Jump to content

cafe67

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

Recommended Posts

Gravity, most definitely! Especially if you have a projector!!!

 

Mad Max is one I slightly prefer the UHD just for color intensity. I alternate between the too

 

Heart of the Sea is great also. Feels lifelike. Awesome movie too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, elementary said:

Recommendations are subjective and I find it difficult to divorce 3D effects from the plot if I am not enthusiastic about the movie. Additionally, I have a LG 65e6p and I think it is the best 3D TV possible. No 3D movies are in 4K because it would exceed the current 18 GBPS data limit.

 

1. I urge you to reconsider Gravity.
2. Mad Max: Fury Road. Some prefer the UltraHD version but I disagree.
3. Life of Pi
4. Try Fantastic Beasts a re-imagining of the Potter series.
5. If you like the comic book movies I suggest Spider-man Homecoming but this is not my favorite genre. Perhaps you would be happier with Dr. Strange or Guardians of the Galaxy or Pacific Rim, etc
6. If you would like to see classic literature in 3D, I suggest Gatsby because it immersed me in the Roaring 20's or Heart of the Sea which takes you into the back story of Moby Dick.

Gravity was OK, but I wouldn't consider it a one of the better 3D titles, same with the Life Of Pi, they both suffer a bit of Ghosting in certain scenes.

3 D versions of Mad Max Fury Road and Pacific Rim I'd call the same 3D rating wise, a bit better than the titles above, but not in the top league IMHO .

3D versions of Fantastic Beasts and where to find them, both Guardians of the Galaxy movies and Spiderman Homecoming are IMHO up among the top tier of 3D titles, very little Ghosting

Same can be said for Aquaman, it's right up there as well, it's probably because the 3D effect is quite subtle in these titles.

I haven't seen Heart of The Sea, so can't comment on that one.

As for 3D versions of The Great Gatsby and especially Dr Strange, well I found them both among the worst 3D wise in my 100+ 3D movie titles, ghastly Ghosting on both of them.

 

Top Tier 3D titles that I haven't seen mentioned would be : 'Passengers' , 'The Shape of Water', 'Green Lantern'

Very Good 3D, but not quite as good as above that I also haven't seen mentioned would be: 'Valerian and the city of a thousand planets' [you'll need to import it, 3D version has never been released in Aus] and both MARVEL 'THOR' movies.

Slightly below those would be most of the other MARVEL movies [Except Dr Strange], especially the latter ones, 'Rouge One', 'The Last Jedi', 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'....forget 'SOLO' it's really disappointing in 3D, looks bad in 2D as well, some serious colour matching problem with that movie that makes it look very washed out.

Your pretty safe with most 3D versions of animated titles, the only ones to avoid unfortunately are both of the 'Happy Feet' movies, all the White of the snow causes horrendous Ghosting.

Actually any 3D movie that has a lot of White in it usually one to avoid, because it's a recipe for Ghosting.

 

The irony of 3D movies is that they are finally starting to get it right, they have learn't that the secret of great 3D is not to over do it, and don't try and get all the background in 3D as well, especially if there is a lot going on in that background [It's what makes DR Strange so bad 3D wise].

All this comes as the last 3D TV ceased production late 2017 [Panasonic EX780a - I bought one], that's the irony.

Edited by Tweaky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tweaky said:

As for 3D versions of The Great Gatsby and especially Dr Strange, well I found them both among the worst 3D wise in my 100+ 3D movie titles, ghastly Ghosting on both of them.

As you very possibly already know, to avoid distracting ghosting when viewing 3D movies that have high contrast between the Left and Right views, you need a display device with very low crosstalk.  DLP projectors typically are good in that respect.

 

I find my current passive 3D TV pretty poor for ghosting. My previous passive 3D TV was much better in that regard. But by far the lowest crosstalk I've experienced when watching at home has been from two BenQ DLP projectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes I do know that.

I was going to buy a JVC PJ at around the 7K mark to replace my aging Sony PJ, but when I found out that the 4K UHD Panasonic EX780a TV was also a 3D display [Active Glasses], I went and checked it out.

I got a VERY good deal on one of the last 65" models, and since I'm a avid gamer, it was a no brainer of a purchase for me.

 

Being able to calibrate your TV or PJ also really helps getting a great 3D picture, a lot of people have no idea just how out of whack their TV/PJ's are, especially with the Grey Scale Tracking.

For $350 [The price of a Xrite i1Display Pro Meter] and using the Free HCFR software, you can easily do your own calibration, but it amazes me why people don't do it, yet they will happily spend the same amount on a set of cables....madness.

Get the Grey Scale spot on and everything just snaps into place, colour reproduction on most modern TV/PJ's can be pretty close if you choose the correct presets, and doesn't really need that much adjustment in a lot of cases, of course it depends on the base quality of the TV/PJ , but you don't need to spend a small fortune to get a great picture any more, well certainly not as much as used to be the case 5-8 years ago.

Edited by Tweaky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tweaky said:

but when I found out that the 4K UHD Panasonic EX780a TV was also a 3D display [Active Glasses], I went and checked it out.

I got a VERY good deal on one of the last 65" models, and since I'm a avid gamer, it was a no brainer of a purchase for me.

Good for you.

 

Unfortunately for me I find active glasses 120Hz insufficient as an alternation rate for 24fps 3D material. The motion looks mirage-like for my vision and lacks solidity. I find an alternation rate of 144Hz sufficient.

 

10 hours ago, Tweaky said:

For $350 [The price of a Xrite i1Display Pro Meter] and using the Free HCFR software, you can easily do your own calibration, but it amazes me why people don't do it, yet they will happily spend the same amount on a set of cables....madness.

The retailers offer very expensive cables and non-technical buyers assume these cables must be "better" if they are "dearer". And of course buying a cable requires no effort, compared with carrying out a calibration.

One reason people don't do their own calibration is that reviews of better quality flat screen TVs and projectors often report that the factory calibration is close to correct.

 

Another reason is that many movies these days have such heavy handed grading/editing of the colour that strong colour casts in the movie master (designed to provide a particular look) will tend to swamp any slight inaccuracy in the colour calibration of the display device.  There have been a lot of articles about this. Here's one article that came up for me a moment ago in a Google search: - Why Every Movie Looks Sort of Orange and Blue

 

One of the challenging issues these days is calibration for HDR, relevant for 4K 2D material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 2:44 AM, MLXXX said:

Good for you.

 

Unfortunately for me I find active glasses 120Hz insufficient as an alternation rate for 24fps 3D material. The motion looks mirage-like for my vision and lacks solidity. I find an alternation rate of 144Hz sufficient.

 

The retailers offer very expensive cables and non-technical buyers assume these cables must be "better" if they are "dearer". And of course buying a cable requires no effort, compared with carrying out a calibration.

One reason people don't do their own calibration is that reviews of better quality flat screen TVs and projectors often report that the factory calibration is close to correct.

 

Another reason is that many movies these days have such heavy handed grading/editing of the colour that strong colour casts in the movie master (designed to provide a particular look) will tend to swamp any slight inaccuracy in the colour calibration of the display device.  There have been a lot of articles about this. Here's one article that came up for me a moment ago in a Google search: - Why Every Movie Looks Sort of Orange and Blue

 

One of the challenging issues these days is calibration for HDR, relevant for 4K 2D material.

 

I agree the better quality TV/ PJ's 'can' look close to correct, but that's only if the display has the needed presets available, and owner has chosen the correct combination from among  the huge choice of settings that can be found in a modern displays pre-sets,

From the variety of screens I've see at different peoples home, most wouldn't have a clue.

 

Colour casts are one thing, and I agree, a lot of sin's are committed in 'Post' re: Colour Grading to get a movie to look a certain way......the 4K version of 'First Man' is a classic example, maybe not so much a 'Sin' in this case, but it's made to look like the whole thing was shot with a 'of the period camera', using 'of the period film stock', just the artificial graininess that's made obvious in areas where there is a lot of sky gives this away.

 

I've found most good quality modern TV's, if using the correct colour Temp / Gamma/ Picture mode combo, to be pretty accurate colour wise straight out of the box.

 

Grey Scale Tracking though is where most display fall flat on their faces, even the best ones.

Even after calibration, this is where most displays will drift out, and not by a small amount either I have found after repeated measurement and calibration of the same display over a 12 month period.

When Grey Scale is calibrated well, then you see what your display is really capable of, especially if you calibrate to the BT:1886 gamma curve [well it's actually  combo of gammas designed to get the best out of Flatsceen TV's].....I used to calibrated to Gamma 2.2 as it gave the best detail, but after living with BT:1886 for a while it grew on me, and decided I could live with slightly less shadow detail for the gained impact the picture had.

Every detail is evident in folds of actors clothes, graduation of skin tones, far more detail in shadow areas etc....it can turn a $2.5K TV into one that looks like it cost 3 X that.

 

Calibrating for HDR is a pain, that's basically because there is no real standard re: NITS / Screen light output.

It's changing slowly, and I think it's been ratified that 1000 Nits will be the standard, but you still have the problem of getting software that will measure a HDR signal, and actually getting HDR Test Patten's

As you probably know, you can't use standard test patterns designed for REC709 etc, I use Diversified Video Solutions HDR Test patterns with ChromPure software [I'd just which he would stop updating them, as the file size is so big and it takes a age to download].

Even then, you have no real meaningful adjustment over 70 IRE due to the way any particular manufacturer implements it's TV/PJ's tone mapping, and now Dolby Vision / HDR-10+ will be the norm, calibrating for highlights will be moot for HDR, as DV /HDR-10+ is basically a automated scene by scene change of Gamma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously are well versed in calibration matters, @Tweaky! Yes I find gamma an important variable. And HDR, at this early stage,  at times seems to cry out for different settings for different discs, with big variations being possible in the mastering of different 4K Blu-rays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

JB sent me a email today informing me there was a 20% of 4k / Bluray discs for today only, plus a coupon for a extra 5% off.

 

So I just went in and bought the 3D versions of 'How to Train Your Dragon- The Hidden World', and 'Mortal Engines' to add to my pile of yet to be watched movies that are cluttering up my coffee table, even though it got less than Stella reviews [can't be any worse that Aquaman script and acting wise surely 🤔 ]

Edited by Tweaky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

You obviously are well versed in calibration matters, @Tweaky! Yes I find gamma an important variable. And HDR, at this early stage,  at times seems to cry out for different settings for different discs, with big variations being possible in the mastering of different 4K Blu-rays.

As for the vast differences in mastering of 4K discs, well I think this can mostly be traced to what they were Mastering to.

Was it 1000 Nits ?, 5000 Nits ?, or stupidly 10000 Nits?

No display can reproduce the last two light outputs, but I know they do Master to 5000 nits.

These different Mastering levels will relate to the meta data that's written to the 4K disc, if it's only in standard HDR-10, then the display only gets the one bit of meta data telling it what the highest brightness level will be in the whole movie.

If the meta data is HDR-10+ or Dolby Vision, then the meta data changes from scene to scene.

 

Since HDR-10+ and Dolby Vision have yet to be taken up seriously, one has to deduce it's the inconsistent mastering levels, who's meta data is written to the 4K discs in HDR-10 , and then attempted to be reproduced via whatever your displays manufacturer implementation of Tone Mapping is set at.

 

Who's to blame?

Both the movie houses, but more so the display manufacturers IMHO.

The 'Brightness War' with TV especially [Samsung I'm calling you out !] is much like the 'Loundness War' with music, resulting in over compressed music with no dynamic range.

Phillips are the first to set a 'Standard' of 1000 nits brightness for it's displays and monitors, which is plenty bright enough for home viewing, and will hopefully become 'The' default standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tweaky said:

As for the vast differences in mastering of 4K discs, well I think this can mostly be traced to what they were Mastering to.

Was it 1000 Nits ?, 5000 Nits ?, or stupidly 10000 Nits?

No display can reproduce the last two light outputs, but I know they do Master to 5000 nits.

These different Mastering levels will relate to the meta data that's written to the 4K disc, if it's only in standard HDR-10, then the display only gets the one bit of meta data telling it what the highest brightness level will be in the whole movie.

If the meta data is HDR-10+ or Dolby Vision, then the meta data changes from scene to scene.

 

Since HDR-10+ and Dolby Vision have yet to be taken up seriously, one has to deduce it's the inconsistent mastering levels, who's meta data is written to the 4K discs in HDR-10 , and then attempted to be reproduced via whatever your displays manufacturer implementation of Tone Mapping is set at.

 

Who's to blame?

Both the movie houses, but more so the display manufacturers IMHO.

The 'Brightness War' with TV especially [Samsung I'm calling you out !] is much like the 'Loundness War' with music, resulting in over compressed music with no dynamic range.

Phillips are the first to set a 'Standard' of 1000 nits brightness for it's displays and monitors, which is plenty bright enough for home viewing, and will hopefully become 'The' default standard

High Nits are so overrated and in my books irrelevant. I'm more into color space and black level details. Nits though, the issue is my eyes only have one setting at any point in time. So take a real world scenario you are in a dark room and someone shines a torch in your eyes. How much black level detail is in your frame? 100%. How much of it can you actually see? Next to nothing. Unless you stick your hand up and block the torch. So in terms of a display the same applies. In a dark home theater with a projector it is even more apparent you don't want or need the nits. Part of the calibration I was doing on mine was checking scenes with heavy backlight to see what I could see on the dark areas with and without my hands blocking the bright area.

 

At any instant of time your iris is at one position, and it is determined by how much overall light intensity is in your field of view.

 

And this is just the physical reality. The argument above about dynamic range is correct as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...