7 thoughts on ““Tron Legacy” in 3D IMAX — Sadly Disappointing

  1. Thanks, Oliver, for a great review! And, after seeing the (3D?) Tron trailer, speaking to the producer and seeing his presentation at 3DU about the film (and the fact that he and the DP decided to dispense with the services of a stereographer on the film), I have to sadly say that my sentiments are exactly in accord with yours.

    It’s very bizarre that, after years of 3D movies with extreme negative parallax, we are being offered “3D” movies, like Toy Story 3 and Tron, that are barely stereoscopic and hardly worth the extra bucks we are expected to shell out to see them.

    Best,
    Ray 3D Zone

  2. Thank you! This is the first and only HONEST, INTELLIGENT review of the quality of the 3D effects in this movie that I have seen. All other reviews actually rave about how great the 3D effects are. And the director boasts about how revolutionary his use of 3D is. I completely agree with your assessment. The lack of overall depth is alarming considering that this was shot with the latest state-of-the-art Sony 3D digital cameras. I too saw little difference between the limited depth of this movie and that of the CONVERTED 2D ‘Last Airbender’. And I saw this at an IMAX theater that is usually noticeably better than the usual digital 3D theaters. I thought it was a 2D conversion until I read the reviews. Even close-ups of faces of two actors looked like cardboard cutouts. And I have to say, I noticed the same lack of depth in ‘Toy Story 3’. I mentioned this to a guy in the theater after watching ‘Airbender’ and he made the point that Disney probably limited the depth intentionally so there was no chance that the few people, who claim headaches while watching 3D movies (and therefore shouldn’t watch them), could complain. I’m afraid he might be right. It’s another case of the tail wagging the dog. And thanks Ray Zone for commenting! I love your pioneering work in the realm of 3D comics and respect your opinion on the subject of 3D. I totally agree with your ‘barely stereoscopic’ comment.

  3. I totally agree with your assessment but have to say that watching Tron has made me give up on movies unless the 3D is AAA quality. Toy Story 3 looked great, along with Avatar but Tron Legacy was too dark, the 3d effect did not enhance the film at all (when it was noticible) and the 2D parts looked better without the glasses on (being brighter and less blurry). Plus 3D worked best in Avatar when the camera was not moving. In Tron Legacy, the action scenes ended up becoming a blurry mess since it was difficult for the eyes to focus. In this film I actually did get the eye fatigue as the 3D effect moved all over the screen in short spaces of time. I’m glad that they didn’t go heavily with the audience space 3D, as that would have looked gimicky when rewatching the film in 2D which is really where Tron belongs.

    So I’ve decided that I’m going back to 2D films (paying less for the privilege) and only watching 3D on the odd occasion a film is actually supposed to be seen in 3D. So that’s Avatar 2 only.

  4. Exactly! Great review. Yesterday I was on Tron: Legacy and I asked myself if this was 2D conversion or not. I was almost sure it was conversion. Why do they do that? If I go to see 3D movie I want to see real 3D not pseudo-3D with cardboards people and no depth. I have the best 3D experience from computer generating movies (Ice Age 3, MegaMind…)

  5. Hi All,
    Don’t flame me for this, and I realize that my opinion of the movie is completely the opposite of many of the respected stereo professionals on this site.
    However, I would be lying if I did not say that I was actually impressed overall by the use of stereo in this movie.

    If I were to dissect it scene by scene, then yes, I would love to see more roundness on closeups of faces, the depth and “bump map” as it were of skin pores etc, but in totality, I feel it all fit together well.

    Don’t forget that in the older days, an Imax movie was just one feature. Today in a multiplex there may be two or more 3D movies playing.
    I actually saw Tron and then went to the next cinema in the multiplex to watch Gullivers travels (Big mistake and totally waste of 3D on that movie btw).

    The point being that today if we completely “max out” the 3D budget on a feature length movie, we risk “taxing” our eyes and brains too much to actually watch a second 3D movie.
    Why anyone would want to watch two 3D movies in a day today does not make sense, but give it a few months when all movies go 3D, and you’ll see that a day at the movies is more enjoyable when there is no extreme 3D.

    Just for the record I am totally against newbie Cinematographers/stereographers with their 3D calculators and ant like interaxials, but in the case of Tron I think it was well balanced.
    Here’s my review: http://realvision.ae/blog/2011/01/stereo-3d-depth-study-of-the-movie-tron-legacy/

    Best Regards
    Clyde

  6. Thanks for your analysis, it’s the first sensible opinion I find on tron legacy.

    I was deeply disappointed with the movie and I blame the 3D for most of it.

    I found that the entire 3D-part was just to dark and blurry. I had great difficulty focusing. Also, in many scenes the depth of field was just wrong. In a dialog between two persons, one was in focus and the other one was excessively blurred. I don’t quite understand the process but I believe that in 3D mode you should have bigger DOF’s because your brain will try to focus that other bits of the shot. I found myself constantly trying to focus things that just weren’t shot in focus.

    Perhaps you could clarify if that makes sense 🙂

    Cheers,

Comments are closed.