Lol ok ok ,no sorry I should have explained the cinema wasn't packed because of the 2014 best picture g.i joe retaliation .itt was packed due to one of the first demonstrations of laser projection ,it blew people away this is how 3d is ment to be seen .
-
CES Hands On - Samsung HW-Q990F review
Thanks 
I'm watching the dark knight rises as I type this with the yamaha up at 40 and it truly is a sight to see and hear,it's taken me quite a few years to build up to this standard,but someone else is watching the worst 3d film ever which is the post converted clash of the titans on a heap of rubbish ,I understand everyone has a budget but a lot of people will be put off by 3d or even blu ray in general due to poor equipment .if I told my mates who know nothing about home cinema I had spent 500quid on Hdmi cables I would be joe Pesci at the end of casino my mates would have the baseball bats lol
I'm watching the dark knight rises as I type this with the yamaha up at 40 and it truly is a sight to see and hear,it's taken me quite a few years to build up to this standard,but someone else is watching the worst 3d film ever which is the post converted clash of the titans on a heap of rubbish ,I understand everyone has a budget but a lot of people will be put off by 3d or even blu ray in general due to poor equipment .if I told my mates who know nothing about home cinema I had spent 500quid on Hdmi cables I would be joe Pesci at the end of casino my mates would have the baseball bats lol
bigboss
Moderator
professorhat said:And I don't hate 3D, I hate bad 3D where it doesn't add to the movie experience and makes the picture worse than the 2D equivalent. Unfortunately, I've yet to see a 3D movie anywhere where this isn't the case - and until this issue is solved, I'd rather not watch it thanks
2 films come to mind: Dredd 3D & Life of Pi. Some of the best 3D I've seen.
bigboss
Moderator
professorhat
Well-known member
bigboss said:
Thanks - yes I did see Life of Pi actually in the local Kingston cinema. Thought the 3D was good, but again, still would have preferred it without the 3D I'm afraid. Also would have preferred it without the people behind watching with their mouths rather than their eyes
I dont get any flicker with my 3D films - I was getting flicker if the refresh rate was set incorrectly.
I was getting flicker with the included 3D glasses but I dont use them I prefer the 3D3 - to me they are much better
I dont get any flicker, very minimal cross talk - I mean mega minimal and only in certain films - or certain bits of films.
Some bits of fast moving avatar in the dark secrion in the middle of the film - not the viper wolves after and the beginning of life of pi when you look at some of the animals in the zoo. They dont look quite right like they are added in as a 3D extra rather than shiot properly in 3D - anyone else notice that?
However I dont have a perfect calibration - if I did I think I would get 0 cross talk and 0 issues - I honestly do think that
I was getting flicker with the included 3D glasses but I dont use them I prefer the 3D3 - to me they are much better
I dont get any flicker, very minimal cross talk - I mean mega minimal and only in certain films - or certain bits of films.
Some bits of fast moving avatar in the dark secrion in the middle of the film - not the viper wolves after and the beginning of life of pi when you look at some of the animals in the zoo. They dont look quite right like they are added in as a 3D extra rather than shiot properly in 3D - anyone else notice that?
However I dont have a perfect calibration - if I did I think I would get 0 cross talk and 0 issues - I honestly do think that
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
professorhat said:bigboss said:
Thanks - yes I did see Life of Pi actually in the local Kingston cinema. Thought the 3D was good, but again, still would have preferred it without the 3D I'm afraid. Also would have preferred it without the people behind watching with their mouths rather than their eyes
I did mention Life of Pi 3D a long time ago - okay, yesterday afternoon, on page 2 post number 4 of this thread, including a link to Home Cinema Choice's glowing review.
Two more days to wait to see if I can win the ebay auction for more 3D glasses for my much-maligned LG 60PZ950T television in the kitchen!
I have an nvidea 3d kit with my 3D monitor. Watched 2 hours of 3d footage (football and movies) on it in the past 2 years. Stopped going to 3D cinemas if I coud go to 2D version instead. I like 4DX though.
I think it can be superb.
The trouble is a lot of people buy a £200 tv and expect to get fantastic 3D. Equally there are some poor films out there.
I've auditioned a £1K Panasonic system and the 3D demo disc was superb.
Equally this summer I watched World War Z in 3D at the cinema and the picture was superb (pity I couldn't say the same about the story!) The only critisism I could level was when an object (i believe a butterfly came out of the screen and looked totally what it was a flat drawing). Other than that, the 3D was superb throughout the film and not obviously 3D just a film with great depth.
Like I said before the problem is Joe Bloggs and his budget tv and glasses = oftenpoor 3D reproduction and unconfortable glasses.
I know not everyone can afford a good tv, but you do get what you pay for.
The trouble is a lot of people buy a £200 tv and expect to get fantastic 3D. Equally there are some poor films out there.
I've auditioned a £1K Panasonic system and the 3D demo disc was superb.
Equally this summer I watched World War Z in 3D at the cinema and the picture was superb (pity I couldn't say the same about the story!) The only critisism I could level was when an object (i believe a butterfly came out of the screen and looked totally what it was a flat drawing). Other than that, the 3D was superb throughout the film and not obviously 3D just a film with great depth.
Like I said before the problem is Joe Bloggs and his budget tv and glasses = oftenpoor 3D reproduction and unconfortable glasses.
I know not everyone can afford a good tv, but you do get what you pay for.
Yeah well said Alsone .if you dont like 3d fine but dont hate because youve got poor equipment i wont watch 3d at the cinema if i can help it i prefer my home system .
Alantiggger
Well-known member
Some 3D is ... to put it simply... Superb !
Depends on cameras used and a few other things...
but Yes, a Great number of Quite Fantastic movies to be had !
Depends on cameras used and a few other things...
but Yes, a Great number of Quite Fantastic movies to be had !
Alantiggger
Well-known member
It may all depend on Which TV and 3D player you use... for me... it IS quite Brilliant ! :bounce:
El Hefe
Well-known member
I have never been able to enjoy 3D... Because:
1. I am already using thick lense spectacles... Using the 3D specs over it makes it uncomfortable and rudiculous.
2. I get dizzy after 5 mins... Even watching 3D BPL football broadcast.. I feel like vomitting
So, currently a big 3D No No for me.
1. I am already using thick lense spectacles... Using the 3D specs over it makes it uncomfortable and rudiculous.
2. I get dizzy after 5 mins... Even watching 3D BPL football broadcast.. I feel like vomitting
So, currently a big 3D No No for me.
Alantiggger
Well-known member
El Hefe said:
Samsung 3D glasses are quite superb !
They should , if you HAVE a Samsung TV be quite alright over your 'thick specs' tbh..... maybe ya don't have a Great Samsung TV as I watch though ?
All things fall into their own bracket depending on which TV and player you use maybe ?
Oldboy
Well-known member
I'm a fan of 3D I must say but like others here it really depends on the movie...Avatar, Life of Pi, The Avengers, Prometheus and The Hobbit are all superb 3D discs and anyone who has watched them on my equipment has agreed that 3D can be grerat and involve you further in the film.
I recently went to see both Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness at my local (ish) IMax cinema in 3D and both were presented brilliantly in 3D with no loss of picture quality that I could detect. I can fully understand those that simply don't like 3D and it's very true that active 3D isn't for everyone but I love it at home and the resolution offered by active 3D is lovely.
For 3D at home I agree that you need decent kit, supermarket bargains in the TV and bluray departments simply aren't capable of delivering a decent 3D experience that's comfortable to watch but I'm very happy with the 3D experience I get at home.
What has to be said though is that a big screen is essential for a decent 3D effect at home, having just gone from a Sony 46HX853 to a Samsung 55F8000 I have really noticed a jump in 3D quality. It's partly down to the superior way in which my new TV deals with 3D and also down to the extra screen size which has a real impact on the quality of 3D immersion which really draws you into movies.
I'm a little surprised at how divided opinion is on the subject though because from my point of view to own a 3D TV and then not use the function does seem like a little bit of a waste but then it's not as if there are any decent 2D only TVs out there, perhaps manufacturers are missing a trick here as it would seem from this thread and the WHF twitter feed that there is a strong market for decent 2D Tvs :?
I recently went to see both Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness at my local (ish) IMax cinema in 3D and both were presented brilliantly in 3D with no loss of picture quality that I could detect. I can fully understand those that simply don't like 3D and it's very true that active 3D isn't for everyone but I love it at home and the resolution offered by active 3D is lovely.
For 3D at home I agree that you need decent kit, supermarket bargains in the TV and bluray departments simply aren't capable of delivering a decent 3D experience that's comfortable to watch but I'm very happy with the 3D experience I get at home.
What has to be said though is that a big screen is essential for a decent 3D effect at home, having just gone from a Sony 46HX853 to a Samsung 55F8000 I have really noticed a jump in 3D quality. It's partly down to the superior way in which my new TV deals with 3D and also down to the extra screen size which has a real impact on the quality of 3D immersion which really draws you into movies.
I'm a little surprised at how divided opinion is on the subject though because from my point of view to own a 3D TV and then not use the function does seem like a little bit of a waste but then it's not as if there are any decent 2D only TVs out there, perhaps manufacturers are missing a trick here as it would seem from this thread and the WHF twitter feed that there is a strong market for decent 2D Tvs :?
abacus
Well-known member
I would consider 65” to be a bare minimum to give at least a partial cinematic experience, (Although I would still only use it for the news or bargain hunt type programs) and the 3D effect may help to compensate for this, but for me personally it has to be a really big screen and/or a projector for the true cinematic experience.
Unfortunately I have tried many TVs and projectors from many manufactures (With some being professionally calibrated) and I cannot watch 3D with active glasses without getting a headache after 10 minutes or so. (Passive is no problem though)
Bill
Unfortunately I have tried many TVs and projectors from many manufactures (With some being professionally calibrated) and I cannot watch 3D with active glasses without getting a headache after 10 minutes or so. (Passive is no problem though)
Bill
sonycentre
Well-known member
I quite like the odd 3D movie at home, but for me the type of movie is the problem. For the dramas and thrillers I mostly watch 3D just wouldn’t/doesn’t suit that type of movie. The fact that Mrs Movie Rooms can’t stand 3D is a bigger nail in 3D's coffin in our household unfortunately.
As an entertainment spectacle on a big screen I think 3D can be jaw dropping when implemented correctly, some of the effects on Avatar were brilliant. Just a shame they didn’t spend as much time on the script.
As an entertainment spectacle on a big screen I think 3D can be jaw dropping when implemented correctly, some of the effects on Avatar were brilliant. Just a shame they didn’t spend as much time on the script.
abacus
Well-known member
For the first time last weekend I watched some 3D films on my tv, namely Life Of Pi and Monsters Inc, and both myself and my wife enjoyed them.
I also have Hugo, Prometheus and Avatar that I haven't yet watched.
My biggest problem with 3D is it had to be night time, and all lights off when you watch, or you get the annoying flicker.
I also have Hugo, Prometheus and Avatar that I haven't yet watched.
My biggest problem with 3D is it had to be night time, and all lights off when you watch, or you get the annoying flicker.
Alantiggger
Well-known member
3D is quite Brilliant as long as the sourse is made well.... A decent 3D player and TV will show a quite stupendous picture tbh.
abacus said:
Though Cameron's assertion that watching 3D movies replicates how we see the world is of course nonsense. (Viewing 3D films forces perspective.)
That doesn't invalidate 3D as cinematic/televisual experience, but it's worth placing Cameron's remarks in context. He and Vince Pace have hugely vested interests in the technology succeeding and Cameron will bang the 3D drum for as long as he feels there's money in it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram