Wrote some thoughts in post #1739 a couple weeks ago. I thought is was overrated by the sites that fawned over it (which weren’t many). The 3D, at least on this disc, is no better than any new conversion on the market today. I’d be curious to see it on a big screen in 3D projected at the high frame rate or whatever it’s called, albeit more out of curiosity than any belief that is was necessary to tell such a TV-pilot-grade story like this. On this disc, certain shots almost feel like some kind of ‘down conversion’ is going on from that higher resolution. Almost like motion-smoothing was on, but nowhere near so egregious. Just odd, that’s all. That said, it’s certainly not horrible, and technically slick, but it deserved its fate at the box-office. Ang Lee needs to put down the gadgets before he starts losing people and studios willing to fund him.

it's not a conversion though. it was shot native 3D...

That's one of the only 3D titles I haven't bought, since it's in the wrong frame rate on disc. Went to the theater to see it for that reason, but picture was dark as usual.

Reviews I saw said the native 3D is some of the best in medium bc Lee and his tech stuff. What happened to things like Crouching Tiger or The Ice Storm? Wdym about frame rates?

Wdym ?

What do you mean. All the kids are using it. Lol or that means laughing out loud...

What they hell does "Wdym" mean?


Edit: Had a "Who's on first" situation there for a moment. Anyway, you used an initialism that means "what do you mean" in a way that makes no sense? "What do you mean about frame rates?" How does that sentence make sense?

I was asking what he meant about frame rates, that he mentioned wasn’t correct. I never heard a Blu-ray image referred to by frame rate. That’s all. No need to get testy. Just don’t answer my questions. They are helpful, yes, but they seem to bother you and therefore I am sorry. I didn’t even want to talk here, but thought was simple and didn’t want to start new thread in not highly visible hardware forum. Carry on. I’ll make due. Truly sorry.

Alita: Battle Angel...sure looks good. Great depth. Not much popout, but nice depth and I dunno if 3D or little buzzed by character Alita totally looks real in movie and not digital. Amazing feat!

You have to work on writing better posts. This stream of consciousness style is confusing. It's not at all clear what you meant.

Anyway, Gemini Man was shot at 120fps. The Blu-ray 3D is 24fps, because that's the only framerate that supports 3D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Blu-ray_3D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Man_(film)
https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...ecs-blu-ray-3d

The UHD Blu-ray of Gemini man is 60fps, because that's the highest framerate the format supports. In terms of the original native 120fps, no home video release has the "correct" framerate.

Ok, still native 3D, but not as eye popping. Too bad.

As was more or less clarified by Jay G, that was my point. For all the raves (and they weren’t all raves anyway) about the 3D in this, it was no better on my screen than all the latest conversions I’ve seen (like the Marvel movies, Star Wars, Disney live action stuff, etc., several of which I’d watched around the same time as Gemini Man). I knew it was filmed in native 3D, and the results were of course very good, Even excellent despite moments of visual oddness (crosstalk, I guess?) that I didn’t think would be common in native 3D. No big deal either way. All in all, I could imagine a conversion having the same amount of depth and minor pop out moments. The ‘proper’ theatrical presentation of this — which virtually no one saw anyway — might’ve had more jaw-dropping 3D, so perhaps that justified shooting it in native 3D at the higher, ahem, frame rate. But again, we’ll probably never see the film as intended either on disc or streaming, which makes me wonder what the point of it all was. It didn’t revolutionize production methods and really only allowed Lee to indulge his love of toys much as he did on Billy Lynn.

Hello, I currently own a Sony VPL-HW10 projector that I picked up back in 2009 (I believe it may have been the last of the Sony projectors that wasn't 3D capable). Thus, I have been missing out on 3D for all these years. This Summer I plan to finally upgrade to the Sony VPL-HW45es, which will finally allow me to be 3D enabled. Over the last few months I've managed to pick up around 30 3D titles.

However, I have a question when it comes to glasses, the Sony brand are fairly expensive. I've seen several compatible models on Amazon for a cheaper price, but obviously lack the experience to know which to get (or if I should just pay-the-piper and stick with the expensive Sony model). Anyone have any advice on glasses to get for a Sony projector? Thanks.

Just go to Amazon and search for active 3D glasses. There's a good amount of 3rd party options to choose from that sync to Sony projector's.

Also, just a personal thought, but make sure you do due diligence on choosing the projector. I remember years ago when I was in the market for one that Sony had a dimmer 3D picture compared to others. Might be a minor issue for you if you're using this in a dark room.

Thanks. Yes, I've checked Amazon. I guess the issue is that there are so many to choose from ranging anywhere from $15 to $35+ per glasses that it is hard to know which to choose. Some rechargeable while others requiring battery replacements. In addition, coming in various shapes. I was hoping maybe someone with personal experience may have a suggestion to cut-through the options.

Thanks for the advice. I am fortunate to have a stand-alone HT with complete light control, and a fairly reflective screen that provides a good deal of gain. My screen is a Vutec Silverstar, manufacturer states 6x gain, but probably more likely closer to 3x. I run my current Sony projector in economy mode with plenty of brightness to spare.

I realize that SXRD technology isn't the preferred for 3D capability (DLP appears to be), but I've had good luck with my current Sony projector (10 years), whereas my first projector (Sharp 10K) that was a DLP only lasted 5 years due to a squeaky car wheel. Also, while I'm very interested in trying 3D for the first time, it will still of minor use when considering the amount of 2D content I have and I am very comfortable with the Sony line for the majority of my 2D viewing.

I'm not particularly tech-savvy, so this may be an asinine thought, but could it be possible that Oldboy's player and/or TV isn't set up properly to handle the disc's 60fps rate? Could that be what's causing the TV to have issues with displaying the disc properly?

The 3D disc is not 60fps. The Blu-ray format cannot support both 3D and High Frame Rate simultaneously, so the 3D edition is 24 fps while the 2D edition is HFR.

Also the disc is displaying properly, but the active shutter glasses aren't working, at least not unless he 'hard resets" the TV and redoes the Bluetooth sync.

and never had a problem until recently. it's no biggie. i kinda found a minor fix. no resetting, but still not working immediately. but, thanks guys.

You CAN do 60fps 3D at 720 resolution. The sports and game footage on 3D demo discs are all like that.

I found GEMINI MAN to be one of the best in my 390 3D disc collection. I view them on a PJ in my signature and enjoy them immensely.

I first viewed them on a 65” TV and found the 3D to a very odd viewing experience.

Watching them on a large screen is the only way to go to enjoy the fun!

I forgot about that, but that's another compromise in resolution.

i might have asked this before and apologize if have, but anyone see Mad Max: Fury Road in 3D and how was presentation? i have it in queue, saw a good review and wondering. thanks.

anyone have a take before i pop it in tonight?

Going into my HT to watch MARS NEEDS MOMS. I hear it’s pretty good.