Avatar IMAX 3d.....just saw it last night
Its absolutely brilliant.

But on a 3d note, im glad to say that my 3d vision is better than IMAX 3d. /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />

I think that the image can be far deeper than what they show in IMAX 3d, which uses polarized glasses...
Thats good news for me, who, was concerned at which direction NVIDIA was steering the 3d market. But after watching and absorbing avatar, i am very happy with everything. I think with polarized glasses and projector, increasing the depth more would only result in a noticeable ghost in each eye...

Thanks Nvidia! /sweat.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':sweat:' />
Its absolutely brilliant.



But on a 3d note, im glad to say that my 3d vision is better than IMAX 3d. /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />



I think that the image can be far deeper than what they show in IMAX 3d, which uses polarized glasses...

Thats good news for me, who, was concerned at which direction NVIDIA was steering the 3d market. But after watching and absorbing avatar, i am very happy with everything. I think with polarized glasses and projector, increasing the depth more would only result in a noticeable ghost in each eye...



Thanks Nvidia! /sweat.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':sweat:' />

#1
Posted 12/18/2009 03:13 AM   
I'm going to see the midnight show tonight. Agreed with the comparison: S3D gaming is much better than S3D movie in which it is interactive and adjustable to individual, besides separation that gives depth to the scene, convergence in game can make objects appear to be much more solid and hence more "real", this is the effect that many call it toy like in strategy games if adjusted accordingly.

Of course thanks to Nvidia as a long time S3D gaming provider (and for a long time, free driver), but iZ3d as a recent comer also provides the same quality of S3D in games as well. Now come to think of it, maybe because of iZ3D's (or Tridef's) coming to the S3D scene and charging for driver making Nvidia aware of its own money cow and starting squeezing its teats.
I'm going to see the midnight show tonight. Agreed with the comparison: S3D gaming is much better than S3D movie in which it is interactive and adjustable to individual, besides separation that gives depth to the scene, convergence in game can make objects appear to be much more solid and hence more "real", this is the effect that many call it toy like in strategy games if adjusted accordingly.



Of course thanks to Nvidia as a long time S3D gaming provider (and for a long time, free driver), but iZ3d as a recent comer also provides the same quality of S3D in games as well. Now come to think of it, maybe because of iZ3D's (or Tridef's) coming to the S3D scene and charging for driver making Nvidia aware of its own money cow and starting squeezing its teats.

Xeon X5675 hex cores @4.4 GHz, GTX 1070, win10 pro
i7 7700k 5GHz, RTX 2080, win10 pro
Benq 2720Z, w1070, Oculus Rift cv1, Samsung Odyssey+

#2
Posted 12/18/2009 03:31 AM   
I just got back from seeing the movie (at a regular cinema rather than an IMAX) and really enjoyed it, although I have to agree about the relatively small amount of depth compared to what I'm used to when playing games on my projector with 3D Vision at home. Apart from a few flying jellyfish thingummies, there wasn't very much pop out and a few scenes were almost entirely flat. I did wonder if Cameron had deliberately been conservative with the depth or if the cinema had just set the convergence too low.

In any case, it was still fantastic to be watching a real movie in 3D -it certainly beats anything from the Rhine Valley tourist board or clips of a steam train going by. In fact, after watching Avatar I can't really understand why any director would ever want to film anything in 2D again. Hopefully George Lucas will partially atone for Jar Jar £$%^& Binks and Episodes 1-3 by releasing the original Star Wars trilogy in 3D soon.
Cheers,
DD
I just got back from seeing the movie (at a regular cinema rather than an IMAX) and really enjoyed it, although I have to agree about the relatively small amount of depth compared to what I'm used to when playing games on my projector with 3D Vision at home. Apart from a few flying jellyfish thingummies, there wasn't very much pop out and a few scenes were almost entirely flat. I did wonder if Cameron had deliberately been conservative with the depth or if the cinema had just set the convergence too low.



In any case, it was still fantastic to be watching a real movie in 3D -it certainly beats anything from the Rhine Valley tourist board or clips of a steam train going by. In fact, after watching Avatar I can't really understand why any director would ever want to film anything in 2D again. Hopefully George Lucas will partially atone for Jar Jar £$%^& Binks and Episodes 1-3 by releasing the original Star Wars trilogy in 3D soon.

Cheers,

DD

#3
Posted 12/18/2009 06:19 AM   
I saw it Wednesday, yes Cameron used conservative settings for the 3D camera he said it multiple times during interviews over the years that he wanted to tell a story, not make a theme park 3D ride, because he wanted his film to be as enjoyable in 2D than in 3D (scenes purpolely made to show pop-out look absolutely ridiculous when watched in 2D).

He also stated in an interview that he did not have any 3D monitor on stage (he had one in an other room but did not use it because it would have made him loose too much time going back and forth) and he was basically filming 2D letting the auto-convergence of the camera do the 3D setting (he worked for years with the camera manufacturers to make it work properly). So he did not see the 3D he filmed until editing.
I saw it Wednesday, yes Cameron used conservative settings for the 3D camera he said it multiple times during interviews over the years that he wanted to tell a story, not make a theme park 3D ride, because he wanted his film to be as enjoyable in 2D than in 3D (scenes purpolely made to show pop-out look absolutely ridiculous when watched in 2D).



He also stated in an interview that he did not have any 3D monitor on stage (he had one in an other room but did not use it because it would have made him loose too much time going back and forth) and he was basically filming 2D letting the auto-convergence of the camera do the 3D setting (he worked for years with the camera manufacturers to make it work properly). So he did not see the 3D he filmed until editing.

Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter

#4
Posted 12/18/2009 07:09 AM   
[quote name='CamRaiD' post='966733' date='Dec 18 2009, 03:13 AM']Its absolutely brilliant.

But on a 3d note, im glad to say that my 3d vision is better than IMAX 3d. /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />

I think that the image can be far deeper than what they show in IMAX 3d, which uses polarized glasses...
Thats good news for me, who, was concerned at which direction NVIDIA was steering the 3d market. But after watching and absorbing avatar, i am very happy with everything. I think with polarized glasses and projector, increasing the depth more would only result in a noticeable ghost in each eye...

Thanks Nvidia! /sweat.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':sweat:' />[/quote]


Ha... :rolleyes: ...amazing.

I sat there thinking that this is good, but is no better than my 3D set up at home, so whilst every body was going "Wow that 3D is amazing" , i was nodding my head and thinking yest this is pretty cool but no better than my set up at home.

i kind of think that i've now been spoit for 3D imax etc films by by N3DV , which is no bad thing.

Can't wait for 3D movie content to start being releasd, in HD. Now that does deserve a WOW !
[quote name='CamRaiD' post='966733' date='Dec 18 2009, 03:13 AM']Its absolutely brilliant.



But on a 3d note, im glad to say that my 3d vision is better than IMAX 3d. /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />



I think that the image can be far deeper than what they show in IMAX 3d, which uses polarized glasses...

Thats good news for me, who, was concerned at which direction NVIDIA was steering the 3d market. But after watching and absorbing avatar, i am very happy with everything. I think with polarized glasses and projector, increasing the depth more would only result in a noticeable ghost in each eye...



Thanks Nvidia! /sweat.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':sweat:' />





Ha... :rolleyes: ...amazing.



I sat there thinking that this is good, but is no better than my 3D set up at home, so whilst every body was going "Wow that 3D is amazing" , i was nodding my head and thinking yest this is pretty cool but no better than my set up at home.



i kind of think that i've now been spoit for 3D imax etc films by by N3DV , which is no bad thing.



Can't wait for 3D movie content to start being releasd, in HD. Now that does deserve a WOW !

#5
Posted 12/18/2009 12:45 PM   
I also watched the movie in 3D. I thought the 3D was very good, especially regarding the scale of objects, which I found great. The depth of the whole I thought it was well used too, the focus is always in position where James Cameron wants your attention, something that had not happened in other 3D movies. The 3D experience for me in general was great, it is a different approach to 3D we are used in games but it is still a great experience.

[]s
I also watched the movie in 3D. I thought the 3D was very good, especially regarding the scale of objects, which I found great. The depth of the whole I thought it was well used too, the focus is always in position where James Cameron wants your attention, something that had not happened in other 3D movies. The 3D experience for me in general was great, it is a different approach to 3D we are used in games but it is still a great experience.



[]s

nope

#6
Posted 12/18/2009 01:25 PM   
I have booked a trip to US soon
I definitely want to watch this movie at IMAX !!!!

I miss an Avatar 3D HD trailer though


Mirko
I have booked a trip to US soon

I definitely want to watch this movie at IMAX !!!!



I miss an Avatar 3D HD trailer though





Mirko

#7
Posted 12/18/2009 02:47 PM   
Not that there have been any yet, but people [u][b]PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY PLOT DETAILS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.[/b][/u]
Not that there have been any yet, but people PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY PLOT DETAILS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.

#8
Posted 12/18/2009 03:44 PM   
I seen it this morning at the midnight showing at the IMAX and it was great, but I agree with the OP that 3dvision can provide a better experience. The glasses they gave us at the IMAX sucked because they were square and not very wide at all (I was up front too so that didn't help much) so the screen did not fit correctly into the glasses. To double check that my 3dvision system is better than the IMAX I fired up the Nurburgring video and showed a friend of mine that went with me to the IMAX and he agreed that it looks way better on my TV with the glasses than at the IMAX.
I seen it this morning at the midnight showing at the IMAX and it was great, but I agree with the OP that 3dvision can provide a better experience. The glasses they gave us at the IMAX sucked because they were square and not very wide at all (I was up front too so that didn't help much) so the screen did not fit correctly into the glasses. To double check that my 3dvision system is better than the IMAX I fired up the Nurburgring video and showed a friend of mine that went with me to the IMAX and he agreed that it looks way better on my TV with the glasses than at the IMAX.

#9
Posted 12/19/2009 06:15 AM   
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' post='966810' date='Dec 18 2009, 12:09 AM']I saw it Wednesday, yes Cameron used conservative settings for the 3D camera he said it multiple times during interviews over the years that he wanted to tell a story, not make a theme park 3D ride, because he wanted his film to be as enjoyable in 2D than in 3D (scenes purpolely made to show pop-out look absolutely ridiculous when watched in 2D).[/quote]I guess that explains the shallow depth of field. IMO that was the one thing that took away from the 3D. Narrow focus planes still have a purpose in 3D (to focus on certain aspects of the picture), but on some occasions I felt like I was watching something that should have been 2D, with shallow depth of field being used to show depth where it wasn't necessary.

Also for what it's worth, some IMAX 3D theaters use shutter glasses, others use polarized (according to Wiki, could be wrong).
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' post='966810' date='Dec 18 2009, 12:09 AM']I saw it Wednesday, yes Cameron used conservative settings for the 3D camera he said it multiple times during interviews over the years that he wanted to tell a story, not make a theme park 3D ride, because he wanted his film to be as enjoyable in 2D than in 3D (scenes purpolely made to show pop-out look absolutely ridiculous when watched in 2D).I guess that explains the shallow depth of field. IMO that was the one thing that took away from the 3D. Narrow focus planes still have a purpose in 3D (to focus on certain aspects of the picture), but on some occasions I felt like I was watching something that should have been 2D, with shallow depth of field being used to show depth where it wasn't necessary.



Also for what it's worth, some IMAX 3D theaters use shutter glasses, others use polarized (according to Wiki, could be wrong).

#10
Posted 12/19/2009 09:15 AM   
[quote name='Sebola3D' post='967366' date='Dec 19 2009, 01:15 AM']I guess that explains the shallow depth of field. IMO that was the one thing that took away from the 3D. Narrow focus planes still have a purpose in 3D (to focus on certain aspects of the picture), but on some occasions I felt like I was watching something that should have been 2D, with shallow depth of field being used to show depth where it wasn't necessary.

Also for what it's worth, some IMAX 3D theaters use shutter glasses, others use polarized (according to Wiki, could be wrong).[/quote]
I found the depth to be quite shallow. I'm used to viewing with high depth settings so this took away from the experience.

The camera technique utilized depth of field, which ruined many of the 3d shots as trying to look around the scene was impossible in many cases as you would be trying vainly to focus on a blurry mess.

Same with the motion blurring in some of the scenes. These are 2d techniques that just interfere with the 3d effect.
[quote name='Sebola3D' post='967366' date='Dec 19 2009, 01:15 AM']I guess that explains the shallow depth of field. IMO that was the one thing that took away from the 3D. Narrow focus planes still have a purpose in 3D (to focus on certain aspects of the picture), but on some occasions I felt like I was watching something that should have been 2D, with shallow depth of field being used to show depth where it wasn't necessary.



Also for what it's worth, some IMAX 3D theaters use shutter glasses, others use polarized (according to Wiki, could be wrong).

I found the depth to be quite shallow. I'm used to viewing with high depth settings so this took away from the experience.



The camera technique utilized depth of field, which ruined many of the 3d shots as trying to look around the scene was impossible in many cases as you would be trying vainly to focus on a blurry mess.



Same with the motion blurring in some of the scenes. These are 2d techniques that just interfere with the 3d effect.

#11
Posted 12/19/2009 11:35 AM   
Scroll To Top