The 3D-quality

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Marten, May 7, 2013.

  1. Relayer1

    Relayer1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    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...
     
  2. Marten

    Marten Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Location:
    Southern Sweden
    2D it is. For the first time, at least. Thanks for the input.
     
  3. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    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.
     
  4. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    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).
     
  5. Matt S

    Matt S Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    3D is shite, with very few exceptions. Hate a dark ass screen!!
     
  6. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Are you kidding? IMAX 3D at a new Imax theater. There is no choice really.
     
  7. FarStrider

    FarStrider Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    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
     
  8. Sparky

    Sparky Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta. Canuckistan
    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.
     
  9. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    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.
     
  10. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    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!
     
  11. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
    Yeah, I'm leaning toward 2D now... we shall see how the rest of the family feels come the 17th. We aren't doing the midnight show this time.
     
  12. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Maybe it's your eyes? I haven't noticed 3D films being darker than other films.
     
  13. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    I had no problems with the 3D in this film or any I've seen in 3D.
     
  14. Count Zero

    Count Zero Watching Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    European Union
    I saw it in 3D and felt they did a good job with it. There are some nice effects that look great in 3D and 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). Obviously, you can't completely avoid the first problem but it wasn't so blatant and I only noticed it once.

    ETA:
    I saw both those movies in real 3D. I can't speak to the differences between the various versions.
     
  15. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    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.
     
  16. donners22

    donners22 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    I'm not a fan of 3D in movies at all, but it was done really well here. I saw Ghost Rider 2 in 3D (not by choice) and it was awful - maybe a bit of extra depth to a few scenes, but virtually no difference to seeing it normally.

    There was a huge difference in this, and it looked bloody spectacular while not constantly throwing things in your face. Just little things like ash floating around looked great, and the first warp effect was simply beautiful.

    The only bit which bugged me was a bar scene where there were some really blurry objects at the 'front', which was distracting.
     
  17. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    The industry standard for theatrical projection is supposed to be around 14 foot-lamberts. Not all cinemas measure up, but the big failing is with 3D projection systems, which come in at around 4 foot-lamberts. Do the math.

    IMAX systems offset some loss by using dual projection, which gets that a little better, but it is also covering a larger screen area, so it isn't a huge gain.

    Until laser projection and enhanced 4k (something with decent contrast) can be delivered, 3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly, which kinda runs counter to what a lot of folks want when they see movies.
     
  18. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Ummm, if "Avatar" was filmed with 3D cameras, how did a picture in a locker go 3D? Unless it was 3D to start with?

    Agreed! I had the same reaction!

    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?
     
  19. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Isn't the simplest explanation that the slight darkening cause by the glasses is compensated by a slightly brighter projected image?

    If not, people are better protected against those blinding lens-flares. ;)
     
  20. Pindar

    Pindar Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Location:
    76 Totters Lane
    I wan't impressed by the 3D it added very little, the closing credits were the only thing I thought looked good in 3D the rest was meh.

    And yes the bar scene was horrible in 3D