Tron Legacy 3D Digital 3D

[Dom]

Hi, so I went to see tron 3d and what I thought about the 3d the studios and computer makers are using is true and I confirmed this with the people I went to the movie with. The 3d is so lackluster its not even funny. Wow what a shame that this is the trend of 2d looking stereoscopic 3d. The faces of the actors in the movie and all the background everything was so 2d looking 3d. It was a good movie for VR realism and an escape for gaming genious storyline but its really so sad that theres all this talk about new 3d hardware and alls they are giving is a 2d looking 3d experience. I am not boycotting 3d but can't the film makers and game studios like make an honest effort to pull a rabbit out of their hat? Stereo3d should look like a hologram 3d image off a screen or hologram image into the screen not a 2d looking flat backdrop flat image. Whats up with that fellas?

Good movie other than the bad 3d trend.

[android78]

I also wonder about this.
The strange thing is how the 3D seems a lot more pronounced in many of the unexpected movies though.
Last weekend I went and saw 3 movies, two of them being 3D (Green Hornet - 3D, Tangled - 3D and Black Swan)
It was amazing to see the 3D in Tangled is very nice and pronounced, in comparison Green hornet was about as flat as the non-3d Black Swan. I wonder if producers are struggling with the real life capture of 3D.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is with the producers use of zoom when capturing real-life scenes. What happens is that you get foreshortening when you use zoom. In 2d, this isn't so noticeable, but you can see it when you have a close in shot from a sideline, it looks like the player is standing almost at the far fence when, in reality, they are half way across the field. When you have 3D and zoom, the picture will essentially be flattened by the same ratio as the zoom. So, zoom in 2* and you'll see the face is 5 cm deep, rather then 10 cm deep.
The following link has a good example of this effect in 2D:
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking ... tening.htm
The advantage with fully rendered 3D is the ease at positioning cameras which essentially can remove the need for zoom entirely. If you want to see a character close up, put a camera right in front of them.
I think this is also combined with producers wanting 3D noobs not to get sick while watching their movies.

BTW. If you haven't seen it, I do recommend Tangled. Looking at the previews, I wasn't much interested in seeing it, but I'm very glad I did. Maybe Disney know a thing or two about 3d.

[Fredz]

Last weekend I went and saw 3 movies, two of them being 3D (Green Hornet - 3D, Tangled - 3D and Black Swan)
It was amazing to see the 3D in Tangled is very nice and pronounced, in comparison Green hornet was about as flat as the non-3d Black Swan. I wonder if producers are struggling with the real life capture of 3D.

Green Hornet was a 3D conversion, no wonder it wasn't impressive.

[android78]

Green Hornet was a 3D conversion, no wonder it wasn't impressive.

I thought it was 50/50 converted and post production???
If it was fully post conversion, I guess it's a bad example.

[Chiefwinston]

Animated and cgi movies I think stand out for their quality 3d. Live action type movies have disappointed me. Kids animated movies from dreamworks are really very good in the 3d. For what it's worth tron the game is disappointing too. I watched tron the movie 3d previews on the new Vudu streaming service the 3d doesn't look flat their. Odd eh?
Cheers everyone

[Fredz]

I thought it was 50/50 converted and post production???
If it was fully post conversion, I guess it's a bad example.

To 3D Or Not To 3D: Choose The Right Green Hornet Ticket :

"The Green Hornet uses post-converted 3D. That means the film wasn't shot in 3D, instead they shot it in 2D and then converted it to 3D after the fact. Worse they hadn't intended for the film to be displayed in 3D when it was originally shot, which means that director Michel Gondry didn't film the movie with 3D in mind.

That said, it would seem that once Sony decided to convert the film into 3D, they made it a point to take the time necessary to get it right. Some of the reshoots done after the completion of filming were shot in 3D (though the vast majority of the film remains a post-conversion). The film's release was delayed several weeks, in part to allow them more leeway in completing the 3D post-conversion process."

[Dom]

I honestly doubt that since a film is in CGI that it will be better 3d. The only cgi movie i thought the 3d was ok was cloudy with a chance od meatballs. All the rest I've seen and all the trailers were real bad and lackluster 3d. Its the same deal as when you get that locked autoconvergence with nvidia 3d vision games. Sure theres a hint of 3d but what the heck, whats the point its just flat looking 3d. lawl what a joke for the 3d industry sillyness.

[Chiefwinston]

Dom, were are you seeing this stuff? My local theaters have new projection equipment. I've seen some of the flat 3d your referring too. But not as extensive and bad as what your describing? Seems odd.

Cheers everyone

[cybereality]

Yeah, its really sad what studios pass off as "3D". I understand they are trying to reduce people having headaches and eyestrain, but at the cost of dumbing down the 3D experience to near no-existence. Tron was a very mild movie in terms of 3D, but there were a few shots that looked OK. Especially for the material, they could have pushed it way further. I remember Beowulf having some decent separation (so much that I had to take the glasses off at a few points, which is probably why they stopped doing it). Tangled was actual pretty impressive compared to other cgi animation I have seen, although it still wasn't amazing. Not really the same level of depth you get on the 3D drivers on the computer. Interesting enough, when I saw some 3D Blu-Ray demoed on a Sony 60" HDTV, the 3D looked far more impressive. I don't know why this is, but maybe big-screen 3D trumps the theaters. I mean, playing games even on my tiny 22" can look far better than some of the stuff Hollywood is pushing out (don't even get me started on some of those recent conversions). The biggest problem is that people don't see enough of a 3D effect to think its worth it and then think the whole thing is just a gimmick or cheap cash-in by the studios. This has the potential to kill 3D unless some movers and shakers come in and make some serious 3D movies.

[Chiefwinston]

Yeah I'm gonna give these movie makers a free pass for now. this is new territory for most of them. We know that out of screen effects is really were 3D shines and has its biggest impact. Hollywood take that as waving a stupid broom stick in your face for the most part. But in time guys, I think it will lean towards more seperation and more out of screen effects that aren't some dumb gimmick. A solid foundation has been laid for this to take place. And it will.
cheers everyone

[Dom]

Someone needs to invent a way so that the glasses can change the separation since the actual projector and computer in the movie room is only set to one setting. And since theres no further enhancement of the 3d technics or convergence algorithms its all a passay 3d experience. I think there needs to be a strong detal to every possible means of 3d in a film or it does fail. It don't stop at just using two cameras I would think.

I seen the 3d photos neil took at trade shows and such and why is it that those look so superior to all these films and pc games and blu-ray 3d's. Like most cases its the cheap way out to milk the cow.

Now i doubt that it would happen but making some passive glasses that can change the separation and convergence for each person. I think it could be done with the right science and setup. But then what do you do about window violations. Its like almost a failing 3d technic this one thats out now. They could fix it but to the makers it seems to work fine and they get their moneys worth.

And yes I think my movie theaters are new, I live in edmonton alberta. Its that I am getting the exact same 3d effect no matter what separation or bit by bit convergence window violation badness, its garbage 3d atm. Nothing compared to real life seeing with my own eyes, not even close. It like looking through a pair of wrongfull corrective glasses.

[Chiefwinston]

Yeah dom I can see the day were stereoscopic movies will be an adjustable experience like you describe. Probably, a new movie format with propriatary hardware for best result. I can see something like that in the near term future. There's a lot of room in 3D for these really significant and improved developments.

cheers everyone

[cybereality]

Yes, 3D movies with adjustable convergence will be possible. Basically instead of using 2 left/right eye views you would store the whole thing as a point cloud, similarly to what this guy did with the Kinect: http://blog.decoratorpattern.com/2011/0 ... he-kinect/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . With more advanced camera setups you would be able to record an entire area from all possible angles (not holographic quality, but similar). Then the users, at home, could not only adjust convergence/separation but also zoom in and out, completely rotate the angle, or even walk around inside the scene (if they had an HMD or CAVE). Obviously this kind of control would not be possible in the theaters, although maybe the theaters will have some other gimmick by that time.

[android78]

Adjustable convergence is very doable... they are called prisms. The problem is that you can't change the separation of the two cameras to enhance the 3D.
Maybe in future they will have active glasses and the projectors will show 4 images instead of 2. This way you could have 3 different levels of 3D and you could select between them. Even 2 levels of 3d (3 images) could be an option.
Something to think about... active glasses that would have 4 options:
1- no stereo: both eyes show one image
2- mild stereo: basically what they like to show these days
3- normal stereo: what would be comfortable to most on this forum
4- extreme stereo: for those like yuri... who can never have enough stereo

I guess active glasses in the cinema will never become an option though. hmmm

[Chiefwinston]

I like that concept you propose android78. In the home 3D market it would just require multiple versions on one disc. Maybe the next step beyond 3D blu-ray? Your concept would utilize almost all existing tech in a way us hardcore 3D user will get the we are there experience that we now is the real draw for 3D.

cheers everyone

[Dom]

What about the idea that when going to the movie theater you get to pick from 3 boxes, each having a different separation and convergence without window violations. I wonder if they'd actually do that. And just leave the projector on real high separation then let the glasses squish the image closer with its filters and possibly some flat prims molded, since it was brought up. Hey Hey I think we have an invention we just made. lawl

[cybereality]

Well that makes a lot of sense. Film the movie with 4 cameras and then let the user choose which 2 they want to use. The problem with that is space. 3D Blu-Ray is already taking up almost a full Blu-Ray Disc with just 2 views. With 4 views you would have to use really low bitrate to fit on one disc. Also, that obviously wouldn't work for the theaters, unless they had "extreme" versions of the film that would play at select theaters. Seems like a lot of work, though, to have to re-render a cgi animation two extra times, or re-do all the special effects in a live-action movie for each view. I guess 3D conversions could do this, but I question the quality. The ultimate would be if the movies were rendered in real-time, sort of like machinima, and you could adjust the settings on your computer. I doubt thats ever going to happen, though.

[Chiefwinston]

Back to Tron though. Its going to hit the VUDU streaming service quickly. maybe even 30 to 45 days after its theater run. I'm going to rent it and watch it on my VT25. The home experience greatly increases th 3D in a lot of these movies. The 3D previews that Ive viewed of this movie do look quite good. So I'll report back here in the future- if I remember.

cheers everyone

[Chiefwinston]

Okay Tron is going to be run through my Panasonic VT25 this week. My friend has bought it. And is lending it to me. I'll update how it looks 3d wise on a home set-up.

cheers everyone

[Chiefwinston]

Well Dom your right on this one. The 3D is very weak even on a premium home set-up. I'd recommend this one as a rental for anyone interested.

cheers everyone

[Dom]

Yeah it seems that no matter what you do with the separation slider, looking at home movies the 3d don't seem to look 3d anymore. I watched avatar blu-ray 3d at home and it even looked weird. The theatres are falling for the few people that read books to much and complain to much about a headache that their back and neck causes. Amoung the window violations that are like a big out of control fire, some of it looks nice but is really bad.

[Chiefwinston]

Hi Dom, I'm not really sure what your viewing on or through. But Avatar looks very nice on my Panasonic VT25 50". I have no problem what so ever if movies are of the same 3D quality as Avatar. Their is a big difference between Tron and Avatar on my home set-up.

cheers everyone

[foulplay]

I have to agree, Tron looked dissapointingly flat in 3D, I even found the lightbike sequence pretty uninspiring.

And Dom, I've got a copy of Avatar 3D and on my Asus nVidia 3D Vision 2 monitor its one of the best 3D films I've seen. It doesnt go out of its way to scream 3D at you directly, like sticking stuff out of the screen into your face, but it has depth absolutely everywhere! Its better than Transformers 3 and How To Train Your Dragon.

The only 'odd' thing I noticed is that all the screens in the film appeared in 3D as well, so it looked like they had 3D tech being used on all their screens on Pandora

[Dom]

I know that avatar was half decent in the theater when I went to see it. When I watched a converted piece of avatar at home it looked demented. I think it could have been that the file I had was from a scrape movie project. I deleted it long ago but I wonder if I can get avatar now in blue-ray. It used to be only bought with a 3dtv. I seen it already though and don't usually like watching a movie twice and paying three times to see it three times. I know what you mean though about the stereo screens in pandora and alot of 3d depends on how you converge your eyes.

I kinda look at that at least there's alot more 3d movies out now. I think 3d glasses tech can only go so far and it's at the point where there needs to be an extension to it.

I don't hack and don't like to pirate software Btw, I have a week or something like that to delete copied software but sometimes less often its nessesary to see about buying it personally but today it's not even worth the cost of troubleshooting computer losses of copyprotected content.

Don't pirate software I must say the fbi knows if you do.