sbjork

Agent
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
38
Real Name
Stephen
20201007_182540.jpg


Received my Shout F13 set yesterday. Looking forward to taking the 3D version of Part III for a spin. That's one of the few of the Eighties 3D wave that I never caught in the format theatrically. The 2D version has always made it clear that while there are too many cheap pop out effects, it still looks like there are also some nice compositions in depth. It will be fun to see how well they work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TravisR

Artanis

Grip
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
18
Location
Boise, ID
Real Name
Curt
Gee: Is it me? "Cheap pop out effects", is what make 3D so much fun. This whole attitude that 3D should be about nothing but depth and art is one of the reasons (IMHO) why 3D folded, again. My 3D friends feel the same way. Course we grew up with some classics. My #1 consideration when purchasing 3D discs is negative parallax. Not depth. I think Disneyland understood this as well. Captain EO wasn't so successful because of depth. It was in your face.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,783
Location
The basement of the FBI building
View attachment 79839

Received my Shout F13 set yesterday. Looking forward to taking the 3D version of Part III for a spin. That's one of the few of the Eighties 3D wave that I never caught in the format theatrically. The 2D version has always made it clear that while there are too many cheap pop out effects, it still looks like there are also some nice compositions in depth. It will be fun to see how well they work.
I saw it in 3-D a few years ago and the effects in 3-D make the movie work better. That being said, I won't argue that part of the fun of seeing the movie in 2-D for so many years was the bad effects.
 

sbjork

Agent
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
38
Real Name
Stephen
Gee: Is it me? "Cheap pop out effects", is what make 3D so much fun. This whole attitude that 3D should be about nothing but depth and art is one of the reasons (IMHO) why 3D folded, again. My 3D friends feel the same way. Course we grew up with some classics. My #1 consideration when purchasing 3D discs is negative parallax. Not depth. I think Disneyland understood this as well. Captain EO wasn't so successful because of depth. It was in your face.
There are some mighty big strawmen in there. Don't recall saying anything about "art," which would be a strange word to apply to Friday the 13th: Part III anyway. I used the word "cheap" purposefully -- like anything else in the world, pop out effects can be done well or done poorly. Even in the 2D version of Part III, you can see how awkwardly some of them are staged. And an excess of poorly done in-your-face effects is one reason that has been attributed to the failure of 3D in the Eighties -- people get tired of that. A classic 3D movie like House of Wax gets the balance right by having both depth and having in-your-face effects, but it carefully paces those throughout the film. A movie like Jaws 3D overdid the pop outs, and did many of them poorly (your eyes cross trying to follow some of them.)

The best pop out effects are the ones that you do not see coming. Many of the ones in Part III are awkwardly staged because they telegraph what they are going to do. They could have put more effort into setting those effects up and making it look natural. Instead, it throws off the pacing.

And if you completely disregard depth, you are losing more than half the fun of a good 3D movie. I mentioned A*P*E upstream in this thread -- everything about that movie is cheap, and yet the depth that many shots achieve will make you smile because they look so cool.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,228
Gee: Is it me? "Cheap pop out effects", is what make 3D so much fun. This whole attitude that 3D should be about nothing but depth and art is one of the reasons (IMHO) why 3D folded, again.
When did 3D "fold" in the current era? In the US, 3D BD is essentially dead, but studios still release 3D movies theatrically.

Sure, the format isn't where it was at its modern peak, but to claim it "folded" is an exaggeration...
 

Artanis

Grip
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
18
Location
Boise, ID
Real Name
Curt
I only quoted your words there, Colin. The reference to depth and art is with regard to the countless other 3D blu-ray disc site reviewers that perpetually poo-pooed the pop-out as gimmickry, but heralded 3D when only considering artistic imagery, and depth. I call them, 3D snobs. The 3D buzz killers. Takers of the fun out of 3D. Don't get me wrong. As sbjork was talking about the balance between pop and stunning depth, I appreciate that. But how many 3D movies out there were made that had near zero negative parallax? 75% maybe? 80? More?

I've been disenchanted with so many purchases for the lack of pop-out, that now to me, depth is gimmicky.
 
Last edited:

TJPC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
3,932
Location
Hamilton Ontario
Real Name
Terry Carroll
My disappointment with 3D occurred when it became so hard to experience. You had to run right away in the first 3 weeks to see the movie in that format and often that has become the only chance to see the 3D version, because there was no Blu-ray (Last “Mission Impossible”, or “Bumble Bee”).

I was looking at my Sci Fi/Super Hero section of my shelves today and noticed all the “12”s from the British rating system that so many have. I’ve either had to wait weeks for a 3D import from Blighty, or order from Germany and get the cover in English from the internet. My “Valerian” 3D cost two arms and 6 legs and came from Hong Kong!
 

sbjork

Agent
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
38
Real Name
Stephen
My “Valerian” 3D cost two arms and 6 legs and came from Hong Kong!
That's part of the rub in the 4K era, though -- I love 3D, but 4K with HDR can be spectacular, and you can't have both at the same time. Valerian looks amazing on UHD, even coming from a 2K DI, mostly due to the HDR and the wide colour gamut. The colours are absolutely gorgeous on that film. I haven't seen the 3D version of it, but it would be a hard choice to make between the two.

I have held up Pacific Rim for years as one of the finest 3D Blu-rays out there and always used it as a demo for friends, but I finally got around to watching the UHD for it that has been sitting on my shelf and it is absolutely dazzling -- some of the most "in-your-face" HDR that you will find on the format, and it looks awesome. I put the 3D version back in for comparison, and I am afraid that I will probably stick with the UHD for future viewings. The HDR beats the 3D by a narrow margin, and it is now going to be my go-to demo.

In a perfect world having both is ideal, of course, but knowing that the UHDs can edge out the 3D versions would make me hesitant to spend too much money on an import when I may not watch it that much compared to the other. I wish they combo packed them all together, but those days are mostly over (Ang Lee's movies excepted.)

Mind you, I spent an arm and a leg ordering that Friday the 13th set just so that I could have the Blu-ray 3D for the third movie, so I am not exactly known for spending money wisely!
 

sbjork

Agent
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
38
Real Name
Stephen
Has anyone watched the 3D Friday the 13th Part 3 from the new set?
I plan to today. Tim Salmons at The Digital Bits just reviewed it and he said that overall it was good, with some of the effects not working as well as others. But I know that he just added a 3D capable display for the review, so he has not had a chance to use it very much prior to that watching that disc. On the other hand, I have watched tons on my projector, so I should be able to make a good comparison of how it looks relative to other 3D discs.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,228
I only quoted your words there, Colin. The reference to depth and art is with regard to the countless other 3D blu-ray disc site reviewers that perpetually poo-pooed the pop-out as gimmickry, but heralded 3D when only considering artistic imagery, and depth. I call them, 3D snobs. The 3D buzz killers. Takers of the fun out of 3D. Don't get me wrong. As sbjork was talking about the balance between pop and stunning depth, I appreciate that. But how many 3D movies out there were made that had near zero negative parallax? 75% maybe? 80? More?

I've been disenchanted with so many purchases for the lack of pop-out, that now to me, depth is gimmicky.
A) I'm not the one who used the phrase "cheap pop-out effects" in this current discussion.

B) My comments related to your claim that 3D had "folded" in the modern era.
 

sbjork

Agent
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
38
Real Name
Stephen
Shout/Paramount did a very good job with the disc. The image is clean, and while it is still understandably soft due to the over/under ArriVision 3D, thanks to the new scan it looks sharper than it ever has before on any previous 2D version (we won't talk about the anaglyph version.) There is just a moment or two which may have registration issues, like the opening push in on Edna & Harold's cabin -- but that shot has always looked a little off even in 2D, so I am not sure about the cause. Outside of that, though, things generally look as good as they can, and definitely better than any other home video version.

As far as the film's use of 3D, it is surprisingly good. A lot of compositions and camera movements which appeared strange in 2D make more sense in 3D. Steve Miner & cinematographer Gerald Feil actually do pretty impressive work staging things in depth and moving the camera to emphasize the layers. The gimmick effects are a mixed bag, with some working well and others not working at all. Examples of the latter would be the snake striking and the popcorn popping -- they move too quickly to give any feeling of dimension. I think that the 'scope aspect ratio is also a bit of a handicap with those kinds of 3D effects as it is such a narrow frame that it is easy to have the object coming out of the screen cross the edge and collapse the effect. An example of that would be when Harold puts the end of the laundry pole into the camera at the beginning -- the effect works great until he dips it off the edge. On the other hand, when the film's Harbinger holds the severed eye into the lens, he stays perfectly in frame and the eyeball just hangs in space right in front of you. So the shots with objects that stay in frame and avoid fast motion are really good, while the ones which don't are a bit more problematic.

So overall it is a great disc, with mostly effective 3D and just a few moments which don't really work. I think that the entire set is well worth the money, but YMMV.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,185
Messages
4,733,306
Members
141,401
Latest member
Ab1979