Non-animated 3D blu-ray - love it or hate it? Please discuss.

DrGekko

Prominent Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,868
Reaction score
606
Points
877
Location
West Mildlands
I honestly couldn't think of another thread title that simply expressed my sentiments. I've watched quite a few titles now since upgrading to a 3D projector almost a year ago and whilst most animated features do look great with a greater sense of depth, I'm afraid that I just don't get that much more when watching normal blockbuster feature films, compared to watching in 2D. It really does feel like a gimmick and especially actors just appear like odd cardboard cutouts. Occasionally there are scenes where depth is captured quite nicely but I honestly expected the whole "pop into your face 3D", the sort that you experience in shows in theme parks going back since the 80's. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing Imax 3D where I believe the technology is best displayed and this is re-iterated by friends who have. At home it simply doesn't enhance my viewing pleasure at all except for animated features where there is more of a fun element and the gimmick does tend to work.

I would be interested in your opinions. But for me, I'm ready to throw in the towel on this. The current home technology is simply not worth it in my humble opinion.

**EDIT 14th September**

There are a few titles which I've seen now that really do look impressive... so I'm beginning to appreciate it more. One thing I still don't like that much is the slight flickering of the active glasses which gives me slight viewing fatigue.

I changed my mind here: Non-animated 3D blu-ray is pants - please discuss. | Page 2 | AVForums
 
Last edited:
My experience is the exact opposite of yours.

I purchased a cheapish tv earlier this year; that just happened to be 3D enabled. I didn't really expect much from the format, but after trying a few 3D discs, I was gobsmacked. I just didn't realise how good 3D could be. It creates a more realistic 'world' than a 2D image does. In every instance where I have compared 2d and 3D; my preference is for 3D.

To me, the greater the sense of depth that exists, the more realistic – the more convincing – the onscreen image is.

Whilst having things 'pop out of the screen' may be fun; it is less realistic and more artificial. It may be appropriate for some films; but I find it tiresome if over used.

If you think that non animated 3D is lacking I would point you toward Avatar (though like some of my other examples is heavily CGI'd) and Creature from the Black Lagoon, Dial M for Murder, Dolphin's Tale, Dredd, Hugo, House of Wax, Life of Pi, Oz the Great and Powerful, Sanctum, The Young and Prodigious T. S. Spivet, The Three Musketeers, Titanic and The Wizard of Oz.

I would also suggest you try some of the many 3D documentaries that are out there. The Imax ones are good (Hubble, Deep Sea), the David Attenborough nature documentaries in 3D as well as Cameron's Ghosts of the Abyss and Herzog's Cave of Forgotten dreams.

Edit: I should qualify my comments by saying that I have seen 3D looking very unconvincing on many, if not most, TV's. 3D was something that I had dismissed because of my demo's of early 3D TV's and even some current models. I think that I'm particularly lucky in that my (passive 3D) TV seems to do 3D incredibly well. One of my friends, watched some 3D on my TV and went and ordered the same model straight away. He was quite happy to sell his Panasonic plasma which the 3D TV was replacing.

I would look at 3D on a few different televisions to see if you still feel the same about 3D.
 
Last edited:
Have you watched avatar?

A lot of non animated 3D is conversions, avengers, harry potter etc but proper 3D looks good.
 
Have you watched avatar?

A lot of non animated 3D is conversions, avengers, harry potter etc but proper 3D looks good.

Hi - I have and I would class Avatar as aniamted strictly (although I know it's more CGI) rather than a mainstream movie. Again from what I've heard, it was superb on Imax 3D but at home even though I watch movies on a 106" screen, the effect simply isn't immersive or impressive enough for me. Even movies such as Gravity where I wanted objects to fly at me, it just didn't happen. But when I spoke to folk who had watched this at Imax, they were gobsmacked.

So for me, I believe there's a signficant difference between what is shown in Imax 3D, its experience and what we get at home and I've realised it's just no way near the same and doesn't justify the difference in cost. Do you know what I mean?

Whereas picture and audio quality of my set-up at home is very satisfying for the budget.
 
Don't forget the generally superb Gravity as a 3D showcase.

Regards

Mark
 
Avatar, Dredd and Prometheus look great in 3D. Tron Legacy and Star Trek Into Darkness look good too.


Don't forget the generally superb Gravity as a 3D showcase.

Regards

Mark

But they all look great in 2D as well.

Once you put the 3D specs on, the picture is darker and during certain scenes you get a degree of depth with superimposed images that look like models or cardboard cutouts. Rather than become more immersive and add to the plot and enjoyment of the film, I actually think it becomes an odd distraction.

This is totally different to some animated features where the I feel the picture and movie is actually enhanced because of the 3D touch.

I think the limitations are basically due to the size of the screen and the lack of "popping out at you" sensation. So you get a tease for it rather than the full blown experience that one should expect. And therefore I feel a bit short changed.
 
But they all look great in 2D as well.

Once you put the 3D specs on, the picture is darker and during certain scenes you get a degree of depth with superimposed images that look like models or cardboard cutouts. Rather than become more immersive and add to the plot and enjoyment of the film, I actually think it becomes an odd distraction.

This is totally different to some animated features where the I feel the picture and movie is actually enhanced because of the 3D touch.

I think the limitations are basically due to the size of the screen and the lack of "popping out at you" sensation. So you get a tease for it rather than the full blown experience that one should expect. And therefore I feel a bit short changed.
I've got an active 3D TV and experience zero 'dimming', the picture quality is pristine.
 
I honestly couldn't think of another thread title that simply expressed my sentiments. I've watched quite a few titles now since upgrading to a 3D projector almost a year ago and whilst most animated features do look great with a greater sense of depth, I'm afraid that I just don't get that much more when watching normal blockbuster feature films, compared to watching in 2D. It really does feel like a gimmick and especially actors just appear like odd cardboard cutouts.

I think there are two things that you are dissatisfied with. The first of which is to do with the quality of the 3D you are seeing.

Your comments above about actors looking like cardboard cutouts is something I have experienced at (non Imax) 3D cinema screenings. There appears to be something 'not real' about the 3D you are watching. I've also seen this with some 3D material on many televisions.

You obviously have a very home cinema good set up:

Hi - I have and I would class Avatar as aniamted strictly (although I know it's more CGI) rather than a mainstream movie. Again from what I've heard, it was superb on Imax 3D but at home even though I watch movies on a 106" screen, the effect simply isn't immersive or impressive enough for me. Even movies such as Gravity where I wanted objects to fly at me, it just didn't happen.

But even though you have a projector that is great for 2D; I'm not sure whether that it's the best choice for 3D. I'm pretty convinced that one key element that makes 3D convincing is what I call the 'solidity' of the image. With some 3D screens the image can look totally realistic; yet the same image on another screen looks less 'tangible'. I'm believe that light output of the screen is key to creating this sense of reality that convinces us at a subconscious level that the image we are watching is real or not. Whilst I'm sure that your projector has plenty of light output, when you spread that light over a 106" screen, it is probably a lot less per unit area than a smaller 3D tv.

We have always been told that 'bigger is better' when it comes to 3D. I don't believe that is true if we sacrifice the quality of the 3D image to get a larger image size.


I think the other thing that you are dissatisfied with; is not just the quality of the 3D you see but your expectations of what 3D should be.


but I honestly expected the whole "pop into your face 3D", the sort that you experience in shows in theme parks going back since the 80's.

At home it simply doesn't enhance my viewing pleasure at all except for animated features where there is more of a fun element and the gimmick does tend to work.


Even movies such as Gravity where I wanted objects to fly at me, it just didn't happen.

It would seem that for you (judging by the above comments) ; the 3D experience is defined by objects appearing in front of the screen (negative parallax) which is used sparingly in 3D films. There is a reason for this i.e. in the real world objects don't usually emerge from the distance to sit a few inches away from our face! Negative parallax shots are a gimmick. Admittedly, it can impress and sometimes can be used creatively (see the film T.S. Spivet) but for the most part just isn't needed to tell a story.

For me; the real strength of 3D is to better recreate the three dimensional world that we live in. Switching between 2D and 3D has always had me preferring 3D.

I have been a home cinema enthusiast for more years than I care to remember (I remember being excited by stereo sound on Laservision discs and Hi-Fi Stereo replacing mono and linear stereo on VHS!) and have seen countless formats and features come and go. As far as I am concerned 3D as been the best thing to happen for many years.
 
Whilst having things 'pop out of the screen' may be fun; it is less realistic and more artificial. It may be appropriate for some films; but I find it tiresome if over used.

If you think that non animated 3D is lacking I would point you toward Avatar (though like some of my other examples is heavily CGI'd) and Creature from the Black Lagoon, Dial M for Murder, Dolphin's Tale, Dredd, Hugo, House of Wax, Life of Pi, Oz the Great and Powerful, Sanctum, The Young and Prodigious T. S. Spivet, The Three Musketeers, Titanic and The Wizard of Oz.

I would argue that it looks totally artificial and very gimmicky and the whole point of 3D entertainment is the escapism sensation. Hence why it looks great for fantasy movies, especially animated which is totally artificial and lends itself very well to the technology. For me, picture quality and brightness is a big issue - take 'Lone Survivor' - superb picture and audio track. If this has been done in 3D, I honestly think it would have been a total gimmick and been nonsense and detract from the art and seriousness of the story. However the animated flick 'Turbo' is more fun (despite being a little bit slow and bland) simply because of the 3D effects. I think the more realistic and artistically shot a film, 3D takes away its majesty. To me it's like fitting neon lights to the chassis of an Aston Martin - it's already beautiful and it just makes a hash of it. But doing a pimp my ride on a Datsun Sunny and yeah, it's a lot more fun. ;)
 
I find the home 3D experience vastly superior to cinema 3D, IMAX or otherwise.
 
3D is gimmicky.
You want 'pop in your face' 3D.

Irony.
 
I would argue that it looks totally artificial and very gimmicky and the whole point of 3D entertainment is the escapism sensation. Hence why it looks great for fantasy movies, especially animated which is totally artificial and lends itself very well to the technology.

I think you've just answered your own question and confirmed what I said in my second post. I would say that the whole point of 3D is to more accurately create the real world we live in.

You are expecting something that most directors are simply not trying to do.

I do agree that 3D is fantastic for animation. If you have not already done so; you should check out Ben Stassens films (A Turtles Tale, Sammy's Escape and House of Magick) he is the man that really knows how to use 3D and could teach Disney and Pixar a thing or two.
 
But they all look great in 2D as well.

Once you put the 3D specs on, the picture is darker and during certain scenes you get a degree of depth with superimposed images that look like models or cardboard cutouts. Rather than become more immersive and add to the plot and enjoyment of the film, I actually think it becomes an odd distraction.

This is totally different to some animated features where the I feel the picture and movie is actually enhanced because of the 3D touch.

I think the limitations are basically due to the size of the screen and the lack of "popping out at you" sensation. So you get a tease for it rather than the full blown experience that one should expect. And therefore I feel a bit short changed.
Yeah but Dredd, Gravity and Avatar are better in 3D. Active 3D that is.
 
If all you're getting is "cardboard cutout" 3D then something's wrong somewhere. What, I don't know. Could even be your eyes just aren't suited to 3D.

Alls I know is, my favourite 3D titles are live action, period. As have been mentioned: Black Lagoon, Titanic, Top Gun, Dredd, Pacific Rim, Jurassic Park, all of them with excellent layering and depth. Heck, I watched World War Z again the other night and I was VERY surprised at how good the 3D was.
 
If all you're getting is "cardboard cutout" 3D then something's wrong somewhere. What, I don't know. Could even be your eyes just aren't suited to 3D.

Alls I know is, my favourite 3D titles are live action, period. As have been mentioned: Black Lagoon, Titanic, Top Gun, Dredd, Pacific Rim, Jurassic Park, all of them with excellent layering and depth. Heck, I watched World War Z again the other night and I was VERY surprised at how good the 3D was.
Dr Gekko prefers non-gimmicky 'pop in your face' 3D though. The titles you've mentioned have 'gimmicky' depth but not much 'non-gimmicky' pop in your face moments.

The live action Jonas Brothers 3D concert might be what he's looking for :rotfl:
 
I don't want anyone popping in my face, thankyouverymuch.

The whole 'pop out' aspect of 3D is vastly overrated (the 1950's say Hi!), and if that's all that people want then why not have a glamourous assistant poke you in the eye with a stick every so often?

Still, Black Lagoon IS one of those classic old-school titles which has insane depth and excellent popouts for those who like that sort of thing. But it's black and white so the OP probably won't want to watch it.
 
I'd say T.S Spivet, Dredd, Pacific Rim and Top Gun are great for live action 3D (OK, Pacific Rim is a CGI-fest, but wow!). Not much pop-out mind you, but tons of depth.

Gravity...meh.
 
I appreciate everyone's input and comments so far, it's food for thought.

On reflection, I have enjoyed certain moments in movies where the depth element did work well, take 'Need For Speed' for instance - the interior driving views were good.

I think my problem is this - I need a HUUUUGE screen to immerese myself to enjoy the experience and hence what I am expecting falls short because of this limitation. I think I need to see Imax 3D and test out this hypothesis. Problem is, I'm not sure if I can be bothered driving for an hour and a half to the nearest screen!
 
I'm not a big fan of 3D, but even I have to admit some of the best examples of the format are live action. The brightness thing isn't an issue at home either as 3D BDs are brighter to compensate.
 
I arrived quite late to 3D, only having my TV for a few months now. Been mightily impressed so far, a few titles already mentioned look spectacular, particularly Pacific Rim, Creature From The Black Lagoon and Gravity. Have double dipped on dozens of titles just for the 3D, have yet to be disappointed.

Animated movies are jaw dropping though, I was in awe the first time I span A Christmas Carol and A Turtle's Tale. Re-bought all the Pixar titles too. Another thing that surprised me is the 2D-3D function which has had some interesting results, nothing quite like having Ben Gardener's head pop out into your living room whilst watching Jaws.

100% 3D fan boy here, long may in continue.
 
I think my problem is this - I need a HUUUUGE screen to immerese myself to enjoy the experience and hence what I am expecting falls short because of this limitation. I think I need to see Imax 3D and test out this hypothesis. Problem is, I'm not sure if I can be bothered driving for an hour and a half to the nearest screen!
Full-size IMAX (not those fake diminutive "digital IMAX" screens) looks 3D-ish even on 2D material just from its sheer scale and clarity!

You could sit closer to your screen (I do this on my 59" plasma), but there's a limit to how well that works. Ideally you really want your eyes focusing as far into the distance as possible, so while sitting closer to the screen will increase the field of view, I find it tends to work against my brain's 3D perception (there's sometimes a contradiction between my eyes' focal point and the projected stereoscopic depth in the image). IMAX works so well because you have a huge field of view, and the screen is far enough away.

Aspect ratios also matter. I find 16:9 / 1.85:1 material looks far more immersive in 3D than 2.35:1 material (I'm not really sure why Hollywood insists on using the narrower aspect ratio for 3D titles, it doesn't help the format at all IMO). Don't believe me? Check out Pacific Rim and Avatar. Or the Imax sections on Tron:Legacy.... :)
 
I think 3D in 2.35 looks fine, it's the filmmakers not pushing it too far that's the problem, not the ratio. Top Gun is one of my favourite 3D titles and Dredd is another excellent example. Monsters vs Aliens and HTTYD are a couple of excellent animated 2.35 3D titles.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom