Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Peter Briggs, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Peter Briggs

    Peter Briggs Guest

    I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
    truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.

    Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
    of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
    smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
    Chef made me halt in that plan.)

    SK1 was terrific. Loved it.

    SK2 was fun, but less than the first.

    SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.

    I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
    this.

    I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
    really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
    the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)

    I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
    impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
    striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
    the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
    movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
    through?)

    The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
    awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
    when the debric whipped towards camera.

    My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
    Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
    short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.

    (I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
    evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
    has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)

    But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
    It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
    setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
    already got it set up fairly peachy.)

    My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
    When out, contacts.

    The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.

    Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
    some of the portions of the shot.

    Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
    astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
    Still the same.

    Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
    screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
    LCD.

    Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.

    So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    'glyph, but isn't economically viable.

    Thoughts?
    Peter Briggs, Feb 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Briggs

    Jay Stewart Guest

    "Peter Briggs" <pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1g9jaor.1p2h9dh1si6t5uN%pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk...
    > I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
    > truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.
    >
    > Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
    > of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
    > smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
    > Chef made me halt in that plan.)
    >
    > SK1 was terrific. Loved it.
    >
    > SK2 was fun, but less than the first.
    >
    > SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.
    >
    > I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
    > this.
    >
    > I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
    > really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
    > the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)
    >
    > I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
    > impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
    > striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
    > the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
    > movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
    > through?)
    >
    > The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
    > awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
    > when the debric whipped towards camera.
    >
    > My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
    > Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
    > short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.
    >
    > (I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
    > evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
    > has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)
    >
    > But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
    > It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
    > setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
    > already got it set up fairly peachy.)
    >
    > My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
    > When out, contacts.
    >
    > The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
    >
    > Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
    > some of the portions of the shot.
    >
    > Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
    > astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
    > Still the same.
    >
    > Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
    > screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
    > LCD.
    >
    > Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
    >
    > So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    > eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    > commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    > 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
    >
    > Thoughts?


    I can't comment on Spy Kids but I loved the (admittedly sparse) 3-D material
    on Trinity.
    Jay Stewart, Feb 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Both "Spy Kids 3-D" and "tTitanic" both used the exact same 3-d filming process
    and cameras, except Spy Kids chose anaglyphic format while Titanic chose
    polarized format.

    I saw both of those movies at the theatres, and since both of those two used
    the exact same 3-d filming process, it gave me a good chance to compare
    anaglyph 3-d with polarized 3-d.

    polarized 3-d wins hands down.

    yes, there was at least one shot out of focus in Titanic, but overall, most of
    Titanic looked good and used the 3-d to good effect.

    I've always been interested in 3-D moviemaking and 3-d movies and 3-d pictures
    ever since I first learned about 3-D. ever since I first heard about 3-d.
    Waterperson77, Feb 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Peter Briggs

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Peter Briggs" <pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1g9jaor.1p2h9dh1si6t5uN%pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk...
    > So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    > eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    > commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    > 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.


    Astigmatism does have an effect on being able to perceive anaglyph 3D
    effects, but that said this movie's use of 3D was annoying anyway.
    Joshua Zyber, Feb 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Peter Briggs

    Peter Briggs Guest

    Jay Stewart <> wrote:

    > > So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    > > eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    > > commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    > > 'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
    > >
    > > Thoughts?

    >
    > I can't comment on Spy Kids but I loved the (admittedly sparse) 3-D material
    > on Trinity.


    I've since found a comment from Rodriguez, saying that -- indeed, if
    your vision isn't quite 20-20 -- you may have some problems (Stallone
    apparently couldn't get the effect, himself.)

    I think it's down to me and Red-Green glasses (although I had no problem
    with Jaws 3-D, so my eyesight must have changed a fair bit since!). The
    IMAX polarized ones work fine for me. Sigh. I wish I could see
    Rodriguez' copy of that...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Peter Briggs

    Marty Troum Guest

    This DVD clearly falls into the category of "Shoulda left it on the
    store shelf!"

    The 3-d effects are poor and in most cases not clear. The colors are
    awash with a violet tint when viewing with the glasses (i.e., the
    color of the actual film disappears).

    While some of the effects are worthy of a "Wow!", most are poorly
    executed.

    Don't buy this one...rent it or borrow it from a friend who didn't
    know any better.
    Marty T.

    On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:46:00 +0000,
    pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk (Peter Briggs) wrote:

    >I've bought all of Rodriguez' stuff in the last week or so, because I
    >truly admire his enthusiasm, and his commentary tracks are wonderful.
    >
    >Enjoyed "Once Upon A Time..." (which kicked it off, because I'm thinking
    >of shooting an upcoming project in digital....but, the horrible "video
    >smearing" of the tracking shot where Depp goes to whack the restaurant
    >Chef made me halt in that plan.)
    >
    >SK1 was terrific. Loved it.
    >
    >SK2 was fun, but less than the first.
    >
    >SK 3 really was very thin. And, the 3D didn't work for me.
    >
    >I'd love to hear some people here talk about the 3D "Home Experience" on
    >this.
    >
    >I had a fair bit of ghosting on portions of the 3D image. I've never
    >really been a fan of 'glyph 3D (although, I remember seeing "Jaws 3D" at
    >the cinema, and really enjoying a couple of the shots in that.)
    >
    >I saw "Ghost Of The Titanic" at the London Imax, and was....less than
    >impressed. Aside from the "In Yer Face" snapping claw, it really
    >striked me that Cameron didn't really THINK about what he was doing with
    >the 3D on the movie. (And, worse...there was at least ONE shot in the
    >movie, that was massively out-of-focus. How the hell did he let that fo
    >through?)
    >
    >The IMAX "Space Station" was fun, and had a real sense of spatial
    >awareness. I actually flinched on the Russian Rocket Launch sequence,
    >when the debric whipped towards camera.
    >
    >My ALL time fave 3-D, was the "Marvin The Martian In The Third
    >Dimension", which I saw at the Warner Bros Store in '97. Fantastic
    >short (WB: GET THIS ON A DVD, NOW!!!) And the 3-D was great.
    >
    >(I actually have "Trinity", the A-Bomb movie -- and have spent a nice
    >evening with Bill Stromberg, the mega-talented score composer -- which
    >has some 3-D sequences....which, were fine on my system.)
    >
    >But SK3? Okay. My system's set up with the best links I can manage.
    >It's a widescreen Philips. I recalibrated the image beforehand per the
    >setup instruction (although I don't think it was really changed, as I'd
    >already got it set up fairly peachy.)
    >
    >My eyesight is NOT 20-20. When at home, I usually wear spectacles.
    >When out, contacts.
    >
    >The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
    >
    >Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
    >some of the portions of the shot.
    >
    >Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
    >astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
    >Still the same.
    >
    >Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
    >screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
    >LCD.
    >
    >Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
    >
    >So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    >eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    >commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    >'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
    >
    >Thoughts?
    Marty Troum, Feb 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Peter Briggs

    Shadowspawn Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:28:27 -0600, Marty Troum <>
    wrote:

    >This DVD clearly falls into the category of "Shoulda left it on the
    >store shelf!"
    >
    >The 3-d effects are poor and in most cases not clear. The colors are
    >awash with a violet tint when viewing with the glasses (i.e., the
    >color of the actual film disappears).
    >
    >While some of the effects are worthy of a "Wow!", most are poorly
    >executed.
    >
    >Don't buy this one...rent it or borrow it from a friend who didn't
    >know any better.
    >Marty T.
    >

    The 3D version truly sucks but the normal version is pretty cool -
    arguably its stupid but the graphics and movie premise are this
    generations TRON.

    >>
    >>The distance from my TV to the sofa, is about 5 feet.
    >>
    >>Watching the movie on the home setup, there was horrible ghosting around
    >>some of the portions of the shot.
    >>
    >>Halfway through the movie, I dumped my spectacles (thinking it was my
    >>astigmatism that was causing the problem.) Put on the contacts. Nope.
    >>Still the same.
    >>
    >>Movie over, I banged it into my powerbook, thinking that perhaps I'd
    >>screwed something up on the TV, and that the 3D would be different on
    >>LCD.
    >>
    >>Lo and behold: pretty much the same problems.
    >>
    >>So. Here we are. Question, guys. Is 3-D very much dependant upon
    >>eyesight astigmatism? I found it interesting that Rodriguez on the
    >>commentary track admits that the polarized 3D is far better than the
    >>'glyph, but isn't economically viable.
    >>
    >>Thoughts?
    Shadowspawn, Feb 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    The Spy Kids 3-D movie is not the same as what you saw at the theatre.

    I read an article with an interview by Robert Rodrigues, the producer and
    director of zSpy Kids 3-D.

    He reframed a lot of scenes for the dvd release and he tweaked a lot of other
    sceneds also.

    The reason that was given for this was that Robert Rodriguez said that he is
    well aware that the theatrical run of movies is just a big advertisement for
    the movie, and the movies are made for viewing at home where they will have
    most of their run, be watched the most.

    and not made for the theatres, which is just a big advertisement for where the
    movies will be watched the most.

    (acccording to him according to the articles I read).
    Waterperson77, Feb 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Peter Briggs

    Justin Guest

    Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    Waterperson77 wrote on [27 Feb 2004 01:38:37 GMT]:
    > The Spy Kids 3-D movie is not the same as what you saw at the theatre.
    >
    > I read an article with an interview by Robert Rodrigues, the producer and
    > director of zSpy Kids 3-D.
    >
    > He reframed a lot of scenes for the dvd release and he tweaked a lot of other
    > sceneds also.
    >
    > The reason that was given for this was that Robert Rodriguez said that he is
    > well aware that the theatrical run of movies is just a big advertisement for
    > the movie, and the movies are made for viewing at home where they will have
    > most of their run, be watched the most.
    >
    > and not made for the theatres, which is just a big advertisement for where the
    > movies will be watched the most.
    >
    > (acccording to him according to the articles I read).


    Hey dvdguy, BACK IT UP!

    Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!
    Justin, Feb 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    >ACK IT UP!
    >
    >Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!
    >


    I didn't read it on the internet.

    I read it in actual printed material.

    Therefore, there aren't any links to it that I'm aware of.
    Waterperson77, Feb 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Peter Briggs

    Justin Guest

    Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    Waterperson77 wrote on [27 Feb 2004 01:52:06 GMT]:
    >>ACK IT UP!
    >>
    >>Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!
    >>

    >
    > I didn't read it on the internet.
    >
    > I read it in actual printed material.
    >
    > Therefore, there aren't any links to it that I'm aware of.


    So? post the name and date of the printed material
    Justin, Feb 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    On 27 Feb 2004 01:52:06 GMT,
    (Waterperson77) wrote:

    >>ACK IT UP!
    >>
    >>Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!
    >>

    >
    >I didn't read it on the internet.
    >
    >I read it in actual printed material.


    that was in crayon in toilet paper in your own handwriting, right.

    GK
    >
    >Therefore, there aren't any links to it that I'm aware of.
    >
    grant kinsley, Feb 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Peter Briggs

    Justin Guest

    Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    On 27 Feb 2004 01:52:06 GMT,
    (Waterperson77) wrote:
    >
    >>>ACK IT UP!
    >>>


    So. Howcome you alwas miss the first letter in what you quote, anyway?
    Justin, Feb 27, 2004
    #13
  14. Peter Briggs

    Peter Briggs Guest

    Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    Justin <> wrote:

    > Hey dvdguy, BACK IT UP!
    >
    > Instead of pulling articles out of your arse, pull out working links!


    Actually, all you have to do is listen to the commentary track.
    Rodriguez says pretty much the same thing on that.
    Peter Briggs, Feb 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Re: Spy Kids 3D....grumbles.is not the same as you saw at the theatre.

    for the person complaining about the ghosting when watched at home in 3-d, it
    was ghosting a little bit in the theatres also when I saw it.

    Polarized movies look better than color anaglyphic movies.

    anaglyphic 3-d is okay with black and white movies if done right, if properly
    framed and properly projected.
    Waterperson77, Mar 1, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
    Doug MacLean
    Oct 16, 2003
  2. Mike McGee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    Mike McGee
    Feb 19, 2004
  3. Shinner

    Spy Kids 3D....Sonofabitch!

    Shinner, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,170
    Shadowspawn
    Feb 29, 2004
  4. Grand Inquisitor

    Spy Kids box set coming up?

    Grand Inquisitor, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    502
    Black Locust
    Mar 3, 2004
  5. Dragon

    RE Spy Kids 3D

    Dragon, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    444
    Resident Drunk
    Mar 5, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page