The 3D-quality

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Marten, May 7, 2013.

  1. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    No, I was. And I have to thank JarodRussell for the support.
    He is, of course, right. And I stand by my comment.

    And now we should all take a deep breath and talk about more important things: is black really the best colour they could come up with for the seatbelts?
     
  2. Cinema Geekly

    Cinema Geekly Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    I've only seen 1 movie in 3D.....Avatar. It only added to my previous rule on 3D.

    The first 3D movie I pay my money to see will be the first movie that uses 3D to such great effect that seeing the movie without it ruins the movie.

    So far I have only seen 3D that either added nothing important to the story or the overall experience or as I've read....in some cases......actually hurt the movie because it was poorly done or distracting.
     
  3. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    What would that be?

    It's a silly rule. Like insisting on only paying for a color movie when color is used to such great effect that seeing the movie without it ruins the movie.

    There is NO single film that is ruined by removing color.
     
  4. Pindar

    Pindar Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Location:
    76 Totters Lane
    I've seen it in both now and 2D is much better. Better quality picture, easier to pick up the little background details I missed in 3D.

    The sequences filmed for 3D looked better in 2D to me, also I only had to wear 1 pair of glasses.
     
  5. Nero's Shadow

    Nero's Shadow Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Location:
    Into Darkness !!!
    Seen it at IMAX 3D today brilliant experience but after a while forgot the 3D was there but the sound and picture jaw dropping good !!! Going to see it in 2D tommorw can't wait for it !!!
     
  6. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Ulster
    Seeing the whole 'fall' sequence in 3D as the Enterprise spiralled in was almost enough to cause genuine vertigo, intense scene when you have the right depth of field going.
     
  7. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    A film historian too, then?

    How about films that are in B&W part of the time, color in others?

    Better still, how about reflecting the intent of the film's makers by leaving it the hell alone.
     
  8. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    [​IMG]
    Seatbelts in TAS by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

    [​IMG]
    To stop people leaving early? by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

    Haven't seen a 2D version yet, but got to see an IMAX 3D version last night (Sydney's IMAX at Darling Harbour gets billed as "the largest" IMAX screen in the world - and boy, there were lots of very large 3D nostrils and pores!

    Still a very enjoyable movie, but I was a bit puzzled that the red vegetation on Nibiru didn't seem to be as startlingly red as at the world premiere screening (3D) and a local 3D Xtreme screening.
     
  9. Cinema Geekly

    Cinema Geekly Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Actually it is a great rule that prevents me from ever spending money on 3D. I highly doubt there will ever be a movie using the current 3D system that will change that.

    I'm saying 3D is a gimmick. Charging you extra for something that doesn't really add anything. If we lived in a world where they charged you extra for color over B/W I would likely say the same thing.
     
  10. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Why did I collect all those stereo cards out of the Weetbix boxes when I was a kid, when I coulda just collected 2D gum cards?

    Why did I bug my mother for a View-Master, when I coulda just looked at family slides through a handheld slide viewer?

    'Cos 3D is cool! And it adds a whole extra dimension!

    So you resisted the switch from b/w camera film to colour?
     
  11. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Film, is a buisness like any other. And like most buisness it is making money. If a studio thinks it'll make more money by saying colourising a film, redoing the FX etc.. The might just do it. Now do I have problem with watching a B&W film, do I object to seeing a colourised version of a B&W film not really. Do I mind B&W scenes or particular coloured lens filters being used in certain scenes during a film of course not. Film is as much a visual medium and sometimes a change in colour in a film either B&W/lens colour etc.. enhances the mood of the scene. Now of course others might have different opinions than me which is just fine.

    If it's about respecting the original intent of the film makers to give an example, if Lucas said the re-mastered original SW trilogy was his original intent but the technology of the 70's/80's prevented him from achieving it why was there such an outcry about it?
     
  12. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I'm in my 50s and I don't ever recall a time when B&W was cheaper than color for amateur use. To get B&W movie film was damned near impossible, in fact. I think at 16mm level B&W was cheaper, maybe.
     
  13. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    On the original intent question, I'll address that first.
    Because he didn't wait till the 90s to make it. You create with what is at hand or what is now possible, or you wait until the tools are available.

    Everything I've read indicates the delay in making the prequels relates to him waiting for the tech tools to be available to do them as he wished. And still he kept going back messing with them (how does Yoda look this week?)

    After CE3K came out, Spielberg regretted not including Dreyfuss' big bathroom meltdown. So it went into the revised cut in 1980. And then? It came back out again after we'd gotten to see it that way.

    On your comment about the outcry against his tampering:
    I am of the opinion that part of what makes the original SW work so well for so many (and note that I am no huge fan, though I think that there are three or four reels that are truly excellent, as is a big hunk of EMPIRE) is that it doesn't reflect GL's intentions so perfectly, and that if he'd had Kubrick-level resources the result would have been far less entertaining ... mainly because I think his vision was flawed, and it was only through the collaboration of others that the whole thing came to fruition in the way it did. The product that succeeded so well wasn't as he intended, but it was what got brought forth, and to great acclaim, so everybody is 'why piss on the wedding cake?'

    One aspect that deviated massively from his intent that he has never been able to do ANYTHING about is the film's cinematography, which in no way represented his confusing statement of intent that it should be documentary like, but with a fairytale diffusion. Call up a screen grab of LUCKY LADY and another from THE WORLD AT WAR; you're going to see apples and oranges, with STAR WARS looking like an artichoke by comparison ... and that is due to Gil Taylor, who fought with and disregarded instruction from Lucas and Gary Kurtz throughout, and was Fox's guy. If they'd actually gotten to keep their original choice for DP, they'd've had their LUCKY LADY look, and I swear, it would have went over about as well as ... well, LUCKY LADY did. As in NOT AT ALL.

    I think that first film was absolutely the result of expert editing, a picture that evolved more thoroughly in post than he'd intended. All of that may have rankled him, but it also created a situation that let him do the rest of the pics largely as he wished. You'd figure he'd be happy with that.
     
  14. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Yes but with any creative work, is the artist/writer etc.. ever truly satisified with the final product. Or is it a case of it's the best they could give the tols/tech/time constraints they have? Or do they look back and think maybe I should have done Y instead.
     
  15. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    So when the intent was to make it in 3D...
     
  16. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Jarod Russell

    Pray continue ... (at your leisure, my folks are coming over and I might not be by here for several hours.)
     
  17. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    No idea about 35mm, but from personal experience, 16mm black and white stock is half the price of 16mm color stock. The processing cost was the same regardless of color.
     
  18. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    I was talking about still photography in the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Colour pics were at least double the amount to get processed. 126 cartridges were about double b/w rolls.

    My brother had a b/w Polaroid camera in the 70s and, when he upgraded to colour, the packs of instant film were at least double the cost.

    Early ink-jet printer cartridges in the 90s: b/w was always cheaper than colour, although they made a sudden switcheroo about ten years ago - and it's now seemingly cheaper to print out drafts in colour?
     
  19. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
    Can you please come back and tell us how the 2D was? My family has basically voted me out and we're now watching it in 2D... I'll get a chance to watch it again, of course, in 3D IMAX with just the kids, but this time around the family rules.
     
  20. Count Zero

    Count Zero Says who? Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    European Union
    I have no idea but it happened. One of the friends I watched the movie with pointed it out as something that bugged her as well.


    Well, now that you mention it I did find them less noticeable this time around. Maybe that's the explanation.


    Well, there were complaint letters to the BBC of people ranting about a scene in the movie "Magical Mystery Tour" where they had to stare at seemingly pointless scenery shots. In the actual scene the landscape changes colours but as the BBC showed it in black and white nobody saw that.
    That's just one example that came to my mind immediately. Many films do rely on scenic shots that would be quite boring to look at in black and white. While I wouldn't follow Cinema Geekly's rule your comparison strikes me as defeating your point. ;)