Star Trek 12 3-D???

[Char Aznable]

Nope. Well actually I have occasionally worn shades but I usually don't bother with them.

As for 3D - leave me out of it. I may be too young to remember the 50's with those comical looking 3D glasses that look like they come out of a Wheaties box or something, but the principle is the same. Besides, what good is a 3D image if it looks all red and blue?

Um, you do know 3D doesn't work that way anymore, right? The technology used for the 3D effect is way better than it once was. Honestly, see AVATAR in 3D and you will see just how wrong you are.

 

[MvRojo]

One BAD thing about 3-D is that it dulls the colors of the film because you're looking through polarized films. I've watched a lot of 3-D films this past year, mainly animation, and the difference can be somewhat dramatic at times. Most notable were Avatar, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Up - the colors on those films were much more vibrant if you took off the glasses for a second and just looked at the screen without them.

It didn't ruin my enjoyment at all, but it does kinda suck that that's a side effect.

 

[Hyperspace05]

One BAD thing about 3-D is that it dulls the colors of the film because you're looking through polarized films. I've watched a lot of 3-D films this past year, mainly animation, and the difference can be somewhat dramatic at times. Most notable were Avatar, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Up - the colors on those films were much more vibrant if you took off the glasses for a second and just looked at the screen without them.

Well, I mean.... DUH. Of course. Each lens filters away 50% of the light, so of course it will look brighter. But at least in Avatars case, the film was digitally graded with the glasses taken into account - so you saw the image that they intended you to see.

By taking off your glasses you were not allowing your eyes to adjust, thus making the experience worse than it would have been otherwise. Your eyes will adapt. There is no hard set brightness level that automatically is interpreted as 'white'. What we perceive as white varies greatly depending on the circumstances.

Now if your 3D theater had a dimmer bulb than they were supposed to - yeah then it could be a problem. But plenty of 2D screenings occur in crap theaters with the same problem - I've seen lots of that myself.

 

[MvRojo]

^My eyes adjusted. I've taken them off during the films for up to a minute or so before, especially Monsters vs. Aliens, since the 3-D gimmicks were getting annoying.

Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the fact that most films are less vibrant in color while wearing 3-D glasses. I was just making an observation for some people to keep in mind when pushing for 3-D.

 

[npsf3000]

Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the fact that most films are less vibrant in color while wearing 3-D glasses. I was just making an observation for some people to keep in mind when pushing for 3-D.

3D should have no effect of color or "Vibrancy" - as they know that each Eye receives 1/2 or less of the light they simply alter the colors slightly(if needed) and output higher brightness.

And as stated before not all 3D techniques do it this way, though it is by far the most popular.

 

[M'Sharak]

Nope. Well actually I have occasionally worn shades but I usually don't bother with them.

As for 3D - leave me out of it. I may be too young to remember the 50's with those comical looking 3D glasses that look like they come out of a Wheaties box or something, but the principle is the same. Besides, what good is a 3D image if it looks all red and blue?

Um, you do know 3D doesn't work that way anymore, right? The technology used for the 3D effect is way better than it once was. Honestly, see AVATAR in 3D and you will see just how wrong you are.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that he's never worn the glasses nor seen a 3D movie, and is operating primarily from a position of being hyper-concerned that someone might actually see him wearing what he believes are silly-looking spectacles. I could be mistaken about that, though.

 

[Char Aznable]

Um, you do know 3D doesn't work that way anymore, right? The technology used for the 3D effect is way better than it once was. Honestly, see AVATAR in 3D and you will see just how wrong you are.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that he's never worn the glasses nor seen a 3D movie, and is operating primarily from a position of being hyper-concerned that someone might actually see him wearing what he believes are silly-looking spectacles. I could be mistaken about that, though.

Well, if you're just walking around outside wearing those glasses you deserve all the strange looks you get (though they honestly don't look anywhere near as dorky as they used to)!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Nope. Well actually I have occasionally worn shades but I usually don't bother with them.

As for 3D - leave me out of it. I may be too young to remember the 50's with those comical looking 3D glasses that look like they come out of a Wheaties box or something, but the principle is the same. Besides, what good is a 3D image if it looks all red and blue?

Um, you do know 3D doesn't work that way anymore, right? The technology used for the 3D effect is way better than it once was. Honestly, see AVATAR in 3D and you will see just how wrong you are.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that he's never worn the glasses nor seen a 3D movie

Yes I have, and yes I have.

I did see decent 3D once, but that was for the IMAX Space Station movie. And it didn't so much require *glasses* as a full *headset*. That, I think, was even worse, as far as awkward headgear goes.

 

[npsf3000]

Yes I have, and yes I have.

Can you please explain why you do not wish to where glasses to view 3d?

Your not the only one, if anyone browses sites like CNET and their coverage of 3D (Mainly CES), many people complain about having to wear 'Silly Glasses'. I just don't understand what their concern is.

It is a legitimate concern, I just wish to understand it better.

 

[Eddie Roth]

I would love to see that. Avatar was so immersive because of the, shall we say, more subtle 3D, which wasn't at all gimmicky to me. Imagining seeing the Enterprise in 3D is an idea that appeals to me a lot.

 

[Sabataage]

It'd be nice but I certainly don't 'demand' it.

I would agree, 3D would be interesting, if done the right way. If it means stuff popping out at the audience every five minutes, then its just a gimmick that ruins the movie. But if its meant to "enhance" the enviroment like in Avatar a 3D Trek would be a nerd's wet dream.

A 360' wrap around the Enterprise's hull or a ship-to-ship space battle (in 3-D) would be absolutely breath-taking. The same could go for interior scenes, as well. A 3D Trek could put the audience right on the bridge, next to (or in) the captain's chair.

 

[M'Sharak]

I did see decent 3D once, but that was for the IMAX Space Station movie. And it didn't so much require *glasses* as a full *headset*. That, I think, was even worse, as far as awkward headgear goes.

Did it really "look all red and blue"?

 

[Yeoman Randi]

WOW, i am really surprised at all the love 3D is getting. I really don't want the next Trek to be in 3D. I've been perfectly happy all these years going the old fashioned way, and i have never had a problem getting immersed into the movie before. I think 3D would take away from my experience.

JJ....PLEASE!!!! NO 3D!~

 

[SalvorHardin]

I think 3D would take away from my experience.

JJ....PLEASE!!!! NO 3D!~

I've seen 3 movies in 3D so far, the last being Avatar which was also the best in implementing it and nothing was ever taken away from the experience.

In any case, there are always both 3D and 2D screenings so there's no need to beg Abrams for anything.
If they decide to do it, just go to a 2D screening and anyone who wishes can go to a 3D screening.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

During Avatar i took my glasses off a few times and the screen had that 'double vision' thing going on. I couldn't sit through an entire movie like that.

 

[SalvorHardin]

During Avatar i took my glasses off a few times and the screen had that 'double vision' thing going on. I couldn't sit through an entire movie like that.

It was like that because it was meant to be seen with the glasses. It was 3D.
If you go to a regular 2D Avatar screening it will be normal, like any other movie.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I didn't even know you COULD go to a 2 D Screening! I thought if a movie was filmed in 3D that was the ONLY way you could see it.

So....you're telling me that if Star Trek is filmed in 3d i will still have my choice of seeing it in 2D in some theaters? Will wonders never cease.......

 

[SalvorHardin]

So....you're telling me that if Star Trek is filmed in 3d i will still have my choice of seeing it in 2D in some theaters?

Exactly

 

[Yeoman Randi]

Am i the only one who didn't know this??!?!?!?

I don't understand how that would be done. I guess i need to go to the interwebs and read up on it.

 

[Sector 7]

Yes I have, and yes I have.

Can you please explain why you do not wish to where glasses to view 3d?

Your not the only one, if anyone browses sites like CNET and their coverage of 3D (Mainly CES), many people complain about having to wear 'Silly Glasses'. I just don't understand what their concern is.

It is a legitimate concern, I just wish to understand it better.

Some of us have legitimate concerns about 3D. My brother gets headaches from watching 3D movies. He has tried many times, he even purchased Coraline on BluRay 3D with the same result... migraine headaches.
I wear glasses, in fact, without them I cannot make out anything on the screen. If they would make 3D glasses which clip onto my glasses, perhaps I would be more willing to bother. The only ones provided at the theater were not comfortable to wear over my existing glasses. In the end I walked out early with a headache. I had discussed my qualms with the manager before going in, so he refunded my money (quite nice of him).