there is hope for 3d after all

[aedipuss]

i just watched Hugo in 3d at home from the blu-ray disc. what a well done vision, and not a bad movie either the only awkward 3d moment i noticed was hugo reaching down for something and his arms appearing to stretch an extra couple feet...

[TreeTops]

And they didn't catch that during post editing? Like I said before, 3D is just a passing fad like it has been each time it is fostered on the masses.

[fritzi93]

I guess I'll have to get that one.

Apart from a dozen or so HD-PVR captures I've made from Comcast's On Demand free HD 3D movies (O/U half-resolution), I only have Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and IMAX Space Station. Both of those are very well done as well. I don't mind shelling out the money for something good. There are a few that come to mind that were supposedly really badly done, such as Clash of the Titans.

I'm hoping this isn't a flash in the pan and we'll get a fair amount of good 3D movies in the future.

[aedipuss]

And they didn't catch that during post editing? Like I said before, 3D is just a passing fad like it has been each time it is fostered on the masses.

1 shot out of thousands that didn't work for me. i'd say there are more ooops moments in most films. the 3d in hugo was used to expand the audience's vision, not as a gimmick to shock or awe and for the most part was very well done.

it may be a recurring fad, but if producers and directors like scorceses and cameron keep making them, it may become more mainstream.

[TreeTops]

Hope you are right and I will apologize if I'm proven wrong. It may take a couple of years though to see what develops. I really want good holograms that make you think your'e really immersed in the action like the holodeck in Startrek. That will be something to get excited about.

[WellBeSerious12]

"AVAILABLE NOW: The Dark Knight Rises in Blu-ray and HOLOGRAM Combo!!!"

LOL, seems like a cool idea...

[zoobie]

Hugo is the best movie since Titanic.
I saw both twice in the theater, Hugo in 3D.
Titanic is about to be re-released in the theaters in 3D "celebrating" the 100th year of the disaster.
The wife wants to see it again...I'll send her over.

[aedipuss]

have her call my wife and make a date! we can head to the local watering hole and get sloshed.

[Hoser Rob]

I'm not much of a 3D enthusiast ... it works a lot better for some people than others.

But it's actually worth the extra for a 3D TV even if you only watch 2D, believe it or not. Especially now that the price difference is a lot less. They have features like anti ghosting that make regular video look better.

[fritzi93]

I'm not much of a 3D enthusiast ... it works a lot better for some people than others.

But it's actually worth the extra for a 3D TV even if you only watch 2D, believe it or not. Especially now that the price difference is a lot less. They have features like anti ghosting that make regular video look better.

Yeah, I'm pleased with my 65" LG65LW6500, got it 3 weeks ago.

You could say it's the exception that proves the following rules:

1) Built in media players on TVs are always crap.

Actually, this one's pretty good. I can play direct from external hard drive level 4.0 MKVs (H264/AC3), with chapters. No selectable subs, though.

2) Motion interpolation always sucks.

Actually, with de-judder set to 3 (out of 0->6) and de-blur set to zero, it's okay. De-blur induces some ugly artifacts occasionally, but it's dependent on the source, naturally. I'll test it some more.

3) 3D mode can be a bit dim.

Oh no, this set is almost too bright, and the passive (FPR) glasses are like very lightly-tinted sunglasses. I haven't seriously calibrated it yet and have been using "Standard" settings. Forget "Vivid", that's really bright. The backlighting is a little uneven, as to be expected from an edge-lit LED-LCD. And the screen is quite reflective. The backlighting you never notice unless you have the TV on an inactive source with the LG screen saving logo against a black background. And the glossy screen can be compensated for by re-arranging room lighting.

4) 2D to 3D conversion is always bad.

This set offers that feature and though the effect isn't pronounced, it does give some depth to a 2D source. I wouldn't want to use it all the time, but it can be rather nice. It gets it right almost all the time, but *rarely*, something in the foreground gets pushed back.

The first time I tried it, I was watching the coronation scene in Return of the King. Aragorn's red cloak where it goes around his neck looked like it was pushed back, making it seem like his head was detached. But then I watched it again and the reverse 3D effect I saw the first time was gone. Maybe my eyes weren't used to the TV yet. It does take a little while to get used to it and see the 3D picture properly. An HDTV in 3D mode demands your focus and attention. I will say that watching an old familiar 2D movie in 3D is like watching it again for the first time. You notice things in the picture you didn't really see before. But it's an event, not for casual inattentive viewing. You gotta pay attention.

-------

I have to say that with good 3D material, 3D HDTV can be wonderful, better than in theater. I wouldn't want to use it all the time, as it demands your attention and focus. Good 3D is not especially tiring to the eyes though. Most of my captures have occasional ugly spots where the effect is lost or the eyes strain to bring the picture into focus. Off the top of my head, The Sun in 3D and Legends of Flight have a few poorly-done scenes, but good scenes are very good indeed.

The oft-repeated claim that passive 3D isn't full HD resolution is addressed in the following article:

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

I got the IMAX Space Station 3D Blu-Ray specifically to do the tests in the article. All I can say is that image fusion seems to be real and it looks like full HD to me.

Anyway, I hope to see more 3D releases in future.

Good luck all.

[ron spencer]

I have been a bunch of 3D...but it bothers me...seems like I get headaches...why would that be?

[zoobie]

I have been a bunch of 3D...but it bothers me...seems like I get headaches...why would that be?

It's probably the glasses throwing your perception off. Perhaps ask an eye doctor if there's anything you can do.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I have no interest in 3D, the last 3D movie I watched was Captain EO at Disneyland back in the 80's.

[yoda313]

I have no interest in 3D, the last 3D movie I watched was Captain EO at Disneyland back in the 80's.

Go online and order some cheap 2.00 paper anaglyph 3d paper glasses and then go to youtube. There is a bunch of 3d material available and most have the option to encode (playback in realtime) to red/blue/cyan or magenta/green glasses.

It is pretty impressive what they can do even with the analglyph versions. They have tons of the 3d movie trailers online. Also they do have scenes from regular movies available to watch. Some of the cgi stuff is pretty impressive.

Heck if you still have a blockbusters nearby you can probably get some glasses for a quarter or less. I picked up a bunch for a buck last year. Then just go to youtube and have some fun. Its better than you might think.

Now as for investing in a 3d hdtv that is another matter altogether. Format wars aren't exactly out there for 3dtv as bluray 3d has won out for media format. But you have to wade through passive vs active and lcd/led vs plasma and all that jazz. Someday I might get a 3dtv but not in the near future.

Also if you're a gamer and have a xbox 360 or ps3 buy the batman arkham asylum game of the year edition WITH the 3d paper glasses. You'll be very impressed with TRIOVIZ'S "INFINICOLOR" 3d mode that does NOT require a 3dtv. There is much less color loss the your typical anaglyph 3d. The action does pop out. Also Arkham City and Assassins Creed Revelations are also avaialble in Infinicolor 3d (both games also have "true 3d" if I remember correctly so if you have a full fledged 3dtv you can do that as well sans paper glasses.

[Hoser Rob]

3D hasn't turned out to be the bonanza the studios and TV makers hoped it would be.

In 2009 every 3D movie in theatres in the US did significantly more box office than the 2D version. Now it's less than half. I think only 30% or so do more than the 2D versions.

I guess that's why a 3D TV doesn't cost that much more now ...

[aedipuss]

the studios got greedy after avatar and counted on the general public being stupid. they thought any lousy movie converted badly from 2d to 3d as an afterthought would reap the extra gold. the people have spoken and they don't like being ripped off by hollywood con men shilling shoddy goods.

[apwalles]

and if you get the plastic glasses from Trioviz (www.trioviz.com) instead of the paper ones, those games are even better yoda313!

[zoobie]

I went to see the 3D Avatar on Oprah's suggestion ("You MUST see THIS film") and then afterwards realized she was just helping Cameron set a box office record...not that the film was any good. I'm not exactly a war enthusiast - Another $26 down the drain...

Maybe I should have hung on to the 3D glasses after seeing these flicks. Instead, I recycled them in the trash bin provided. Seems like dropping them into the bin would be enough to scratch the lenses...

[jgearj]

what 3d player did you use to watch Hugo???

[aedipuss]

lg bd670 - yamaha 667 audio rec. - samsung 51 3d plasma - using hdmi 1.4 cables(3d and network capable).