Dawn of the Dead 3D Bluray? Anyone watched it yet? [Archive]

DjfunkmasterG

30-Jan-2011, 03:43 PM

Well if it is Region B locked not many in the states would have grabbed at it yet. Plus where is the official announcement? Won't do me any good to buy it as I do not own a 3D TV My BR player is 3D ready but not the TV

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

FOund another eBay link: http://cgi.ebay.com/DAWN-DEAD-3D-EXTENDED-CUT-BLU-RAY-NEW-1978-/360338099224?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_DVDs_DVDs_GL&hash=item53e5d30c18

Also posted this at High Def Digest to see what comes back on it.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

one of the guys at HDD.COM learned something about this release via AMAZON.DE:

this is from a review--apparently someone used a do-it-yourself 3D program to add the 3D effect.
doesn't sound like a "real" studio effort by any means.
a curio more than anything.

"In this version of the film is the original extended cut of Romero, Created for the LD release. Unfortunately, he was heavily mutilated in the present version, all the blood effects were removed. As a result, the film loses its charm, with whom he became a milestone of horror films. The PM-18 release is completely incomprehensible, he would surely come with the FSC-16-seal it. The image is sharp, but prepares the clay no joy: There were mixed film and video synchronization, set to music a few scenes with other cast new, others were left in the original and a few drowned out (despite lip movements) with only one music track. Well, then there's the amazing 3D effect, which runs the whole concoction the coronation. Loveless worked with one of the many available free on the Internet "Do-me-to-3D film" programs or "sexed up". Only anaglyph, which means you need the good old red-green glasses, this is not with the Blu-Ray. For 3-D effect can only say: Look at an x-any 2D black and white on film by the above spectacles and then the 3D edition of this film. You will be amazed and laid ellen that the 3D version of Dawn is only Bauernfängerei."

SymphonicX

01-Feb-2011, 08:07 PM

Take it that was a computer translation lol

Here's an article on the art of 2D/3DStereo conversion and the issues - very fascinating but makes you realise just how big the process is and the kind of evil post production issues they will face - notable examples are people wearing glasses are nigh on impossible to post render 3D effectively, it makes their eyes appear painted on the lenses. Trying to think of someone in dawn wearing glasses - would defo be the TV studio...so that will be an issue for some poor sod!

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/art-of-stereo-conversion-2d-to-3d/

C5NOTLD

02-Feb-2011, 02:24 AM

The 3D look isn't that great on it.
Definitely not the 3D process Lucas is using on the Star Wars films.

Danny

02-Feb-2011, 04:02 AM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1295617489293.png

why would you want this?

Neil

02-Feb-2011, 05:56 PM

15 euros...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dawn-Of-The-Dead-Blu-ray/17474/

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Well if it is Region B locked not many in the states would have grabbed at it yet. Plus where is the official announcement? Won't do me any good to buy it as I do not own a 3D TV My BR player is 3D ready but not the TV

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

FOund another eBay link: http://cgi.ebay.com/DAWN-DEAD-3D-EXTENDED-CUT-BLU-RAY-NEW-1978-/360338099224?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_DVDs_DVDs_GL&hash=item53e5d30c18

Also posted this at High Def Digest to see what comes back on it.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

one of the guys at HDD.COM learned something about this release via AMAZON.DE:

this is from a review--apparently someone used a do-it-yourself 3D program to add the 3D effect.
doesn't sound like a "real" studio effort by any means.
a curio more than anything.

"In this version of the film is the original extended cut of Romero, Created for the LD release. Unfortunately, he was heavily mutilated in the present version, all the blood effects were removed. As a result, the film loses its charm, with whom he became a milestone of horror films. The PM-18 release is completely incomprehensible, he would surely come with the FSC-16-seal it. The image is sharp, but prepares the clay no joy: There were mixed film and video synchronization, set to music a few scenes with other cast new, others were left in the original and a few drowned out (despite lip movements) with only one music track. Well, then there's the amazing 3D effect, which runs the whole concoction the coronation. Loveless worked with one of the many available free on the Internet "Do-me-to-3D film" programs or "sexed up". Only anaglyph, which means you need the good old red-green glasses, this is not with the Blu-Ray. For 3-D effect can only say: Look at an x-any 2D black and white on film by the above spectacles and then the 3D edition of this film. You will be amazed and laid ellen that the 3D version of Dawn is only Bauernfängerei."

Well, surely it has to be pucker, else it would be braking copyright etc etc!?

SymphonicX

02-Feb-2011, 05:57 PM

So is this the shizzle Rubinstein was on about? I'm not buying that!!!! Stereoscopic 3D or GTFO.

bassman

02-Feb-2011, 06:17 PM

So is this the shizzle Rubinstein was on about? I'm not buying that!!!! Stereoscopic 3D or GTFO.

I didn't think so at first....but maybe it is?!? :stunned:

If it is the real deal....why the hell haven't we heard anything official about it?

SymphonicX

05-Feb-2011, 07:05 PM

Its definitely an official release of sorts....It must be as Neil said, otherwise copyright infringement case is on it's way....

Perhaps Rubinstein was planning to surprise us by getting John Russo to add new scenes and shoot them in 3D. Could you imagine!!!!?

Anaglyph 3D can suck my monkeys. I wouldn't buy that in a million years...I seriously thought Rubinstein was putting this film through a proper Lucas style S3D conversion - like the top and tail parts to Alice in Wonderland - which didn't look bad for a proper s3D conversion.

But this...red and blue glasses supplied. Are you f**king kidding me? Releasing Dawn in 3D to cash in on the modern 3D bandwagon by using technology that's been in use since the 1950s?!?!?! SUCK MY MONKEYS!

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Sorry did I saw 50s??

I meant to say using technology that's been in use since the 1800s ......

1800s....yeah.

c1894 William Friese Greene files a patent application for a 3D viewing process using two screens side by side, united in the viewer's eye by a cumbersome stereoscope headset. As with all his endeavours, he is ahead of his audience by about 30 years.

1915 The Great Train Robbery director, film- narrative pioneer and cine-huckster Edwin S Porter, presents red-green anaglyph test shorts in New York, but his process is never developed further.

1920 The Power of Love (a movie now lost), using a system developed by cinematographer Robert F Elder, is the first 3D movie screened for a commercial audience, in Los Angeles.

krakenslayer

05-Feb-2011, 09:31 PM

Its definitely an official release of sorts....It must be as Neil said, otherwise copyright infringement case is on it's way....

"Official" doesn't mean it has anything to do with Romero, Ruberstein, MKR Group or any of the ultimate rights holders though. Official can simply mean it has been released by a legitimate distributor who purchased the distribution rights. Once a distributor has licensed a movie in a given territory, often they can pretty much do what they want: re-cut it, add to it, or in this case slap a hurried, outdated anaglyphic 3D effect on it.

SymphonicX

06-Feb-2011, 07:45 AM

"Official" doesn't mean it has anything to do with Romero, Ruberstein, MKR Group or any of the ultimate rights holders though. Official can simply mean it has been released by a legitimate distributor who purchased the distribution rights. Once a distributor has licensed a movie in a given territory, often they can pretty much do what they want: re-cut it, add to it, or in this case slap a hurried, outdated anaglyphic 3D effect on it.

Totally but my point being (and vaguely made without realising) is that with this release would potentially obscure, tie up or even completely destroy any chances of licensing out Dawn for another 3D release. This is the 3D Dawn of the Dead....I'd imagine a fair few complications with conflicts of interest if there were two 3D versions of Dawn competing with each other. However it could be argued that its a different format - ie the media that its stored on. Not sure about the actual physical differences between a 3D blu ray and a 2D one - but there's definitely a higher data rate needed through HDMI for it to be played so that may dictate it being technically a different format....but you'd think in the same ways as doing a remake, the licensees would claim some ownership over "Dawn of the Dead 3D"

DubiousComforts

06-Feb-2011, 05:37 PM

So is this the shizzle Rubinstein was on about? I'm not buying that!!!! Stereoscopic 3D or GTFO.

Rubinstein has no claims to anything DAWN-related released outside of North America. Romero no longer has rights to DAWN as his interests were bought out.

SymphonicX

06-Feb-2011, 06:27 PM

Ah right OK, this is a rights holder nightmare of sorts....

I'm not overly clued up on who owns what with these things, I know Romero's basically losing out on the whole deal save for conventions but I was kinda under the impression that Rubinstein had covetted the lot to his breast like a magpie gathering tin foil - what is the deal with this then...?

Here are my questions:

is this 3D blu ray available in the USA?
Who owns the rights to the European distribution? Is it Anchor Bay or did they purchase a licence only?
Does this mean I am ever likely to see a S3D conversion of Dawn of the Dead? What do you think is going on??

cheers Dub :)

bassman

07-Feb-2011, 01:33 PM

is this 3D blu ray available in the USA?

No, and it probably won't ever be for reasons stated below...

Does this mean I am ever likely to see a S3D conversion of Dawn of the Dead?

Yes. Rubenstein has or had been working with a company called In-Three (http://www.in-three.com/index.html) to convert the film to 3D. This German release is NOT that version judging by the reviews we've seen so far. Instead, this german version is a cheap 3D process that doesn't work and the edit is chopped to bits. They've also done it to a few other films like The Bear and The Running Man. I would say avoid this one at all costs and wait for the more official In-Three version for theaters.

Another advocate of In-Three is producer and George A Romero collaborator Richard P Rubinstein. Rubinstein has been a fan of 3D since the House Of Wax era, and even had a test script with Romero for a live-action 3D project in the 1970s. He was initially skeptical of the 2D-3D conversion, but asked In-Three to show him what they could do with his 1979 film Dawn Of The Dead, and was immediately convinced by the process.

"I picked five scenes that were representative of the film that did not necessary lend themselves to 3D," explains Rubinstein, "In total, 90 seconds of the film were converted, including a couple of 'chair-jumper' moments." These clips were enough to convince Rubinstein to convert the whole film.

"Not every film in every studio's library will lend itself to 3D conversion. George composes within the frame, with action taking place from front to back. Because of this we can convert the film with integrity, protecting George's cut," claims Rubinstein.

In-Three and Rubinstein's New Amsterdam Entertainment have also converted the closing moments of Dawn Of The Dead into 3D, and are continuing the process at a steady pace while keeping a watchful eye on the number of 3D capable cinemas available. "If we went full steam, we could have Dawn 3D ready in eight or nine months," say Rubinstein, "but with the current economic downturn we're now further away from the critical mass of 3D cinemas than we were."

DEAD BEAT

08-Feb-2011, 09:05 PM

I smell a fake.

Although Rubenstein was reportedly working on a 3D edit, I doubt this would be the way it would premiere...

I agree dude....thats a pretty cheesy cover for a big release like this!

bassman

08-Feb-2011, 09:53 PM

I agree dude....thats a pretty cheesy cover for a big release like this!

Well....I actually take back the "fake" comment. It's real, just a poor knockoff and not the official Rubenstein version thats been in the works.

DubiousComforts

09-Feb-2011, 04:56 AM

Who owns the rights to the European distribution?

When DAWN of the DEAD was produced, Dario Argento and his partners put up an estimated 50% of the budget in exchange for distribution rights outside of North and (I believe) South America, the territories where Rubinstein and/or Laurel would control distribution. At some point after they parted ways, Romero sold his interest in the property to Rubinstein and/or the rights holding company. I only know that Argento & company have sold their interest to DAWN in Japan. Otherwise, they may still own rights to all other territories oustide of the USA, or perhaps they sold off those rights as well.

The long and short of it is, if you wished to buy the rights to DAWN of the DEAD, add CGI Oompa Loompas and release Super Happy Magical Mystery Rainbow Very Early Morning of the Dead in 3-D, you could do so outside of North America and Rubinstein would have nothing to say about it.

MZSHAYPN MNSTR

09-Feb-2011, 04:46 PM

Whatever it is - the last time I met George for a pvt signing, hotel room in NJ the dull opening Friday of FANGORIA some years back, he was seeing us for maybe 20 minutes prior to leaving to hit a meeting in NYC. Other than my fabulous Sharpies fudging on him (like five ol shotgun shells), George (and Chris R) were bugged about "having" to meet about this "3D" edition. Hopefully RR got what he wanted, though I won't buy it.

Give it a little more time - we'll all be living in 3D DAWN OF THE DEAD before you know it.

bassman

09-Feb-2011, 04:52 PM

Whatever it is - the last time I met George for a pvt signing, hotel room in NJ the dull opening Friday of FANGORIA some years back, he was seeing us for maybe 20 minutes prior to leaving to hit a meeting in NYC. Other than my fabulous Sharpies fudging on him (like five ol shotgun shells), George (and Chris R) were bugged about "having" to meet about this "3D" edition. Hopefully RR got what he wanted, though I won't buy it.

I don't have the exact quote on hand, but within the last few years he stated in an interview that he had seen about thirty minutes of In-Three's conversion and was quite pleased with the result.

SymphonicX

09-Feb-2011, 05:06 PM

even if George personally shat in every delivery box in Amazon's warehouse I'd still buy it - an S3D conversion of dawn would be a fantastic oddity and addition to the collection.

Thanks everyone above for answering my questions and providing me with information and more importantly, hope! I hold on with baited breath to see the RR produced 3D version - this anaglyph rubbish is embarassing so I'm really glad we may indeed see a proper stereoscopic 3D release....

DEAD BEAT

09-Feb-2011, 09:56 PM

Well....I actually take back the "fake" comment. It's real, just a poor knockoff and not the official Rubenstein version thats been in the works.

Yeah I agree with that, I wanna believe it myself. Id buy it! ;)

Gryphon

10-Feb-2011, 08:01 AM

even if George personally shat in every delivery box in Amazon's warehouse ....

:eek:

Ahem... anyway :)

Sounds interesting, and a 3D version would be cool... But I'd settle for a Director's Cut Blu Ray :)

MikePizzoff

10-Feb-2011, 08:16 AM

:eek:

Ahem... anyway :)

Sounds interesting, and a 3D version would be cool... But I'd settle for a Director's Cut Blu Ray :)

I won't settle for anything less than the lost footage of Fran's beheading.

bassman

10-Feb-2011, 12:55 PM

I won't settle for anything less than the lost footage of Fran's beheading.

That would be fantastic, but I believe they've said that footage was lost or destroyed? IF in fact it was even filmed. Some say it was, some say it wasnt...

krakenslayer

10-Feb-2011, 02:06 PM

axlish

10-Feb-2011, 02:37 PM

I suspect the effect itself was tested, possibly shot, but they probably didn't shoot the scene itself with Gaylen Ross acting. That's just my suspicion though, based on it being a credible compromise between all the conflicting accounts.

I think when you see Fran stand outside of the helicopter that last time, waiting to see if Peter shows, that was supposed to be the beginning of whatever she was going to do. That would have been her hearing the offscreen gunshot of Peter killing himself.

bassman

10-Feb-2011, 03:14 PM

I think when you see Fran stand outside of the helicopter that last time, waiting to see if Peter shows, that was supposed to be the beginning of whatever she was going to do. That would have been her hearing the offscreen gunshot of Peter killing himself.

I've always suspected that shot had something to do with the lost scene. And I believe that existing picture of the dummy was taken on the roof of the mall, as well?

I believe they shot at least part of the sequence before they changed the ending. Then in the following 34 years Romero smoked it out of his memory. :p

MikePizzoff

10-Feb-2011, 06:13 PM

That would be fantastic, but I believe they've said that footage was lost or destroyed? IF in fact it was even filmed. Some say it was, some say it wasnt...

Hence why I said lost footage. :p

bassman

10-Feb-2011, 06:22 PM

Hence why I said lost footage. :p

Well....my main point was that it might not even exist. And if it were readily available it probably would've been in the Ultimate Edition.

You ass. :p

DubiousComforts

10-Feb-2011, 07:18 PM

I think when you see Fran stand outside of the helicopter that last time, waiting to see if Peter shows, that was supposed to be the beginning of whatever she was going to do. That would have been her hearing the offscreen gunshot of Peter killing himself.

The person to ask about this is Michael Gornick. He knows more details about how these films were made than anyone and loves to talk about it. His next convention appearance is at Cinema Wasteland in April (http://www.cinemawasteland.com/cinemashow/guests.html).

I'm constantly amazed at these shows by the fans that come up to a living encyclopedia of Romero film knowledge like Mike Gornick, pay for a signature, take a photo with him and then walk away without asking the guy anything.

darth los

10-Feb-2011, 08:51 PM

bassman

10-Feb-2011, 09:03 PM

I believe Rubenstein's idea is to release it to theaters. A midnight cult film sort of deal. If that's the case, I'll definitely check it out in theaters but I have no intention of upgrading to 3D if they later release it on blu ray.

At this point i'm wondering if it will ever be released at all. It's been years without any updates. Surely it will see the light of day after he's spent so much cash on the conversion?

Mr.G

11-Feb-2011, 12:28 AM

Dumb question, would one need to purchase a 3D tv to view this movie or would the glasses be enough like in NOTLD 3D or F13?

Danny

11-Feb-2011, 06:21 AM

All this means is eventually I'm going to have to upgrade to 3 D.

I mean the tech is cool and all but this spending 5-10 thousand every 5 years or so in order to have a first rate viewing experience is getting to be a bit much. :dead:

:cool:

3d is not a first rate viewing experience. it is a novelty. in many ways it is the antithesis to HD, its a fad that actively detracts from the experience. In an attempt to turn it into some form of amusement park ride it turns the piece from a story that draws you in to a sterilised stage show that expects you to ooh and aah at only what it wants you to, focussing the 3d on that. any chance for subtlety or nuance in the scene is lost because you are not allowed to take in what you wish, only what the 3d will allow.
3d sucks.

Neil

11-Feb-2011, 06:47 AM

3d is not a first rate viewing experience. it is a novelty. in many ways it is the antithesis to HD, its a fad that actively detracts from the experience. In an attempt to turn it into some form of amusement park ride it turns the piece from a story that draws you in to a sterilised stage show that expects you to ooh and aah at only what it wants you to, focussing the 3d on that. any chance for subtlety or nuance in the scene is lost because you are not allowed to take in what you wish, only what the 3d will allow.
3d sucks.

I'm not so sure... And I'm sure the same thing was once said about 'colour'... And the arguments you apply above could just equally used with that subject too surely?

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 AM ----------

Dumb question, would one need to purchase a 3D tv to view this movie or would the glasses be enough like in NOTLD 3D or F13?I believe it's hardware! 3D player + 3D TV!?

Danny

11-Feb-2011, 07:12 AM

I'm not so sure... And I'm sure the same thing was once said about 'colour'... And the arguments you apply above could just equally used with that subject too surely?[COLOR="Silver"]

But 3d actively affects what you see, colour, like HD is a transition which only makes what the artist has created become clearer to see, 3D does the opposite, you see less. its not an advancement or next step at all, its a novelty that we already got tired of and discarded once and was brought back for its kitsch value to bring more people back into the theatres. which worked for a time but thats already in decline.

Neil

11-Feb-2011, 07:42 AM

But 3d actively affects what you see, colour, like HD is a transition which only makes what the artist has created become clearer to see, 3D does the opposite, you see less. its not an advancement or next step at all, its a novelty that we already got tired of and discarded once and was brought back for its kitsch value to bring more people back into the theatres. which worked for a time but thats already in decline.
Really don't see it as black and white as that...

Just like colour, 3D can be used garishly, or to add to a scene.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still not sold on the technology, and I think they still need to do some work on improving it, but I'm not ready to write it off yet :)

Danny

11-Feb-2011, 08:53 AM

Really don't see it as black and white as that...

Just like colour, 3D can be used garishly, or to add to a scene.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still not sold on the technology, and I think they still need to do some work on improving it, but I'm not ready to write it off yet :)

no, it is that black and white. when i watched avatar, the 3d acted like the cameraman could not use a focus lens properly, everything around the 3d became a poor blur to accentuate the 3d effect and it ruined shots which later looks amazing in normal video. it did not make the scene better in any way, it made the piece literally harder to watch and was a step backwards.

babomb

11-Feb-2011, 09:19 AM

Then in the following 34 years Romero smoked it out of his memory. :D:elol:Hahahahahahahaha:D

Wrong Number

11-Feb-2011, 10:09 AM

I can't believe 3D has taken off as much as it has. I remember when I was a kid going to see House of Wax in 3D (it was a revival) and even at that age thinking it was a silly, lazy way to make a movie. Though the tech has greatly improved, I still feel that for the most part it's "lazy" story telling and a great way for studios to suck more dollars out of the public. It's really done a lot to keep my out of the movie theaters.

WN

bassman

11-Feb-2011, 12:15 PM

no, it is that black and white. when i watched avatar, the 3d acted like the cameraman could not use a focus lens properly, everything around the 3d became a poor blur to accentuate the 3d effect and it ruined shots which later looks amazing in normal video. it did not make the scene better in any way, it made the piece literally harder to watch and was a step backwards.

I think it varies from person to person. I've heard many people say the same thing you just described, but on the other hand it didn't blur for me at all. Sort of like blu ray/HD. I still meet people that claim they can't notice an improvement from SD. I guess it all depends on what set of eyes you're working with?

Avatar in 3D at the theater was AMAZING. At home? Not so much....

Gryphon

11-Feb-2011, 11:26 PM

I think it varies from person to person. I've heard many people say the same thing you just described, but on the other hand it didn't blur for me at all. Sort of like blu ray/HD. I still meet people that claim they can't notice an improvement from SD. I guess it all depends on what set of eyes you're working with?

Avatar in 3D at the theater was AMAZING. At home? Not so much....

A lot of people just don't like new things (or can't afford them), so they put them down. Anyone that can see clearly should be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. Hell, even with a movie as old as Dawn78. I had the DVD (admittedly not the director's cut), and now I have the Blu Ray. Heck, just the background detail alone is sharper... walls, rocks, the lettering on the chopper, the rednecks running around below the chopper before the "I'm a Man" scene, etc. If you can't see those things more sharply in HD, you need (better) glasses :)

As for 3D... it's great in the Theatre, IMO... but I don't need it at home. HD is just fine for me :) Besides, without the 3D at home, I can pay attention to background details I missed in the 3D experience in the theatre :)

bassman

11-Feb-2011, 11:35 PM

A lot of people just don't like new things (or can't afford them), so they put them down. Anyone that can see clearly should be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. If you can't see those things more sharply in HD, you need (better) glasses :)

I dunno. My wife claims she can't see the HD and just recently had a visit with the optometrist. And obviously if I have it, she can afford it. Go figure.:lol:

I agree with you that anyone SHOULD be able to tell the difference, but strangely I've had many claim they couldn't...

Gryphon

11-Feb-2011, 11:47 PM

I dunno. My wife claims she can't see the HD and just recently had a visit with the optometrist. And obviously if I have it, she can afford it. Go figure.:lol:

I agree with you that anyone SHOULD be able to tell the difference, but strangely I've had many claim they couldn't...

Strange, hehe, but I'll take your word for it :D

DEAD BEAT

13-Feb-2011, 07:05 AM

DjfunkmasterG

14-Feb-2011, 08:10 PM

A lot of people just don't like new things (or can't afford them), so they put them down. Anyone that can see clearly should be able to tell the difference between HD and SD. Hell, even with a movie as old as Dawn78. I had the DVD (admittedly not the director's cut), and now I have the Blu Ray. Heck, just the background detail alone is sharper... walls, rocks, the lettering on the chopper, the rednecks running around below the chopper before the "I'm a Man" scene, etc. If you can't see those things more sharply in HD, you need (better) glasses :)

As for 3D... it's great in the Theatre, IMO... but I don't need it at home. HD is just fine for me :) Besides, without the 3D at home, I can pay attention to background details I missed in the 3D experience in the theatre :)

These same knuckleheads buy the nice HD tV bbut refuse to spring for HD cable then overstretch the SD signal/picture to fil the screen and bitch there is no difference... there is, but there is NO cure for dumbassery

Gryphon

14-Feb-2011, 09:50 PM

These same knuckleheads buy the nice HD tV bbut refuse to spring for HD cable then overstretch the SD signal/picture to fil the screen and bitch there is no difference... there is, but there is NO cure for dumbassery

Sad, but true :(

SymphonicX

15-Feb-2011, 07:53 AM

Same type of people ask "well I just don't understand how all these old movies are in HD, it wasn't invented when those movies were made!"

I love 3D, its great in the home and it adds many new things to fantasy film making....shamefully though, it's being wasted on sports and opera.

kidgloves

25-May-2013, 09:16 PM

Any more news on this?

Neil

28-May-2013, 12:19 PM

Seems to have disappeared? I suspect Rubinstein has lost interest in it, and the sequel he also talked about?

kidgloves

28-May-2013, 05:17 PM

Seems to have disappeared? I suspect Rubinstein has lost interest in it, and the sequel he also talked about?

Shame. I've become quite a fan of the 2D conversions I've seen so far.
Dawn in 3D would be yet another excuse to watch it again. The 3D definitely adds something IMHO.

Neil

28-May-2013, 05:55 PM

Shame. I've become quite a fan of the 2D conversions I've seen so far.
Dawn in 3D would be yet another excuse to watch it again. The 3D definitely adds something IMHO.

This is at home?

I've really not been bothered. For example, I have Avatar and I'd rather watch it in 2D than 3D.

kidgloves

28-May-2013, 06:28 PM

This is at home?

I've really not been bothered. For example, I have Avatar and I'd rather watch it in 2D than 3D.

Yes. Its at home. I have the active 3D (the one that goes through the back of the tv and also pops out the front). It helps if you change the settings to suit the movie also, which I don't think a lot of people are aware of. Blows the cinema experience out of the water IMO.

Neil

28-May-2013, 07:28 PM

Active 3D? Is that where you need "active glasses" rather than the passive cinema type? If so, that's what my Panasonic plasma has...

I actually had a result buying my TV. After buying it they did a price match and refunded me £200... and then couldn't supply me with the two pairs of glasses that were suppose to come with it, so refunded me a futher 2 x £129 (they were changign £129 per set at the time).

I've since bought one pair for £90 just to try it... But as I said... Not sold!