By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - 3D Blu-Rays of 2013 Movies, share your thoughts "OFFICIAL 3D Movies in 2K13 THREAD" (List of 3D Movies of 2013 in OP)

 

Poll closed.

Closed. 23 76.67%
 
Total:23
yum123 said:
I fully thought this thread had something to do with NBA 2k13 in 3d at a glance of the title


LOL, sorry you got mislead.

But eventually more games & other forms of entertainment will be 3D capable since over 90% of all manufacture TVs these past 3 or so years have been 3D TVs.

I was thinking about getting a VIZIO Smart 3D HD TV 1080p 32 inch for $300 at Wal-Mart, but it's too small, so I'm gonna pay an additional like $80 to get the 42 inch size of this TV.

3D Blu-Ray Players currently cost around $100 too.

 

3D Blu-Rays are beginning to drop to 2D Blu-Ray prices, plus there are already 3D Blu-Rays that are as low as $100 I believe.

So maybe NBA 2K15 by Jay-Z or b.o.b. or whomever will be 3D ready if the current one isn't.



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I love your enthusiasm for 3D :)

My opinion is that most movies, particularly those with 3D effects added in post-production, are not really worth it -- especially considering movie tickets are more expensive when the screening is in 3D.

If the movie is designed with 3D in mind, and filmed with 3D cameras, it's a different story. Avatar is the most obvious example. That movie, above all others, proves the usefulness of 3D movie technology. But no one has really built upon its success in the past three years.

I don't really like movies designed with 3D in mind. A lot of the visual trickery that's possible in 2D doesn't work in stereographic 3D and I haven't seen any cool 3D tricks to compensate that loss. Just a bunch of annoying wave stuff in your face shots. I found Avatar quite boring film style wise. It's a cool trick, but still more of a limiting one then one providing more options.

Maybe I'm getting old. I'm not all that happy with the current trent of shooting movies with multiple aspect ratios in mind either. How is Star trek going to work in 2.35:1 and 1.44:1 at the same time. Plus it's another converted to 3D in post production job.



Kaizar said:

But I think 3D will go the way of audio & color in movies & tv, where it starts out being used like Batman series 1960's (starring Adam West), but go the way of being use like modern day live action shows where they don't even think about it being use anymore even though it's there.

I don't think so. Color and audio allow you to do more while 3D limits the artistic possibilities.



SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
 

But I think 3D will go the way of audio & color in movies & tv, where it starts out being used like Batman series 1960's (starring Adam West), but go the way of being use like modern day live action shows where they don't even think about it being use anymore even though it's there.

I don't think so. Color and audio allow you to do more while 3D limits the artistic possibilities.


Actually 3D makes everything look much more crisper then HD could ever do visually.

 

Have you ever played a Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON? It makes the graphics look more crisper then playing 2D HD 1080p games on a 2D 1080p HD TV does.

HD is the most useless thing ever made, I mean IMAX is a million times better then HD. But there will always be people in America making useless things for a quick buck with all the big corporations copying to make some quick money themselves.

And you clearly have not seen such movies as Cirque De Soliel 3D nor The Great & Powerful OZ 3D nor Hugo 3D and so fort, to be saying such lies about 3D.

 

2D has limit the artistic possibilities of film by condensing everything into a flat 2D image. Just compare 3D photos of Flowers to 2D Photos of Flowers and you will see what I am talking about. YOu can never show nowhere near the full beauty of plants in 2D and that is fact. (just turning the 3D OFF when viewing a 3D Photo of a bloomed flower on the Nintendo 3DS after viewing in 3D and you will see what I am talking about)



SvennoJ said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I love your enthusiasm for 3D :)

My opinion is that most movies, particularly those with 3D effects added in post-production, are not really worth it -- especially considering movie tickets are more expensive when the screening is in 3D.

If the movie is designed with 3D in mind, and filmed with 3D cameras, it's a different story. Avatar is the most obvious example. That movie, above all others, proves the usefulness of 3D movie technology. But no one has really built upon its success in the past three years.

I don't really like movies designed with 3D in mind. A lot of the visual trickery that's possible in 2D doesn't work in stereographic 3D and I haven't seen any cool 3D tricks to compensate that loss. Just a bunch of annoying wave stuff in your face shots. I found Avatar quite boring film style wise. It's a cool trick, but still more of a limiting one then one providing more options.

Maybe I'm getting old. I'm not all that happy with the current trent of shooting movies with multiple aspect ratios in mind either. How is Star trek going to work in 2.35:1 and 1.44:1 at the same time. Plus it's another converted to 3D in post production job.

Actually, a lot of movies are not design with 3D in mind.

Even 60 fps per image stereoscopic 3D movies in the 1950's like "Dial M for Murder" was just made as any black & white movie was back then but with a really good script and directing both by Alfred Hitchcock.



Around the Network
Kaizar said:
SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
 

But I think 3D will go the way of audio & color in movies & tv, where it starts out being used like Batman series 1960's (starring Adam West), but go the way of being use like modern day live action shows where they don't even think about it being use anymore even though it's there.

I don't think so. Color and audio allow you to do more while 3D limits the artistic possibilities.


Actually 3D makes everything look much more crisper then HD could ever do visually.

 

Have you ever played a Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON? It makes the graphics look more crisper then playing 2D HD 1080p games on a 2D 1080p HD TV does.

HD is the most useless thing ever made, I mean IMAX is a million times better then HD. But there will always be people in America making useless things for a quick buck with all the big corporations copying to make some quick money themselves.

And you clearly have not seen such movies as Cirque De Soliel 3D nor The Great & Powerful OZ 3D nor Hugo 3D and so fort, to be saying such lies about 3D.

 

2D has limit the artistic possibilities of film by condensing everything into a flat 2D image. Just compare 3D photos of Flowers to 2D Photos of Flowers and you will see what I am talking about. YOu can never show nowhere near the full beauty of plants in 2D and at is fact. (just turning the 3D OFF when viewing a 3D Photo of a bloomed flower on the Nintendo 3DS after viewing in 3D and you will see what I am talking about)

Actually I had 3D at the end of the 90's. Among other games I played Descent 2 entirely in 3D, played around myself with stereoscopic 3D and made a program to generate auto stereoscopic images. I even visited Futuroscope in France to watch all the 3D tricks.
So far I've seen nothing to suggest that stereoscopic filming techniques have drastically advanced.

You can do tons of things with perspective that you can't do in stereoscopic 3D. It's nice for close ups to look at objects, but for wide shots the effect is drastically reduced and you're better of with a flat HD image. Sure 1080p 3D basically gives you 3840x1080 resolution, (if actually filmed/rendered for both eyes seperately instead of post production) but I'm looking forward to 3840x2160 2D. (Or at least some super bit 1080p stuff)

The biggest problem with stereoscopic 3D for me is the fixed focal length. Here's something in front of you, but you have to focus on the screen behind to see it, which gets even more confusing when the director changes focus between fore and background. It's great for a 40 minute IMAX show, especially in one of those huge 150 degree dome theaters, but that's about as long as I can stand it.
On tv it's crap, everything looks like a miniature set. Fine for something like Coraline but live action loses all immersion for me.

Btw I do a lot of nature photography and never once thought a macro shot would look better in 3D. I'll give you one thing though, forest shots are really hard to get good depth in. For those 3D does add a lot.



SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
SvennoJ said:
Kaizar said:
 

But I think 3D will go the way of audio & color in movies & tv, where it starts out being used like Batman series 1960's (starring Adam West), but go the way of being use like modern day live action shows where they don't even think about it being use anymore even though it's there.

I don't think so. Color and audio allow you to do more while 3D limits the artistic possibilities.


Actually 3D makes everything look much more crisper then HD could ever do visually.

 

Have you ever played a Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON? It makes the graphics look more crisper then playing 2D HD 1080p games on a 2D 1080p HD TV does.

HD is the most useless thing ever made, I mean IMAX is a million times better then HD. But there will always be people in America making useless things for a quick buck with all the big corporations copying to make some quick money themselves.

And you clearly have not seen such movies as Cirque De Soliel 3D nor The Great & Powerful OZ 3D nor Hugo 3D and so fort, to be saying such lies about 3D.

 

2D has limit the artistic possibilities of film by condensing everything into a flat 2D image. Just compare 3D photos of Flowers to 2D Photos of Flowers and you will see what I am talking about. YOu can never show nowhere near the full beauty of plants in 2D and at is fact. (just turning the 3D OFF when viewing a 3D Photo of a bloomed flower on the Nintendo 3DS after viewing in 3D and you will see what I am talking about)

Actually I had 3D at the end of the 90's. Among other games I played Descent 2 entirely in 3D, played around myself with stereoscopic 3D and made a program to generate auto stereoscopic images. I even visited Futuroscope in France to watch all the 3D tricks.
So far I've seen nothing to suggest that stereoscopic filming techniques have drastically advanced.

You can do tons of things with perspective that you can't do in stereoscopic 3D. It's nice for close ups to look at objects, but for wide shots the effect is drastically reduced and you're better of with a flat HD image. Sure 1080p 3D basically gives you 3840x1080 resolution, (if actually filmed/rendered for both eyes seperately instead of post production) but I'm looking forward to 3840x2160 2D. (Or at least some super bit 1080p stuff)

The biggest problem with stereoscopic 3D for me is the fixed focal length. Here's something in front of you, but you have to focus on the screen behind to see it, which gets even more confusing when the director changes focus between fore and background. It's great for a 40 minute IMAX show, especially in one of those huge 150 degree dome theaters, but that's about as long as I can stand it.
On tv it's crap, everything looks like a miniature set. Fine for something like Coraline but live action loses all immersion for me.

Btw I do a lot of nature photography and never once thought a macro shot would look better in 3D. I'll give you one thing though, forest shots are really hard to get good depth in. For those 3D does add a lot.


I have never had problem with the focal length because both the background & foreground are focus on at the same time while also seeing the depth & distance & dimensions, in Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON and all the way up & the 3D movies I have seen.

The only blurring I have ever seen was in real life for me to focus on either the background or foreground, but that went away after several months of playing the Nintendo 3DS with the 3D ON and all the way up 24/7, but I did see 1 to 3 short scenes in "Hansel & Gretel 3D" that was directed to have someting blurry in either the background or foreground but that was it.

And many scenes in movies & Shows are shot up close to something most of the time because they are movies & shows.

Have you seen any 3D movies since 2012?

Also I would suggest that you go see "The Great & Powerful OZ" this March in 3D.

And I guess I could see how you would find watching on a 3D TV annoying when you think about it as miniatures walking around in front of you, LOL. But I guess I just see it more as an action or some kind of very fictional film in front of me for just enjoying the cinematography, for watching a 3D TV for such things as Tron Legacy & Yogi Bear movies and so fort.



Thread started Feb, 6th, now 20th... seems like 3d isn't *that* interesting to most ppl here...



So I saw the Movie: Escape from Planet Earth 3D last Sunday, and it was made by the Weinstein Company, and out of all the movies that have premiered in 2013 so far, well I would suggest this one to this date to see out of all the 2013 movies these first 45 to 58 days.

One of the things I like about 3D is at it has unlimited brightness & contrast which really shows when you see a Live-Action film that was recorded in 3D in 3D.

Anyways the 3rd Act of this movie before they land on they alien planet, well you will see their sun and it shows the unlimited brightness capabilities of Stereoscopic 3D visuals.

I got to say that this movie ended up much more better then I originally thought it would right before I saw it say; "The Weinstein Company" at the beginning of the film.

The Weinstein Company is known to produce less movies per year then other major American movie studios but produce more quality in each movie in exchange for doing so.....when compare to other major film making businesses in Hollywood movies.

But at the end, it just didn't fill like a full movie, but maybe I have been spoil by Star Wars & Back to the Future & Batman Begins & The Simosons Movie & so fort, LOL.

Anyways, I would just hold my brief for March 1st & beyond, for 2013 movies.

I personally hoping that "Jack the Giant Slayer 3D" will be that first Full movie of this Year for me.

Anyways the only problem I have with CGI movies, like this (Escape from Planet Earth) is that the contrast is pure fictional in real life and sense it is made up, well that means it depends on how good the CGI people are at doing it. Usually its a great job done if done by Pixar and people like that, but this particular CGI movie was made by a different CGI studio and they weren't as good at it, as shown in at least one scene.

But the characters were good in is movie, with nice characteristics and background.....I guess overall its a decent movie, because they are just so many better ones at there with even more coming.

And I look forward to the 3 New Star Wars Main movies in stereoscopic 3D, because it's Disney, and also the side story Star Wars movies revolving around certain characters also in stereoscopic 3D live action because once again, this is Disney we are talking about.



walsufnir said:
Thread started Feb, 6th, now 20th... seems like 3d isn't *that* interesting to most ppl here...


That's my thoughts as well.

But I'm sure things will pick up once such movies as:

Jack the Giant Slayer March 1, 2013

Oz the Great and Powerful March 8, 2013

G.I. Joe: Retaliation March 29, 2013

Jurassic Park April 5, 2013

Iron Man 3 May 3, 2013

The Great Gatsby

Star Trek Into Darkness

Pacific Rim

Man of Steel

Monsters University

X-Men new

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

Thor: The Dark World

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Come out.