Jump to content

Best 3D movie or implementation of 3D in a movie.


Recommended Posts

I did a search couldnt find a previous thread thread ( surprised) 

 

what is the best 3D movie , you’ve seen? 

 

or perhaps a better question - what’s the best implementation of 3D in a movie you seen? 

 

Ive always liked Avatar has it seemed the 3D was used to complement the movie ( the “ floating jelly fish scene”) whereas other movies seem to use it more as a gimmick ( spears or dinosaurs ? in your face ) 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I was 17 at the time and managed to get into a Friday the 13th In A Hoyts Cinema.  Can’t remember which version but Definately not the original.  With the 3D glasses I can remember saying to myself WTF is the 3D version all about, and it wasn’t until a scene where they  filmed a kid from below tossing a yo-yo where it was going straight to the camera lens......  all I remember was I ducked!    Didn’t even think about it!  And from that moment.... alright!  This is cool!    There’s also a scene where someone throws a spear and it comes 3inches from between your eye balls....wow!  

All the 3D they have now on Blu-ray.....   nothing compared to this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I can remember the local paper including 3D glasses because Jaws 3D was playing that week on telly.

 

So yeah, that was a while ago.

 

:D

 

I don't actually have that many, if any, (sorry lyrics in my head) 3D movies.  But Dredd 3D isn't too bad.  Okay,  so I'm a Judge Dredd fan, but it was implemented okay I reckon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kukynas said:

Avatar then 20 light years nothing and then the rest, I think active 3D tech (also used in Avatar) has advantage in immersion vs passive we see in majority cases after it and these days

Your terminology isn't familiar to me. What do you mean by "active 3D tech"?  I have heard of active and passive 3D glasses, but I don't think you're referring to the type of glasses used to view the movie.

 

I note that for real life scenes, the 3D for Avatar was done with separate cameras for the Left and Right views. For the animated parts of Avatar, the 3D was computer generated as Left and Right views.  On the webpage Is it Real or Fake 3D?, Avatar is listed as "real". 

 

Conversely, for some movies the 3D is created from 2D footage, after shooting is complete. Titanic (1997) was converted to 3D for its re-release in 2012.  Such movies are listed on the Is it Real or Fake site as "fake". [In my opinion, this was a very well done post-production conversion, and the result is well worth watching.]

 

Generally, I don't find simulated 3D as immersive as 3D actually shot with a stereoscopic camera rig.  I find this particularly so for close ups.

 

Simulation technology continues to evolve. The quality of the 3D in Alice in Wonderland (2010) was somewhat lacking with conversion artefacts quite noticeable at times (e.g. the cardboard cut-out effect for objects at various distances); but, at the time, post-production 3D was necessarily a very labour-intensive task, with relatively unsophisticated computer assistance.

 

These days post-production 3D is usually free of obvious conversion artefacts, and many directors seem to prefer it over the inconvenience of using stereoscopic cameras while shooting. A quality-conscious director would want there to be be a quality assurance expert or panel in place to review all of the draft simulated 3D footage, and to send back for further conversion work any scenes that were arguably "competent" but, as a 3D viewing experience, "lacking". 

 

A really good post-production 3D conversion requires sophisticated computer software, skilled personnel, sufficient time, sufficient budget, and -- very importantly - dedication to producing a quality result.

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Your terminology isn't familiar to me. What do you mean by "active 3D tech"?  I have heard of active and passive 3D glasses, but I don't think you're referring to the type of glasses used to view the movie.

 

I note that for real life scenes, the 3D for Avatar was done with separate cameras for the Left and Right views. For the animated parts of Avatar, the 3D was computer generated as Left and Right views.  On the webpage Is it Real or Fake 3D?, Avatar is listed as "real". .

Yes, I meant active 3D glasses, but it’s not only about glasses, production is also made differently for active vs passive glasses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, kukynas said:

Yes, I meant active 3D glasses, but it’s not only about glasses, production is also made differently for active vs passive glasses

I still don't understand what you're getting at.

 

Avatar was filmed at 24 frames per second, with each frame having a Left view and a Right view. It was shown in public cinemas at 24 frames per second. Most public cinemas provided patrons with passive 3D glasses. Some cinemas used a different projection technology and provided patrons with active 3D glasses.  For the cinema patron, the picture would look much the same with either type of glasses.

 

You can watch Avatar with a 3D Blu-ray player on either a TV set that uses passive glasses 3D or a TV set that uses active glasses 3D. 

 

In short, Avatar was not filmed or produced specifically for viewing with active 3D glasses.

 

 

Improvement in vertical resolution for passive 3D TV screens

 

Passive 3D TV sets use a film-type patterned retarder layer that causes the odd numbered lines to have one polarization and the even numbered lines an opposite polarization. With Full HD screens (1920x1080 pixels) you could get only 540 pixels of vertical resolution for 3D. Some people didn't like seeing faint black lines when they got close to the screen.

 

This ceased to be an issue with 4K passive TV sets, which provide 1080 pixels of vertical resolution in 3D mode.  (3D Blu-ray discs come with a maximum resolution of 1920x1080 pixels so a screen vertical resolution of 1080 pixels is sufficient.)

 

You can watch Avatar on a 4K 3D TV set and enjoy the same visible resolution with active glasses as with passive glasses.

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Some cinemas used a different projection technology and provided patrons with active 3D glasses.  For the cinema patron, the picture would look much the same with either type of glasses.

sorry, you right, it's about projection not production technology, but I always liked active more than passive, not sure why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/02/2019 at 10:54 PM, cafe67 said:

Ive always liked Avatar has it seemed the 3D was used to complement the movie ( the “ floating jelly fish scene”) whereas other movies seem to use it more as a gimmick ( spears or dinosaurs ? in your face )

Avatar (2009) did set a high bar. Early in the movie the scene of the administration centre with its transparent 3D monitors on desks impressed me a lot.  Later in the movie the scenes of Na'vi flying on the backs of the Ikran (mountain banshees) were exhilarating to watch.
 

There have been so many movies with very pleasing 3D. I would count Hugo (2011) among them. The 3D was never intrusive, just natural looking and a delight to watch.

 

The opening scenes of wildlife in Life of Pi (2012) impressed me a lot.  David Attenborough's Galapagos 3D nature documentaries (2013) were amazing, in giving us the ability to see creatures in 3D that we would probably never have the opportunity to see with our own eyes in real life.

 

In more recent years, there has been a trend towards post-production 3D, and many of the movies I have seen have failed to thrill me, because for my eyes the 3D has lacked detailed 3D relief in closeups. An example of that is Star Trek Beyond (2016). Reviews of the 3D for that movie were favourable, but I was not all that impressed myself. I think the stereography of many post-production 3D movies has not been done with passion, enthusiasm, and a desire to set high standards. Rather it has been done to a budget, applying computer algorithms that were sufficient to deliver a 3D effect, but not sufficient to present a rich 3D tapestry for people like me, who love their 3D.


There has also been a strong trend to use 3D only for action or sci-fi genres. However these types of movies such as Thor, or Captain America, are not everyone's cup of tea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not matter how many wonderful 3D effects Avatar has, it cannot hide the fact it's one of the worst movies ever made.

  Script is a bad copy of Pocahontas and acting so so wooden.

 

  I prefer the 3d special effects of Friday the 13th vs anything in Avatar.

 

The 3D in Mad Max fury road was pretty good.

Edited by metal beat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



32 minutes ago, metal beat said:

Does not matter how many wonderful 3D effects Avatar has, it cannot hide the fact it's one of the worst movies ever made.

  Script is a bad copy of Pocahontas and acting so so wooden.

Some of the acting can certainly be criticized. (For example, I found Sam Worthington's attempt at an American accent when playing Jake Sully not all that convincing.)

However the 3D effects, with the skilled guidance of director James Cameron,  were spectacular. The success of these effects in this one film, launched the modern era of 3D. Cameron is the father of the modern 3D movie.

 

I might also mention that the post-production conversion of Titanic (1997) under Cameron's guidance, released in 2012, set a very high standard for post production 3D. I found the 3D relief in Kate Winslet's face in close-ups uncanny. It was like watching genuine 3D shot with a stereoscopic camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi MLXXX, I was under the impression that there are no 4K 3D tvs available. I also love 3D. I have a Panasonic 65 in plasma 3D tv. Late last year I bought a 75 in Panasonic LED 3D tv as a backup in case the plasma died. I have over 100 3D blu ray discs and would hate it if I coudnt watch them .Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Some of the acting can certainly be criticized. (For example, I found Sam Worthington's attempt at an American accent when playing Jake Sully not all that convincing.)

However the 3D effects, with the skilled guidance of director James Cameron,  were spectacular. The success of these effects in this one film, launched the modern era of 3D. Cameron is the father of the modern 3D movie.

 

I might also mention that the post-production conversion of Titanic (1997) under Cameron's guidance, released in 2012, set a very high standard for post production 3D. I found the 3D relief in Kate Winslet's face in close-ups uncanny. It was like watching genuine 3D shot with a stereoscopic camera.

Also Her Big Hat when She is about to board Titanic and the first time engines pistons start firing......3D was very well done....In fact 3D on the T2 Judgement day is also good.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, metal beat said:

Does not matter how many wonderful 3D effects Avatar has, it cannot hide the fact it's one of the worst movies ever made.

  Script is a bad copy of Pocahontas and acting so so wooden.

 

  I prefer the 3d special effects of Friday the 13th vs anything in Avatar.

 

The 3D in Mad Max fury road was pretty good.

You go hand your man card in right now ?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gillmaverick said:

Also Her Big Hat when She is about to board Titanic and the first time engines pistons start firing......3D was very well done....In fact 3D on the T2 Judgement day is also good.....

Your mentioning of the engine pistons reminds me how very impressive I found that in the Titanic 3D conversion.

(I had looked forward to the T2 Judgment Day 3D conversion with great anticipation, it being one of my favourite movies. However it didn't impress me as much as the Titanic conversion. And I was disappointed at the decision to use the shorter theatrical cut version for the steel works confrontation at the end of the movie.) 

 

2 hours ago, bones28643 said:

Hi MLXXX, I was under the impression that there are no 4K 3D tvs available. I also love 3D. I have a Panasonic 65 in plasma 3D tv. Late last year I bought a 75 in Panasonic LED 3D tv as a backup in case the plasma died. I have over 100 3D blu ray discs and would hate it if I coudnt watch them .Cheers.

Yes it is very unfortunate that the manufacturers no longer provide 3D as an option for consumer 4K TVs. I have a 2015 model Sony 4K LCD TV that uses passive 3D technology. However its crosstalk performance is poor.

 

These days I use a projector (a BenQ W2000) for serious watching of  3D. There is quite a range of 3D home projectors available.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yeah, I use a projector now too. A Sony 4k one. It is so good for watching 3d, 115" screen.

 

I've been watching so many since I jot it finished a year ago, and have been adding Atmos to a lot of them that had it skipped.

 

It is hard to pick a fav. It is hard separate the 3D movie I've enjoyed the most vs the 3D presentation. A really nice natural looking, and sounding one was Blade Runner 2049, although a lot people seem to complain it is "weak". Maybe, but it is natural looking. I loved The Walk, Gravity. 

 

Avatar I've been meaning to watch on it, but I'm not that big a fan of the movie, so keep watching other movies over it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've got well over 100 3D titles and still buy them when available, although the vast majority now days are conversions, rather than shot as 3D from the start using separate cameras.

 

Avatar is still pretty much the benchmark 3D title, I'd say Ridley Scott's ALIEN prequel Prometheus would be a close second.

'Passengers' was pretty good in 3D.

 

Most of the Animation 3D titles are pretty good, the 'How to Save your Dragon' 'Despicable ME / Minions' series etc being among the best.

 

Things aren't so clear cut with other post shooting 3D conversions of none animated material, 'The Green Lantern' is a very good 3D conversion, where's the later made 'Dr Strange' is one of the worst.

'Fantastic Beasts and where to find them' is one of the better new 3D movies, I bought the sequel yesterday and have yet to watch it, but I suspect it will be the same quality.

 

A lot of the Marvel movies can vary in quality, it depends on just how much bright highlights are in a dark scene at the same time, that usually makes any crosstalk far more visible [ghosting around subjects], also scenes where there is a large depth of field and a lot going on in the background can cause the same thing [It's what made Dr Strange so bad]

 

As for the Star Wars movies that have 3D versions, well Rouge One, The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi are all pretty good, where SOLO isn't [It even looks bad in 2D, very muted colours and a dull overall look to the movie]

 

There are few 3D Bluray titles coming out over March/ April, the Fantastic Beasts sequel came out yesterday, you have 'Mortal Engines' out on the 20th March, How to Train Your Dragon- The hidden world on 10th April and Aquaman on the 20th April, there is a 3D version of the last 'Grinch' movie out in this time frame as well.

It seems 3D movies are getting harder to find as well, some movies that have been 3D at the cinema are not making it as 3D Bluray titles, at least not in all regions, Ralph Breaks the Internet being one example, it's being released as a 3D title in the UK but not here.

Same thing happened with Valerian and the city of a thousand planets, I ended up having to import that 3D version, thankfully it was a good conversion, so worth the effort.

Edited by Tweaky
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bris007 said:

Journey to the Centre of the Earth has amazing depth and pop out effects.

Yes, definitely! I watched that movie and the sequel on Saturday, actually, in a marathon. On my projector. Just awesome, particularly the 3d in #1. Fun movies. I wish they made the third one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2019 at 12:12 AM, MLXXX said:

Your mentioning of the engine pistons reminds me how very impressive I found that in the Titanic 3D conversion.

(I had looked forward to the T2 Judgment Day 3D conversion with great anticipation, it being one of my favourite movies. However it didn't impress me as much as the Titanic conversion. And I was disappointed at the decision to use the shorter theatrical cut version for the steel works confrontation at the end of the movie.) 

 

Yes it is very unfortunate that the manufacturers no longer provide 3D as an option for consumer 4K TVs. I have a 2015 model Sony 4K LCD TV that uses passive 3D technology. However its crosstalk performance is poor.

 

These days I use a projector (a BenQ W2000) for serious watching of  3D. There is quite a range of 3D home projectors available.

I was lucky, I seemed to be in the market in Nov 2017 for a new 4K TV just as the last of the Panasonic EX780a range were selling, which are not only UHD 4K but 3D capable.

I had been putting the money aside for a JVC PJ to replace my aging Sony PJ, but I got such a good deal on the 65" Panasonic I would have been mad to not take it....I got a Panasonic 4K disc player thrown in as well. :)

The sales person thought I was mad when I said a 3D capable TV was a high priority for me, especially when I told him my budget, he tried to get me to buy the top of the range OLED.......as I do a LOT of gaming, OLED was out of the question anyway due to burn-in issues with static images, besides, I have my own calibration equipment and managed to get the Panasonic looking 95% as good as the $7K OLED he was trying to sell me.

 

I will admit, the Bigger the screen the better with 3D, and ultimately a PJ will be the best for 3D, but a 65" TV isn't that far behind if sitting the correct distance from it, it's certainly a brighter picture than a PJ, especially if you have a light controlled room already like I do.

If you have a 3D capable screen with a fast enough refresh rate, you should try gaming in 3D , it can crap on VR, and you don't get the motion sickness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • 3 weeks later...

One of several 3D Blurays I bought while JB had a 20% off sale a month or so ago .

Spiderman Homecoming 3D..........I thought this would be a nothing movie, as in, just another by numbers, comic-book movie.

WRONG.....This Spiderman movie is actually GOOD.....Not only that, the 3D version I would have to rank in the top 10 best 3D movies to own......it really is that good, and it's really worth getting the 3D version if you can

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2019 at 12:34 AM, Tweaky said:

Spiderman Homecoming 3D..........I thought this would be a nothing movie, as in, just another by numbers, comic-book movie.

WRONG.....This Spiderman movie is actually GOOD.....Not only that, the 3D version I would have to rank in the top 10 best 3D movies to own

I'd agree the 3D is well done, particularly considering it like many other recent 3D movies was produced using a computerised post conversion process rather than stereo camera live footage. (The source 2D live footage was shot in 2016 and 2017.) One could expect that the extensive CGI would have been rendered using two virtual cameras.

 

I found the 3D strength in Spider-man: Homecoming a little exaggerated at times, but not excessively so, and this caters for the people who prefer their 3D to err on the side of being strong. I thought the faces of the actors were well done in 3D (unlike some other post-converted movies).

Not everyone would find the plot, focusing as it does on the lives of teenage children, and in particular the 15 year-old Spider-man, riveting. I myself found the pace of the movie too slow.  However it's a feel-good movie; with a strong ending (some interesting plot twists).

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For a very good 3D version, I can recommend Aquaman.

JB had it on sale a day early, so I bought it and have just finished watching it.

Hardly any ghosting even in the busiest of scenes, and the 3D effect is well done without going overboard.

 

As for the movie itself, well it's a Warner Bros DC comic movie, which means it's overly long, has pointless and repeated fights against the same enemies, a plot with holes like Swiss cheese, continuity errors a plenty, and every cliche you would have ever seen over multiple movies all bundled into this one.

In other words, ideal for the 10 - 18 year audience over the Easter Holidays.

Expect a sequel soon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tweaky said:

For a very good 3D version, I can recommend Aquaman.

JB had it on sale a day early, so I bought it and have just finished watching it.

Hardly any ghosting even in the busiest of scenes, and the 3D effect is well done without going overboard.

 

As for the movie itself, well it's a Warner Bros DC comic movie, which means it's overly long, has pointless and repeated fights against the same enemies, a plot with holes like Swiss cheese, continuity errors a plenty, and every cliche you would have ever seen over multiple movies all bundled into this one.

In other words, ideal for the 10 - 18 year audience over the Easter Holidays.

Expect a sequel soon.

Agreed with the above ,,brain salad movie, but I liked that it didn't take itself to seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top