Thread: The 3D-quality
View Single Post
Old May 10 2013, 04:18 PM   #42
Rear Admiral
Re: The 3D-quality

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Count Zero wrote: View Post
it didn't have the bugs Avatar had for me, namely structures (e.g. furniture) being cut off and thus looking weird or 3D when it should be 2D (e.g. the picture in the locker).
Ummm, if "Avatar" was filmed with 3D cameras, how did a picture in a locker go 3D? Unless it was 3D to start with?

beamMe wrote: View Post
My boyfriend described the 3D-effect as very natural/real (as real as you can get with this stuff) compared to the effect depicted in the Jurassic Park 3D trailer before the movie, which he described as cardboard cutouts placed in front of each other.
Agreed! I had the same reaction!

trevanian wrote: View Post
3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly...
Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?
Put simply, yes. And if you want genuine brightness on-screen (not just glare, which is how I'd typify the trek09's abovedeck interiors), I'd say ALTERED STATES in a good theater during the tank explosion sequence is THE example ... Jordan Cronenworth's cinematography (film just before he did BLADE RUNNER, at the top of his always-exemplary game) seems to exceed what is possible in terms of luminosity, even going well beyond CE3K.

for TUC, if I'd seen it with sunglasses everything except the explosions would have gone unseen ... the Kirk/McCoy bunkbed scene was just grey-black darkness on the terrible 70mm print shown in San Jose, CA ... it was like a bad drive-in movie, no image at all.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote