Even though it’s only been out for a week, judging by the movie’s astronomical box office take, odds are that you’ve probably already seen ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2’ at least once. So tell us: Did you choose to see it in 2D or 3D?
As Luke mentioned in his recent box office recap, the U.S. saw a smaller percentage of 3D tickets sold compared to the rest of the world. Internationally, 60% of viewers chose to see ‘Deathly Hallows Part 2’ in 3D, whereas only 43% of American viewers went that route.
When I went this weekend, I chose a standard 2D screening for a few reasons. First, Mrs. Z doesn’t care for 3D. That was a big factor. Also, ‘Deathly Hallows Part 2’ was not a native 3D production; it was converted from 2D in post-production, and the results of that process tend to be underwhelming. Most importantly, the last few ‘Potter’ films have been photographed extremely dark, and I didn’t want to risk a pair of 3D glasses making the picture unwatchably dim.
Reports from viewers who did pony up for the 3D tickets have been mixed. Some (including Luke) have said that the 3D is better than most post-conversion efforts. Others have said that the effect adds little or nothing to the experience. (But some people say that about every 3D movie, don’t they?)
Personally, I actually found it a little annoying to see a number of scenes obviously tailored for gimmicky 3D pop-out effects that have no impact at all in 2D. Every time a dragon would thrust its head directly toward the camera, or something would explode into a million tiny pieces, I felt like the filmmakers were saying, “You should have watched this in 3D!” Fortunately, this issue wasn’t enough to negatively affect my opinion of the movie. I still liked it a lot.
I feel comfortable that I made the right decision to watch this movie in 2D theatrically. However, I may still check out the Blu-ray 3D disc when that becomes available.
Loading ...
Jon
I should add to my vote (Saw in 3D, didn’t add anything) that it actually detracted significantly from my experience. I saw the movie in 3D, in a full-fledged IMAX theater, and the 3D was absolutely horrendous. It was not possible to orient the glasses, or angle my head the right way to avoid ghosting, duplicated images, or just plain blurriness. I was VERY disappointed, as was every other member of my party in the 3D experience.
Michael S. Palmer
I agree with Jon here. the IMAX 3D (a real IMAX cinema, btw) was terrible, absolutely one of the worst 3D presentations I’ve ever seen (I did not see CLASH OF THE TITANS in 3D).
There were rings around everything. characters stuck out as flat objects in 3D space. the focus didn’t always match the 3D movement. not a good job at all, IMO (though to be fare, my wife didn’t notice).
I’ve seen every Potter film (since HP3) in IMAX, so the DMR is usually good. And, HP5 had its climax in 3D which, at the time, I quite enjoyed, but HP7.2 was near unwatchable in the format (this coming from a person who generally sees most films in 3D when available — sometimes by choice, sometimes by schedule)
My guess is that the 3D post-conversion here didn’t mix well w/ the IMAX DMR up-conversion. Also, if i’m not mistaken, IMAX is still active glasses, so it’s a bit more headache-inducing than the Real-D movies I’ve seen of late.
I would be open to seeing the film in non-IMAX 3D, but generally a movie this dark should be in 2D, for me anyway. Lesson learned.
Did anyone see Transformers in IMAX 3D? I saw it in Real-D, which was excellent (in terms of imagery).
Has anyone seen Harry Potter in BOTH IMAX 3D and Real-D (etc)? Any differences?
Josh Zyber
AuthorIMAX 3D can use either active or passive glasses. It depends on the theater which implementation you get. I believe most are passive.
The IMAX passive glasses are more limited in terms of viewing angle than RealD. For example, you need to keep your head straight upright. A tilt will cause you to see crosstalk.
I haven’t tested it myself, but most of the user feedback I’ve read suggests that the 3D in digital IMAX (“LIEMAX”) theaters is superior to the 3D in 15/70 film IMAX theaters.
William Henley
I saw it in an Extreme theater, which is like a large Liemax type screen that uses RealD and Christine projectors. The image was bright, and there was no ringing or ghosting in 3D images. My ONLY issue is that the theater was packed, and I had to set WAY up front, and had trouble following what was going on as a single person’s head sometimes was bigger than my perephial vision. Wish I had of gotten there a bit earlier so I could have sat futher back.
I am a huge Imax fan, but DMR just kinda bothers me. Its NOT Imax – its simply upconverted 35mm. I like the large screen, but now we have stuff like XD and Extreme, I think I prefer watching the movies natively. I truthfully do not see much difference between IMAX DMR and a GOOD 35mm print or a high-quality digital projection (hence high quality – there have been some theaters I have absolutely blacklisted for showing movies too dark or not knowing how to setup projectors or auditoriums).
My recommendation is to go see it in RealD. It sounds like its a MUCH better presentation from what Jon and Michael described
Alex
I voted for “I saw it in regular 2D, and was happy with that decision,” but I would be very interested to hear about one scene in 3D. I thought that the (potential spoiler) mine cart chase could have looked amazing in 3D. Did anyone think so? Were there other individual scenes that really shone?
Matt Chance
Oh, the mine cart chase had no discernible 3D AT ALL. I was paying super close attention to it, and could not figure out why they didn’t bother to even TRY to make it have depth.
It was such a disappointing experience. I can see being subtle with your use of the third dimension, but not so much so that I couldn’t tell the film was in 3-D at all. All I paid for was a digital projection.
Robbert
I saw it in 2d but I’m also curious how it looks in 3d. Especially the opening scene with the floating death eaters over hogwarts.
I chose 2d because every time a see a converted 3d I get distracted by the action in front of the camera. With 3d you really need overview shots and not a shaky camera zoomed in on the action.
Then again HP has allot of special effects and I bet they can just be rendered in 3d with a press on a button so those will look good in 3d.
Matt Chance
They didn’t bother to press that button. Every time I THOUGHT they were going to go crazy with it, they didn’t even bother. Death eaters, dragons, flames, Gringotts gold explosions – none of it exploded off of the screen – not even a *little* bit.
Shayne Blakeley
I’m going to see it today, definitely in 2D. I’m really hoping they don’t leave the 3D filter on. Is it even worth mentioning if they do? How long does it take to correct?
Shayne Blakeley
Just got back. Absolutely loved it. Thankfully they did not leave the filter on, however during the most important bit of exposition in the movie the sound cut out the picture went black and finally came back on, much too late of course.
Shannon Nutt
Jon, I’m not sure where you saw it, but I also saw it in 3D IMAX and it looked fantastic…I had to double check online after going home that the movie was not naitively shot in 3D – they did a great job with the conversion. There are a number of sequences that really benefit from the 3D – most particularly the Gringott’s and Room of Requirement scenes in the movie. I’m glad I saw it in 3D – and actually feel a bit sorry for those who didn’t experience their first-viewing that way.
Chad Lawless
“I felt like the filmmakers were saying, ‘You should have watched this in 3-D!'” HAHAHA! Line of the day, man!
Wonder how long it will be before we hear a commentary track where a director says exactly that because he’s upset that his/her film didn’t exceed expectations in 3-D ticket sales? (Guess Michael Bay is off the hook since he shot Transformers 3 in 3-D…
)
Tony
I saw it in 2D, digitally projected, and I could swear I noticed EE in the longer shots.
Josh Zyber
AuthorIt’s possible that could have been chromatic abberation from the projector lens, which can cause a similar-looking artifact.
Timbobarry
I saw it in 2D but will buy it in 3D when it comes out on Blu-ray. I’m one of those weirdos that doesn’t like paying the surcharge for 3D at the theater but will gladly pay for the 3D set on Blu-ray.
Aaron Peck
Saw it in 3D because I was forced to. The press screening was in 3D. It wasn’t obnoxious like ‘Clash of the Titans’, but it also wasn’t necessary.
Phillip Meyers
We saw it in Real 3D. It was great, i thought it really popped and really enjoyed it. The movie did seem dark, thou i think thats just the style of the movie.
Lahrs
My wife cannot watch 3D without getting a headache, so I went alone during the opening week. I saw it in Real3D and quite frankly wasn’t impressed. I do not think it detracted from the movie, but wasn’t worth the extra $3.75 either.
I am taking my wife to a 2D showing on Sunday, so I can make a better judgement then. The movie however was fantastic and I am more than ready to see it again. Considering how critical I have been of OotP and HBP, I think that is saying a lot.
Brian Haney
saw it in reald 3d, was good, but those crappy generic ray ban looking glasses and my glasses dont mix so well and had a terrible headache. Movie was great though!
Gareth Callenby
I saw Thor in 3D and have since decided not to see any other films in 3D unless they are entirely computer animated or shot natively in stereoscope. Thor’s 3D, which was touted as a good upconversion, to me seemed alternately unnecessary or chintzy.
Also, as dark as the cinematography is for the last Potter film, I’m happy with my decision.
EM
I chose 2D and am satisfied. Once the movie began, I no longer even thought about the 3D alternative.
Christopher Hagood
I saw the 2D one with my friends, and the 3D one on a date. I wish I hadn’t have wasted the money on the 3D version. The film’s definition greatly diminishes. But at least I saw it free the first time. Hah
Ruben
I saw it in a German theater today and it was terrible. It was only the third time I went to see a 3D movie (first Avatar, second Jackass)and I thought it was a massive letdown. There was double vision in almost every shot, many shots were just plain bluriness (I’m quoting Jon here who seems to have had a similar experience). It was not an IMAX theater (as there are none here), could someone explain to me what may have caused the bad 3D? Apparently the movie itself is not the problem, as some people watched the movie in 3D and quite liked it.
There were very few shots that looked good (the best imo beeing the one with Neville hanging on to the ledge of that bridge).
The bad 3D distracted me so much that I found myself sort of pulled out of the movie at times. I think I’m going to give it 2 weeks, then watch it again in 2D.