What's new

Pre-Order Spider-Man Homecoming (4k UHD) (3D Blu-ray) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,269
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
91h3O6Z6IbL._SY679_.jpg

The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,269
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
This is Sony...right?
Surprised they are not offering 3D in their 4k combo pack.
 

Jesse Skeen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 1999
Messages
5,027
Well, given they've snubbed Underworld, Resident Evil and The Smurfs in the US, I'm glad they're releasing this in 3D at all. Still have very little interest in 4K as long as it's 2D; I'll buy this just to help the sales figures in 3D's favor.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,153
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
This is Sony...right?
Surprised they are not offering 3D in their 4k combo pack.

Sadly. after releasing some UHD/3D combo packs late last year and early this year, Sony has declined to release any further examples - Passengers was the last one.

I had thought Sony was joining the ever expanding group of studios that was dropping 3D support domestically. Sony released several 3D titles, including the native-shot Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, on disc in 2D-only versions.

Right now it's extremely uncertain if this 3D release of Spider-Man will actually happen domestically or if it's a phantom listing. It's also uncertain what this means about Sony's domestic 3D policy. Are they done with 3D here? Is it now on a case by case basis? For big hits only? It's all very disheartening if you just want to watch movies in whatever format they were originally released as.
 

Alf S

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2000
Messages
3,475
Real Name
Alfer
"It's all very disheartening if you just want to watch movies in whatever format they were originally released as."

I can't recall if it was also you who has said that you will only watch a movie at home/theater as it was intended to be seen (for example 3D).

My question is, if a film that say was made with the highest tech 3D cameras hence the preferred way to watch, then why aren't theaters showing say 16 daily viewings (on multiple screens) of the movie in 3D only and just have just one theater room set up as 2D??
 
Last edited:

DavidMiller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,078
Location
Kirkland, Wa
Real Name
David Miller
Right now it's extremely uncertain if this 3D release of Spider-Man will actually happen domestically or if it's a phantom listing. It's also uncertain what this means about Sony's domestic 3D policy. Are they done with 3D here? Is it now on a case by case basis? For big hits only? It's all very disheartening if you just want to watch movies in whatever format they were originally released as.

Well I saw this in 3D and honestly it was a post conversion that was just ho hum. Not sure even if I was still buying 3D movies that I would buy this one. Maybe you will see a Best Buy UHD/3D version you never know. :)
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,153
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I saw it in 3D and enjoyed the presentation. That is the format I will purchase it in.

Funny how no one is ever "oh it wasn't the most expansive use of surround sound ever, so I'm just gonna listen to it in mono." I don't need the 3D to be crazy for me to enjoy watching something in 3D. It's just about enjoying the movie as it was released.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,918
Location
Albany, NY
Funny how no one is ever "oh it wasn't the most expansive use of surround sound ever, so I'm just gonna listen to it in mono." I don't need the 3D to be crazy for me to enjoy watching something in 3D. It's just about enjoying the movie as it was released.
The difference is that surround sound doesn't require any special equipment to enjoy. If you have a stereo setup or just use the TV speakers, it downmixes transparently. The 3D releases come with a price premium that those of us who don't get anything out of home 3D don't want to pay.

I can see the argument for movies like Dial M for Murder or House of Wax that the 3D is an essential part of the artistic intent.

But for most modern 3D releases, the 3D was artificially created in post-production as a means of selling tickets at a higher price, and there's plenty of 2D screenings even at multiplexes that are 3D-equipped. In those cases, the 2D version is an equally valid original release in my book (and one that I usually enjoy more).
 

Jesse Skeen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 1999
Messages
5,027
You don't really "need" color for a lot of movies either, so why not just watch them in black and white?
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,153
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Understood, but that wasn't really my point.

David suggested the movie wasn't worth seeing in 3D because it wasn't the most expansive use of the format ever. I'm simply saying that we don't hear those kind of qualifications for other formats. People here have invested in extra equipment for Dolby Atmos in the home, for example. You never see anyone in a thread for an Atmos title saying "Since this didn't use Atmos in the most exciting way ever, I'm just going to listen to the regular stereo track instead." That doesn't really happen. If you have an Atmos setup, you're likely listening to all Atmos tracks available regardless of how one compares to the other.

I like 3D. I know I'm in a minority. Watching a movie in 3D is a very different experience to me than watching a movie in 2D, even if the 3D is not the most immersive ever created. Maybe that's just something about how my brain seee and interprets those images, but even "mild" 3D feels wholly different than 2D to me. I keep thinking that there must be something different about how my eyes and brain perceive these images than most people, otherwise I wouldn't be finding myself as the odd man out in so many conversations.

I dislike that the bar for 3D is set at "it either must be a lifechangingly immersive and or aggressive presentation or it's not worth it" when no other technical attribute is held to that standard.

For what it's worth, I agree that everyone on the production and exhibition side has compounded this problem by insisting it's something we should pay more for, instead of just being part of the movie.
 

Jesse Skeen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 1999
Messages
5,027
But for most modern 3D releases, the 3D was artificially created in post-production as a means of selling tickets at a higher price, and there's plenty of 2D screenings even at multiplexes that are 3D-equipped.

Converting movies to 3D just to sell higher-priced tickets is apparently backfiring though, as in many cases fewer people are willing to pay the higher price and go to the plain old 2D showings instead. At this point they need to drop the upcharges altogether; when "Tintin" was out Steven Speilberg commented that he wanted to see that happen. If they charged extra for surround sound then likely people wouldn't pay for that either, and it would be silly to respond by running more shows in mono!
 

DavidMiller

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,078
Location
Kirkland, Wa
Real Name
David Miller
To be clear, I was only saying it was an average 3D depth movie since it was post converted. If you love 3D by all means go see it in 3D. Sorry to upset you Josh. I was merely trying to convey there was no 3D in your face stuff and even the depth seemed flatish at times. Just my thoughts. Sorry again.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,153
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Hi David - no apologies necessary! Always enjoy what you bring to the table.

I really think my brain must process these kinds of images different than the majority of the audience's does. Otherwise, why would I be so drawn into the format and so immersed by its imagery while most people are able to shrug it off without a second thought? Because while I can see that this film doesn't have 3D as involving as say, The Walk, it still drew me into the movie in a way that 2D movies just can't.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,918
Location
Albany, NY
You don't really "need" color for a lot of movies either, so why not just watch them in black and white?
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You don't need special glasses for color, and color doesn't cause the issues with headaches, oculomotor dysfunction, nausea and vertigo that 3D can cause with some people.

David suggested the movie wasn't worth seeing in 3D because it wasn't the most expansive use of the format ever. I'm simply saying that we don't hear those kind of qualifications for other formats.
I think that's down to two factors:
1) The price premium. You don't generally have to pay more for surround sound; either your theater is at Atmos theater or it isn't. Other formats with a price premium like IMAX (which may or may not be in 3D) also trigger the "worth seeing" discussion.
2) The tradeoffs inherent in 3D. The picture tends to be dimmer than 2D. You have to wear glasses to watch it, which -- if you already wear glasses like me -- can be annoying. Some people's brains just don't process the binocular effect, and for other people it causes fairly serious health symptoms like eye strain or vertigo.

I like 3D. I know I'm in a minority. Watching a movie in 3D is a very different experience to me than watching a movie in 2D, even if the 3D is not the most immersive ever created. Maybe that's just something about how my brain seee and interprets those images, but even "mild" 3D feels wholly different than 2D to me. I keep thinking that there must be something different about how my eyes and brain perceive these images than most people, otherwise I wouldn't be finding myself as the odd man out in so many conversations.
And just to be clear -- because tone doesn't always convey well via the written word -- I have no problem with 3D releases, in theaters or on home video. I'm happy they exist for those, like yourself, who enjoy them. I'm just glad that the 2D releases also exist, and I don't see them as less valid than the 3D releases.

I actually tend to buy 3D releases even though I'll only watch the 2D disc, when that's the only way to get the digital copy and the full complement of special features.

To me the 2D and 3D versions are equally valid ways to experience most movies, best left to the individual preferences of the viewer.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,153
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
1) The price premium. You don't generally have to pay more for surround sound; either your theater is at Atmos theater or it isn't. Other formats with a price premium like IMAX (which may or may not be in 3D) also trigger the "worth seeing" discussion.

Yeah, I think the studios and exhibitors 100% shot themselves in the foot on that one. (Although at least where I am, Dolby Atmos is only in so-called "premium" auditoriums that offer the exact same DCP being shown on regular screens. So when you pay a surcharge for Regal to view a movie in their "RPX" auditorium, what that really means is that you're paying $5 for Atmos.) The studios face the same problem today that they have in the past - there are so many high quality entertainment options elsewhere and for less money that you have to do more to get the customer to come back. 3D should have been implemented, but it always should have been at the same price point as 2D. With digital projectors, the amount of effort to run a 3D screening is about the same as a 2D screening - it's not the projectionist's nightmare that 3D from dual 35mm projectors was. The RealD glasses thing is basically a scam - when you see a RealD movie, you are actually purchasing the glasses. The theater tries to make that seem a little vague by encouraging you to "recycle" them, and when you drop them in the bin, the theater sells those back to the RealD company to be cleaned and repackaged. So basically, the theater is profiting off of you twice when you see a 3D movie. First, when they sell you the glasses, and second, when they sell your glasses back to the RealD company. I think the landscape for 3D films would look different if they weren't allowed to charge more. Filmmakers wouldn't be pressured to add 3D when they didn't want to, because there'd be no financial incentive to do so. And audiences would know that the presence of 3D was absolutely an artistic choice and not a cash grab.

2) The tradeoffs inherent in 3D. The picture tends to be dimmer than 2D. You have to wear glasses to watch it, which -- if you already wear glasses like me -- can be annoying. Some people's brains just don't process the binocular effect, and for other people it causes fairly serious health symptoms like eye strain or vertigo.

I also wear glasses -- to me, that was preparation for wearing 3D glasses. I don't mind wearing them because I'm already used to having glasses on all the time anyway. I rarely find people that feel the same way, though. I almost get the objection for people who don't wear glasses normally, but I figured that for people that did, they'd already be used to it and it wouldn't even register as anything new or different; obviously I was wrong.

I'm not sure that I can agree that the 2D and 3D versions of a title are equally valid, but I respect you far too much to argue what's an opinion question. I don't object to the existence of a 2D version, except for when the 2D version (as a larger abstraction) seems to be threatening the existence of the 3D version. At this point, adding 3D functionality to TV sets is an inexpensive manufacturing process. The cost of adding another disc in a package that already is being made is probably fifty cents. There are so many things added in on equipment and software that most people won't use. It seems that when you breakdown 2D vs 3D disc sales, the 3D version sells about ten percent of the total copies. Are all the subtitles on the disc used by more than 10% of the buyers? How about all of the audio tracks, are they used by more than 10% of the buyers? All of the bonus features? Etc., etc. I honestly think studios should have been trying to get to one SKU for years - with physical media declining everywhere, let there be just one package for people who want to buy it on disc, and one download for people who want to buy it digitally. Let the disc package include the UHD/BD/3D/DVD versions (or break the DVD out as a separate release if absolutely necessary), and let the streaming version include all the streaming options. It turns out when you make people pay for features or titles a la carte, most are happy to just give Netflix $8 a month and just live with what's on there. So don't make it about "this version is $1 more than that version" - make it about having a physical copy, not about there being bunches of physical versions. But that ship has long sailed. The studios saw an opportunity to get a quick extra buck out of 3D, and killed the golden goose along the way.

Anyway, thank you Adam and David for the good conversation, and everyone lurking for indulging me in this back and forth, and sorry for sidetracking the thread ;)
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,918
Location
Albany, NY
I also wear glasses -- to me, that was preparation for wearing 3D glasses. I don't mind wearing them because I'm already used to having glasses on all the time anyway. I rarely find people that feel the same way, though. I almost get the objection for people who don't wear glasses normally, but I figured that for people that did, they'd already be used to it and it wouldn't even register as anything new or different; obviously I was wrong.
For me, it's the "glasses on glasses" effect. I can't see the movie well enough to enjoy it without my regular glasses, so I'm wearing the 3D glasses on top of my prescription glasses. If 3D had really taken off to the point where it'd be worth having prescription 3D glasses, that'd probably be a whole 'nother story.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,493
Messages
5,114,131
Members
144,102
Latest member
eathree
Recent bookmarks
0
Top