my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Piranha 3D (2010) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Piranha 3D (2010) Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 08-24-2010 09:43 AM                     Folks: Saw the film last night in 2D (by choice) and enjoyed it. I find that these types of films are rarely excellent. If you can walk away feeling as thought you saw a "decent" film you got a good one. Mike  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 08-27-2010 02:15 PM                     I absolutely HATED, HATED, HATED the '3D' in this. Hated it. Struggled with it - it felt like my eyes were being gouged out from my head. I literally couldn't stand it and walked out after the first reel, because I just couldn't see the movie clearly. I had to wait in the lobby because I went with friends. Did they screw up the projection? From now on: 3D conversion = no sale.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 08-27-2010 04:34 PM                        Michael, Maybe they had the phase/eyes reversed? With RealD if you flip the lenses you'll get a really bad looking image with "depth" all out of whack. When I saw "Monster House" in RealD they had the projector set up wrong. If you flipped the glasses upside down, the image improved drastically.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-27-2010 05:21 PM                     That sounds odd, Michael. It would seem wherever you saw it has an issue. Where did you go? I've only heard 99% good things about this conversion. (The odd shot looks wrong etc.)  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 08-27-2010 09:51 PM                     It was in Dolby 3D, which is (so far) my favourite 3D system. This was in cinema 1 in Bondi. I've seen 3D movies in other screens there and they were excellent, but this was my first 3D screening in cinema 1. I did notice that even though the masking went out to scope for the 3D trailers/feature, there was a significant amount of spill on the right side (I mean several feet) and also quite a bit on the left. The geometry seemed odd, too - it wasn't in the 'wrong' aspect ratio but the actors seemed vertically squished just ever so slightly. Not obviously, but just enough so that something seemed 'off'. The colour was extremely unnatural - the sky was a very greenish-blue. I thing I normally enjoy about the Dolby system is how sharp the images are, and the way they stay sharp all the way through the entire depth of the image, right up to the bridge of your nose with virtually zero ghosting - the way it should be. However, this movie was just soft with no depth at all. The glasses converged the two images OK, but all that produced was a soft, depthless, colourless soup of an image which was an eyestrain to watch. It's hard to know whether it was the source material or the projection that was faulty - or a combination or both - because I don't know what it's supposed to look like or how 'good' post-converted 3D is supposed to be. I tried flipping the glasses but that didn't seem to improve things. Is it possible the installer screwed up that much for that cinema? Or did someone change a setting since then? Something seems very wrong, but until they move that movie to another house, no one will know what the problem is.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-04-2010 09:15 PM                    I'm with you, Michael. The fake 3D in this sucks. This is the worst 3D I have ever seen. I didn't see Clash of the Titans, though, and I hear that was pretty bad. The edges around just about everything were off. The girl walking behind the tall grass on the island when she was on her way to call for help looked like hell. The shot in the beginning where the camera was rolling along with a chain link fence in front of it looked like shit. People's hair was out of whack. Signs in the background that were supposed to be in the background were partially in the background and partially on the plane of the actor standing in front of them. The bubbles and waves in the water looked terrible. Splashes didn't look right. The shots that did look OK looked like view-master scenes. If everyone here is saying that this looks really good, I don't know what to say, but to me this looks like absolute crap. And it has nothing to do with my problem watching RealD. I didn't stay for the whole thing either.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-05-2010 04:45 PM                     quote: Michael Barry there was a significant amount of spill on the right side (I mean several feet) and also quite a bit on the left. Well, that's not going to help for starters.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-05-2010 06:42 PM                        Mark, I do not know how PIRANHA was presented in 3-D at the theatre you saw the movie but what I saw was fine and I had no problems with the Real D presentation I saw at Regal's Pearl Highlands 14 a week ago. As a fan of 3-D, I know the difference between good and bad 3-D and the movie in question was just fine. Because it was filmed originally in 2-D with the intention to convert it to 3-D in post production, the 3-D effect was not deep enough in most of the scenes but some parts of the film were great. I thought the opening credits with the letters extending out from the screen looked very cool. I was not expecting to enjoy the movie very much but I found it very entertaining especially the underwater ballet done by two gorgeous women in the nude set to the Flower Duet music from Leo Delebes opera LAKME.. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-12-2010 10:19 AM                        quote: Kurt Zupin This movie is really a movie to be enjoyed with a bunch of friends. Right. Saw it with a bunch of college friends and that made it a lot more fun -- even the wives tolerated it, and that's saying alot for this type of film which from the get-go has "anti-wife" stamped all over it. Actually, I had no idea how we convinced them to come. We saw it in RealD and I must say, given the wild variation on the posts here about the problems others experienced, this seems to be evidence that technically the 3D presentation quality must be difficult to maintain given the wildly differing presentations because there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with what I saw. At our show, the 3D was prefect; I saw nothing of the problems mentioned. There were no video artifacts at all and the editing paid parituclar attention to making sure that no shot required severe convergence changes, so never was there any effort needed to get the images to coalesce. I imagine this is easier to do with conversions. And, unlike some other RealD 3D I've seen, the picture was sufficiently bright so I never had to complain in my head about it throughout the movie -- it wasn't 2D levels, but it was confortably bright. If there can be such severe issues as others have described from theatre to theatre and across a variety of systems, then 3D is not at a level that you can confidently say any place you see it will be the same repeatable presentation. THAT, sadly, along with the surcharge, may be a terrible blow to 3D's longevity. Oh, PS, I had no idea that this was a 2D to 3D conversion and if you had asked me after the show which I thought it was, I would have said without hesitation that it was shot 3D, it was that good. So they must be getting considerably better at it.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 09-12-2010 07:18 PM                    quote: Frank Angel Oh, PS, I had no idea that this was a 2D to 3D conversion and if you had asked me after the show which I thought it was, I would have said without hesitation that it was shot 3D, it was that good. So they must be getting considerably better at it. No, they just had longer to screw around with it to get it to look better. This movie was supposed to come out a year ago. If it had it probably would have looked like crap. So the key is to plan their 2-D to 3-D conversion properly so that more time can be given to get it as close to right as possible. The only way to get it completely right is to shoot it with the 3-D cameras. Movie makers also need to remember that when they do something they want to look like it is coming out at you, don't let it dip into the frame area. It loses it's effect when that happens. Also they need to slow down the title sequences that have the letters exploding out at you. It happens so fast that the eyes don't even perceive the 3-D effect.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-12-2010 09:04 PM                        So are conversions cheaper than just renting an extra camera/lenses and videotaping it in native 3D?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-12-2010 10:37 PM                        I think "conversions" are a mostly a way to take a crappy movie that's already been shot and put it into 3-D in an attempt to cash in. Hopefully within the next year enough of these bastards will have been flops that the industry decides to cut it out.  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 09-16-2010 12:17 PM                     Frank: I hear you about variations in 3D presentations, but at the same time, those variations are impossible since we all know that digital is perfect. But seriously, I think that if all of us here sat in the same screening for this movie, we would all have fairly similar opinions about the quality of the 3D. There would probably be some mild variation based on one person's lenience for converted 3D vs. someone else's absolute scale of how good 3D can be, for example, but I'm pretty sure there would be none of this polar opposite type of response we're getting here. So...presentation consistency is a key ingredient. It has to be.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-18-2010 09:43 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley Hopefully within the next year enough of these bastards will have been flops that the industry decides to cut it out. I dunno...I think 3D is becoming a marketing buzzword (like "digital") where the general perception is that it's automatically better than its predecessor. My hunch is that the industry will adopt true dual-image 3D when it becomes cheaper than creating the effect it in post. However, that doesn't mean that 2D-to-3D conversions will go away entirely. I see it becoming a gimmick reserved for re-releasing older product (like "Star Wars" for example) in a novel way.  |  IP: Logged Geena Phillips Expert Film Handler Posts: 198 From: Norcross, GA / USA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 10-01-2010 01:44 PM                        EDIT: D'oh! I misread the title of this read; I thought we were talking about Resident Evil 4. Oopsie.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.