The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   The 3D-quality (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=211906)

Marten May 7 2013 01:56 PM

The 3D-quality
 
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

RollTide1017 May 7 2013 04:04 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Here is my rule of thumb; if the movie was shot in 3D, with 3D cameras, then I might see it in 3D. If the movie was shot in 2D and converted to 3D during post-production then I'll watch in 2D.

STID was converted to 3D during post so, I'm sticking with 2D.

I'm still not a huge fan of 3D, I think it is more of a gimmick then anything and it never really adds anything to the enjoyment of the story IMO, just eye candy. I also don't like how the glasses make the movie appear darker. I also hate that it cost $3 more at my local theater, which is why I always keep my glasses when I do see a 3D movie just because I can. I know that keeping the glasses doesn't really do anything but I pretend I'm sticking it to the theater for charging me more.

Gojira May 7 2013 04:43 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
I am almost completely blind in one eye so it is always 2D for me.

indranee May 7 2013 04:47 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Marten wrote: (Post 8053708)
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D :(

Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:

Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.

Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?

LOKAI of CHERON May 7 2013 05:49 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Personally, I find 3D super gimmicky - and often quite distracting. Too much "ooh" or "ahh" that was a "kwel" 3D rendering can take me right out of a film. I will probably watch STID several times, with a "curiosity" 3D viewing at some point. But certainly not the first time (which is only 1 day, 18 hours and 09 minutes away :techman:). LOL, there's only one first time!

shatastrophic May 7 2013 06:23 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
I'm a Star Trek dork so I will see it both ways just to say I did. May 15th opening night tickets are Imax 3D, May 18th tickets are regular 2D. On a side note I have seen it advertised in Imax 3D, Real 3D, and 2D. I know it will be out there, but here in the area there still are no showings advertised in Imax 2D.

Normally i'm a 2D type of guy. But i did happen to see Titanic in 3D and it was great. James Cameron really did a good job with it after the fact. But he had 60 people working around the clock for a year or two to convert it...and he is crazy. Maybe I just remember it being really good as I was not to enthused to see it again in the first place, to say nothing about the 3D. But hey if it makes the wife happy then I'm set. But I thought it was good.

If Into Darkness came out in "Sense Around" or in "Smell Vision" I would go see it...just to see what they think the Enterprise smells like. The ship probably smells like window cleaner since there is so much glass in the nuEnterprise.

Franklin May 7 2013 06:33 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

indranee wrote: (Post 8054056)
Quote:

Marten wrote: (Post 8053708)
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D :(

Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:

Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.

Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?

Indranee, since you're apparently in Warrrrrrshington, if you want to drive out towards Dulles, the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum's IMAX theater is showing STID in IMAX 2D (not 3D). And when you think about it, what better place could there be to see a "Star Trek" movie than at the Air and Space Museum?

Relayer1 May 7 2013 06:57 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
I've seen a load of 3D films and to be honest, the 3D doesn't add much and the dark picture detracts more. Its a gimick, as is Imax.

OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.

indranee May 7 2013 06:59 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Franklin wrote: (Post 8054407)
Quote:

indranee wrote: (Post 8054056)
Quote:

Marten wrote: (Post 8053708)
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D :(

Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:

Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.

Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?

Indranee, since you're apparently in Warrrrrrshington, if you want to drive out towards Dulles, the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum's IMAX theater is showing STID in IMAX 2D (not 3D). And when you think about it, what better place could there be to see a "Star Trek" movie than at the Air and Space Museum?

OMG are you serious?!?! I most certainly will!! I used to live in Sterling and drive to DC to work (hellish 2.5 hours ever spent in a day) for a while and we took family trips to the Udvar-Hazy almost every month.

We did see ST2009 there, as well. Totally forgot about that! Thanks Franklin from the home of Warrior-America ;)

Btw, thanks for reminding me... they have some great programs on Trek coming up in the next week or two:

http://airandspace.si.edu/events/calendar.cfm


And here's the STID schedule:

http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/theaters/uhc/index.cfm

shatastrophic May 7 2013 07:10 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Relayer1 wrote: (Post 8054500)
I've seen a load of 3D films and to be honest, the 3D doesn't add much and the dark picture detracts more. Its a gimick, as is Imax.

OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.

Your right. The only noticeble differnece for me with Imax, and it may just be the theater itself, is the sound is so much louder and more crisp. I find this funny in that you go to Imax for the view, but the sound is what is actually better.

JarodRussell May 7 2013 07:39 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Relayer1 wrote: (Post 8054500)
OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.

So if you have a tiny screen just right in front of your eyes, it's the same as having a gigantic screen far away from your eyes?

Therin of Andor May 7 2013 10:20 PM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Marten wrote: (Post 8053708)
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

I was unimpressed by the quality of the 3D nine-minute preview shown before the IMAX version of "The Hobbit", but the 3D screening of STiD at the Sydney premiere a few weeks ago was... wondrous!

I've seen interviews with JJ where he describes the considerations he made while shooting, knowing in advance that the film would undergo conversion, and he, himself, is now a 3D convert.

Go see it twice is you need it and compare for yourself.

trevanian May 8 2013 01:11 AM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

Therin of Andor wrote: (Post 8055442)
Quote:

Marten wrote: (Post 8053708)
I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?

I was unimpressed by the quality of the 3D nine-minute preview shown before the IMAX version of "The Hobbit", but the 3D screening of STiD at the Sydney premiere a few weeks ago was... wondrous!

I've seen interviews with JJ where he describes the considerations he made while shooting, knowing in advance that the film would undergo conversion, and he, himself, is now a 3D convert.

Go see it twice is you need it and compare for yourself.

He may be a convert, but from what his collaborators have said in the only tech article I've seen thus far, he pretty much ignored all the 'rules' for shooting with post-conversion in mind.

It makes sense that he would stick with conversion rather than originating in 3D, since he prefers originating on film (odd, how some of the few folks who still shoot film -- not Nolan and Pfister, they do just fine with film -- do what looks to me to be a bad job of it. Spielberg's MINORITY REPORT looked so 'affected' it might as well have been shot digital, the whole look seemed hellbent on sabotaging the movie.

Based on the really good comments about CAPT AMERICA's postconversion and what Nolan has said about tests he has done with it, I imagine a slow pricey postconversion is definitely the way to go, even if it isn't the popular view (probably because the camera guys want to sell more equipment.)

Then again it has been well over three decades since I saw a 3d movie, so I'm not losing sleep over it either way. That might change when the next- or next-next-gen projection happens, which is going to increase brightness by one helluva lot (and in the case of IMAX, it is going to keep contrast very strong, which is the problem with current 4K projectors.)

Last five paragraphs of this piece discusses some of this (note that the reference to dual-4K is a typo, and should be dual-2K):
http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress.../size-matters/

Set Harth May 8 2013 03:23 AM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

shatastrophic wrote: (Post 8054557)
Quote:

Relayer1 wrote: (Post 8054500)
I've seen a load of 3D films and to be honest, the 3D doesn't add much and the dark picture detracts more. Its a gimick, as is Imax.

OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.

Your right. The only noticeble differnece for me with Imax, and it may just be the theater itself, is the sound is so much louder and more crisp. I find this funny in that you go to Imax for the view, but the sound is what is actually better.

Yeah, when I saw TDK in a regular theater the sound wasn't loud enough so the whole gag with the guns and Alfred saying "I don't think you made it loud enough" didn't even work. But when I saw it again in IMAX that part was really loud as clearly intended.

As far as the picture is concerned? There's definitely a benefit. I don't think it really matters how far back you sit, but in any event you can sit up front if you really want to. Take the opening shot of TDK as an example. This looked unremarkable on a regular screen, and actually looks slightly crappy on DVD. But on the IMAX screen it was a whole different ballgame. The greater visual depth provided by the format actually created a momentary sense of vertigo.

Relayer1 May 8 2013 09:56 AM

Re: The 3D-quality
 
Quote:

JarodRussell wrote: (Post 8054665)
Quote:

Relayer1 wrote: (Post 8054500)
OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.

So if you have a tiny screen just right in front of your eyes, it's the same as having a gigantic screen far away from your eyes?

But that's not the comparison. It's a big screen with a digital projector Vs a huge screen with an Imax projector. I sit around a third of the way back normally, or much further back for Imax, and there just isn't a big difference.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.