Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Todd Erwin, Mar 18, 2014.
What is the aspect ratio for the IMAX 3D presentation, is the film being compromised. ?
When I saw it, it was the same as the non-IMAX presentation, 2.40.1.
For our preferred local theater, it is the exact opposite. No 2D showings for Captain America after 6pm unless you want 11:55pm. Very difficult to see a 2D showing of a new movie and rarely at a convenient time.
I just upgraded to 3D and have been very happy with it so far, though disappointed that more of the classic 3D movies haven't been released in the format. As for FROZEN, it's available from amazon.uk. I pre-ordered it for a pretty good price and got it last week. As for the high sales of the new THOR in 3D, that may be because they under-stocked the regular Blu-ray. When I went to buy it (before my 3D upgrade), the only combo pack they had in stock was the 3D version, so it unintentionally became my first 3D title (not counting the unwatchable anaglyphic 3D versions of the two Stooges shorts in the Columbia DVD set).
And it's at 5:15, so if youu get off work at 5:00 you are not going to make it. So if you are a day working person at this theater you only have one choice to see CATWS in RealD 3D....8:00 PM. This kind of programing has really hurt 3D in my opinion. It really feels to me that the exhibitors want 3D to fail.......to much work to hit the 3D switch on the projector.
I think it really depends on where you're at, or maybe even if the studio has put pressure into there being more of one format or another. There are some titles in NYC where it's a majority of 3D screens and only a couple 2D showings, and others where's a majority 2D, and only a few 3D. Rarely does it seem to be anything close to 50/50.
It's not an ideal situation, that's for sure.
My local theatre does 3D showings in the evenings. Matinees are strictly 2D. The next nearest theatre had Winter Soldier plaing in 3D on 2 screens and 2D on one. It really sounds like whether or not you get to see 3D is region-dependent.
Here we go again my local theater showing little support for 3D. Notice the convient showning times. And at the boxoffice you are verbally warned, "you know this showing is in 3D are you sure you want to go?"
I'll trade with you. X-men Days of Future Past was shown 7 times in 3D to 1 time in 2D on opening weekend. Now it is 4 times 3D and 1 time 2D (at 3 in the afternoon). Maleficient is 3 and 3.
If anything I think 3D TVs arrived too soon. It just wasn't ready for prime time. To get full 1080p resolution on 1080p TVs you have to use active and most 3D content is aimed at kids and young adults, so the expensive glasses are not ideal. Also active glasses dims the picture and are harder on the eyes.
With 4kTVs you can get full 1080p passive 3D, with little or no dimming, less ghosting, and cheap and more comfortable glasses. The 3D on my set looks so amazing that it would have taken off a lot better in the home had it been introduced as such. All passive and all 1080p.
3D is not going to go away however, with 8K sets I hear that you can get such depth that you won't need glasses and glasses-free 3D will definitely reinvigorate the format.
I am yet to be convinced that glasses free 3D will work, i don't believe you can have the pop out that current active shutter glasses technology gives you, minor pop out is almost the same as no pop out and depth only is just 2 and a half D, what's killing off 3D is needless conversions, there are films which should only be seen in 2D, not enough great 3D, the half hearted approach to 3D by most filmmakers is the problem, entertain your audience, utilize 3D by using depth and popout and the viewers will return.
Seeing what looks to be a close to 50/50 split for "X-Men: Days Of Future Past" in NYC.
A film in which the director said he shot for 2D, because of the time it took him to make Jack The Giant Slayer in 3D, they didn't compose for 3D on X-Men, this in my opinion is what is killing 3D, people are watching these half assed conversions and thinking this is how 3D at it's best looks, they are wrong, 3D at it's best is so much better than that.
I think manufacturers added 3D too soon, many 3D sets still have way too much crosstalk. If they worked on eliminating that problem first people would get more enjoyment out of watching 3D at home.
I think Wayne really has a point as the first wave of 3D sets had, in my opinion, way to much crosstalk. Although the DLP sets were great and had no crosstalk they did not have a bright enough picture compared to LED sets. I feel that regardless of the advertising, the plasma set always had to much crosstalk but it was not as glaring because the picture was so dim when the glasses are on. The sets have all come a long way but crosstalk is still annoying and at this point I assume the TV manufactures are not spending any more time in researching it's elimination as they see 4K as the TV savior.
As for glasses free 3D sets, if they can get rid of the small sweetspots your head has to be in it might work but so far my experience has been they are to finicky. If you have ever used a NEO3DO tablet you know how tricky it is to find the right viewing angle and then not move your head in the slightest. I hope they can improve on the light barriers to make this happen but I'm not optimistic. Please prove me wrong.
I'm not convinced either, it's just wishful thinking on my part basically.
You did single out active shutter glasses regarding pop out effect, compared to what glasses-free potential is. I've never tried active glasses (except at Best Buy a long time ago for a few minutes), do you believe the "pop out" effect (or just 3D effect in general) is better with active than it is with passive?
With projectors you can only use active shutter, with televisions i think passive has half vertical ( or is it horizontal i forget ) resolution and dark scan type lines can be visible, if 4K gives you the full 1080p and the scan lines are gone then that's the future as far as TV goes for 3D and it would be a massive improvement, more brightness for 3D in the home and cinema is needed.
I don't know if active shutter is better than passive for 3D popout or vice versa, interesting question, i'd love to know the answer.
I agree with previous posters concerned about crosstalk, my Samsung E6500 plasma has very little but it is there, my DLP projector has no visible crosstalk and it's far more impressive because of that, manufacturers need to think carefully about their glasses and tints they add to the image, i was able to calibrate mine so that the 3D image is as good as the 2D but that's because i own an i1D3 meter and software, most owners cannot get rid of the tint completely, oh and torch mode for 3D...no thanks.
I think you need glasses to get that impressive very close to your face type of 3D effect that i enjoy.
"Glasses free 3D"People still waiting for these? If we want quality 3D, we need glasses. I have no faith for the glasses free 3D.
It doesn't make any difference in the amount of popout that is viewed if you are using active or passive glasses. It's all about how the images were filmed/converted and how you have the depth setting selected on your monitor/projector.
The real question is the amount of depth/popout you can get from a glasses-free display. Many are saying it is very limited although I have seen some pretty good popout on occasion. Also, I've seen some nice popout on large lenticular posters and would expect that a glasses-free display could do the same since they both work on a light barrier principal to direct seperate images to each eye. If each image is distinct and truly seperate I don't see why it should not look as good as 3D with glasses.
My torture test for glasses free 3D would be A Turtles Tale, if it fails the popout test with that one then it's a no go for me.