RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,149
Posts: 5,402,149
Members: 24,749
Currently online: 526
Newest member: Legends

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 7 2013, 01:56 PM   #1
Marten
Captain
 
Location: Southern Sweden
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?
Marten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 04:04 PM   #2
RollTide1017
Ensign
 
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.
RollTide1017 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 04:43 PM   #3
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: The 3D-quality

I am almost completely blind in one eye so it is always 2D for me.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 04:47 PM   #4
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The 3D-quality

Marten wrote: View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 05:49 PM   #5
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
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 ). LOL, there's only one first time!
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:23 PM   #6
shatastrophic
Commander
 
Location: Mile High City
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.
__________________
LCARS
shatastrophic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:33 PM   #7
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: The 3D-quality

indranee wrote: View Post
Marten wrote: View Post
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?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:57 PM   #8
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
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.
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:59 PM   #9
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The 3D-quality

Franklin wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
Marten wrote: View Post
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
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 07:10 PM   #10
shatastrophic
Commander
 
Location: Mile High City
Re: The 3D-quality

Relayer1 wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
LCARS
shatastrophic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 07:39 PM   #11
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: The 3D-quality

Relayer1 wrote: View Post
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?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 10:20 PM   #12
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: The 3D-quality

Marten wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 01:11 AM   #13
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The 3D-quality

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Marten wrote: View Post
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/
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 03:23 AM   #14
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: The 3D-quality

shatastrophic wrote: View Post
Relayer1 wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
"Your advertising's just dandy. Folks'd never guess you ain't got a thing to sell."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 09:56 AM   #15
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: The 3D-quality

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Relayer1 wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 PM.

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