Jump to content


Photo

Stunning Pictures


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#26 davep

davep

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 3,487 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:08 AM

Yep, proper room treatment does wonders for PQ. Watched a semi-legitimate HD transfer of Tintin, which was mind blowingly good on the 55" LCD, so cant wait for a proper copy on the big screen.

#27 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:13 AM

With the Mk5 lens and Epson 9000w I am finding that pretty much everything looks stunning in scope.


Anything shot with a scope lens is going to be a bit soft to begin with compared to the same frame exposed with a good spherical lens. The Tree of Life is a great example of the superiority of spherical lenses, nothing shot with an anamorphic lens is that sharp and detailed.


Mark did mention that when going to the scope lens you can see how many scenes in films are out of focus - and he was right!


An A-lens does not affect the relative focus of different parts of the image, it just makes everything slightly softer.
If you project a larger image with the A-lens than any out of focus content will be more obvious, project the same size via zoom and you will see the same effect.

Edited by Owen, 09 March 2012 - 11:13 AM.


#28 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:25 AM

Interesting comments, but I am afraid it is hear to stay. When i got to test that Mitsubishi HC9000 in my own cinema, I was given a copy of AVATAR in 3D and I think it showed more detial in 3D than 2D version of that film.


I have only seen the 3D version of Avatar so have not been able to do a direct comparison. However I dont see how its possible for a deliberately misconceived image that the eye-brain has to reconverge can be as sharp as a 2D image which is perfect to begin with.

The projector would have to be calibrated to provide the same maximum light and gamma to the eye in 3D mode with glasses on as it does for 2D presentation with glasses off for any comparison to be valid.

Edited by Owen, 09 March 2012 - 09:26 AM.


#29 MarkTecher

MarkTecher

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,489 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:41 AM

I have only seen the 3D version of Avatar so have not been able to do a direct comparison. However I dont see how its possible for a deliberately misconceived image that the eye-brain has to reconverge can be as sharp as a 2D image which is perfect to begin with.


I would agree with you on analygraph 3D, not the sequential 3D we have on BD.

The projector would have to be calibrated to provide the same maximum light and gamma to the eye in 3D mode with glasses on as it does for 2D presentation with glasses off for any comparison to be valid.


I'm not going to get into an argument over the light loss from the glasses - it is 3Ds stalling point and until glass free 3D is made a reality, will always be its resistance point. My comments are just my observations of this film in 3D (one screening only) verses many 2D screenings. I'm sure I am not the only person that saw this, but some examples of where the 3D version is better include the depth of field throughout the entire film. In fact that opening "cryo" sequence is just plain flat in 2D. The detail of creatures like the those winged dragon things is so much better in 3D. I had not noticed the perferations on the wings in 2D before seeing this film in 3D.

#30 :)

:)

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 31,392 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:55 AM

with my pj, because I think it adjusts for 3D material with higher output and using 3D colour mode to make up for the glasses am not seeing any light loss or odd colour balance / gamma or anything with 3D. the two movies I listed in my opening post in avatar and pirates are stunning in 3D. I dont see any detail loss in 3D. I do agree wiht mark in that 3D brings depth detail 2D doesnt have. Not to say 2D cant be simply stunning as well, and plenty examples listed in my opening posts. most will know I havent been the biggest fan of 3D either in the past. However finally we have had movies released that do the format some justice ie not just a gimmick or fake 3D but adding to the overall experience. Also I think we now have latest gen relatively affordable home theatre projectors that can produce a fantastic result in the home for 3D as well.

look I dont think 3D is for everyone one. some cant stand it, watch it, some hate it. Glasses for some can be a pain. and in anycase 3D titles are quite a small sub section of whats out there in movies to enjoy. For me if theres something stunning in 3D great, otherwise lot to be blown away with 2D. So something for everyone :)

#31 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:07 AM

I would agree with you on analygraph 3D, not the sequential 3D we have on BD.


When you view sequential 3D without glasses the areas of the image with 3D perspective are very blurry, the eye-brain has to reconstruct a single image, I am always conscious of this and find it both distracting and uncomfortable. Many people obviously are not bothered by this, they are lucky.

Avatar was deigned from the ground up to be 3D and all shots where organized to maximize the 3D effect, problem is the 3D perspective almost never matches what the eye expects to see for any given scene and the result looks fake and exaggerated.
For 3D to look realistic there would need to be very strict control of viewing angle at the display end and focal length of the camera lens so viewer and camera perspective is matched, problem is there would be very little visible 3D effect in the majority of shots (same as real life) and people would not get the wow effect they seem to expect from "3D", therefore what we get is exaggerated fake looking "3D" that does not appeal to me.

Edited by Owen, 09 March 2012 - 11:25 AM.


#32 SDL

SDL

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 10,650 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:11 AM

The Red Cliff movies, not only sound, but stunning visuals on the big screen.

#33 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

with my pj, because I think it adjusts for 3D material with higher output and using 3D colour mode to make up for the glasses am not seeing any light loss or odd colour balance / gamma or anything with 3D.


As far as I know all projectors bump up light output by using high lamp power and normally sacrifice colour accuracy in favor of brightness when in 3D mode. If you cant see the colour shift when viewing in 3D mode you are not very sensitive to colour inaccuracy.

When calibrated for accurate colour 3D will be dimmer than 2D even with high lamp power as the glassed block more light than high lamp power creates.

#34 SDL

SDL

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 10,650 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:42 AM

Why does a thread about what movies look good morph into another discussion about lenses, 35mm, 3D, sensitivity - can't one thread just be left as something for people to add their own personal view on what they like the look of? Why can't people open a thread on the topic they want and they can be as anal as they like.

#35 :)

:)

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 31,392 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:42 AM

hopefully we can just get back to what people have found stunning ! :)

#36 davep

davep

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 3,487 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:42 AM

Trolls be trollin'

#37 yorac

yorac

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 23,939 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:47 AM

Trolls be trollin'


Yes mate, amazing how one can go from TV expert tp PJ expert with just one purchase.................. :lol:

Edited by yorac, 09 March 2012 - 11:47 AM.


#38 Brookmeyer

Brookmeyer

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • 29 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:03 PM

Don't forget HDTV, UFC is like a couple of guys going hammer and tongs in your lounge room.
Looking forward to Mark Webber doing a few laps around the coffee table.

#39 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 07:50 PM

Yes mate, amazing how one can go from TV expert tp PJ expert with just one purchase.................. :lol:


I have owned projection displays for 12 years with about 15,000 hours of viewing.

#40 yorac

yorac

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 23,939 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 07:54 PM

I have owned projection displays for 12 years with about 15,000 hours of viewing.

who said I was referring to you mate............... :hyper:

#41 PurpleIce

PurpleIce

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 02:32 AM

lols comedy thread!

I think Owen's getting grumpier in his old age ;-) but he certainly knows his stuff.

Personally I enjoyed Avatar in 3D BRD. Although I'm not a big fan of 3D, I think it's going to stick around this time, for better or worse.

#42 MarkTecher

MarkTecher

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,489 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 07:38 PM

When you view sequential 3D without glasses the areas of the image with 3D perspective are very blurry, the eye-brain has to reconstruct a single image, I am always conscious of this and find it both distracting and uncomfortable. Many people obviously are not bothered by this, they are lucky.


I know that you know this, but the whole purpose of shutter glasses to allow one eye to see one perspective at one time. You don't actually see the two images at the same time or electronic 3D would not work.


Avatar was deigned from the ground up to be 3D and all shots where organized to maximize the 3D effect, problem is the 3D perspective almost never matches what the eye expects to see for any given scene and the result looks fake and exaggerated.


Yeah they had to rig the camera with two and a mirror (one shoots through, the other reflects off) just to get the lenses of the cameras physically close enough. In the end of the day, it is two 2D images trying to capture and convey 3D. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Still, the current gen of 3D is the best we have seen.

For 3D to look realistic there would need to be very strict control of viewing angle at the display end and focal length of the camera lens so viewer and camera perspective is matched, problem is there would be very little visible 3D effect in the majority of shots (same as real life) and people would not get the wow effect they seem to expect from "3D", therefore what we get is exaggerated fake looking "3D" that does not appeal to me.


Hey I am all for learning the specs if it makes the presentation better.

Edited by MarkTecher, 10 March 2012 - 07:38 PM.


#43 MLXXX

MLXXX

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,254 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 02:10 AM


I would agree with you on analygraph 3D, not the sequential 3D we have on BD.

When you view sequential 3D without glasses the areas of the image with 3D perspective are very blurry, the eye-brain has to reconstruct a single image, I am always conscious of this and find it both distracting and uncomfortable. Many people obviously are not bothered by this, they are lucky.

Avatar was deigned from the ground up to be 3D and all shots where organized to maximize the 3D effect, problem is the 3D perspective almost never matches what the eye expects to see for any given scene and the result looks fake and exaggerated.
For 3D to look realistic there would need to be very strict control of viewing angle at the display end and focal length of the camera lens so viewer and camera perspective is matched, ...


On Mark's use of the word "sequential", I note that the HDMI output of a Blu-ray player playing a Full HD 3D Blu-ray will keep the Left and Right frames strictly synchronised with each other; in fact they form part of a single 'packed' frame. A passive glasses display like an LG Cinema LCD panel will display Left and Right "in parallel", not sequentially. Of course with shutter glasses, the Left and Right views will necessarily be rapidly alternated e.g. L1R1L1R1L2R2L2R2.

On the question of approximations for 2D viewing, a viewer has to contend with the following:
  • Eyes are always at a fixed focus (to see the screen) whereas the image displayed can be a close up or a distance shot. This is unnatural.
  • The convention is to use high contrast with the result that a bright daylight scene will typically contain video black. This is unnatural.
  • The image is stereoscopically flat. This is unnatural.
Although stereoscopic 3D may at times look "exaggerated", or "unnatural", it is arguably less unnatural to watch than to watch with no stereoscopic 3D at all!

... problem is there would be very little visible 3D effect in the majority of shots (same as real life) and people would not get the wow effect they seem to expect from "3D", therefore what we get is exaggerated fake looking "3D" that does not appeal to me.


In real life I am very conscious of sterescopic 3D. The impression extends at least 100 metres in front on my eyes. I prefer it if movies provide a similar amount and not too much more. But just as movies use excessive blacks in daylight scenes, they may use somewhat exaggerated stereoscopic 3D. It really is just a question of getting used to it, if a person loves stereoscopic 3D, as I do. I drink it in! Perhaps I am indeed "lucky" my eyes can cope.

I find a good 3D movie more visually stimulating, and much closer to the appearance of real life than a stereoscopically flat image. A stereoscopically flat image reminds me of what you see in real life when you shut one eye.

Edited by MLXXX, 11 March 2012 - 02:13 AM.


#44 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:21 PM

I know that you know this, but the whole purpose of shutter glasses to allow one eye to see one perspective at one time. You don't actually see the two images at the same time or electronic 3D would not work.


Unfortunately for me my brain is well aware of the left right image sequence; the image does not look quite solid and is fatiguing to watch, both at home and in the cinema. Quality 2D is far more enjoyable for me.


Hey I am all for learning the specs if it makes the presentation better.


Unfortunately us humans have fixed focal length eyes so for any give viewing angle (at the display end) only one camera lens focal length will create an acuate 3D image.
Using one fixed zoom setting for an entire movie is not practical so more often than not the 3D “effect” will be wrong, and that’s exactly what it looks like to me.
It is an interesting “effect” that I have no doubt many find interesting but its not for everyone.

#45 Owen

Owen

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,849 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:23 PM

In real life I am very conscious of sterescopic 3D. The impression extends at least 100 metres in front on my eyes. I prefer it if movies provide a similar amount and not too much more. But just as movies use excessive blacks in daylight scenes, they may use somewhat exaggerated stereoscopic 3D. It really is just a question of getting used to it, if a person loves stereoscopic 3D, as I do. I drink it in! Perhaps I am indeed "lucky" my eyes can cope.

I find a good 3D movie more visually stimulating, and much closer to the appearance of real life than a stereoscopically flat image. A stereoscopically flat image reminds me of what you see in real life when you shut one eye.


I know you are a big 3D fan but I have never shared your enthusiasm and I’m not alone. 2D images never look fake or wrong to me yet just about all 3D does. I also find 3D uncomfortable and distracting to watch, both in the cinema and at home.

Maybe there is something unusual about my vision but I don’t notice any 3D (stereo) effect past about 3 metres in real life, viewing with one eye looks the same as viewing with two. I do however notice very obvious differences in focus distance (depth of field) out to quite long distances, that’s what lets my brain work out how far things are away at distances much over 3 metres. No need for 3D to display that.

Edited by Owen, 11 March 2012 - 09:26 PM.


#46 MLXXX

MLXXX

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,254 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:34 PM

Maybe there is something unusual about my vision but I don’t notice any 3D (stereo) effect past about 3 metres in real life, viewing with one eye looks the same as viewing with two.

It is normal for the stereopsis (the sensation of depth) to be less pronounced the greater the viewing distance. As for one eye giving the same view as two, there are slight differences caused by parallax of an obstructing object that should be visible for an obstructing object at 100 metres for a person like yourself with acute vision, if you look for it, comparing the Left eye with the Right. But the brain may routinely disregard such small variations in view. Levels of sensation of depth provided by stereo vision alone are known to vary considerably. Some people have none at all. (See http://en.wikipedia....Stereoblindness .)


Tilton on the Hill gravestone 3D image - obvious parallax differences

In the following side by side image, the left camera and right camera views of what can be seen immediately behind the grave stone are grossly different. This is due to the parallax resulting from the horizontal separation of the cameras, and the obstruction (occlusion) in the line of sight of the grave stone. But whether the brain uses those differences in real life to create a sensation of depth will depend on the individual: http://en.wikipedia....avestone_3D.jpg


If anyone wants to view the image in 3D

The side by side image is designed for cross-eyed viewing. If you view your own fingers at arms' length you can induce cross-eyed viewing of a side by side image further away. When I view the Tilton on the Hill gravestone image cross-eyed, I find the sense of depth very intense. The cross-eyed image (if you can get your eyes to swivel inwards (converge) to the required extent) appears to the brain as midway between the discrete Left and Right images. It can help if once you see the middle image you use your hands like curtains on either side, to frame it. You should find you can "focus attention" on the gravestone, or on the wall behind it, but not on both. This is because a slightly different convergence is required. The same effect arises in real life when using both eyes.

Tall thin stereoscopic pairs are much easier to view cross-eyed than wider aspect pairs. It's not a particularly comfortable experience, but does allow for a demonstration of stereoscopic 3D using a 2D screen.

Edited by MLXXX, 12 March 2012 - 03:02 PM.


#47 :)

:)

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 31,392 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

Why does a thread about what movies look good morph into another discussion about lenses, 35mm, 3D, sensitivity - can't one thread just be left as something for people to add their own personal view on what they like the look of? Why can't people open a thread on the topic they want and they can be as anal as they like.


not possible it would seem :( :( :(

#48 MLXXX

MLXXX

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,254 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:25 PM

Why does a thread about what movies look good morph into another discussion about lenses, 35mm, 3D, sensitivity - can't one thread just be left as something for people to add their own personal view on what they like the look of?


I'm not sure what the true intended topic was. This may partly explain the technical meandering.

I note that a restored old movie like The Sound of Music betrays the colour palette of the chemicals used in the era to record and develop colour on the negative. Of course that may be pleasant and nostalgic.

I recall that King Kong (2009) had noticeable blurring in some of the animation (jungle pursuit scenes). I recall that in the opening minutes the colour balance of some zoo footage jarred for my eyes with the recreation, partly using animation, of New York circa 1930.

When we say a movie has "stunning pictures", what scenes in it are we referring to? The whole movie? Are we referring to the beauty or rarity of some scenes, or rather to the technical quality of the BD master? I'm sorry but I find just quoting the name of a movie close to meaningless.

Given the high, mature, level of technology available today for moviemaking in 2D, a high technical level of video quality for 2D Blu-ray movies should be the norm. I would daresay the great majority of modern movies released on Blu-ray are competent in their technical video quality. Presumably, though, that normal standard would not merit the description, "stunning".

It would help me and I imagine many others if an explanation were provided as to what parts of the movie are considered to contain "stunning pictures", and in what way those pictures are considered to be so.

Edited by MLXXX, 12 March 2012 - 08:02 PM.


#49 kopthat

kopthat

    AV Forums Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:01 PM

I have that title and consider it an epic fail, watched it once and probably never will again. The 3D effects look so contrived, as does all the 3D I have seen that I have no interest in it what so ever.
I have packed my 3D transmitter and glasses back in their boxes where they will stay until the projector is in the hands of its next owner.

3D is a bad joke, the sooner it dies out, as it has done in the past more than once, the better.
Good 2D makes 3D irrelevant.


All I can say is that you must have a 2D brain then ;)

He who talks loudest does not talk best, or was it empty vessels make the most sound :D

#50 MRCRIST

MRCRIST

    AV Forums Member

  • Senior Member
  • 3,595 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:04 PM

OK back to the topic of great flicks to show off your PJ.