# Top Gun 3D



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Did anyone else see the Top Gun 3D conversion yet? I watched it last night. Man, they are getting good at this stuff. It's really amazing how 3D conversion technology has progressed. I would almost swear that the movie was filmed in 3D.

Worth a look if you have the chance. The flight scenes are amazing. I am so looking forward to Jurassic Park 3D.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm trying to decide if the good 3D conversion is a good thing or not. If you can just convert it later, why film in 3D?

It was weird hearing the bartender talk to his boss at the Warren Theaters the other day when they were discussing _Top Gun 3D_. The boss was asking the bartender if he was going to see the movie and the younger guy wasn't too interested - because _Top Gun_ was made before he was born. These kids are so young these days!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Chris, my big question about this film is about the grain. The HD transfer used for HDNET is too grainy, and the Blu-ray transfer has too much grain reduction (looks like videotape.) Do you think they started with the Blu-ray transfer when they did the 3D conversion or do you think they did a new master?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Chris, my big question about this film is about the grain. The HD transfer used for HDNET is too grainy, and the Blu-ray transfer has too much grain reduction (looks like videotape.) Do you think they started with the Blu-ray transfer when they did the 3D conversion or do you think they did a new master?


 Hard to say. The grain in there and it's easy to see, but I expected that. The film has always been grainy even when I saw it back when it came out in theaters.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Do you have the regular Blu-ray? I was amazed how much grain they took out, especially compared to the HDNET version which looks worse than DVD.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Stuart Sweet;3183983 said:


> Chris, my big question about this film is about the grain. The HD transfer used for HDNET is too grainy, and the Blu-ray transfer has too much grain reduction (looks like videotape.) Do you think they started with the Blu-ray transfer when they did the 3D conversion or do you think they did a new master?


It cannot be too grainy unless artificial grain is added. I don't know much about the 35mm film stock they used, but it would have been an intentional choice.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Do you have the regular Blu-ray? I was amazed how much grain they took out, especially compared to the HDNET version which looks worse than DVD.


 Yes, I had the regular Blu-Ray (which I sold). It also comes with the regular Blu-Ray but I haven't compared them yet.

All I can say is that in the 3D version, the grain is definitely there and it's actually amazing how they were able to do the 3D conversion with the grain. You would think it would be hard to work around it.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The only substantial changes in the 3D conversion...you know...besides the 3D conversion...are the color timings and detail.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

FYI - The 2D disc included with the new 3D release is the same 2D release from 2008. The 3D version appears to be from a newer master than the one used for the 2D version.


----------



## BarrySandrew (Feb 26, 2013)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Chris, my big question about this film is about the grain. The HD transfer used for HDNET is too grainy, and the Blu-ray transfer has too much grain reduction (looks like videotape.) Do you think they started with the Blu-ray transfer when they did the 3D conversion or do you think they did a new master?


It was a new master that was scanned at 6K for archival purposes. The color timing was done by Tony and CO3. The grain that remains was his creative call. The 3D version is precisely the way he wanted the film to look.


----------

