3D Rating system

3D....Perfect use of 3D. There is an excellent 3D depth throughout the movie and several pop-out moments.

2.9D....the 3D depth is very good and consistent throughout but occasionally there are anomalies. This could be some scenes that lack a 3D depth or a few scenes that are incorrectly aligned etc. (overall though, there is nothing too distracting to really spoil the vast majority of the 3D)

2.8D.....a mixed bag of both strong and weak 3D. There are several scenes with nice 3D depth but unfortunately there is also a large amount of moments with weak 3D (a narrow separation or even incorrect alignment)

2.7D....generally weak 3D with a narrow separation but occasionally a good 3D scene might pop up.

2.6D.....poor 3D. There is a very narrow separation and the 3D effect is weak and flat looking.

2.5D.....a poor post production conversion.

3DA....this is a special rating for CGI 3D animations. I feel that in this genre, some animation studios seem to have opted for a balance between 3D depth and the actual animation. The reasons may be varied. One could be that, as these types of movies are primarily for children, there could be concerns over children's eyes and eyestrain. It could also just be a creative choice though. Whatever the reasons, rather than penalize all future animations by giving them a lower rating, those that have a slightly shallower depth (of around 10-20%) but display a consistency in 3D and animation will receive this slightly diluted 3D rating. Those CGI 3D animations that have maintained a great sense of 3D on a par with the best live action 3D, will still receive a normal 3D logo rating.

3DC....After viewing Alice in Wonderland knowing it was a conversion and being very impressed by the 3D effect, I decided to add this new rating.  Any future conversions that have impressive 3D on a par with natively shot 3D films, instead of getting a 2.5D rating (which implies a poor, shallow 3D) they will get a 3DC rating, standing for 3D Conversion.  Only conversions that are done very well with a 3D effect that rivals natively filmed 3D will get this rating. After that, conversion ratings will continue in the same manner as normal system e.g 2.9DC, 2.8DC....etc. All poor conversions will still get a rating of 2.5D.


The following abbreviations will be used during the ratings in order to differentiate between which movies I have watched and which ones I have seen short demo clips of. In the instance of viewed demo clips, naturally my rating will purely be based on the clip seen and not the whole movie.

VC=Viewed Clips
NV=Not Viewed

The ratings on this blog are primarily concerned with the quality of the 3D and not the movie itself. There are plenty of websites for film reviews elsewhere after all. Any movie that uses "old school" 3D which displays great depth will usually get the 3D logo attached, regardless of whether or not there are a few scenes that are not quite up to standard. The reason? Because I want to promote all films that employ proper use of 3D and expose all those that don't reach that same standard. All films that have a narrow separation or are 3D Lite will not qualify for the 3D logo at all. Similarly, any new movies that are poorly converted will be rated as 2.5D.