DVD Talk
Shot in 3D vs. Post-Conversion-Do You Notice the Difference? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum


View Full Version : Shot in 3D vs. Post-Conversion-Do You Notice the Difference?

04-01-12, 09:47 AM
I saw Wrath of the Titans yesterday in 3D and while the effects were better than the first one, which I think set a new standard for bad post-convert work, the difference was still negligible IMO.

However, I also saw previews for both Prometheus and The Hobbit in 3D, and the 3D was quite a bit better. I also remember reading that both were shot in the format, as was Hugo and Avatar, which I think are the best 3D efforts to date.

I am not someone who loves 3D, but I honestly think that if it is shot in 3D as opposed to converted, the difference in quality jumps quite a bit. Hence I am more likely to give a 3D viewing a shot.

Do any of you notice a jump in the 3D effect with movies shot in the format as opposed to post-converted ones as well?

04-01-12, 10:49 AM
I've never actually seen a post-conversion 3D movie.

04-01-12, 11:02 AM
I've never actually seen a post-conversion 3D movie.
Same here. If I hear it's a post-conversion job I usually steer clear of the 3D showings.

The only 3D films that I actually enjoy are 100% CGI. Rio was the best looking 3D I've seen to date and the only parts of Avatar that looked decent were the CGI Pandora scenes. Whenever the movie went back to live action the 3D got wonky.

I'll see most animated CGI movies in 3D but I hesitate on anything live action, even if it was shot in 3D.

Nick Martin
04-01-12, 11:29 AM
As far as I know I've never seen a post-converted film, but that will change with Titanic.

Apparently the very first scene of Jake and the floating bubble in front of his face in Avatar was post-converted, along with little bits and pieces of the film that were minor like that.

The only 3D I've seen are various IMAX documentaries (at home), Avatar (theaters and at home), Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs (theaters and at home) and Tangled (at home).

I don't know which if any of those documentaries were post-converted or not.

I read the reviews on Blu-ray.com about Thor, Captain America and other films which suggested avoiding them because of the post-conversion.

04-02-12, 11:37 AM
Where is the option for "I hate them both". Since I don't like either I voted No.

Nick Martin
04-02-12, 01:27 PM
Where is the option for "I hate them both". Since I don't like either I voted No.

The option for "I hate them both" is 'don't waste time in a thread about 3D if you hate it'.

Must've missed that option.

Shannon Nutt
04-02-12, 03:25 PM
The only post-conversion one that I've seen that I didn't think was horrible was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - but it paled in comparison to something shot in 3D like HUGO. I am expecting, however, that Titanic is going to be the best post-conversion we've seen to date.

Matthew Chmiel
04-04-12, 02:08 PM
The only post-conversion films I've seen have been John Carter, My Soul To Take and Piranha 3D. The 3D was nonexistent.

However, I've seen films shot in 3D that have looked terrible as well. I saw Transformers: Dark of the Moon in IMAX 3D and the 3D, again, was nonexistent. I regret not seeing Tron: Legacy in digital as the 70mm IMAX 3D presentation had too much ghosting, but the 3D effect unlike Transformers worked.

I also wasn't impressed by the 3D in Avatar, The Darkest Hour, Drive Angry, The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine 3D or Saw 3D. :shrug:

However, Final Destination 5, Hugo, Step Up 3D and Underworld: Awakening have been the best looking 3D films I've seen. Step Up 3D looked gorgeous the times I saw it in both RealD and Dolby Digital 3D auditoriums whereas Underworld: Awakening was an experience in IMAX 3D.

Jackass 3D would be up there if the entire film was shot using 3D and an honorable mention goes to A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0