My husband is legally blind in one eye but can see shapes. He can see modern 3D films. He thought STID in 3D IMAX was the best 3D film he ever saw. My teenage son thought the 3D in STID was better than the 'Hobbit'. They of course were sitting in the best seats in the the cinema while I was sitting to the left of screen.
Put simply, yes. And if you want genuine brightness on-screen (not just glare, which is how I'd typify the trek09's abovedeck interiors), I'd say ALTERED STATES in a good theater during the tank explosion sequence is THE example ... Jordan Cronenworth's cinematography (film just before he did BLADE RUNNER, at the top of his always-exemplary game) seems to exceed what is possible in terms of luminosity, even going well beyond CE3K. for TUC, if I'd seen it with sunglasses everything except the explosions would have gone unseen ... the Kirk/McCoy bunkbed scene was just grey-black darkness on the terrible 70mm print shown in San Jose, CA ... it was like a bad drive-in movie, no image at all.
Feel free to do your own homework on this. There is plenty of information online that is reliable as to what projectors put out and that the glasses are only a factor in all this, not the main issue. Xenon sources will be more of a factor in compensating, but then you're still sacrificing image quality in the form of contrast, just getting a brighter less detailed image.
Suppose I don't really care. And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.
Saw it in 3D today and the detail was amazing, nothing wrong with the lighting or image quality, no ill effects either. But then I've never had any side effects from 3D viewing.
Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.
I like 3D movies that are designed that way from the beginning- Prometheus and Immortals comes to mind. Most post-production attempts look like bad Viewmaster slides (The Sorcerer's Apprentice). I like the feel of being there, but when they make me aware of the fact I am watching a 3D effect it detracts from the film.
Thought the 3D was perfectly fine, just don't sit too close. I was very worried about it going in but it was quite a subtle effect 90% of the time.
The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.
That! I watched it in 2D. Here the pre-booking was in 3D first and my friends rushed into ordering, and I wouldn't go with them. I was patient, then just booked 2D when it came up for booking.
Well, after today, I've seen the movie in both formats. The film itself is wonderful, I absolutely love it. But, as for the preferred viewing format, 2D is the clear winner for me. While watching the 2D version, I was struck by what I perceived as noticeably increased clarity, sharpness and overall detail. Certainly, I was able to take much more in, and pick up on minutiae I missed in 3D. The contrast was stronger, the colours "popped" more - and overall - the image had an elevated sense of realism and, well, depth!
Sure. I take everything said at face value without crosschecking or doing conventional comprehensive research, then submit the material for publication without even letting all parties proof it for errors or omissions. What, do you think I write about cinematography for a supermarket tabloid, or Fox News? If you have no interest in legitimate professional statements of fact -- not opinion -- on actual measured aspects of what you're just babbling about, then wallow away in ignorance, you've certainly got plenty of company here.
The technical facts, aspects and reasons for a somewhat lower image-quality are one thing. But the personal, subjective impression you get from actually watching a 3D-picture is far more important.
It IS curious that you write about it, but haven't experienced it. You are gathering opinions of others, why don't you make up your own? beamMe's point is a valid one, I think. The views of industry professionals are not fact. And the technical specs of theater equipment really mean nothing to the personal experience and personal preference.
beamMe, that will be enough. I would like very much not to see you sniping at anyone again - not at Deck 1; not at trevanian; not at anyone. Just stop it now. Disagree with points made or opinions offered by others and, if you choose, rebut those points and opinions with facts and well-constructed arguments of your own, but leave the personal stuff out or take it outside. I'm busy enough here already with things which are actually about the movie; I do not need to be policing schoolyard squabbles and no one else needs to be reading them in this forum.
I saw it in 3D today in Thailand (2D and IMAX were not options) and the 3D added nothing to the experience. I hope to see it in 2D soon. I hope this helps.
But there's no personal attack in that particular quote. Trevenian DOES lack the personal experience if he has never seen a modern 3D film, and he IS only repeating what others told him. Trevanian talks about how apples are better than oranges because he talked to experts about it and posts facts about oranges and apples. But he has never eaten an orange or an apple to judge for himself.