RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,157
Posts: 5,402,272
Members: 24,749
Currently online: 568
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 8 2013, 02:17 PM   #16
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: The 3D-quality

There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 03:56 PM   #17
Haggis and tatties
Rear Admiral
 
Haggis and tatties's Avatar
 
Location: Glasgow
Re: The 3D-quality

I saw the last movie in the Glasgow imax, it was not 3D and it was my first experience of a imax, and i was but i was simply blown away by the size of the screen, so for me personally 3D in the movie is simply a extra cherry on top of the cake.

But with a movie like this full of visual eye candy, i dont think the screen size or fomat will matter, your going to enjoy it either way.

Cant wait till Saturday.
__________________

Haggis and tatties is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 04:17 PM   #18
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

Ovation wrote: View Post
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras.
40%, according to JJ.
__________________
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, 05:23 PM   #19
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: The 3D-quality

Does it expand (change aspect ratios) like in the Nolan films? There is a fair bit of grumbling among the videophile crowd who dislike the fact that the Blu-ray releases of TDK and TDKR change aspect ratios during the movie--it messes with their constant height theatre setups for cinemascope projection (some also complain because they're not getting the original aspect ratio in any case--IMAX 15/70 [often called "real IMAX"], has a 1.44:1 aspect ratio (quite close to the original Academy ratio of 1.37:1 that dominated films until about 1953 and the 1.33:1 ratio of a standard-def TV). On the Blu-ray, the aspect ratio changes from 2.40:1 for non-IMAX scenes to 1.78:1 (thus filling the screen--just as it did at the cinema).

In any event, I'm just curious if the aspect ratio changes in the IMAX presentations, but I would guess not, as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on the A/V fora I frequent and, by now, someone would have pointed it out.

There is almost surely an aspect ratio difference between the 2-D non-IMAX (which I'd expect to be 2.40:1, as it was in the last movie) and any IMAX presentation (2-D or 3-D). Skyfall was shown in 1:78:1 at IMAX screenings but in 2.40:1 at non-IMAX cinemas and home video releases. Makes for a few differences in framing the shots but they're likely unnoticed by most viewers in the absence of a side by side example.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 06:24 PM   #20
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: The 3D-quality

Ovation wrote: View Post
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.

To me it's hardly worth the premium price for a movie that has no genuine IMAX footage in it, unless all the other theaters around you have really poor sound and/or image quality, which is where IMAX theaters always deliver.

For those that say they don't think IMAX offers much a difference, it is possible you've been to what many refer to as a "lieMAX" theater and not one of the proper more "old school" IMAX venues, many of which are shaped more like a dome, or are at least generally very large, much larger than what you'd see in a conventional multiplex.

Most "lieMAX" theaters are basically just converted standard movie theaters, where they sacrifice a row of seating to put in a larger screen, upgrade the sound, often upgrade the chairs, and put in a bit higher-end digital projector. These theaters are more like the premium upgraded theater experiences such as Cinemark XD and Regal RPX here in the US than a real IMAX theater.
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 07:12 PM   #21
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: The 3D-quality

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.

To me it's hardly worth the premium price for a movie that has no genuine IMAX footage in it, unless all the other theaters around you have really poor sound and/or image quality, which is where IMAX theaters always deliver.

For those that say they don't think IMAX offers much a difference, it is possible you've been to what many refer to as a "lieMAX" theater and not one of the proper more "old school" IMAX venues, many of which are shaped more like a dome, or are at least generally very large, much larger than what you'd see in a conventional multiplex.

Most "lieMAX" theaters are basically just converted standard movie theaters, where they sacrifice a row of seating to put in a larger screen, upgrade the sound, often upgrade the chairs, and put in a bit higher-end digital projector. These theaters are more like the premium upgraded theater experiences such as Cinemark XD and Regal RPX here in the US than a real IMAX theater.
I went to a purpose built Imax 'dome' which formed part of Birmingham's Science Museum - it was the real deal. It's shut now, which doesn't bother me one bit.

To be honest, there is a small difference but sitting at a distance to view the whole screen it really is very small and in no way worth the extra expenditure and travelling to get to the Imax. I realise that it may be enough for some people, but not for me...
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 10:09 PM   #22
Marten
Captain
 
Location: Southern Sweden
Re: The 3D-quality

2D it is. For the first time, at least. Thanks for the input.
Marten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 12:38 AM   #23
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The 3D-quality

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.
DMR isn't always the answer either. Deakins looked at tests and elected to NOT have SKYFALL put through DMR ... instead it is a movie shot at 2.8K, finished at 4K and then transferred to IMAX as-is. It should NOT have worked (sort of like expecting Super8 film to look good at the cinerama dome), but then again, it's Deakins.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:09 AM   #24
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: The 3D-quality

trevanian wrote: View Post
SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.
DMR isn't always the answer either. Deakins looked at tests and elected to NOT have SKYFALL put through DMR ... instead it is a movie shot at 2.8K, finished at 4K and then transferred to IMAX as-is. It should NOT have worked (sort of like expecting Super8 film to look good at the cinerama dome), but then again, it's Deakins.
I saw Skyfall twice--once in IMAX and once in regular (at a good cinema). I preferred the shot composition for 2.40 but found the IMAX 1.85 surprisingly decent (clearly shot with 1.85 protection in mind). The PQ and, especially, SQ was better at the IMAX presentation (despite my mixed experiences with DMR IMAX conversions).
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 03:33 AM   #25
Matt S
Lieutenant
 
Matt S's Avatar
 
Re: The 3D-quality

3D is shite, with very few exceptions. Hate a dark ass screen!!
__________________
Balok knows all!!!!!
Matt S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:22 AM   #26
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: The 3D-quality

Are you kidding? IMAX 3D at a new Imax theater. There is no choice really.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:41 AM   #27
FarStrider
Commander
 
FarStrider's Avatar
 
Send a message via Yahoo to FarStrider
Re: The 3D-quality

Does anyone who has actually seen the movie have a report on the quality of the 3D and how it is used in the film?? Otherwise this thread is a not very helpful rehash of opinions that come out every time 3D is mentioned.

~FS
__________________
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style. . . "
FarStrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 06:47 AM   #28
Sparky
Commodore
 
Sparky's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta. Canuckistan
Re: The 3D-quality

FarStrider wrote: View Post
Does anyone who has actually seen the movie have a report on the quality of the 3D and how it is used in the film?? Otherwise this thread is a not very helpful rehash of opinions that come out every time 3D is mentioned.

~FS
Given the responses in this thread, you should know the answer by now.


Everyone has a different opinion. This movie won't change that, so go see it for yourself.
__________________
My journey is the same as yours, the same as anyone's. It's taken me so many years, so many lifetimes, but at last I know where I'm going, where I've always been going. Home...The long way round.
Sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 10:46 AM   #29
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The 3D-quality

The 3D for the film was acceptable, did I enjoy the movie in 3D yes, would I have enjoyed the movie as much in 2D no doubt.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 11:00 AM   #30
Avon
Fleet Captain
 
Avon's Avatar
 
Location: Space Wales
Re: The 3D-quality

saw in 3d, but it seemed to be that annoying retrofitted 3d so i put my 3d-to-2d glasses on. would've gone for a 2d screening but there wasnt any

personally, its just not worth me getting a headache and going cross-eyed all the time unless its an avatar or life of pi quality shot-in-3d film.

so really want to see in 2d without the 3d glasses based light loss. come on local cinema get your act together!
__________________

Hello to Jason Isaacs!
Avon 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 07:34 PM.

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