despicable Me and How to Train Your Dragon. I never saw Despicable Me in the theatre or in 3D. I recently watched the 2D Blu-ray and I definitely think that film, due to some of its design elements, would have an added impact in 3D. I did see HtTYD in 3D. The 2D version on BD is still very good, but the climax of the film did have more impact in 3D.

  245. MattH.

    , too, I think.

    Ok, it looks like there's still some life here. I've seen that the latest Saw movie is coming out this week. Other than that, March is bringing along Tangled & several Imax 3-D documentaries as well (one about waves, another about mummies & one other about dinosaurs). In short, there's not too much in the near horizon. When the theatrical 2011 3-D films come out for home viewing along with the re-releasing of older 3-D films, then it'll start cooking. Till then though, it looks like patience is going to be a must. Anyone else hear otherwise??

  246. I just saw they added a new catagory to the razzies… Bad 3D movies

    "Last Airbender" also was chosen for worst eye-gouging misuse of 3-D, a special category to mark Hollywood's current craze for shooting in three dimensions or converting 2-D movies to 3-D. The other 3-D nominees are "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," "Clash of the Titans," "The Nutcracker in 3-D" and "Saw 3D."

  247. Originally Posted by dmiller68
    I just saw they added a new category to the razzies… Bad 3D movies

    "Last Airbender" also was chosen for worst eye-gouging misuse of 3-D, a special category to mark Hollywood's current craze for shooting in three dimensions or converting 2-D movies to 3-D. The other 3-D nominees are "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," "Clash of the Titans," "The Nutcracker in 3-D" and "Saw 3D."

    I'm so happy to see that post converting is being looked at as unwanted. I hope this deters film producers from doing this type of thing. All the films mentioned were indeed visually terrible from a 3-D point of view; to the point where I'd accuse everyone involved with them of falsely advertising that they were 3-D films. I think the Saw movie however was indeed shot in 3-D. It wasn't anything to write home about, but there was a clear superior quality to it when compared to the others.

  248. Speaking of classic movies-

    Sony has revealed MISS SADIE THOMPSON and THE MAD MAGICIAN are in the works for HD 3-D broadcast, and are likely to have eventual 3-D bluray releases. Ditto for the two Three Stooges shorts (PARDON MY BACKFIRE and SPOOKS!)

  249. I hope, for the sake of TRON: LEGACY fans (I'm not one, though I love TRON), that the 3D effect on Blu is a zillion times better than it was for the IMAX 3D screening I saw, which was absolute garbage, practically non-existent. The post-convert 3D job they did on A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS had better 3D than this. Unbelievable.

  250. Originally Posted by Jeffrey Nelson
    I hope, for the sake of TRON: LEGACY fans (I'm not one, though I love TRON), that the 3D effect on Blu is a zillion times better than it was for the IMAX 3D screening I saw, which was absolute garbage, practically non-existent. The post-convert 3D job they did on A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS had better 3D than this. Unbelievable.

    I enjoyed the movie but the 3D was a total waste. It was even shot in 3D which is why we are going to get it in Blu3D. Although some of the movie was also shot in 2D and in Imax. I think maybe this is what messed it up.

  251. Although it would be great, I don't see how the 3-D for Tron Legacy would be any better on blu ray. So far, 3-D seems to transfer from theater to home viewing at a very close comparison. I think if something looked bad in the theater, its going to transfer pretty much the same way when it becomes available for the home (& vice versa). Take a look at the 2 Grindhouse movies (Deathproof & Planet Terror). Both theatrical & blu ray prints are the same. That's why its so important to get the 3-D right the first time when its shown in the theaters. When people get the same picture quality & effects at home, it makes the purchase of the 3-D equipment & the movie so worthwhile.

  252. I for one had a completely different reaction to the 3D experience of TRON. While it lacked what Ron calls the "In Yo' Face Factor," it was one of the better examples of depth and immersion that I've seen. In addition, in my admittedly limited home viewing I've found the experience and so have others I've shown it to, to be better in the home than in the theater.

  253. DavidJ did you see it in the Imax or regular theater. I have talked with a bunch of folks and it appears the Imax 3D is where the ho hum comes from where people that saw it in a regular theater came away thinking it was excellent. Since I saw it in the Imax I wasn't that impressed.

  254. Originally Posted by DavidJ
    I for one had a completely different reaction to the 3D experience of TRON. While it lacked what Ron calls the "In Yo' Face Factor," it was one of the better examples of depth and immersion that I've seen.

    I thought the same. It was about the only thing that I actually liked about the movie.

  255. Originally Posted by DavidJ
    I for one had a completely different reaction to the 3D experience of TRON. While it lacked what Ron calls the "In Yo' Face Factor," it was one of the better examples of depth and immersion that I've seen. In addition, in my admittedly limited home viewing I've found the experience and so have others I've shown it to, to be better in the home than in the theater.

    Its awesome that you see a positive difference between the theater & your home system. The 3-D effects for the discs I purchased: My Bloody Valentine, Step Up 3-D, Resident Evil Afterlife, Coraline, Dinosaur Alive, & Wild Ocean were (except for some ghosting) all just as impressive as they were in the theater. None of them exceeded in quality from their theater counterparts. It looks like you got lucky.

  256. tbaio

    were (except for some ghosting) all just as impressive as they were in the theater. None of them exceeded in quality from their theater counterparts. It looks like you got lucky.

    In my experience the active shutter glasses seem to make a big difference.

  257. In my experience the active shutter glasses seem to make a big difference.

    The glasses make the difference…..just like for Clark Kent. 🙂 What other 3-D movies do you feel turned out better on home viewing as opposed to when you first saw them in the theater?

  258. More classic 3d news:

    There has been talk on other forums of the two Three Stooges 3D shorts being available via the US Playstation Store for rental.

    Also, rather more interestingly, Vincent Price in The Mad Magician.

    [Can't confirm or deny this, but there is a lot of positive feedback out there for The Mad Magician rental.]

    Another link confirming Mad Magician and Miss Sadie Thompson here:
    http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team-hcc/exclusive-sony-pictures-grover-crisp-film-restoration-and-classic-3d-movies-blu-ray-2

    This seems to be a UK interview, hence future blu release of Kwai being mentioned.

  259. Anyone see Drive Angry yet? Very good 3-D, but that's about all. A couple of 3-D documentaries were released as of late, but its still the slow season. I'm hoping it picks up. 3-D documentaries & cartoons have their charm, but nothing beats live action.

  260. mmm.. Just finished another rather pleasant underwater 3D IMAX doc.

    There's not That many 3D IMAX docs to go when I look at a list of them all. They seem to be as endangered a species as their own subject matter. What is it? Four a year in a good year? These may seem lean times in 3D blu terms, but in IMAX blu terms we're feasting in them somewhat..

  261. Hi Tom!

    I think 3D Blu-ray titles didn't start rolling out
    in volume until 4th quarter last year. So, in
    actuality, we only had 6 months of 3D product
    and in that short time, it's been filled with a
    fairly decent assortment of releases.

    We are off to a slow start. Paramount nixed
    3D releases of Jackass 3 and Megamind
    while Fox nixed Gulliver's Travels.

    However, we have Tangled, Tron and
    Yogi Bear coming up from the major studios
    over the next few months.

    Meanwhile, Image just released a batch
    of IMAX releases this week, some of which
    I just reviewed and more that I will be looking
    at over the next week.

  262. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Hi Tom!

    I think 3D Blu-ray titles didn't start rolling out
    in volume until 4th quarter last year. So, in
    actuality, we only had 6 months of 3D product
    and in that short time, it's been filled with a
    fairly decent assortment of releases.

    We are off to a slow start. Paramount nixed
    3D releases of Jackass 3 and Megamind
    while Fox nixed Gulliver's Travels.

    However, we have Tangled, Tron and
    Yogi Bear coming up from the major studios
    over the next few months.

    Meanwhile, Image just released a batch
    of IMAX releases this week, some of which
    I just reviewed and more that I will be looking
    at over the next week.

    And according to some Disney PR releases, Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Chicken Little are also down the road.

  263. I must have been a bit sleepy when I wrote that.

    I meant I was looking at a list of IMAX docs – the 40 mins kind:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_films

    and, apart from the early-CGI ride movies, there don't really seem all that many left of native IMAX 3D in the list to convert to 3D blu. Many are already listed as Amazon releases for the coming months.

    I wonder what the long term plans here are. Are there many 40min native IMAX 3D movies still being produced?

    Also thinking about the James Cameron interview about planning "Avatar 2/3" in faster speeds than 24fps. Is this part of the future for IMAX? or even for an IMAX 3d in dual digital projection via polarised spectacles.

  264. I wonder what the long term plans here are. Are there many 40min native IMAX 3D movies still being produced?

    Tom,

    As I noted in my last post, Image just released about 4 of them.

    I would think that the IMAX films are still being produced.

  265. And I guess that, apart from the vertiginous mountain climbing docs, the majority of recent and future IMAX stuff is in 3D.

    The UK is on a similar release schedule via Image. Patagonia, zac, and tahiti all here by end of march. Mummies 3D in April.

    From Cornerstone, we have IMAX Arabia 3D in May and Legends of Flight 3D in July.

    A few of the Jean-Michel Cousteau underwater ones (Sharks, Dolphins and Whales, Ocean Wonderland) have turned up here, too, via Univeral. No clues from the packaging if these are region free or not.

    (No Warner IMAXs here to date. I imagine some people are importing them from USA, but they still seem a bit over priced at present.)

  266. Speaking of Image Imax 3-D films, I just watched The Ultimate Wave Tahiti. Very good 3-D. I didn't think I'd like it being that I'm not into surfing, but it was well done. The best of the 3-D is seeing the hands, arms & board tips come right out you. There are many scenes of splashing water that had a nice effect as well. Good stuff. I know it costs plenty to make a 3-D Imax movie (about $11.00 per second!), so I hope this stuff sells so that more of this type if thing is made. Recommended.

  267. Originally Posted by tbaio
    I hope Sea Monsters is eventually released in the new format. I remember enjoying it in the I-Max theater. Did anyone see Sanctum? I'm curious as to how the 3-D was for that one.

    I saw Sanctum in an IMAX 3-D theatre. And despite the awful reviews I enjoyed the film for what it was… an an old fashioned, Saturday afternoon adventure movie. The dimensional aspect was on about a par with Avatar – OK. I do have a beef about the James Cameron stereo camera system: it doesn't generate a truly realistic looking, you are there image. Especially closeups of actors, they almost look 2-dimensional, the faces aren't rounded the way someone actually looks when you're near them. When I saw Tron in IMAX 3-D recently, the only wow image I saw that night was in the trailer for a new Warner Brothers documentary, actually filmed in IMAX 3-D, about orphaned elephants – the picture looked so totally real that I almost felt I was there in the scene. Maybe Hollywood filmmakers should take a few lessons from someone over at Imax and figure it all out. Sad to day, but the 3-dimensional images in many of the features shot in the 50's are far better looking than what we're seeing in the theatres today. If there's not an improvement over how the upcoming steresoscopic films are shot, 3-D will wilt away, just like it always has in the past.

  268. Yeah, the critics did a number on Sanctum; they pretty much condemned it. I'm into movies where people are trapped someplace & must escape (Daylight, The Descent,Cellular, Phone Booth, Cujo, etc.). I'll eventually see Sanctum also being a sucker for 3-D. As for Cameron's 3-D system for Avatar, I expect it to look artificial being that almost the entire film is computer generated. In fact, many of the 3-D live action movies today use CG for much of the 3-D effects. As impressive as some of it may be, it does not match the practical method of throwing things in front of a 3-D enabled camera. Wow moments are what make a 3-D movie memorable & the best wow moments are of the practical type. You're right: 3-D Imax films such as Wild Ocean, The Ultimate Wave Tahiti, Dinosaurs Alive, Deep Sea, Under the Sea, etc. have pretty much nailed the 3-D process. I've learned that making a full-length 3-D movie is not easy or cost effective so studios resort to post-conversion which can look atrocious. I do hope that 3-D is able to improve & get a larger audience to appreciate it. The only way for that to happen will be for more of the "good type" of 3-D to hit the theaters in abundance. I guess we'll have to wait & see (& hope) if this happens.

  269. Not seem Sanctum yet, but I find the main difference between modern (non-IMAX) 3D and fifties 3D is that most modern stuff is filmed on video and the older stuff was on film.

    Live action IMAX is also on high quality film, proving the potency of of genuine film stock over HD video capture.

    I think some of the older fifties movies even utilised special makeup techniques to make a close-up work correctly under the scrutiny of the stereographic camera, so modern close ups may be as much a matter of make-up techniques as HD camera deficiencies.

  270. I finally got a 3d set. the panasonic gt25. the 3d was very impressive on the oppo 93, the panasonic 210 and ps3. I played a bit of avatar. it was like watching it at the theatre. hopefully we get some more movies like avatar and tron with the 3d.

    Jacob

  271. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
    Personally, I wasn't bowled away with the 3D on
    the upcoming Blu-ray release of Tron Legacy.

    I will have a review up shortly.

    Could be a transfer/authoring/software problem. I saw the film as a DCP, and the 3D was superb, probably the best thing about the film.

  272. Did anyone (besides the reviewers) get a chance to see the Yogi Bear 3-D Blu Ray? One word: WOW! There's some truly amazing 3-D to be found on it. Its such a shame that the bad reviews the film got did not mention how good the quality of the 3-D was (the film was very entertaining too; not at all as bad as what was written of it). As a bonus, there's a 3-minute Warner Brothers cartoon (Road Runner) that's also very well shot & in 3-D as well. Highly recommended to anyone into 3-D!

  273. LOL. It looks like we both had a good time with this title, Ron. Just for giggles, pause the scene towards the end when the frog-mouthed turtle shoots his tongue at the camera (right after it hits the villain on the cheek). This is such a cool shot to freeze frame! We had little kids watching that began grabbing at its tongue!

    I know its a while from now, but I'd really like to see you're review on the Sanctum 3-D disc when it comes out. Till then, buddy.

  274. I actually found a 3D IMAX film that I liked: Legends of Flight. The only downside is that it was too short at 42 mins. I could have watched another hour on the subject matter. The other film that I consider essential to watch in 3D is Owls of Gahoole. The story has its problems, but Snyder does make good use of 3D. I really think the film loses something without the 3D. Cars 2 is another one that I would probably select to watch in 3D.

  275. I just wached the first 10 minutes or so of FINAL DESTINATION 3D last night. This has one of the most intense "in your face" 3D sequences I've ever seen!
    One scene in particular that made be dodge sideways in my seat to avoid being "hit" was when a tool that the pit crew left dangling off the car comes loose and flys into the audience. Whew!!! That was close!
    I've never seen any of the others in this series, and can't comment good or bad about the story, but for sure I'll be watching the rest tonight, if only for the marvelous 3D effects.

  276. Originally Posted by Reed Grele
    I just wached the first 10 minutes or so of FINAL DESTINATION 3D last night. This has one of the most intense "in your face" 3D sequences I've ever seen!
    One scene in particular that made be dodge sideways in my seat to avoid being "hit" was when a tool that the pit crew left dangling off the car comes loose and flys into the audience. Whew!!! That was close!
    I've never seen any of the others in this series, and can't comment good or bad about the story, but for sure I'll be watching the rest tonight, if only for the marvelous 3D effects.

    Neil is working on a review of Final Destination 3D.

  277. Ron, You might have to increase the top 11 list to 12. This is, without a doubt, THE best overall 3D presentation on Blu Ray I have seen yet (and I've seen all of the top 11 and then some.)
    Almost every scene was composed with the maximum attention to depth perception and the "in your face" wow factor. I noticed no ghosting whatsoever. The story and gory special effects may not be for everyone, but this is now going to be my 3D demo disc that I'll show friends.
    If you enjoy great 3D effect "popcorn movies", don't mind a preposterous plot, and are not squeamish….. BUY THIS MOVIE!!

  278. Guys, I know I'm way off the mark here because its not out for sale yet, but when Final Destination 5 eventually comes out, its going to be the best 3D blu ray out there hands down. The 3-D is simply amazing & was used alot more than what was done for part 4 (which used the majority of its awesome 3-D for the opening sequence). This is the type of 3-D that Hollywood needs produce more of. No one was dissapointed & no one complained about the ticket price. Such is the case when a film is shot entirely in 3-D & when the audience can see where their money for a more expensive ticket went. I hope they continue to shoot this series in 3-D; it worked perfectly for the last two films.

  279. I'm a bit late to this discussion and just skimmed through all 12 pages. To answer a question: of the 50 domestic features produced during the Golden Age (1952-1955), 30 were intended and composed for widescreen presentation. The aspect ratios ranged from 1.66 to 2.1. Most have not been seen in widescreen since their original theatrical release, although we did play some in that format at our second World 3-D Expo in 2006.
    Regarding the opinion that DIAL M was the only dimensional film of quality during that period, I'll post some information from our TOP 3-D MYTHS page, http://www.3dfilmpf.org/info-top-10-3D-myths.html

    3D Movies were "cheesy" exploitation films with lower string talent.
    Not true. Here's a partial list of some big stars that appeared in front of the 3-D camera: John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Bob Fosse, Robert Mitchum, Linda Darnell, Jack Palance, Edward G. Robinson, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Jane Russell, Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Victor Mature, Robert Stack, Jose Ferrer, Vincent Price, Joan Fontaine, Phil Silvers, Randolph Scott, Charles Bronson, Karl Malden, Ernest Borgnine, Rhonda Fleming, Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, Virginia Mayo, Lee J. Cobb, Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Rock Hudson, etc. Not a shabby list of talent there!
    Great directors and cinematographers worked on these films, including John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis, Alfred Hitchcock and many more.

    3D Movies of the 1950's were loaded with gimmicks to show off the process.
    Not true. For the most part, the filmmakers respected the "stereo window" and did not resort to gimmicks in order to enhance the process. The only studio guilty of excessive exploitation would have been Columbia, and more specifically the William Castle/Sam Katzman productions. However, for every film that was guilty of throwing an over abundance of objects at the camera (FORT TI, CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER, MAN IN THE DARK, SPOOKS) there were many, many others which utilized great restraint in their use of the process. Check out the superb cinematography on HONDO, SECOND CHANCE, I THE JURY, INFERNO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, TAZA-SON OF COCHISE and THE GLASS WEB for some excellent examples of the dimensional process.
    The often-cited paddleball sequence in HOUSE OF WAX was there for a very specific reason: that sequence was immediately following the intermission point. Director Andre deToth felt the barker was an effective way to bring the audience back into the story. In fact, in the following scene Vincent Price comments, "We won't need him once we're established." How true!
    The overuse of gimmicks became commonplace in the 1970's and 1980's with movies such as COMIN' AT YA, TREASURE OF THE FOUR CROWNS, FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D and ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN.

    Too many bad 3D movies killed off 3D in 1950s.
    Not true. There were exactly 50 movies made (in English) in 3D during the Golden Age of 3D. While there were certainly some bad and mediocre films in this group (ROBOT MONSTER, CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON, and HANNAH LEE, to name a few), there was also: KISS ME KATE, HOUSE OF WAX, DIAL M FOR MURDER, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, and so on. The 3D movies of the Golden Age were no better or worse than any other group of films.
    Bob Furmanek
    Vice President
    3-D Film Preservation Fund
    http://www.3dfilmpf.org/

  280. The big problem with FLESH is the poor photography. Convergence of the two images is all over the map. If mastered for Blu-Ray 3-D, it would require a tedious (and expensive) shot by shot re-alignment.
    The majority of the films from the 1950's do not suffer from such poor stereoscopic cinematography. The only one that comes to mind on the level of FLESH would be HANNAH LEE, a modest western from Jack Broder.

  281. Originally Posted by Reed Grele /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3840820
    Ron, You might have to increase the top 11 list to 12. This is, without a doubt, THE best overall 3D presentation on Blu Ray I have seen yet (and I've seen all of the top 11 and then some.)
    Almost every scene was composed with the maximum attention to depth perception and the "in your face" wow factor. I noticed no ghosting whatsoever. The story and gory special effects may not be for everyone, but this is now going to be my 3D demo disc that I'll show friends.
    If you enjoy great 3D effect "popcorn movies", don't mind a preposterous plot, and are not squeamish….. BUY THIS MOVIE!!

    Lion King is also coming out which is supposed to look fantastic. While I hate to create work, I would vote for a top 20.

  282. Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847017
    Was The Lion King orginally shot in 3-D? If not, its going to look terrible in post conversion 3-D.

    That seems like a pretty broad statement. It seems like several animated movies have been post processed and look pretty good. They just don't have the "3D" effects…

  283. Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847017
    Was The Lion King orginally shot in 3-D? If not, its going to look terrible in post conversion 3-D.

    No, but I have been talking to some people I know at Disney and the conversion they did is supposed to be incredible.

  284. Bob Furmanek

    I'm a bit late to this discussion and just skimmed through all 12 pages. To answer a question: of the 50 domestic features produced during the Golden Age (1952-1955), 30 were intended and composed for widescreen presentation. The aspect ratios ranged from 1.66 to 2.1. Most have not been seen in widescreen since their original theatrical release, although we did play some in that format at our second World 3-D Expo in 2006.
    Regarding the opinion that DIAL M was the only dimensional film of quality during that period, I'll post some information from our TOP 3-D MYTHS page, http://www.3dfilmpf.org/info-top-10-3D-myths.html

    3D Movies were "cheesy" exploitation films with lower string talent.
    Not true. Here's a partial list of some big stars that appeared in front of the 3-D camera: John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Bob Fosse, Robert Mitchum, Linda Darnell, Jack Palance, Edward G. Robinson, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Jane Russell, Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Victor Mature, Robert Stack, Jose Ferrer, Vincent Price, Joan Fontaine, Phil Silvers, Randolph Scott, Charles Bronson, Karl Malden, Ernest Borgnine, Rhonda Fleming, Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, Virginia Mayo, Lee J. Cobb, Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Rock Hudson, etc. Not a shabby list of talent there!
    Great directors and cinematographers worked on these films, including John Alton, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Roy Baker, George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Jack Arnold, Budd Boetticher, Charles Roscher, Hal Wallis, Alfred Hitchcock and many more.

    3D Movies of the 1950's were loaded with gimmicks to show off the process.
    Not true. For the most part, the filmmakers respected the "stereo window" and did not resort to gimmicks in order to enhance the process. The only studio guilty of excessive exploitation would have been Columbia, and more specifically the William Castle/Sam Katzman productions. However, for every film that was guilty of throwing an over abundance of objects at the camera (FORT TI, CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER, MAN IN THE DARK, SPOOKS) there were many, many others which utilized great restraint in their use of the process. Check out the superb cinematography on HONDO, SECOND CHANCE, I THE JURY, INFERNO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, TAZA-SON OF COCHISE and THE GLASS WEB for some excellent examples of the dimensional process.
    The often-cited paddleball sequence in HOUSE OF WAX was there for a very specific reason: that sequence was immediately following the intermission point. Director Andre deToth felt the barker was an effective way to bring the audience back into the story. In fact, in the following scene Vincent Price comments, "We won't need him once we're established." How true!
    The overuse of gimmicks became commonplace in the 1970's and 1980's with movies such as COMIN' AT YA, TREASURE OF THE FOUR CROWNS, FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D and ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN.

    Too many bad 3D movies killed off 3D in 1950s.
    Not true. There were exactly 50 movies made (in English) in 3D during the Golden Age of 3D. While there were certainly some bad and mediocre films in this group (ROBOT MONSTER, CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON, and HANNAH LEE, to name a few), there was also: KISS ME KATE, HOUSE OF WAX, DIAL M FOR MURDER, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, and so on. The 3D movies of the Golden Age were no better or worse than any other group of films.
    Bob Furmanek
    Vice President
    3-D Film Preservation Fund
    http://www.3dfilmpf.org/

    I think what killed 3-d in the 1950's were the cardboad glasses and poor projection by the projectionists.
    I have many copies of 3-D films from the 1950's and 70's in the field sequential method on DVD and though they have the flicker problem they were fun to watch. Seeing them on Blu-ray 3D would be even better! Any plans for these coming out on Blu-ray 3D? 3D extras on each disc would be nice – cartoon, trailers, etc.)

  285. Cardboard glasses? Yes, for the first phase of the boom up to the Fall of 1953. By that time, Polaroid introduced a whole line of plastic frames (much like RealD glasses) as well as clip-ons and smaller glasses for children.
    Poor projection? BINGO! The single worst culprit in the demise of 3-D in the 1950's. I've done extensive research (day by day through the various trades) and have determined it was faulty projection that killed the Golden Goose. It was not the glasses or the quality of the movies which are really better than most people realize, it was the abundance of out of sync, out of phase presentations in theaters around the country – both big and small.
    There were many times when they didn't even get the industry trade previews correct. Case in point: MONEY FROM HOME. Extremely well photographed, subtle but effective use of 3-D and magnificent 3-strip Technicolor to boot. What happens? The preview for the trades goes out of sync and nearly every critic complained of the poor quality 3-D and how hard it was to watch. So as a result, many exhibitors played it flat.
    Flash forward 35 years and MFH is having it's New York 3-D debut at the Film Forum. The one surviving print comes in on 2000 foot reels from Paramount and their operator builds it up. One problem: he doesn't use a double-gang synchronizer to check it and the advance screening for the press goes out of sync! I ran up to the booth to alert them to the problem and to request they turn off one projector and run the last reel flat. (There's constant movement in the last ten minutes of the film – the climactic horse race – and one frame out of sync is a watery mess on the screen.) The projectionist tells me, "No, that's the way it was photographed. That's why it never played New York in 3-D." I wanted to scream! I convinced the Director of Repertory to let me bring the print home where I have the necessary equipment to fix the problem. I did, the shows ran fine and everybody was happy.
    That's just one scenario and it happened in the 1950's more than you know. I am convinced beyond any doubt that poor presentation was the real culprit behind the demise of 3-D movies.

  286. It had SOME 3-D play dates around the country, but not nearly as many as it should.
    Ironically, cleaned up and re-aligned HD transfers of these films would look better at home than they did in most theaters back in 1953/54!

  287. Needless to say, Bob Furmanek stopped those projection problems before they started when he premiered Money From Home at 2006 World 3-D Expo. The stereoscopic projection was perfect, and it wowed over 900 people. When the film began I expected a slapstick / farce / comedy. Instead it turned out to be an intelligent drama, and a comedy. A much better film than I expected, and in state-of-the-art 3-D.
    This would be a good title for Columbia to launch its 3-D Blu-ray line.

  288. RolandL

    I think what killed 3-d in the 1950's were the cardboad glasses and poor projection by the projectionists.
    I have many copies of 3-D films from the 1950's and 70's in the field sequential method on DVD and though they have the flicker problem they were fun to watch. Seeing them on Blu-ray 3D would be even better! Any plans for these coming out on Blu-ray 3D? 3D extras on each disc would be nice – cartoon, trailers, etc.)

    Most people seem to forget they're wearing glasses once the film starts to engage them.
    Glasses have improved, and I observe that audiences don't seem to think about them once the film starts.
    Projection continues to be a problem, and continues to lead to misunderstandings.
    The murky dimness of digital projection isn't doing 3-D any favors.
    Imax is the best at it.

  289. Well, I'm certainly back in the classroom and taking notes with Mr Furmanek around! Like someone opening dusty tombs and shining the light of good common sense all around them. 3D seems such a vexed topic – even nowadays.. I wonder why..?
    still.. on the disney front, I believe the software used in the days of beauty and lion king was aware of depths, though the shifts of management and styles rendered this obsolete for later features.
    Think this was one of the last things made with the software, a glimmering of how a new Fantasia may have played.

  290. RolandL

    I think what killed 3-d in the 1950's were the cardboad glasses and poor projection by the projectionists.
    I have many copies of 3-D films from the 1950's and 70's in the field sequential method on DVD and though they have the flicker problem they were fun to watch. Seeing them on Blu-ray 3D would be even better! Any plans for these coming out on Blu-ray 3D? 3D extras on each disc would be nice – cartoon, trailers, etc.)

    Bob Furmanek is right about the different styles of 3D glasses they used for 3D viewing in the 50's and one thing that I do remember is that they were very light weight, you forgot you were wearing them once the movie got going. What's with these heavy plastic jobs that Real D 3D is using? I hear a lot of complaints about these heavy, uncomfortable 3D glasses from a friends. In fact, I still have some glasses from the 50's and from a movie called The Bubble in the 60's in my collection and they barely weigh a few ounces.

  291. Old fashioned polarization was pretty much horizontal vs vertical. Think REAL-D uses circular polarization so a tilt of the head will preserve the modern digital image.
    The IMAX polarized spectacles seem to be horizontal and vertical as a few peculiar looking bouts of head tilting by me in imax shows tends to prove.
    Also think there's a business model where real-d get a share of specs sales and movie sales.
    Not sure what REAL-D's R&D concepts are, but I have to confess that there's been a world of difference in the uk (in original release terms) between my experience of monster house/coraline and stuff like Tangled, which I saw both in IMAX and real-d formats. Real-d version gave for a much more colourful and brighter Tangled, particularly in shadowy areas which implies digital projection improvements.
    [ I* did* see Tangled in preview at the IMAX so this may have been an early projection glitch – the old flicker specs of IMAX of ten years or so ago were amazing, though, and one wishes these will return to the UK.].
    actually, on a different but related point I wish modern cinemas would tell upfront what digital projection they're doing, 2K, 4K etc. It is the sort of thing the consumer would be checking out at a dvd/blu/video gaming level – so why not the more expensive cinemas experience??

  292. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847022
    That seems like a pretty broad statement. It seems like several animated movies have been post processed and look pretty good. They just don't have the "3D" effects…

    If it has none of the 3-D effects, why bother to remaster it in 3-D at all??

  293. Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847043
    No, but I have been talking to some people I know at Disney and the conversion they did is supposed to be incredible.

    With my 3D TV & player at home, I can convert the picture on a 2-D blu ray to 3-D just by hitting a button. Its a cool thing to have & do, but its nothing earth-shattering. My point being that I don't think remastering The Lion King for a 3-D picture is going make it better. Like many other people have been saying, this is just another grab for money. I think 3-D abuse like this is what discourages & frustrates movie fans. Movies in general should be left alone (other than remastering the picture, audio, etc). Doing this 3-D mastering to The Lion King is no different than colorizing the classics of the past; its not necessary or appreciated.

  294. Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847329

    With my 3D TV & player at home, I can convert the picture on a 2-D blu ray to 3-D just by hitting a button. Its a cool thing to have & do, but its nothing earth-shattering. My point being that I don't think remastering The Lion King for a 3-D picture is going make it better. Like many other people have been saying, this is just another grab for money. I think 3-D abuse like this is what discourages & frustrates movie fans. Movies in general should be left alone (other than remastering the picture, audio, etc). Doing this 3-D mastering to The Lion King is no different than colorizing the classics of the past; its not necessary or appreciated.

    A professional studio conversion is going to be a lot different than pushing a button. Since I haven't seen it you might be right that its not going to be any better, or it could make it better. We won't know until we see it.

  295. Bob Furmanek

    Cardboard glasses? Yes, for the first phase of the boom up to the Fall of 1953. By that time, Polaroid introduced a whole line of plastic frames (much like RealD glasses) as well as clip-ons and smaller glasses for children.
    Poor projection? BINGO! The single worst culprit in the demise of 3-D in the 1950's. I've done extensive research (day by day through the various trades) and have determined it was faulty projection that killed the Golden Goose. It was not the glasses or the quality of the movies which are really better than most people realize, it was the abundance of out of sync, out of phase presentations in theaters around the country – both big and small.
    There were many times when they didn't even get the industry trade previews correct. Case in point: MONEY FROM HOME. Extremely well photographed, subtle but effective use of 3-D and magnificent 3-strip Technicolor to boot. What happens? The preview for the trades goes out of sync and nearly every critic complained of the poor quality 3-D and how hard it was to watch. So as a result, many exhibitors played it flat.
    Flash forward 35 years and MFH is having it's New York 3-D debut at the Film Forum. The one surviving print comes in on 2000 foot reels from Paramount and their operator builds it up. One problem: he doesn't use a double-gang synchronizer to check it and the advance screening for the press goes out of sync! I ran up to the booth to alert them to the problem and to request they turn off one projector and run the last reel flat. (There's constant movement in the last ten minutes of the film – the climactic horse race – and one frame out of sync is a watery mess on the screen.) The projectionist tells me, "No, that's the way it was photographed. That's why it never played New York in 3-D." I wanted to scream! I convinced the Director of Repertory to let me bring the print home where I have the necessary equipment to fix the problem. I did, the shows ran fine and everybody was happy.
    That's just one scenario and it happened in the 1950's more than you know. I am convinced beyond any doubt that poor presentation was the real culprit behind the demise of 3-D movies.

    I was at the Film Forum years ago and saw Dial M For Murder in dual projection 3D. The 3D was excellent, no ghosting. If they can do the same on Blu-ray I'll buy it and any other 1950's 3D films.

  296. Originally Posted by Richard–W /t/306751/htf-top-11-must-own-3d-titles/330#post_3847175
    Most people seem to forget they're wearing glasses once the film starts to engage them.
    Glasses have improved, and I observe that audiences don't seem to think about them once the film starts.
    Projection continues to be a problem, and continues to lead to misunderstandings.
    The murky dimness of digital projection isn't doing 3-D any favors.
    Imax is the best at it.

    I agree here that if the 3-D quality is good, the glasses are pretty much forgotten. I had a bunch of folks over to demo the 3D blu ray of Friday the 13th III which was not only of bad picture quality (color, object detail, heavy ghosting, etc) but required the use of the old red & blue paper glasses. The jokes & snickers were aplenty in the beginning, but once the the quality of the 3-D (which had not lost its punch for home viewing) began to show its head, their joking comments turned to compliments. A good movie is a good movie regardless whether its seen in the theater, television, smart phone, etc. When 3-D comes into the mix, it can be a different story. If the film is advertised as a 3-D film, but does not deliver 3-D visuals, the audience is going to notice & most likely be upset even if the movie is good; especially if the price of admission was more expesive due to the 3-D. I think that's whats been happening for the past year & a half at the theaters; which is why so many people are throwing in the towel for 3-D. They've just been dissappointed too many times.

  297. JMHO, but Despicable Me and Coraline are leaps and bounds better movies than MM. IMHO, that is. Is MM rated higher based on the 3D? I'd rate Scrooge over MM too.
    I forgot to mention I don't have 3D so I'm thinking more movie than 3D.

  298. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-13-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3852295
    JMHO, but Despicable Me and Coraline are leaps and bounds better movies than MM. IMHO, that is. Is MM rated higher based on the 3D? I'd rate Scrooge over MM too.
    I forgot to mention I don't have 3D so I'm thinking more movie than 3D.

    Unbelievable. Dude, why are you commenting on a 3-D forum when you do not have 3-D?? Did you at least see any of the films you mentioned in the 3-D format? If not, again what's the point of posting a comment? Without at least seeing the 3-D within these films, your comments cannot be taken seriously.

  299. tbaio

    Unbelievable.  Dude, why are you commenting on a 3-D forum when you do not have 3-D??  Did you at least see any of the films you mentioned in the 3-D format? If not, again what's the point of posting a comment?  Without at least seeing the 3-D within these films, your comments cannot be taken seriously. 

      

    I have seen all the films I commented on in the theater in 3D. I enjoy good 3D but I enjoy good movies more. I was commenting on the fact that in my opinion, Megamind was inferior to films that were being rated above it, once again, IMHO. I have not considered this thread to be evaluating the movies only on their 3D content. Perhaps I'm wrong…Ron?If Ron confirms the list is a combination rating of both the overall movie and the 3D, than that would just confirm we have different opinions on the relative merits of these movies. Even if I had not seen MM in 3D, my opinion of that movie and DM and Coraline are such that no amount of 3D would make MM better than the other 2. I'm reminded of when color TV was first introduced. A common comment was that no amount of color would make a bad show good and I believe the same of 3D.

  300. I have seen all the films I commented on in the theater in 3D. I enjoy good 3D but I enjoy good movies more. I was commenting on the fact that in my opinion, Megamind was inferior to films that were being rated above it, once again, IMHO. I have not considered this thread to be evaluating the movies only on their 3D content. Perhaps I'm wrong…Ron?

    Johnny, the ratings are based on overall 3D enjoyment the title brings.

    The film itself is secondary.

    However, looking at the way I have organized these films, you are correct, they are not in order by rating.
    That's a huge mistake on my part. When I rate these titles, I am not judging it by the rating I gave to
    another. So, when it comes to listing these titles in specific order, it isn't done by overall rating I have
    given to them it should not be that way.

    I have to sit down and reorganize that list at some point. I'll try to do it sooner than later.

    I recently got around to watching Piranha 3D and while the film is goofy, I thought it was pretty great. I don't think I would like it watching in 2D but there were plenty of cool effects.

    That's part of the appeal of 3D for me, Joshua. Many films that
    would have played badly in 2D actually are far more fun to watch
    when enhanced with 3D effects.

  301. Ronald Epstein

    Johnny, the ratings are based on overall 3D enjoyment the title brings.
     
    The film itself is secondary.

    Ok, I'm glad I asked. The more i think of it, the more I like the rating weighting the 3D primarily. When I am looking for some movies with 3D pazaaz, this thread will be a good guide.

  302. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-14-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3876414
    I watched Conan last night in 3D. I thought it was pretty good overall.

    I thought the movie was silly, but it moved well due to all the action scenes. The post-converted 3-D however, left alot to be desired. I only remember a scene when some projectile stars are thrown to show any good 3-D impact. A shame because with the amount of weaponry thrown throughout the running time, some truly good wow 3-D moments were wasted. Oh, well.

  303. Ron,

    have you viewed The Final Destination (Final Destination 4) blu ray yet? It is very strong in the 3-D dept. & could easily make your Top Must Own list. I can't wait for the Final Destination 5 disc to come out. If it successfully transfers its theatrical quality to disc, its going to be the best 3-D blu ray out there. I hope Shark Night 3-D can do the same as well. We'll just have to wait & see.

  304. Ron,

    I'm so glad to see that you removed Piranha 3-D from the list. Now if you could do the same for the Toy Story series…… Although I am a huge fan of the franchise, they were not shot in native 3-D; which means they were post-converted. I respect your reviews, but I hate post-converted movies even more. It seems several Disney movies as of late are enjoying a second life being re-released in 3-D. This just burns my ass. Another website (which I will not name) has a reviewer who historically bashed 3-D as a cheap gimmick that was created by greedy film producers to squeeze more dollars out of movie-goers (which I agree is a function of post-converted movies). Yet, this same reviewer gave a great review & recommendation for the 3-D re-release of both Beauty and the Beast & The Lion King. Unbelievable as these movies prove his earlier rants about 3-D correct; these movies are a result of greed. Either the 3-D job done on these movies is outstanding (I'll never know as I will not watch them on principal), the reviewer is a self-contradicting idiot (a strong possibility) or the studio paid him a substantial amount of $ for the reviews (I hope this was the case). What would be great is if other 3-D releases are given a chance over the converted-to-3-D discs…. like Toy Story. Movies like: The Final Destination, Monster House & Wild Ocean. Was The Ultimate Wave Tahiti ever on the "Top List?" If so, I think it as well as the other films mentioned should be put on the list in place of any post-converted discs no matter how good the conversions are. But, that's just me. Keep up the good work.

  305. tbaio

    Saying that just because it was post-converted it's not worth doing is a pretty bold statement. You should watch Lion King it is one of the best 3-D post or otherwise. I have a ton of the 3-D movies and just because it was filmed in 3-D it can still be a crappy 3-D movie. Captain America was not filmed in 3-D but it was filmed with 3-D in mind so it makes for a great 3-D movie. Everyone can have there opinion but broad statements esp when you don't even watch movie get me going.

  306. You are the first person to describe the 3-D version of Captain America as "a great 3-D movie." Everyone else (until your comment) unlucky enough to see it felt ripped off by the lack of any 3-D pop whatsoever. I have seen enough post-converted movies to be a fair judge of their 3-D quality & here is a fair assessment: they are terrible. Now maybe the work done on the Disney films is better than most conversions, but so what? As mentioned in my last post, they are a result of big screen studio greed…nothing else. I am perfectly content with seeing these films as they were originally intended to be seen, which is in their 2-D format. I look at these conversions as unnecessary revisionist crap in the same manner as the films which were colorized in the past or the regurgitation of such films as Star Wars & E.T. All of these mentioned examples represent a total disregard of the original creators' vision. No offense to those who enjoy them; I just choose to count myself out of buying into this re-tread.

  307. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3879915
    Amazon is selling the 3D Lion King for 22.99 which to me is a good enough deal for me to buy it and watch it on my new plasma.

    Crawdaddy

    Mega Mind, which has outstanding 3-D (due to it being shot in native 3-D) is about the same price with the holidays coming. I recommend that title even higher.

  308. Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3879919
    Mega Mind, which has outstanding 3-D (due to it being shot in native 3-D) is about the same price with the holidays coming. I recommend that title even higher.

    The same price where? I haven't seen it that cheap, but no offense, I'll make my own purchasing decisions since I doubt you even viewed the 3-D Lion KIng because of your noted objections.

  309. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3879922
    The same price where? I haven't seen it that cheap, but I'll make my own purchasing decisions since I doubt you even viewed the 3-D Lion KIng because of your noted objections.

    Well said, Robert. You seem to have ignored my statement about seeing a multitude of converted movies; you only noticed that I did not see the mentioned Disney films. I'll now put the ball in your court. You feel I did not make a fair assessment…… fine. You must have access to 3-D discs being a moderator for this site. So, I'd like for you to compare the 3-D version of The Lion King with Mega Mind. Let me honestly know which one's quality was better. Based on what I've seen, no post conversion is able to match the quality of a film natively shot in 3-D. Its like upconverting a standard DVD; it will never be the same quality as HD. Let me know what you come up with.

  310. tbaio

    I have seen enough post-converted movies to be a fair judge of their 3-D quality & here is a fair assessment: they are terrible.  Now maybe the work done on the Disney films is better than most conversions, but so what? 

    I agree its ideal for a movie to be natively shot in 3D, but don't agree that it's impossible to do a good post conversion. It may be true that a good post-conversion is the exception, not the rule. If memory serves, the final Harry Potter movie was post-converted and I enjoyed the 3D in the theater very much.

  311. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3880279
    I agree its ideal for a movie to be natively shot in 3D, but don't agree that it's impossible to do a good post conversion. It may be true that a good post-conversion is the exception, not the rule. If memory serves, the final Harry Potter movie was post-converted and I enjoyed the 3D in the theater very much.

    I'll take your word for it about the final Harry Potter film; you say the quality of the 3-D was good, then that's the way it was; fine. Even though this point is not possible to prove, I am confident that if the film was natively shot in 3-D, you would have had a much better viewing experience. But it wasn't. The film makers chose the lazy way to go. With new justification for movie goers to now purchase a more expensive ticket (despite the fact that the series already made a ton of money), they also chose the way of greed. But, if you enjoyed it, then no harm done…….I guess.

  312. Actually I read an article about the fact the 3-D cameras don't shoot fast enough.

    "Captain America was not shot in 3D. It’s a 3D post-conversion. That’s not ideal, but it’s also not always a recipe for disaster. Post-conversion can work if the movie is shot in 2D with the conversion in mind. Director Joe Johnston chose to shoot in 2D on purpose and, knowing that it would eventually be converted to 3D, planned his movie with that in mind. He chose to shoot in 2D because it let him shoot faster action sequences than 3D cameras will, and it pays off in the final film. He had plenty of time to work on it too, months and months of time were spent converting the film and it shows in every single frame of the movie. So yes, this is a post-conversion, but a post-conversion planned well in advance with a lot of thought and effort put into it. This isn’t some slap-dash, last-minute 3D cash-grab. This was a movie created with 3D in mind."

    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/To-3D-Or-Not-To-3D-Choose-The-Right-Captain-America-Ticket-25796.html
    I'll take your word for it about the final Harry Potter film; you say the quality of the 3-D was good, then that's the way it was; fine. Even though this point is not possible to prove, I am confident that if the film was natively shot in 3-D, you would have had a much better viewing experience. But it wasn't. The film makers chose the lazy way to go. With new justification for movie goers to now purchase a more expensive ticket (despite the fact that the series already made a ton of money), they also chose the way of greed. But, if you enjoyed it, then no harm done…….I guess.

  313. Thomas,

    I sincerely hope that with all the jabs you are taking at
    the way I rank the 3D films I have watched, that you have
    actually taken the time to watch them yourself.

    Have you watched any of the Disney 3D Blu-ray releases
    that include The Lion King, Beauty and The Beast or the
    Toy Story series?

    Yes, they are all upconverted (with the exception of Toy
    Story 3), but I dare you to find one review on the Internet
    that is not praising all these releases for how great they
    look within their new dimensionality.

    Yes, there are movies that are badly unconverted to 3D.
    However, don't put a generalized label on everything that
    is upconverted because the process has come a long way.
    At least the folks at Disney are doing quality work with
    their upconversions using new techniques that render
    incredible results.

    Do tell me you have watched these films on Blu-ray that
    you are criticizing. For if you have truly watched them,
    I am very curious to know if you still feel that they come
    off as "as unnecessary revisionist crap."

    I think you stand in the minority if you hold that opinion.

  314. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3880471
    Actually I read an article about the fact the 3-D cameras don't shoot fast enough.

    "Captain America was not shot in 3D. It’s a 3D post-conversion. That’s not ideal, but it’s also not always a recipe for disaster. Post-conversion can work if the movie is shot in 2D with the conversion in mind. Director Joe Johnston chose to shoot in 2D on purpose and, knowing that it would eventually be converted to 3D, planned his movie with that in mind. He chose to shoot in 2D because it let him shoot faster action sequences than 3D cameras will, and it pays off in the final film. He had plenty of time to work on it too, months and months of time were spent converting the film and it shows in every single frame of the movie. So yes, this is a post-conversion, but a post-conversion planned well in advance with a lot of thought and effort put into it. This isn’t some slap-dash, last-minute 3D cash-grab. This was a movie created with 3D in mind."

    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/To-3D-Or-Not-To-3D-Choose-The-Right-Captain-America-Ticket-25796.html

    Thanks for forwarding this. I commend you for the effort you took to share this. I still believe that if this movie was shot in native 3-D, the viewing experience would have been better. If you dug the 3-D, then great. As for me, I'm sticking to only watching 3-D movies which were meant to be 3-D movies & additionally, shot in actual 3-D.

  315. tbaio

    Thanks for forwarding this.  I commend you for the effort you took to share this.  I still believe that if this movie was shot in native 3-D, the viewing experience would have been better.  If you dug the 3-D, then great.  As for me, I'm sticking to only watching 3-D movies which were meant to be 3-D movies & additionally, shot in actual 3-D. 

    So if a movie was released next week and was universally praised for it's post-converted 3D, received kudos from critic and audiences alike for being one of the best 3D movies ever, you still would not see it? I can understand the idea that native 3D is preferred (although the Captain American article gives a good reason for post-converting), but to have this rigid rule that you won't watch any post-converted movies is silly. When push comes to shove, I'm going to care more about what they put up on the screen, as opposed to how they got it there.

  316. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Thomas,

    I sincerely hope that with all the jabs you are taking at

    the way I rank the 3D films I have watched, that you have

    actually taken the time to watch them yourself.

    Have you watched any of the Disney 3D Blu-ray releases

    that include The Lion King, Beauty and The Beast or the

    Toy Story series?

    Yes, they are all upconverted (with the exception of Toy

    Story 3), but I dare you to find one review on the Internet

    that is not praising all these releases for how great they

    look within their new dimensionality.

    Yes, there are movies that are badly unconverted to 3D.

    However, don't put a generalized label on everything that

    is upconverted because the process has come a long way.

    At least the folks at Disney are doing quality work with

    their upconversions using new techniques that render

    incredible results.

    Do tell me you have watched these films on Blu-ray that

    you are criticizing. For if you have truly watched them,

    I am very curious to know if you still feel that they come

    off as "as unnecessary revisionist crap."

    I think you stand in the minority if you hold that opinion.

    Ron,

    good to hear from you again. First off, I'm not making any jabs at: you, the reviews or the way you rank your list, buddy; not my style. Now to answer your question: no, I have not seen the Disney films mentioned. Nor do I intend to; not a chance in hell. The same way I will not watch the colorized films Ted Turner dipped his fingers in, or the revisionist versions of Star Wars & E.T. (I heard the guns were replaced by walki-talkies….WTF??). I also not be watching the Star Wars trilogy when it is released in 3-D; no way. As mentioned earlier, these examples as well as the new 3-D Disney films are a total lack of respect to the vision of the original film-makers (in the case of Star Wars, let's face it: George Lucas will do anything to squeeze more income from those films; he's the exception here). They are also a way for greedy film studio executives to make more money; please tell me you agree with that.

    I respect your points about how far converting to 3-D has come, but I'm sticking to my point: no post-converted movie will look as good as a film natively shot in 3-D……period. Post-conversion can add depth & separation, but not dimension. Native 3-D on the other hand, allows for depth, separation & dimension; which makes native 3-D the preferred process to go with (at least for me). There are no "wow moments" in post conversion & not necessarily because the film was not meant to have them. More likely because "wow moments" can't be done in post which is a huge disadvantage of the process. 3-D continues to get bad word of mouth. Why do you think that is? I deeply feel its because of the bad quality of the 3-D which continues to come from the monstrous amount of post-converted movies. Here's another point I can't prove, but if movies were shot in native 3-D from the beginning of this current 3-D revival, I truly feel the opinion of 3-D would be more positive overall. Do you agree?

    Ordinarily, I'd love to take you up on your challenge of sorts to watch the Disney movies & give my opinion of their quality. But as I said earlier, I've seen enough post converted movies with regret; to the point where I've put my foot down & have said "enough is enough." The only 3-D movies I watch from now are those natively shot in 3-D.

    Good to chat with you again, Ron.

  317. Johnny Angell

    When push comes to shove, I'm going to care more about what they put up on the screen, as opposed to how they got it there.

    I see both points of view but I most agree with the above. It was discussed briefly in another thread but a handful of people (myself included) who had seen the 3-D trailer for the re-release of Titanic said that the 3-D looks very good. That's not to say that a trailer is the same thing as seeing the whole movie but, to me, it looked better than most movies I've seen that were actually shot in 3-D. I also acknowledge that Titanic is likely the exception to the rule because I saw the trailer for The Phantom Menace and the 3-D wasn't anything to write home about.

  318. I agree, Johnny. It is silly. If one were to express that to James Cameron who has overseen the lengthy conversion process for the upcoming rerelease of Titanic, I believe you would laughed (if not booted) out of the room.

    My wife and I went to the theater to see The Lion King 3D release and had a wonderful time. Some may call these 3D conversions of older movies a money grab, but if people don't pay to watch them (and indeed gripe about how bad they look) that would put a quick end to that practice. It seems to me that the 3D conversion of movies like The Lion King and Titanic are ways to see films in a different way and I welcome it. If I recall correctly, The Lion King was also rereleased in theaters in 2D also for those that simply wanted to rewatch the film without the 3D premium.

    I did not see Clash of the Titans in 3D in the theater because reports were not kind on how that conversion looked, but the Harry Potter Film (7.2) I did because the 3D was praised. Its about what's onscreen and how good it looks, not how it got there!

    Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3880752
    So if a movie was released next week and was universally praised for it's post-converted 3D, received kudos from critic and audiences alike for being one of the best 3D movies ever, you still would not see it? I can understand the idea that native 3D is preferred (although the Captain American article gives a good reason for post-converting), but to have this rigid rule that you won't watch any post-converted movies is silly. When push comes to shove, I'm going to care more about what they put up on the screen, as opposed to how they got it there.

  319. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3880752
    So if a movie was released next week and was universally praised for it's post-converted 3D, received kudos from critic and audiences alike for being one of the best 3D movies ever, you still would not see it? I can understand the idea that native 3D is preferred (although the Captain American article gives a good reason for post-converting), but to have this rigid rule that you won't watch any post-converted movies is silly. When push comes to shove, I'm going to care more about what they put up on the screen, as opposed to how they got it there.

    "Universally praised for its post-converted 3-D" means utterly nothing to me. If indeed the movie was only shot & only available in post-conversion, then that limits the choices I have; doesn't it? In this imaginary case, I would indeed have to see it in the version is was presented as (if I chose to see it in the theaters, that is). Or, wait for it to come out as a rental. I too place the quality of the movie itself above all else. But, since this is a 3-D forum, I was speaking of 3-D quality only; not about the quality of the story, acting, etc.

  320. Originally Posted by Neil Middlemiss /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/360#post_3880756
    I agree, Johnny. It is silly. If one were to express that to James Cameron who has overseen the lengthy conversion process for the upcoming rerelease of Titanic, I believe you would laughed (if not booted) out of the room.

    My wife and I went to the theater to see The Lion King 3D release and had a wonderful time. Some may call these 3D conversions of older movies a money grab, but if people don't pay to watch them (and indeed gripe about how bad they look) that would put a quick end to that practice. It seems to me that the 3D conversion of movies like The Lion King and Titanic are ways to see films in a different way and I welcome it. If I recall correctly, The Lion King was also rereleased in theaters in 2D also for those that simply wanted to rewatch the film without the 3D premium.

    I did not see Clash of the Titans in 3D in the theater because reports were not kind on how that conversion looked, but the Harry Potter Film (7.2) I did because the 3D was praised. Its about what's onscreen and how good it looks, not how it got there!

    Titanic is being re-released in 3-D? That's another one I won't be seeing! Guys, if you want to continue to support fake 3-D (post-conversion), be my guest.

  321. tbaio

    "Universally praised for its post-converted 3-D" means utterly nothing to me.  If indeed the movie was only shot & only available in post-conversion, then that limits the choices I have; doesn't it? In this imaginary case, I would indeed have to see it in the version is was presented as (if I chose to see it in the theaters, that is).  Or, wait for it to come out as a rental.  I too place the quality of the movie itself above all else.  But, since this is a 3-D forum, I was speaking of 3-D quality only; not about the quality of the story, acting, etc.  

    I was not thinking of whether there would be a choice when the movie is released, but there usually is a choice. I don't think you do place the quality of the movie above all else. A post-converted movie could win best picture, best cinematography, best direction, best art direction and be highly praised for it's 3D. It could be the darling of critics and and audiences alike. And still you would not consider seeing it. You place native or post as your very first criteria above all else.

    tbaio

    Titanic is being re-released in 3-D?  That's another one I won't be seeing! Guys, if you want to continue to support fake 3-D (post-conversion), be my guest. 

    This movie is being converted to 3D by the same director that produced Avatar, the number one movie in the list of 15. Avatar has its critics, but rarely for its 3D. Yes, it is native 3D, but my point is Cameron knows 3D, he knows what's needed for it to be effective, and if there's a filmmaker on this planet that knows in in and outs of technology, it's Cameron. But again, without seeing a frame of the film, you've ruled it out.
    From a personal perspective, I can put opinions into three categories. There are opinions I agree with, opinions I disagree with, and opinions I roll my eyes at. Your opinion of is the third kind.

  322. Whether a movie was or wasn't shot in 3-D should be irrelevant to an audience. Watching the finished product should be how people determine if the 3-D was or wasn't good. It's unfortunate that people use the information on the internet to make a determination about a movie without seeing it. I've seen plenty of movies where it's clear that the movie doesn't translate well to 3-D (which is almost as bad as the 3-D movies where they poke things at the screen) but it's not a black and white issue. And in the case of converting Titanic, I'm willing to trust Cameron since he's one of the most knowledgable people about 3-D in the history of the world.

  323. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    You place native or post as your very first criteria above all else.

    This movie is being converted to 3D by the same director that produced Avatar, the number one movie in the list of 15. Avatar has its critics, but rarely for its 3D. Yes, it is native 3D, but my point is Cameron knows 3D, he knows what's needed for it to be effective, and if there's a filmmaker on this planet that knows in in and outs of technology, it's Cameron. But again, without seeing a frame of the film, you've ruled it out.
    From a personal perspective, I can put opinions into three categories. There are opinions I agree with, opinions I disagree with, and opinions I roll my eyes at. Your opinion of is the third kind.

    LOL! Well done! Your first quote, "You place native or post as your very first criteria above all else." Really? I love how you confidently tell me the criteria I choose in order to view a movie. By that thinking, it must mean that I've only seen natively shot 3-D movies if that is indeed my first criteria, correct? Since you know so much about me, tell me: what's my favorite movie? My favorite food? My favorite vacation spot? I'm curious to learn your answers (aka, the correct answers of course) to these questions.

    Not to open up yet another can of worms, but I don't particularly care for Cameron's take on 3-D. To me, Cameron's 3-D offers nothing to the picture. Don't get me wrong, I saw Avatar in 3-D in the theaters & loved it. I thought the colors & FX worked great on their own, even without the 3-D. The standard blu ray disc is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen; again, the 3-D is not necessary. I'll be honest, without the "wow moments," there's nothing which the 3-D format that the movie was shot in that catches my eye. I will not be picking up the 3-D version of the film when, if, it becomes available for wide sale.

    As for Titanic, again the film was great as it was originally shown; no need for 3-D…especially the fake kind. As for what you feel of my opinion, thanks for sharing.

    Everyone seems to be unhappy that I choose to not watch post-converted movies. Let me ask all of you: have you seen the following 3-D films either in the theater or on 3-D disc:

    The Final Destination, Final Destination 5, Shark Night 3-D, Fright Night 3-D, My Bloody Valentine, Yogie Bear, Step Up 3-D, Resident Evil Afterlife, Open Season, Monsters vs. Aliens, Mega Mind ? If so, what did you think of the quality of these natively-shot 3-D movies? Do you think the 3-D in these films/discs is inferior to that of The Lion King? Before answering, please keep in mind that I'm only speaking of the 3-D quality, not your opinion of the movie itself. I look forward to your answers.

  324. TravisR

    I've seen plenty of movies where it's clear that the movie doesn't translate well to 3-D (which is almost as bad as the 3-D movies where they poke things at the screen)

    If you were referring to me not choosing to see a post-converted movie due to what I've read on the internet, let me tell you that you are incorrect. I choose not to watch any more post-converted movies because I've seen enough of them which were terrible; so I'm through with them.

    As for the your second statement I quoted, I did not want to get into this, but now that the cat's out of the bag…………..
    3-D without the "wow moments" (3-D movies where they poke things at the screen) is like porn without the "money shot." What's the point of it without that added & standout gimmick??

  325. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880813
    I just finished the viewing of Lion King in 3D on my new display. It was simply beautiful and now I'm hooked for good. Thanks Ron, for your recommendation. My next title will be IMAX Under the Sea BRD in 3D.

    Crawdaddy

    Under the Sea 3-D was great. You get the chance to see Mega Mind yet? I'd love to know your thoughts on it compared to The Lion King.

  326. tbaio

    If you were referring to me not choosing to see a post-converted movie due to what I've read on the internet, let me tell you that you are incorrect.  I choose not to watch any more post-converted movies because I've seen enough of them which were terrible; so I'm through with them. 

    It's not like there aren't plenty of bad 3-D movies too (Underworld and Resident Evil Parts 35 to 10,000 or the last Saw movie). And in a broader sense, I've seen plenty of bad movies period but I'm not giving up watching movies due to the bad ones.

    As for the your second statement I quoted, I did not want to get into this, but now that the cat's out of the bag…………..
    3-D without the "wow moments" (3-D movies where they poke things at the screen) is like porn without the "money shot."  What's the point of it without that added & standout gimmick??

    It all depends on the movie and the viewer but I generally don't like or want the gimmicky crap. It's fun on something that's not supposed to be particualrly serious like Jackass 3-D or the last couple Final Destinations or Shark Night but, if the movie is being played as relatively serious, I vastly prefer the way that Avater or Hugo used the 3-D and created depth and had some nice but not cheap show off moments.
    I agree that there's no need to convert 2-D movies (Harry Potter and Captain America were cool without 3-D) but I can't see why there is some law that SOME movies can't benefit from the conversion. Like I said, I'm not particularly impressed by The Phantom Menace trailer (and I'm a huge Star Wars fan) and I didn't even bother seeing The Lion King so I'm not defending the practice in all cases but some movies might make the transition so I don't want to dismiss them all.

  327. I too don't need gimmicks to make good 3-D. I also think that 3-D just adds to the immersion factor to the movie. The key for me Post or Native 3-D is how well is it done. I have seen crappy on both sides. I have watched a ton of 3-D movies and enjoy the experience.

    Here are the 3-D movies I have watched an here are the buckets I would put them into (Bold Native 3-D):

    Excellent
    Avatar (BR3D, Theater), Yogi Bear (BR3D), Step Up 3D (BR3D), Lion King (BR3D), Megamind (Theater), Despicable Me (BR3D),

    Very Good
    Monsters vs. Aliens (Theater), Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Theater), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Theater, BR3D), Tron Legacy (Theater, BR3D), Shrek Forever After (BR3D), Hubble 3D (IMAX), Shrek 1,2,3 (BR3D), Kung Fu Panda 2 (Theater), Cars 2 (Theater, BR3D), Captain America (BR3D), Green Lantern (BR3D), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Theater, IMAX x2, BR3D), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Theater), Legends of Flight (BR3D)

    Good
    Clash of the Titans (Theater), Piranha 3-D (BR3D), Tangled (BR3D), Conan the Barbarian (BR3D), Thor(BR3D)

    Ok
    Spy Kids 3-D (DVD, Theater), Beowulf (Theater), Resident Evil: Afterlife (BR3D), Legend of the Guardians (Theater), The Last Airbender (BR3D), Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (BR3D), Gnomeo & Juliet (BR3D), Drive Angry (BR3D), Priest (BR3D),

    Poor
    The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (DVD), The Green Hornet (BR3D), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (BR3D)

    3-D Data based off this site (http://realorfake3d.com/)

  328. Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880858
    It all depends on the movie and the viewer but I generally don't like or want the gimmicky crap. It's fun on something that's not supposed to be particualrly serious like Jackass 3-D or the last couple Final Destinations or Shark Night but, if the movie is being played as relatively serious, I vastly prefer the way that Avater or Hugo used the 3-D and created depth and had some nice but not cheap show off moments.
    I agree that there's no need to convert 2-D movies (Harry Potter and Captain America were cool without 3-D) but I can't see why there is some law that SOME movies can't benefit from the conversion. Like I said, I'm not particularly impressed by The Phantom Menace trailer (and I'm a huge Star Wars fan) and I didn't even bother seeing The Lion King so I'm not defending the practice in all cases but some movies might make the transition so I don't want to dismiss them all.

    I understand your point about there also being bad natively shot 3-D movies. Of course there are movies where a good story from a post-converted movie is better than that of a movie which was natively shot in 3-D (Example: The Lion King (post-converted) is 100 times better than Step-Up 3-D (shot in native 3-D)). Again, I'm only talking about 3-D quality here. BTW, even though The Lion King is the better movie, I would choose to pop in Step-Up 3-D as my choice to demo the 3-D quality to friends & guests. Why? Because of the "wow moments" where things fly out at the audience. Its just a better visual quality movie…and more fun to watch.

  329. I just finished the viewing of Lion King in 3D on my new display. It was simply beautiful and now I'm hooked for good. Thanks Ron, for your recommendation. My next title will be IMAX Under the Sea BRD in 3D.

    Happy to help, Crawdaddy. So happy to hear you are
    hooked on 3D. Knew you would. It's amazing to hear
    how many people panned the format when it arrived, not
    yet owning it, but once they did — they loved it.

    Under The Sea 3D is generally great. It has the best
    WOW moment of any single 3D title I have seen. It involves
    a cod fish. Sadly, that type of effect has yet to be repeated
    anywhere, which is sort of sad considering this is what one
    would have hoped 3D would provide.

    All the Disney 3D releases look superb. I think Beauty and
    The Beast looks better than The Lion King, but it all comes
    down to which film you like better.

    Megamind and Despicable Me are my two favorite animated
    releases.

    Just happy to hear you are enjoying your new display.

  330. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    I too don't need gimmicks to make good 3-D. I also think that 3-D just adds to the immersion factor to the movie. The key for me Post or Native 3-D is how well is it done. I have seen crappy on both sides. I have watched a ton of 3-D movies and enjoy the experience.

    Here are the 3-D movies I have watched an here are the buckets I would put them into (Bold Native 3-D):

    Excellent

    Avatar (BR3D, Theater), Yogi Bear (BR3D), Step Up 3D (BR3D), Lion King (BR3D), Megamind (Theater), Despicable Me (BR3D),

    Very Good

    Monsters vs. Aliens (Theater), Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Theater), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Theater, BR3D), Tron Legacy (Theater, BR3D), Shrek Forever After (BR3D), Hubble 3D (IMAX), Shrek 1,2,3 (BR3D), Kung Fu Panda 2 (Theater), Cars 2 (Theater, BR3D), Captain America (BR3D), Green Lantern (BR3D), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Theater, IMAX x2), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Theater), Legends of Flight (BR3D)

    Good

    Clash of the Titans (Theater), Piranha 3-D (BR3D), Tangled (BR3D), Conan the Barbarian (BR3D), Thor(BR3D)

    Ok

    Spy Kids 3-D (DVD, Theater), Beowulf (Theater), Resident Evil: Afterlife (BR3D), Legend of the Guardians (Theater), The Last Airbender (BR3D), Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (BR3D), Gnomeo & Juliet (BR3D), Drive Angry (BR3D), Priest (BR3D),

    Poor

    The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (DVD), The Green Hornet (BR3D)

    3-D Data based off this site (http://realorfake3d.com/)

    Dude,

    in looking at your "Good" bucket, you are so easy & forgiving because I thought the 3-D quality of every film you mentioned (w/ the exception of Tangled which I have yet to see) sucked extremely hard. If I ever commit a heinous crime, I want you on the jury for my trial!! I know you state that you don't care for the wow gimmick, but in looking at your "Excellent" bucket, 4 out of 6 of the films you mentioned are loaded with them. Also, 5 out of 6 were indeed shot natively in 3-D; which proves my point about native being of better 3-D quality than post-conversion. Is that a coincidence? I'm thinking no, but I won't jump to conclusions either. Thanks for the link btw.

  331. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880951

    Happy to help, Crawdaddy. So happy to hear you are
    hooked on 3D. Knew you would. It's amazing to hear
    how many people panned the format when it arrived, not
    yet owning it, but once they did — they loved it.

    Under The Sea 3D is generally great. It has the best
    WOW moment of any single 3D title I have seen. It involves
    a cod fish. Sadly, that type of effect has yet to be repeated
    anywhere, which is sort of sad considering this is what one
    would have hoped 3D would provide.

    All the Disney 3D releases look superb. I think Beauty and
    The Beast looks better than The Lion King, but it all comes
    down to which film you like better.

    Megamind and Despicable Me are my two favorite animated
    releases.

    Just happy to hear you are enjoying your new display.

    Ron,

    Actually, Beauty and the Beast is my favorite animated Disney film, but it wasn't on sale like The Lion King. Without a doubt, I'll be getting Beauty in the very near future. Also, do you know how long 3-D releases of How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind remain exlcusive with Best Buy and Samsung? I have 3-D Despicable Me so I'll be viewing that over the Holidays too.

    Crawdaddy

  332. I will admit I'm very "forgiving" as you state. Watching movies is like getting coffee no two people like it the same way. I love 3-D and I'm always looking for more. I do want to add one additional comment. I think it also depends on your display and how good it is. I have watched a couple of these movies on my friends Sony and thought they looked like crap. Then I watched them on mine and was surprised how much better they looked. Same with the theater I have found Tron for example I was very unimpressed in the theater but I enjoyed the heck out of it at home.

    As far as your comment about more that are Native then post converted I would say that there just are not that many post converted to begin with. I did add one more to the poor bucket that I'm glad they never went to the theater with. HP7.1 was a horrible conversion job.

    I would also add if you look at the list that Live action movies are from a percentage lower then Animation / CGI. I think 3-D in general is easier when you are fake to start with.

    Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880955
    Dude,

    in looking at your "Good" bucket, you are so easy & forgiving because I thought the 3-D quality of every film you mentioned (w/ the exception of Tangled which I have yet to see) sucked extremely hard. If I ever commit a heinous crime, I want you on the jury for my trial!! I know you state that you don't care for the wow gimmick, but in looking at your "Excellent" bucket, 4 out of 6 of the films you mentioned are loaded with them. Also, 5 out of 6 were indeed shot natively in 3-D; which proves my point about native being of better 3-D quality than post-conversion. Is that a coincidence? I'm thinking no, but I won't jump to conclusions either. Thanks for the link btw.

  333. tbaio

    LOL!  Well done!  Your first quote, "You place native or post as your very first criteria above all else." Really?  I love how you confidently tell me the criteria I choose in order to view a movie.  By that thinking, it must mean that I've only seen natively shot 3-D movies if that is indeed my first criteria, correct? 

    I claim your first, or least higher criteria than movie quality, is post or native because you've said that. Just look at the following quote. In the hypothetical movie a proposed above, you would not see it, regardless of the quality of the movie.

    tbaio

    If you were referring to me not choosing to see a post-converted movie due to what I've read on the internet, let me tell you that you are incorrect.  I choose not to watch any more post-converted movies because I've seen enough of them which were terrible; so I'm through with them.  

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you're trying to deny one of your highest criteria for movies. You say you put quality above all else and and than you say you won't watch any post-converted movies, period. That places post or native above quality.
    I'll make a confession. Quality is not number one on my list. The number one criteria on my list is "Do I like the movie?"

  334. dmiller68

    I think it also depends on your display and how good it is. I have watched a couple of these movies on my friends Sony and thought they looked like crap. Then I watched them on mine and was surprised how much better they looked. Same with the theater I have found Tron for example I was very unimpressed in the theater but I enjoyed the heck out of it at home. 

    What's your setup, if you don't mind me asking?

  335. Robert Crawford

    I just finished the viewing of Lion King in 3D on my new display.  It was simply beautiful and now I'm hooked for good.  Thanks Ron, for your recommendation.  My next title will be IMAX Under the Sea BRD in 3D.
    Crawdaddy

    I'm looking forward to watching this one. We got the Lion King set when Amazon had a daily deal and I added a new player (Oppo BDP-93) to my system so I wouldn't have to crawl around changing cords. The set is a Christmas gift for the kid so I'll have to wait a little bit longer.

  336. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880975

    As far as your comment about more that are Native then post converted I would say that there just are not that many post converted to begin with.

    I totally 100% disagree with this statement. The fact is, there are too many post-converted movies. Just look at the link you sent to me earlier (http://realorfake3d.com/). You still think the # of post conversions is low??

  337. Native is easly 2-1 over post converted. Of coarse you think there are too many you don't want any. 🙂

    Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881029
    I totally 100% disagree with this statement. The fact is, there are too many post-converted movies. Just look at the link you sent to me earlier (http://realorfake3d.com/). You still think the # of post conversions is low??

  338. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880983
    I claim your first, or least higher criteria than movie quality, is post or native because you've said that. Just look at the following quote. In the hypothetical movie a proposed above, you would not see it, regardless of the quality of the movie.
    Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you're trying to deny one of your highest criteria for movies. You say you put quality above all else and and than you say you won't watch any post-converted movies, period. That places post or native above quality.
    I'll make a confession. Quality is not number one on my list. The number one criteria on my list is "Do I like the movie?"

    It appears you totally misunderstood my posts………..by a long shot. I openly said that I place the quality of the movie (story, acting, etc.) above all else. But since we were talking about 3-D quality, I wanted to stick with the subject of 3-D quality. If the movie is shot only in post, then I have no choice but to see it in post. Example: I saw Captain America in 2-D, not in post. I did this by choice because, as you now know, I hate post converted movies….got it now? I have no reason to deny my highest criteria as you stated. In fact, I've repeated it several times. Got it now?

  339. I've asked this in other threads and have never gotten an answer but what is the difference between a movie that is shot in 3-D and a movie that is shot in 2-D BUT they know from day one that the movie is going to be converted? I can't see how there will be any real discernable difference especially if someone is most interested in the 3-D factor.

  340. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881030
    Native is easly 2-1 over post converted. Of coarse you think there are too many you don't want any. 🙂

    2-to-1 is huge when you look at the total amount of 3-D movies released, correct??

  341. Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881033
    I've asked this in other threads and have never gotten an answer but what is the difference between a movie that is shot in 3-D and a movie that is shot in 2-D BUT they know from day one that the movie is going to be converted? I can't see how there will be any real discernable difference especially if someone is most interested in the 3-D factor.

    Here we go. Post conversion captures depth & separation only. Native 3-D captures depth, separation & dimension (in your face moments). For a hands-on answer to your question: watch Clash of the Titans 3-D (post converted) & Yogie Bear 3-D (real 3-D). I guarantee you'll notice the difference.

  342. tbaio

    Here we go.  Post conversion captures depth & separation only.  Native 3-D captures depth, separation & dimension (in your face moments).  For a hands-on answer to your question:  watch Clash of the Titans 3-D (post converted) & Yogie Bear 3-D (real 3-D).  I guarantee you'll notice the difference. 

    OK but Clash Of The Titans was converted at the last second (presumably Warners looked at Avatar's grosses and thought they'd hop on the 3-D train) and looked like total crap. I'm talking about something where it's shot 2-D and they know from the beginning of production that it will be converted. I believe that Piranha 3-D and Alice In Wonderland were done that way and I couldn't tell much difference between them and many movies shot in 3-D.

  343. Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881038
    OK but Clash Of The Titans was converted at the last second (presumably Warners looked at Avatar's grosses and thought they'd hop on the 3-D train) and looked like total crap. I'm talking about something where it's shot 2-D and they know from the beginning of production that it will be converted. I believe that Piranha 3-D and Alice In Wonderland were done that way and I couldn't tell much difference between them and many movies shot in 3-D.

    Ok. Try this…..compare Piranha 3-D (fake 3-D with real 3-D in mind but still sucks) with Yogie Bear (real 3-D). Let me know what you come up with. BTW, the reason you could not tell a difference between Alice in Wonderland & Piranha 3-D is because both of them were shot using fake 3-D. You compared shit with feces & couldn't tell the difference.

  344. Ronald Epstein

     
     
    Happy to help, Crawdaddy.  So happy to hear you are
    hooked on 3D.  Knew you would.  It's amazing to hear
    how many people panned the format when it arrived, not
    yet owning it, but once they did — they loved it.
     
    Under The Sea 3D is generally great.  It has the best
    WOW moment of any single 3D title I have seen. It involves
    a cod fish.  Sadly, that type of effect has yet to be repeated
    anywhere, which is sort of sad considering this is what one
    would have hoped 3D would provide.
     
    All the Disney 3D releases look superb.  I think Beauty and
    The Beast looks better than The Lion King, but it all comes
    down to which film you like better.  
     
    Megamind and Despicable Me are my two favorite animated
    releases. 
     
    Just happy to hear you are enjoying your new display.  

    When I worked for a retail store, the biggest reaction we would get is the cod fish coming out of the TV screen a foot from your face from Under the Sea.
    I also enjoy 3D movies that have a number of "in-your-face" 3D effects as long as they are not done too much like some of the 1980's films Comin' At Ya or Treasure of The Four Crowns. For the 1980's 3D films, Friday the 13th Part 3 3D and Jaws 3D had cool opening titles that zoomed out of the screen. From the 1970's Flesh for Frankenstein AKA Andy Warhol's Frankenstein also had some cool 3D effects.

  345. tbaio

    Ok. Try this…..compare Piranha 3-D (fake 3-D with real 3-D in mind but still sucks) with Yogie Bear (real 3-D).  Let me know what you come up with.  BTW, the reason you could not tell a difference between Alice in Wonderland & Piranha 3-D is because both of them were shot using fake 3-D.  You compared shit with feces & couldn't tell the difference. 

    I've never seen and probably never will see Yogi Bear. My point is that I've seen some movies that were shot 2-D where they knew it would be converted and they look as good as real 3-D movies like Saw 3D or Tron: Legacy (which didn't go for flash but did have some nice depth).
    I could be wrong but wasn't the latest Transformers shot with both 2-D and 3-D cameras with the 2-D footage eventually being converted? I couldn't tell any difference between the real and fake 3-D in that movie and I doubt anyone else could.

  346. Originally Posted by RolandL /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881062
    When I worked for a retail store, the biggest reaction we would get is the cod fish coming out of the TV screen a foot from your face from Under the Sea.
    I also enjoy 3D movies that have a number of "in-your-face" 3D effects as long as they are not done too much like some of the 1980's films Comin' At Ya or Treasure of The Four Crowns. For the 1980's 3D films, Friday the 13th Part 3 3D and Jaws 3D had cool opening titles that zoomed out of the screen. From the 1970's Flesh for Frankenstein AKA Andy Warhol's Frankenstein also had some cool 3D effects.

    Friday the 13th 3-D is one of my favorite 3-D movies & blu ray discs. The title sequence, a spear projectile, a thrown knife, baseball bat, a yo yo, popcorn, etc. etc were convincingly thrown at the audience. Those were the good days; when you went to a 3-D movie, you expected those in your face shots. Now, if a 3-D movie has those same sequences, hardly anyone appreciates them. You now get the lame complaints such as: "its gimmicky" or "it hurts my eyes!!" Its too bad what the format has been reduced to. Just look at the messages on this post. Mostly everyone prefers fake post-converted 3-D with absolutely no dimension qualities over the effective hard work put into shooting a film in actual 3-D format. Such a shame.

  347. Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881075
    I've never seen and probably never will see Yogi Bear. My point is that I've seen some movies that were shot 2-D where they knew it would be converted and they look as good as real 3-D movies like Saw 3D or Tron: Legacy (which didn't go for flash but did have some nice depth).
    I could be wrong but wasn't the latest Transformers shot with both 2-D and 3-D cameras with the 2-D footage eventually being converted? I couldn't tell any difference between the real and fake 3-D in that movie and I doubt anyone else could.

    Unbelievable. You need to compare actual 3-D with post conversion to answer your question properly. Yogie Bear among other titles such as Final Destination 5 are way different than the post converted movies you mentioned. It sounds like you have your mind set that there is no difference. If that is the case, which I'm sure it is, why did you ask the differences in quality in the first place?

  348. tbaio

    Unbelievable.  You need to compare actual 3-D with post conversion to answer your question properly.  Yogie Bear among other titles such as Final Destination 5 are way different than the post converted movies you mentioned.  It sounds like you have your mind set that there is no difference.  If that is the case, which I'm sure it is, why did you ask the differences in quality in the first place?

    I have compared actual 3-D and 2-D that was shot knowing it would be converted. Looking at movies where they set out to make a spectacle of the 3-D, I don't see much difference between The Final Destination (real 3-D) or Piranha (2-D that was shot knowing it would be converted to 3-D). If, like you say, that the difference between the two is basically that conversions don't look as good when there's things sticking in the camera, I can't say that I'm too concerned about that because those moments usually take me out of the movie and look cheap and goofy to me. That's not to say that it isn't fun in some places (The Final Destination, Piranha, Jackass are all silly but they're fun movies where I don't mind them going for a big 3-D gag) but I'd much rather see a movie like Avatar or Hugo (both real 3-D) where they add depth rather than go for gratuitous 3-D shots.

  349. tbaio

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881075
    I've never seen and probably never will see Yogi Bear. My point is that I've seen some movies that were shot 2-D where they knew it would be converted and they look as good as real 3-D movies like Saw 3D or Tron: Legacy (which didn't go for flash but did have some nice depth).
    I could be wrong but wasn't the latest Transformers shot with both 2-D and 3-D cameras with the 2-D footage eventually being converted? I couldn't tell any difference between the real and fake 3-D in that movie and I doubt anyone else could.

    Unbelievable. You need to compare actual 3-D with post conversion to answer your question properly. Yogie Bear among other titles such as Final Destination 5 are way different than the post converted movies you mentioned. It sounds like you have your mind set that there is no difference. If that is the case, which I'm sure it is, why did you ask the differences in quality in the first place?

    Tbaio – I respectfully request that you watch the tone of your responses.

  350. Originally Posted by Neil Middlemiss /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3881104
    Tbaio – I respectfully request that you watch the tone of your responses.

    Neil,

    you should have seen the tone of one of the responses I made a just a few posts before the one you had a problem with!! LOL. Ok, though. I get it. Maybe my tone is a result of being the minority opinion as of late. Got to give me some credit though, I'm responsible for the recent amount of activity here. It was pretty dead before I got going.

  351. Originally Posted by TravisR /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3881098
    I have compared actual 3-D and 2-D that was shot knowing it would be converted. Looking at movies where they set out to make a spectacle of the 3-D, I don't see much difference between The Final Destination (real 3-D) or Piranha (2-D that was shot knowing it would be converted to 3-D). If, like you say, that the difference between the two is basically that conversions don't look as good when there's things sticking in the camera, I can't say that I'm too concerned about that because those moments usually take me out of the movie and look cheap and goofy to me. That's not to say that it isn't fun in some places (The Final Destination, Piranha, Jackass are all silly but they're fun movies where I don't mind them going for a big 3-D gag) but I'd much rather see a movie like Avatar or Hugo (both real 3-D) where they add depth rather than go for gratuitous 3-D shots.

    Travis,

    as I stated earlier, Post-converted 3-D = Depth & Separation only. Native 3-D = Depth + Separation + Dimension. The standout element (and difference) is the dimension. Post conversion can replicate the depth & separation of native 3-D pretty well to the point where the differences can be negligible. But it cannot replicate the dimension at all. If indeed you don't care for the dimension, then I guess you would be fine with post-conversion as the norm. For me however, 3-D without the dimension is not 3-D.

  352. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/390#post_3880951

    All the Disney 3D releases look superb. I think Beauty and
    The Beast looks better than The Lion King, but it all comes
    down to which film you like better.

    Megamind and Despicable Me are my two favorite animated
    releases.

    Ron,

    If you think Beauty and the Beast looks better than The Lion King, how come it's not in the Top 15 listing?

    Also, I broke down and bought Beauty and the Toy Story Trilogy. Also, purchased Megamind and How to Train Your Dragon from BB.

    Crawdaddy

  353. Beauty and The Beast

    Also, I broke down and bought Beauty and the Toy Story Trilogy. Also, purchased Megamind and How to Train Your Dragon from BB

    Sounds like you have the very best the format has to offer. I think you are
    going to be very impressed with those titles. Do let us know what you think
    of them.

  354. For me, Megamind is the apex of 3D implementation for a CGI title, and the movie is a lot of fun, too. On the Disney side, I think G-Force shows off 3D to best (and most creative) advantage if only the film was more entertaining for adults (kids under 12 should love it).

  355. Matt,

    G-FORCE is a very interesting 3D title.

    It's very unique for the fact that it uses the letterbox bar
    area to exploit its pop-out 3D imagery.

    It would have made my top list of best 3D releases if
    not for the fact that entrainment wise, it does very little
    to please adults.

    I'm kind of interested as to how the 3D in G-FORCE
    played theatrically. There was no letterbox bars on the
    movie theater screen so I'm wondering how the pop-outs
    appeared.

    …and I wholeheartedly agree that MEGAMIND is the
    best 3D in its class. Still the title to beat.

  356. I was fortunate to see "G-Force" theatrically in 3D, and there were indeed black bars on the top and bottom of the theatre screen. At first, I was puzzled, but once the 3D effects started, I smiled at the filmmakers' cleverness at this approach. I'd rather see more of this than padding the recent 3D concert movies with Non-3D (native or converted) behind-the-scenes footage.

  357. James_Garner

    I was fortunate to see "G-Force" theatrically in 3D, and there were indeed black bars on the top and bottom of the theatre screen. At first, I was puzzled, but once the 3D effects started, I smiled at the filmmakers' cleverness at this approach. I'd rather see more of this than padding the recent 3D concert movies with Non-3D (native or converted) behind-the-scenes footage.

    When I went to see G-Force, they totally screwed up the presentation. They turned the house lights off when showing previews for other 3-D films (they usually turn them down but not off). When the movie started, they turned the house lights back on. They also zoomed into the picture and cut off the sides so it was 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1 with no letterboxing.

  358. RolandL

    When I went to see G-Force, they totally screwed up the presentation. They turned the house lights off when showing previews for other 3-D films (they usually turn them down but not off). When the movie started, they turned the house lights back on. They also zoomed into the picture and cut off the sides so it was 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1 with no letterboxing.

    It is a shame to hear that they did that, as the framing material supplied with G-FORCE was pretty clear on the aspect ratio technique.
    http://digitalcinema.disney.com/assets/pdf/BV-G%20Force%20Proj%203-D-PgOnly.pdf

  359. I just watched "Dolphin Tail" in 3D last night. Very well done. I thought the clarity of this 3D presentation was excellent. I will add it helps that it is an excellent movie as well.

    David,

    You know, I shouldn't have liked this film — because it almost
    falls into a worn-out formula — but darnit, it was a highly enjoyable
    film expertly enhanced with 3D.

    One of those rare 3D films that succeeds without all that added
    pop-out gimmickry.

  360. Yeah I was totally ready to dismiss it as well but my daughter loved it so her Grandparents got it for her. I thought it was an amazing story and then the 3D just added to the experience.

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3881992

    David,

    You know, I shouldn't have liked this film — because it almost
    falls into a worn-out formula — but darnit, it was a highly enjoyable
    film expertly enhanced with 3D.

    One of those rare 3D films that succeeds without all that added
    pop-out gimmickry.

  361. With all the conversation regarding post and native 3D movies, I'm wondering if the question isn't moot when it comes to the Toy Story movies. When TS1 was produced, Pixar had in their computers 3D models of each character and probably of much of the backgrounds. Wouldn't the process of converting TS1 to 3D consist of rendering 2 different angles for each frame of film? Something Pixar could "natively" do using their original 3D models.
    It would appear that there would be only two things lacking: 1) the film wouldn't have originally be designed for 3D; and 2) Perhaps there would be objects, particularly backgrounds, for which they wouldn't have 3D models.
    In any case, I would expect the TS movies to quite good in home 3D.

  362. MattH.

    I wouldn't mind seeing what the Brendan Fraser Journey to the Center of the Earth looked like in real 3D. I didn't see it in a theater, and all I have is that awful anaglyph release.

    Hasn't this been announced for a blu-ray 3D release in 2012? I like this movie too, though I consider it a "guilty pleasure." It doesn't really rise to level of say, The Mummy.
    I have watched the anaglyph version and it's hard on the eyes. Considering the shortcomings of anaglyph, some of the 3D really works.
    Ron, thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.

  363. Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3882414
    I'm also wondering what is the best dinosaur 3D title out there? I can't think of a feature film in 3D, it would probably have to be an iMax film.

    LOL. You & dinosaurs again….holy sh*t!!. Then again, this coming out of you isn't much of a surprise. The best 3-D dinosaur film I've yet to see is Dinosaurs Alive. Beware though, if you don't like the dinosaurs coming out at you (which would then surprise me), you may want to avoid this one.

  364. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3882559
    Dinosaurs Alive was not one of my favorite discs.

    In fact, I found it problematic.

    It's not that expensive. Pick it up and judge for yourself.

    As far as the information presented on the subject matter, the viewer learns plenty from both features (Dinosaurs Alive & Giants of Patagonia). I give the slight edge to Dinosaurs Alive due to the 2 special features where the viewer gets a perspective on what it takes to make a 3-D I-max movie & the extra information on dinosaurs found on the "Meet the Creatures" segment. Patagoinia's 1 special feature isn't bad either; you just get more bang for your buck with Dinosaurs Alive having more features. As far as 3-D, I thought they both were pretty good. Both features have their share of ghosting; I didn't find one better or worse than the other. Dinosaurs Alive saved the majority of its creature animation for the conclusion while Patagonia spread it out throughout more of its running time. As advised, judge for yourself.

  365. I just watched The Final Destination 5 3-D blu ray & it was glorious!! This is what 3-D is supposed to be! Natively shot in the format & featuring a good amount of wow moments, this is required viewing to see 3-D done correctly. It's a little darker than how it was presented in the theater & some ghosting was present, but it is still a very strong transfer. This is a rare instance of how 3-D can have a profound effect on the enjoyment of a movie. After seeing this in its intentional 3-D format, you won't want to see it in any other way; you also will want to kiss all those P.O.S. post-converted movies goodbye when you realize they will never match the visual quality of this movie. If movies were shot like this from the beginning of the 3-D revival, the format would have taken off with greater response by now. I hope film makers are able to replicate more of these types of gems; this really puts the post conversion process to shame & if given the chance, can even put it to sleep. I can't stress this enough: this is the disc to see. Speaking of which, is a review for this disc on the way?? Looking so forward to Shark Night 3-D.

  366. I second the motion. Having seen both Blu Rays projected on a 120" screen by the new Panasonic 7000, Final Destination 4 and 5 should certainly be considered for inclusion at or very near the top of the finest use of the 3D format to date. Very little if any ghosting. Incredible depth, and amazing WOW factor "in your face" moments!

  367. As a result of the many great reviews & ticket sales for all the fake 3-D re-releases as of late (Toy Story, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King), now Finding Nemo, another movie originally shot in 2-D with no intention of 3-D in mind, is going to be released to theaters in fake 3-D mode. Post conversion of 2-D to 3-D (fake 3-D), the bane of the 3-D movie industry, is now becoming the norm. This makes the efforts of shooting a movie in actual 3-D seem totally worthless. Why go through the trouble of handling a > 200lb. 3-D camera system for months of painstaking shooting when you could just convert to it 3-D in post? Sure the 3-D quality is 100 times better in real 3-D, but if people are paying to see the fake stuff, why not make a 3-D film the lazy way? Its bad enough the audiences are ignorant to the fact that fake 3-D is void of all the dimension qualities of actual 3-D, but the movie reviewers/critics are just as clueless; for they now have bought into this counterfeit process hook, line & sinker. To all the people who have bought into this regurgitation of good movies converted to 3-D, let me ask you a question: if I traced a portrait from either Rembrandt or Da Vinci using the best paints & oils, framed it & put it in a gallery, would you pay the ticket price to see it? Would you buy it for a greater price than the original work? If this sounds outrageous, don't condemn the idea, because this is exactly what you are doing when you spend your money to see all these post converted 3-D movies. The tickets to see them are more expensive than what they were when originally released (other than inflation) & their blu rays which you purchase are also more expensive. You're buying counterfeit 3-D product. As a result of your purchases, more of these 1/2 ass hack products are on the way to theaters in due time. Keep up the good work.

  368. Thomas,

    I have been sitting by, watching you ride this wave of
    putting down what you feel is "fake 3D" that is ruining
    this industry.

    My first question to you would be (and I probably asked
    this question before), have you actually watched these
    films on the home screen that you are so blatantly panning?

    I have made it very obvious over the past year that I have
    a preference towards 3D films that exploit their capabilities.
    In other words, I do love things that get projected towards
    the audience.

    I have also been very vocal on this forum over the fact
    that most of the films shot in native 3D don't exploit the
    format whatsoever. This has been a major complaint of
    mine. If you are going to shoot a film in 3D, and charge
    a premium for it, then at least give the audience its money's
    worth.

    So, I agree with you up to a point.

    Where I disagree is your complaints over the specific
    Disney titles you mentioned above. Have you actually
    watched them in 3D? I ask this, because I think they
    look absolutely tremendous.

    Post conversion has come a long way since Warner's
    attempt at Clash of the Titans. While it is true that post
    conversion will not provide the audience with projectile
    3D, I am very impressed over how a company like DIsney
    has made their classic animated features seem like new
    again. Really, I was far more immersed in the Toy Story
    films, Lion King and Beauty and The Beast like never before.

    You may have a point that the general public has no idea
    that they are paying for 3D that has been unconverted, but
    I generally think that they will be most satisfied with what
    they see on screen. After all, when Lion King was released
    in 3D last fall, it was the #1 film for at least 2 weeks in a row.
    What does that tell you about the success of 3D and a film
    that is 17 years old and which most people have in their film
    collection?

    I am very disappointed that Hollywood isn't making enough
    3D fare that really packs the WOW factor. However, that
    being said, I really can't slam the efforts of some of the recent
    Disney upconversions when they look pretty dam good.

    Quite frankly, I would love to see Warner upconvert
    The Wizard of Oz. Could you imagine how unbelievable that
    film would look in 3D? Now, If there was only a way to make the
    bubble that becomes Glenda The Good Witch project itself
    outwards towards the audience….

  369. I'm a firm believer that the market of supply and demand will dictate the 3-D market including these 2-D conversions to 3-D. I have no problem with the companies supplying 3-D product, but it is up to the consumers to determine how much of it they are willing to buy of it. If the market doesn't give the industry the results they desire then chances will come to their marketing strategy. It is up to the individual to determine how they spend their monies and none of us needs other people reprimanding us about spending our monies on 2-D material converted to 3-D. Such actions just ticks me off as nobody has to right to tell another individual how to spend their monies on legal products.

    Crawdaddy

  370. Originally Posted by dmiller68 /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3887594

    Well I watch Megamind yesterday in 3D. It is really good but I thought Despicable Me was better done.

    I viewed Megamind in 3-D and it was great. Over the next couple of days, I'll try to watch Despicable Me in 3-D to compare the two. By the way, The Beauty and the Beast 3-D BRD was awesome.

    Crawdaddy

  371. LION KING

    Over the next couple of days, I'll try to watch Despicable Me in 3-D to compare the two

    They are on par with each other. My preference is Megamind, but
    the closing credits of Despicable Me is perhaps one of the most fun
    moments you'll have with your 3D display.

  372. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /img/forum/go_quote.gif

    Thomas,

    My first question to you would be (and I probably asked

    this question before), have you actually watched these

    films on the home screen that you are so blatantly panning?

    I have made it very obvious over the past year that I have

    a preference towards 3D films that exploit their capabilities.

    In other words, I do love things that get projected towards

    the audience.

    I have also been very vocal on this forum over the fact

    that most of the films shot in native 3D don't exploit the

    format whatsoever. This has been a major complaint of

    mine. If you are going to shoot a film in 3D, and charge

    a premium for it, then at least give the audience its money's

    worth.

    So, I agree with you up to a point.

    Where I disagree is your complaints over the specific

    Disney titles you mentioned above. Have you actually

    watched them in 3D? I ask this, because I think they

    look absolutely tremendous.

    Post conversion has come a long way since Warner's

    attempt at Clash of the Titans. While it is true that post

    conversion will not provide the audience with projectile

    3D, I am very impressed over how a company like DIsney

    has made their classic animated features seem like new

    again. Really, I was far more immersed in the Toy Story

    films, Lion King and Beauty and The Beast like never before.

    You may have a point that the general public has no idea

    that they are paying for 3D that has been unconverted, but

    I generally think that they will be most satisfied with what

    they see on screen. After all, when Lion King was released

    in 3D last fall, it was the #1 film for at least 2 weeks in a row.

    What does that tell you about the success of 3D and a film

    that is 17 years old and which most people have in their film

    collection?

    I am very disappointed that Hollywood isn't making enough

    3D fare that really packs the WOW factor. However, that

    being said, I really can't slam the efforts of some of the recent

    Disney upconversions when they look pretty dam good.

    Quite frankly, I would love to see Warner upconvert

    The Wizard of Oz. Could you imagine how unbelievable that

    film would look in 3D? Now, If there was only a way to make the

    bubble that becomes Glenda The Good Witch project itself

    outwards towards the audience….

    Ron,

    you have in fact already asked me if I have watched the Disney movies which I am condemning & I have already answered this question. I see no need in answering it again; that would be a total waste of time. As for The Lion King being # 1 again, that's because its a good movie, period. Do you think if the direct-to-video version of Lilo & Stitch 2 were re-released to the theater in 3-D, it would make a killing at the box office? Most likely not. Why? Because its nowhere near as good as the Disney/Pixar hits. The 3-D makes no difference; in this case, its the movie which drove people to the theaters. Notice how another hit, Finding Nemo, is being re-released….coincidence? You want to see The Wizard of Oz in fake 3-D? Fine; enjoy. Now, can you please give a review for the last 2 Final Destination blu ray discs already?? You say you respect both modes of the 3-D format, but it appears the fake post-converted stuff is being given greater consideration here. This is a 3-D forum & these discs have been in circulation for a while now; where are the reviews? If you are not the one in charge of the reviews for this forum, then can you forward this request to the persons

    who are? I just want people to have the chance to see a positive opinion for the hard work of acutally taking the time to shoot a film in real 3-D instead of the the 1-sided bias of post-conversion which has been occuring as of late. Thanks.

  373. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/420#post_3887610
    Such actions just ticks me off as nobody has to right to tell another individual how to spend their monies on legal products.

    Crawdaddy

    Oh, boy. I gave an opinion of what I feel & an example as theoretical proof of my point; not a direction on how to spend your cash. Its no different than how any other person conducts their point of view during a debate. Please read the post more carefully & you will see that I did not give such instruction on how to spend your money.

  374. Robert Crawford

    I'm a firm believer that the market of supply and demand will dictate the 3-D market including these 2-D conversions to 3-D.  I have no problem with the companies supplying 3-D product, but it is up to the consumers to determine how much of it they are willing to buy of it.

    Not that I have anything to base this on but I wonder if the studios are 'wasting' money on 3-D conversions. Tremondously popular movies like Toy Story, The Lion King, The Phantom Menace, Titanic, Beauty And The Beast, etc. would probably make about as much money in 2-D without spending a few million on a conversion. I'm not saying that it isn't a boost at the box office to some degree but I wonder if it's worth the $10 million cost (I believe that's the quote for the average 2 hour movie) when a popular movie is going to sell tickets no matter what.

  375. Tremondously popular movies like Toy Story, The Lion King, The Phantom Menace, Titanic, Beauty And The Beast, etc. would probably make as much money in 2-D without spending a few million on a conversion.

    Would they? I would argue they wouldn't.

    Much cheaper to just rent or put the DVD you own
    into the player and watch it at home than go to the
    theater.

    I would think many parents would argue that point
    with their kids and win.

    However, where the argument is lost is that these
    films are now in 3D, and many parents still don't have
    that technology in their homes.

    Heck, just look at Crawdaddy and myself. We could
    have been well-suited with our 2D copies of Lion King
    and Beauty and The Beast. But we went for the 3D
    releases and we couldn't be happier. I have no desire
    to see these films in 2D again now that I own the 3D
    version.

    I know many parents at my workplace and they all
    tell me their kids love 3D. They aren't as particular
    about upconversions vs. native as we are.

  376. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887620

    Would they? I would argue they wouldn't.

    Much cheaper to just rent or put the DVD you own
    into the player and watch it at home than go to the
    theater.

    I would think many parents would argue that point
    with their kids and win.

    However, where the argument is lost is that these
    films are now in 3D, and many parents still don't have
    that technology in their homes.

    I know many parents at my workplace and they all
    tell me their kids love 3D. They aren't as particular
    about upconversions vs. native as we are.

    I'll ask again: is it a coincidence that only the blockbuster hits are the ones being re-released??

  377. Ronald Epstein

    Would they?  I would argue they wouldn't.
    Much cheaper to just rent or put the DVD you own
    into the player and watch it at home than go to the
    theater.
    I would think many parents would argue that point
    with their kids and win.
    However, where the argument is lost is that these
    films are now in 3D, and many parents still don't have
    that technology in their homes.

    I can't say that I'm definitely right (I can't even say that I'm probably right) but, to me, it seems like if the studios put the same amount of money into an ad campaign for a 2-D re-release as they do for the release of a 3-D conversion, they're going to get the same basic results and they'll also have not spent millions on the conversion.
    For what it's worth, I don't have any big problem with conversions as long as the movie lends itself to 3-D. I think everyone here has seen movies that don't convert very well so it's not like every movie translates to 3-D.

  378. I think this is a key point my kids don't care if it is post or pre processed 3D. They like 3D movies!

    Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887620
    I know many parents at my workplace and they all
    tell me their kids love 3D. They aren't as particular
    about upconversions vs. native as we are.

  379. David it's the same with my kid. She loves the 3D experience. When The Lion King was re-released in theaters, we saw it in 2D because I wasn't a big fan of 3D or the converting of movies to 3D, but we went to Beauty and the Beast today because we love the movie AND it was in 3D on the big screen. My kid had a great time. I wasn't blown away by it and I do not know if I'll get it on Blu-ray since I already have the 2D version on Blu, but there is no denying she loved the experience.
    I still will not support crappy post-conversions to 3D, but it's silly to lump what Disney has done with the some of the other conversions out there. After seeing the trailer for Finding Nemo in 3D, I can't wait to see it on the big screen. It was impressive.

  380. Ok, so kids don't care about 3-D on the same plain we do. What else is new? Why do you think 4 Superman movies (Christopher Reeve) were made? Because as long as a man with a red cape was flying around, kids wanted to see it. The point being…..kids are easy; so of course they loved the new Disney films. Especially the chance to see them again with "the cool glasses," & in the theater; that's kid heaven. If you leave it up to kids to decide if they had a good time at the theater after seeing the updated version of their favorite cartoons, its a win-win situation guaranteed. However, this is an adult forum. Adults who can see the differences in the quality of 3-D & hopefully give an insightful opinion on they are watching. Not to be cold here, but can we please continue to discuss 3-D from our points of view here? After all, its the adults whose opinions are being discussed & physically written here, not the kids'.

  381. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887681
    I read your post very carefully and your meaning was quite clear to me. With the following bold and condescending comments from you, it certainly seem like you were giving directions to others how not to spend their cash. By the way, I will keep up the good work whether you like it or not.

    At no instance did I instruct you or anyone on how to spend your cash. You interpreted my post incorrectly. Period. Over. Let's move on.

  382. tbaio

    Not to be cold here, but can we please continue to discuss 3-D from our points of view here?  After all, its the adults whose opinions are being discussed & physically written here, not the kids'. 

    Do you even have kids? I have kids, and they definitely have an impact on what gets screened in our home theater. More to the point, having kids plays into my decision-making process about what we see in the theater and at home. Even more to the point, being a parent invariably colors my perspective. I'm not going to filter my comments because you prefer a child-free "adults only" perspective.
    Here's an idea —- stop trying to direct the conversation. And maybe show a bit of respect to the admins while you're at it.

  383. Originally Posted by Craig Beam /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887690
    Do you even have kids? I have kids, and they definitely have an impact on what gets screened in our home theater. More to the point, having kids plays into my decision-making process about what we see in the theater and at home. Even more to the point, being a parent invariably colors my perspective. I'm not going to filter my comments because you prefer a child-free "adults only" perspective.
    Here's an idea —- stop trying to direct the conversation. And maybe show a bit of respect to the admins while you're at it.

    LOL!!! Oh my God! Talk about turning a fire cracker into an atom bomb. Dude, my point was leaving things up to kids is an easy thing to predict. Its a safe bet that kids love wearing the 3-D glasses. As far as discussion about 3-D, getting the opinions from adults is not so predictable & they can offer something of more value than a kid can. I hope you can understand that. I'm not directing the conversation, however, I clearly have given it a jump start. I hope we can discuss/debate here without people getting bent out of shape or misinterpreting each other's opinions…..you know, like responsible adults.

  384. Originally Posted by tbaio /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887686
    At no instance did I instruct you or anyone on how to spend your cash. You interpreted my post incorrectly. Period. Over. Let's move on.

    Watch yourself and consider that a warning.

    Crawdaddy

  385. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887714
    Watch yourself and consider that a warning.

    Crawdaddy

    Or else what? You call the 3-D police on me? Change your name from Crawdaddy to Cry Baby.

  386. Originally Posted by Craig Beam /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887710
    "LOL"? Dude, really?

    Ok. What's your take on 3-D? Have you seen any of the films on this forums Top 15 List? Do you own any of them? Do you have a favorite? Which mode of 3-D do you prefer: traditional wow moment 3-D or the immersion looking-through-a-window efftect? Are you a fan of the recent re-releasing of the Disney/Pixar blockbusters in 3-D? I'm hoping you're a good sport & really looking forward to seeing your opinions on 3-D.

  387. Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/306751/htf-top-15-must-own-3d-titles/450#post_3887714
    Watch yourself and consider that a warning.

    Crawdaddy

    LOL. I like how, at 3:00 am, you yanked my reply to your "warning," so that no one here could see it. Slick. Keep up the good work.

  388. ^ The funniest and, at the same time, saddest part is that if you get banned, you're going to tell yourself that everyone was against you and that you did nothing wrong. The people here are generally cool and are at least willing to listen to opinions that they don't agree with but when you act rude, people are going to respond in kind.

  389. While admittedly he has livened up this thread this young guy, I'm guessing early to mid teens? has been asking for it. He was taunting Robert in the removed post.

    For myself of the few films I saw in 3-D I couldn't tell the difference between converted and real 3-D. Was the Immortals converted? It wasn't great 3-D and when I removed the glasses during the film it was like the sun came out. I was wearing sunglasses in the cinema, thats how it felt. 🙂

  390. Hey guys, Hugo filmed in 3-D is one of the best films of 2011 and my choice for Best Picture is up for preorder at Amazon for 27.99 which is the 3-Disc set. The 2-Disc set is 21.99, but I'm not sure it's in 3-D.

    A great film shot in 3-D by Scorsese and is his usage of 3-D scenes was impeccable in my opinion.

    Crawdaddy

  391. I think Moneyball will win the Golden Globe (with its mega famous star and feel good sports story- plus, it's a very good movie) but Hugo is really good as well. Anyone who hasn't seen Hugo yet should go check it out in 3-D if it's still playing near them.

  392. With respect to the new Disney 3D releases (Lion King and Beauty and the Beast) vs the Pixar ones (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, etc). I thought that I'd read somewhere that for the Pixar ones, they were going back to the original files and "reshooting" the movie as 3D. If that's the case, shouldn't these be categorized as "real" 3D as opposed to "upconverted" 3D?

  393. Johnny Angell

    With all the conversation regarding post and native 3D movies, I'm wondering if the question isn't moot when it comes to the Toy Story movies. When TS1 was produced, Pixar had in their computers 3D models of each character and probably of much of the backgrounds. Wouldn't the process of converting TS1 to 3D consist of rendering 2 different angles for each frame of film? Something Pixar could "natively" do using their original 3D models.
    It would appear that there would be only two things lacking: 1) the film wouldn't have originally be designed for 3D; and 2) Perhaps there would be objects, particularly backgrounds, for which they wouldn't have 3D models.
    In any case, I would expect the TS movies to quite good in home 3D.

    AlexF

    With respect to the new Disney 3D releases (Lion King and Beauty and the Beast) vs the Pixar ones (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, etc). I thought that I'd read somewhere that for the Pixar ones, they were going back to the original files and "reshooting" the movie as 3D. If that's the case, shouldn't these be categorized as "real" 3D as opposed to "upconverted" 3D?

    This is an idea I mentioned earlier in the thread.

  394. Ronald Epstein

    Updated to add HUGO

    Worthy addition. While I haven't seen anywhere near the number of 3D films that you have and haven't been able to few Avatar anywhere other than on a store display, Hugo is the best use of 3D that I have seen.

  395. Ron, I just obtained the R2 3D Blu Ray of "A Turtles Tale". My neice and nephew watched it with me on Mothers Day. The oohs and aahs never stopped throughout the movie! Great "in your face" moments and amazing depth. Hardly any ghosting worth mentioning on my Panny 3000 and 120" screen. This is a film that both kids and adults would enjoy. It's my new 3D demo disc. I wonder why it hasn't been released yet in R1?
    [​IMG]

  396. Ronald Epstein

    Roland,
    I have put my name on the notification list for Sammy's Adventures.
    Hopefully it will be back in stock soon and it won't cost me an arm
    and leg to import.

    I think including shipping it's about $37. Probably one of if not the best 3D out-of -screen effects.

  397. Ronald Epstein

    Roland,
    I have put my name on the notification list for Sammy's Adventures.
    Hopefully it will be back in stock soon and it won't cost me an arm
    and leg to import.

    I just ordered it from dddhouse . $36.39 including shipping to the US.

  398. Ronald Epstein

    Roland,
    Let me know how it works out for you.  Been looking for that
    title but I don't want to buy it blindly from a vendor I know
    little about.

    Will let you know when I get it.

  399. The extended version would tempt me into a repurchase. As it stands, I picked up Avatar off of eBay last year, so I already have the original cut.
    That's a great price on Hugo. It's the second best 3D I've seen, behind Avatar.

  400. The last few weeks I bought Rio, G-Force, Drive Angry, Kung Fu Panda 2, Final Destination, Ice Age, Tintin and Hugo at Best Buy for $14.99 each. I brought in old dvd's that I didn't want and they give you $5 each to buy Blu-ray's $9.99 and up.

  401. Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein /t/306751/htf-top-16-must-own-3d-titles/480#post_3973112
    Updated the list today. Titanic is just amazing in 3D.

    I'll say, Ron! I watched it last night on my new UN60ES8000 and I must say that despite being very familiar with the film, I was mesmerized throughout and totally in awe of the brilliant use of 3D. This is a stunning presentation and if anyone is still ambivalent or on the fence about today's 3D TV technology (like I was a short month and a half ago), spend a few minutes watching Titanic on a good 3D TV and prepare to become a true believer. It's THAT good!

  402. Ron, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to have a list of the movies that used to be on your list, but have since dropped off? They had to be good to make the list.
    Here's hoping that The Creature makes your list. Dial M too.

  403. Picked this up today at Best Buy. There is a $5 coupon to bring the pice down to $24.99. I also bought some bags of M & M's a while back that gave you $9 off a DVD or Blu-ray at various stores including Best Buy. So, that brought it down to $15.99.
    Watched a few scenes today and it does look like it was filmed in 3-D. I was having synch issues with the sound but they went away after a while. I have the same problem with the DVR some times when I'm skipping comercials.

  404. Robert Harris, whose opinions I value, states that "As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single
    good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder."
    I've seen this in 3-D in the cinema several times and have to agree that it's a breathtaking use of the medium, not just because of Hitch's mastery of cinema which transcended the innate clumsiness of the 3-D technique, but because of just how totally luscious Grace Kelly appears when you see her 3-D shape!
    However, even though the obvious gimmickry shows out even in the 2-D version, I would dearly love to see one of my favourite musicals, 'Kiss Me Kate', in its original 3-D incarnation.
    Hopefully, our archive cinema here in Melbourne may one day hold a 3-D retrospective .. I promise to attend every session (as will my wife who is crazy about Howard Keel).
    Also worth viewing again might be the Warhol Factory comedy 'Flesh for Frankenstein' whidh I remember for its very kitsch 3-D effects, but that may have dated terribly.

  405. AnthonyClarke

    Robert Harris, whose opinions I value, states that "As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder."
    I've seen this in 3-D in the cinema several times and have to agree that it's a breathtaking use of the medium, not just because of Hitch's mastery of cinema which transcended the innate clumsiness of the 3-D technique, but because of just how totally luscious Grace Kelly appears when you see her 3-D shape!

    When all the dust settles after Dial M For Murder's release, I think people will think … 'that's it?' I found the use of 3-D in Dial M far from organic at its best and stilted at its worse. Wow, there's a phone in 3D … wow, there's a lamp. I haven't seen that many classic 3D films …. but of the ones I have seen I think Creature From The Black Lagoon is better than DIAL M and GUN FURY is better than either of them.

  406. Robert Harris, whose opinions I value, states that "As someone who saw virtually every 3D film released in the '50s, I'm recalling only a single good use of the technology in the entire group of films. Dial "M" For Murder."

    </