T2 3D looked amazing!


Not sure, what else to say. I enjoy 3D movies and T2 was an absolutely pleasure. Seemed like the smallest details were easily seen. The depth worked great - kinda made it seem like it was newly filmed in a way. The audio at my theater was not as loud or deep as I would have preferred, but the sound was fine, and may have been cleaned up a little as well.
The story didn't NEED 3D, obviously, but was a lot of fun seeing in real world perspective when the heli is flying around outside the building, or they are running down halls. Even the ending at that mill seemed more clarified with realistic depth and textures. Was such a pleasure, I may go see it again before it goes away. I paid, $14, but can see it for $9 on certain days.

reply

I'll add the few wide open battle scenes in the future were spectacular! They were JUST cool looking in the flat version, but in 3D it does this VERY IMMERSIVE "you are THERE" with the explosions and all that land war action.

reply

I thought the 3D was only noticeable in the beginning future scenes but after that you forget it's in 3D....except when theirs a explosive scene the fire looks 3D. However the film itself looked like it was made this year

reply

On occasion I would forget it was 3D as well, but then I'd remember and look around a bit and see it again. I bet a lot of shot s just dont lend themselves to 3D well since it was never designed originally around 3D filming.

Also, I noticed it seemed cropped in a little bit. Things cut off on top and sides just slightly. but when moving perspective for different eyes, I guess that would be required.

reply

Completely agree, especially when characters were pointing guns so that they almost appeared to be in the face of the audience or even the little bits of burning debris when the Cyberdyne building windows are blown up.

I've seen this film so many times but this was my first experience of it in a cinema; very pleased with it in 3D. :)

reply

Went to see it at the cinema last night (TBH, never really that big a fan of the movie....much prefer the original) but the 3D was very good in close-ups (detail, background, forground) but not so effective in long shots (especially motion-scenes) I guess this is down to it's age (and the fact that it wasn't shot on digital to begin with) But it was (for about 60%) pretty impressive what they can do with older films. No doubt it cost a small fortune to apply this process (which is a shame, because I'd rather see other older movies given this 3D treatment)

MAD MAX 2?
JAWS?
ROCKY III?


reply

the more they do, the better and cheaper it is becoming. I saw TOP GUN on a 3D disk and it was pretty good also. Let's hope they do more oldies like this. I'm trying to SUPPORT them with my wallet. Rather see a classic renewed in the theater than much of the boring sequels out these days.

reply

Long shots have less 3D simply because of the distance. Your eyes are a set distance apart, so the further away you are from something, the less your stereo vision will matter in relation to that distance. This is why your eyes do not see the 3D of the moon the way they do with a basketball a few feet away, and why we don't see any distinguishable 3D on distant mountains.

If you want to increase the 3D effect of things that are further away, you have to increase the separation between the two cameras (or perspectives, if rendering). This has the effect of making the distant objects look like a miniature, though, because technically it means your "eyes" are further apart. This literally creates an illusion of your head being larger.

It's a fun effect to play with in 3D, though. I do 3D photography and I snapped a shot of Santa Monica from inside an office building. I made the two shots about 20 feet apart, and it gives a great 3D effect which also making the city feel like a tiny tabletop model.

In a movie, it would be a dizzying effect to change the distance between the cameras while shooting a scene. It could be quite psychedelic. It could also mimic the literal result of your own body shrinking or growing.

Also, doing 3D with the cameras closer together can make 3D not normally able to be seen, like shooting insects in close-up macro as though you are also the size of an insect. I have a stunning BBS documentary done this way. You can't do this with your own eyes -- If you hold an ant close enough to your eye to see it close up, it's impossible to see it with both of your eyes in 3D because it would have to be right up to just one of your eyes. You'd also need a magnifying glass.

Parallax aka stereo vision is a very interesting thing, and there is a lot that can be done with it. Movies haven't done a whole lot with it, but there are documentaries with some great experimentation and amazing 3D photography.

reply

I'd LOVE to see the first STAR WARS in 3D!!

reply