The trouble with trailers for 3D films.....

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Well, since I'm gonna be seeing this trailer for the first time on youtube recorded off someone's phone (as I did the first STXI one... good times. A car chase? This isn't Star Trek!! "My name is James Tiberius Kirk!"), I hope it's 2D cos otherwise I'll be going cross-eyed trying to see whats happening.

[teacake]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Well, since I'm gonna be seeing this trailer for the first time on youtube recorded off someone's phone (as I did the first STXI one... good times. A car chase? This isn't Star Trek!!

How soon you have forgotten the dune buggies!

[JarodRussell]

Those poor bastards having to post-convert lens flare ridden shots to 3D.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

They just need people standing on either side of the screen, with 1000w flashlights, flashing them in sync with the movie.

[The Wormhole]

I don't care about a 3-D trailer since I'm going to do my damndest to see this movie in 2-D. 3-D glasses are like wearing sunglasses in the movie theatre.

[M'Sharak]

Derp-O'-Lantern wrote:

---

Abrams shoots his movies on 35mm film. 3D cameras are digital-only, so the film will not be natively 3D.

I recall reading something about them shooting scenes as written, with all actors in place and dialogue spoken, and then for each scene doing a "second pass" through the empty set, duplicating exactly all of the camera movements of the filmed "live" take. Would that second pass be with a 3D or digital camera, do you suppose?

KingDaniel wrote:

---

... A car chase? This isn't Star Trek!! "My name is James Tiberius Kirk!")...

"Siberius". It was confirmed using Software, remember?

[JarodRussell]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

I recall reading something about them shooting scenes as written, with all actors in place and dialogue spoken, and then for each scene doing a "second pass" through the empty set, duplicating exactly all of the camera movements of the filmed "live" take. Would that second pass be with a 3D or digital camera, do you suppose?

That's not possible.

[M'Sharak]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

That's not possible.

Could you explain why it's not?

Anyway, I think this is the bit I remember reading. If it isn't the identical interview, it's talking about the same process I was attempting to describe in the post previous:

TrekMovie wrote:

---

TrekMovie.com: Another big difference this time is that the film is in 3D. So, did 3D make a difference in the writing or shooting?

Damon Lindelof: It did not impact the writing of the script. We wanted to tell the story that we wanted to tell and we have already talked about the idea that all of us were a little bit cynical about doing the movie in 3D and then they set up a test at Bad Robot where they took footage from the first movie – the sequence when the Enterprise drops out of warp and they come upon all the federation vessels destroyed by the Narada and they are doing evasive maneuvers – and we just looked at each other after and said "that was kind of awesome." We are now – I wouldn’t say converts – but I don’t think this is going to hurt the movie. If people want to see it in 3D, they will get their money’s worth. And in terms of actual production, JJ shot the movie exactly the way he wanted to shoot it. And when you are doing this process, as opposed to a standard conversion, after every single set up – not just every scene but every angle – we had to do a 3D pass where you clear the set of the actors and the camera has to do the same moves so the guys doing the conversion can map accordingly and that will provide a much better 3D experience for the audience.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/06/excl...ing-3rd-movie/

[JarodRussell]

Then they shoot with motion control rigs ONLY. No steadicam, nothing. There's no camera operator in the world that can do the exact same move twice.

I don't think this can be true (at least not the way Lindelof describes it), because a shoot with 3D cameras would be a whole less troublesome and complicated than doing that.

[Tom Servo]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Then they shoot with motion control rigs ONLY. No steadicam, nothing. There's no camera operator in the world that can do the exact same move twice.

I don't think this can be true (at least not the way Lindelof describes it), because a shoot with 3D cameras would then be a whole less troublesome and complicated.

That's true, unless it's motion control, you really could not get the exact same move. I'd assume that they're doing it as sort of a reference pass to assist in the conversion. They won't be using the 3d footage directly, but as a reference to line up their 3d cards when they do the actual conversion.

[daveyNY]

I remember reading some where on the Internetz that JJ also used IMAX Cameras to shoot parts of the movie...

Isn't that 75mm... ?

I think this was the compromise with Paramount and the 3D thing.

They apparently can use 75mm film to make a 3D copy some how.

(I'm searching for where I read this...)

Found It

[Gep Malakai]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

I recall reading something about them shooting scenes as written, with all actors in place and dialogue spoken, and then for each scene doing a "second pass" through the empty set, duplicating exactly all of the camera movements of the filmed "live" take. Would that second pass be with a 3D or digital camera, do you suppose?

Probably film as well, since I figure they're using the reference pass to rebuild the backgrounds behind characters for the 3D conversion. The second pass wouldn't be 3D itself, just gathering image data to help with conversion, and you'd need it to match the appearance of the regular footage to do that.

Tom Servo wrote:

---

That's true, unless it's motion control, you really could not get the exact same move. I'd assume that they're doing it as sort of a reference pass to assist in the conversion. They won't be using the 3d footage directly, but as a reference to line up their 3d cards when they do the actual conversion.

This is just an assumption on my part, but I assume the purpose of the second pass is to plug any holes in the image produced by "cutting out" the characters for the 3D conversion. As I understand it, normally they have to artificially generate the content seen around the edges of foreground objects (a la the clone stamp tool in Photoshop) as part of the opposite eye frames; if they have clean BG images, that task would be much easier. They'd still have to track it all in make everything line up, but I bet a clean plate would make that task much easier.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Shape-Shifter wrote:

---

I am not sure this is correct. I've been to 3D films when, during the previews, I noticed some random previews were not in 3D. Upon removing the glasses sure enough, a 2D preview set among 3D previews.

Yes. I was at a 3D movie where they first showed a batch of previews in 2D. After that, a disembodied voice said "please put on your 3D glasses now" for the last preview or two, which were in 3D.

I'm not saying they would do this for Star Trek; if the movie is 3D, thenthe trailer would be 3D. However, in theaters where that movie (the movie which the Star Trek trailer is attached) is only being shown in 2D, the Star Trek trailer would also be in 2D. There are theaters that show movies only in 2D -- even the 3D movies.

[The Keeper]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Yes. I was at a 3D movie where they first showed a batch of previews in 2D. After that, a disembodied voice said "please put on your 3D glasses now" for the last preview or two, which were in 3D.


<snip>

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, at the time of the above experience my conclusion was - that a 2D preview can be inserted within a block of 3D previews without the glasses causing any kind of appreciable distortion to the 2D image. They just were not in 3D.

This was at an AMC theater, btw. It may be different for other movie houses.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^I wouldn't think that the modern 3D glass would cause appreciable distortion while watching a 2D movie. They are only polarized, and even though they have a slight tint, they do not noticeably make things darker (maybe very, very little).

Even though we were told when to put on our glasses during that showing I was talking about above, I think that was only to inform us when the 3D portion of the previews/movie was coming -- not that we couldn't be wearing our glasses during the 2D. Some people may watch those first few 2D previews and not realize that they are supposed to be only 2D (although it should be obvious to most people).