• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?

Should Star Trek 2012 be in 3D?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 19.7%
  • I dont' care either way.

    Votes: 30 21.9%
  • No

    Votes: 80 58.4%

  • Total voters
    137
I'd rather see the next movie with a higher resolution and a higher framerate to where it looks as good as a HD 120 Hz tv. Motion pictures are only 24 frames per second. With digital projection systems this can be done. Realistic 3D is only usful for foreground action within 20 feet of the camera. Otherwise your brain tells you that it's fake.
Check out Roger Ebert's story in Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/1
 
One key concern is Abrams' directing style. There are lots of shaky camera effects and quick cuts that would make XI unsuitable for 3D even if it were upconverted to virtual perfection. Shooting a movie in 3D (which is indeed the only way to go) would require longer shots and a generally more traditional, less fast-paced direction. Whether or not Abrams will/would accept that limitation is an open question.

That said, my answer is: heck, yes! I'd love to see a Trek movie on the 3D technical proficiency of Avatar. But only in theaters; I think the idea of home 3D is dumb. In theaters, 3D can be an enveloping effect, something that really sucks you into its world. On a home tv, 3D would be like looking into a fishbowl. Why bother? We don't add laugh tracks to comedies to simulate the theater experience, so no need to go beyond 2D blu-rays at home either. Still, bring on Trek XII 3D - I'd gladly accept that by trading in XI's effective but ultimately unnecessary editing and camerawork frills.
 
One key concern is Abrams' directing style. There are lots of shaky camera effects and quick cuts that would make XI unsuitable for 3D even if it were upconverted to virtual perfection. Shooting a movie in 3D (which is indeed the only way to go) would require longer shots and a generally more traditional, less fast-paced direction. Whether or not Abrams will/would accept that limitation is an open question.
Well, no, I guess. 3D works with shaky cam and fast pace as well. Avatar has some shaky and zoomy moments as well, and it works.
 
One key concern is Abrams' directing style. There are lots of shaky camera effects and quick cuts that would make XI unsuitable for 3D even if it were upconverted to virtual perfection. Shooting a movie in 3D (which is indeed the only way to go) would require longer shots and a generally more traditional, less fast-paced direction. Whether or not Abrams will/would accept that limitation is an open question.

Well, no, I guess. 3D works with shaky cam and fast pace as well. Avatar has some shaky and zoomy moments as well, and it works.

Yeah, I don't think hand-held camerawork or fast paced filming really matter, as long as it's filmed in 3-D and not converted, which is why "Clash of the Titans" 3-D apparently become a blurry mess at time.
 
Screw 3D. Film is supposed to be a two-dimensional medium. 3D movies don't feel like movies at all, they feel like amusement park attractions or something.
 
Screw 3D. Film is supposed to be a two-dimensional medium. 3D movies don't feel like movies at all, they feel like amusement park attractions or something.

Why is film supposed to be like that? :wtf:

Similar antediluvian arguments could be made (and are constantly made) against digital filming and projection.
 
My initial thoughts were no, but after reading this thread, it's still no. But of me would like tosee what trek would be like as a 3D movie.
 
Screw 3D. Film is supposed to be a two-dimensional medium. 3D movies don't feel like movies at all, they feel like amusement park attractions or something.

I agree. However, according to the impression created by recent magazine articles, the power$$$ that be will soon have succeeded in shoving 3D down everyone's throats. Just like they did ( are doing ) with Blu-ray.
 
Screw 3D. Film is supposed to be a two-dimensional medium. 3D movies don't feel like movies at all, they feel like amusement park attractions or something.

I agree. However, according to the impression created by recent magazine articles, the power$$$ that be will soon have succeeded in shoving 3D down everyone's throats. Just like they did ( are doing ) with Blu-ray.

blu ray is teh evilz, too?
 
I didn’t make the hesitant logical choice, to say no. 3D isn’t 3D its only an image with depth of field.

If true cinema 3D is going to make any forward future progress rather than, enhancing where it left off from with red and blue filters, it really needs to go far, far, far, far beyond anything that’s been done in the cinema before.

Now picture space! Space with its star field is all around you!

Now if the cameras can film forward backwards side to side and above and below and capture it like that, I might start to show some, interest in it.

Other than that, its just front focal image that hasn’t changed since cinema started. Oh, there might IMAX Omi-Max but still it doesn’t cover imaging as its seen in the real world.

I was up in, hot air balloon two weeks ago, and “wow” it’s better than any 3D 70mm IMAX! Peering over the edge and looking down and around and above, was just awesome!

For just any cinema to have true 3D would be impossible. it would have to be specially made cinema with the seating in the auditorium floating more or less with screen over the bottom part.

The sidewalls rear wall and ceiling would, all have to have transparent screen with a special sound system to match it.

Say 3 screen channel for fronts
3 screen channel for sidewalls
3 screen channel for overheard surround

3 screen channel for underneath
The blow surround would have narrow stereo perspective due to the seating being so close to the floor. Also the rear projection might be an issue with light casting over the audience, so its rather complex.

3 screen channel for rear back

That's my of how cinema 3D should be!

Other than that, I’m content with 2D!:bolian:
 
According to
http://3dguy.tv/3d-movie-list/
it is listed in 3-D for 2012:
King of the Elves
ICE AGE: The Continental Drift | July 13,2012
Puss In Boots
Cars 2
The Croods “Crude Awakening”
Madagascar 3
Yellow Submarine
Star Trek 2
and future tech that is not related to Star Trek XII:
I didn’t make the hesitant logical choice, to say no. 3D isn’t 3D its only an image with depth of field.

If true cinema 3D is going to make any forward future progress

Now if the cameras can film forward backwards side to side and above and below and capture it like that, I might start to show some, interest in it.
This is what you are looking for:
The holographic images would be captured from 360 degrees by 200 high-definition cameras
the Holo-TV’s will resemble a large book laid out on the floor. Lasers will then project a series of images that will appear to float in the middle of the platform and can be viewed from every angle without the need for 3D glasses.
http://3dguy.tv/japan-invests-billions-in-futuristic-holograph-technology/
Around 2020-2025
 
the Holo-TV’s will resemble a large book laid out on the floor. Lasers will then project a series of images that will appear to float in the middle of the platform and can be viewed from every angle without the need for 3D glasses.
http://3dguy.tv/japan-invests-billions-in-futuristic-holograph-technology/
Around 2020-2025

An that's exactly what you can't use to do a movie.


Now if the cameras can film forward backwards side to side and above and below and capture it like that, I might start to show some, interest in it.

How the hell are you going to watch that? And the fact that the camera would film itself and the entire film crew wouldn't bother you at all? Where would they hide if the camera films EVERYTHING?
 
I really don't know why some people have a problem with movies being made with 3D versions. The 2D is still available, and those who like 3D can get extra enjoyment from that version if it is made well. I'd see a Trek film in 3D if it were filmed that way.
 
No. 3D's a fad.

It's really not, not this time, not with the money 3D movies are hauling in. It's not going to take over or anything, and you'll probably be able to see any 3D movie in 2D for the foreseeable future, but they're not going to stop making 3D content because a few people don't like it. Then there are the 3D TVs, and Sony and MS are talking about their next consoles being able to render games in 3D out of the box.
 
It probably will, but I've really gotten sick of 3-D, so while I might check it out once, if I see it multiple times, it will be in 2-D. Plus, by then 3-D prices will probably easily top $20/ticket.

Same here. I still don't see why all the hype about 3D anyway. I'd rather it stay 2-D, the 3-D glasses are expensive.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top