Star Trek 12 3-D???

[Hyperspace05]

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.

That's because you are in a 3D screening. In 3D two images (one for each eye) are projected to the screen at the same time, and the glasses have special filters to only show the correct image for each eye. You are not supposed to take off your glasses in a 3D screening.

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?

Yes... The 2D version of Avatar (for example), is just one out of the two images. (left or right eye view). That is what the 2D DVD/Blu-ray release will be as well. (until they release a 3D version for Blu-ray)

 

[Hyperspace05]

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.

Different 3D systems have different kinds of glasses. Some are heavier than others.

If you have a choice between theaters, try to go to one using the RealD 3D system. (It usually says on Fandango what type o 3D each theater uses). The RealD glasses are the lightest ones, and are disposable. (although they encourage recycling). Dolby Digital 3D and IMAX 3D use heavier glasses, as far as I know.

I have worn RealD glasses on top of my glasses, and it worked great for me. But it might be a problem for some, and with some types of frames.

 

[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.

That's because you are in a 3D screening. In 3D two images (one for each eye) are projected to the screen at the same time, and the glasses have special filters to only show the correct image for each eye. You are not supposed to take off your glasses in a 3D screening.

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?

Yes... The 2D version of Avatar (for example), is just one out of the two images. (left or right eye view). That is what the 2D DVD/Blu-ray release will be as well. (until they release a 3D version for Blu-ray)

A movie filmed in 3D would have to use special cameras, right? So, if a movie is filmed in 3D, wouldn't "2D" screenings miss something or have a 'flat' look to them?
Again, i do need to read up on this, but i am still scratching my head as to how this works.

 

[npsf3000]

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).

I'm sorry about the headache, hopefully its something fixable (Either with another technique or with practice).

There is a whole concept of selling more permanent glasses for those who desire them, it really just depends on the market size and who actually gets the licence off RealD.

 

[npsf3000]

A movie filmed in 3D would have to use special cameras, right? So, if a movie is filmed in 3D, wouldn't "2D" screenings miss something or have a 'flat' look to them?
Again, i do need to read up on this, but i am still scratching my head as to how this works.

Would that by being filmed in HD, people with SD televisions get a lower quality video?

Same with 3D, If you watch it you get more detail, if you don't you get the normal amount.

I read somewhere (quoting a somebody), that 3D made them think more about cinematography and resulted in a better movie for the 2D screens.

Last Test: Watch the avatar trailer, its not as "Deep" as the 3D movie, but it is certainly no worse than any other 2D film, probably better than most!

 

[DontFeedPhil]

You know what the beauty of 3-d is? If you dont like 3-d or the effect you can always watch a standard 2-d version. No one can force you to watch a movie in 3-d over 2-d. But when its filmed in 3-d or whatever they did with Avatar it also works in 2-d...
I sure hope that TPTB are smart enough to film it in 3-d so those of us that want a 3-D Enterprise can have it...

 

[Hyperspace05]

A movie filmed in 3D would have to use special cameras, right? So, if a movie is filmed in 3D, wouldn't "2D" screenings miss something or have a 'flat' look to them?

It would look the same as a 2D film. Are you upset that Star Trek looked too flat?

3D is usually filmed with two cameras - one for each eye. Each is a complete film camera. 2D just uses footage from one of them. 3D uses both.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Would 3D movies, released on Blu-Ray or DVD, require a separate 2D version to play on non-3D TVs and players? Or would there be backwards compatibility?

 

[npsf3000]

Would 3D movies, released on Blu-Ray or DVD, require a separate 2D version to play on non-3D TVs and players? Or would there be backwards compatibility?

It depends on how the 3-D formats are determined, and which formats your player can recognize. It is my expectation, that initially at least, 3-D and 2-D formats will remain separate. Any system that can recognize a 3-D format will be able to easily display 2-D, however this is probably not true of 2-D systems.

More information, should be coming soon.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Would 3D movies, released on Blu-Ray or DVD, require a separate 2D version to play on non-3D TVs and players? Or would there be backwards compatibility?

It should be possible, even if early 3D Blu-ray players and TVs may not support it. The 3D Blu-Ray standard they are working basically sends two video-streams over HDMI to the TV simultaneously. So it should be possible to create a player and/or TV that just ignores one of the channels.

BTW, for those of you who intensely dislike JJ's lens-flares... They will be harder to film with 3D cameras (at least they way they filmed them in Trek XI). So I think a 3D film is guaranteed to have less lensflares.

 

[I am not Spock]

I wouldn't mind a 3D version of the next Trek. As long as there is a standard 2D print as well. It would create a good buzz for the film.

 

[npsf3000]

BTW, for those of you who intensely dislike JJ's lens-flares... They will be harder to film with 3D cameras (at least they way they filmed them in Trek XI). So I think a 3D film is guaranteed to have less lensflares.

BS!

It will be interesting to see the approach he takes, artistically, in the next film.

 

[Hyperspace05]

BS??? Extreme lensflare will be very hard to accomplish without giving a 3D viewers a big headache. And since most of them were accomplished in Star Trek XI practically (not in post) by shining sharp lights right into the camera lens, you know have two lenses to aim at, which will make it difficult to generate an even effect between the two of them.

If you have seen Avatar, there is one example where a flashlight is aimed right at the viewer (when Jake is taken out of the pod the 2nd time), and the effect is very disturbing.

But the point remains... Since in a good 3D setup, the cameras will not be pointing in the exact same direction (since they are aimed at the same 3D space point from different angles), so the lensflare effect will be different for each eye. That's a recipe for viewer discomfort.

Conclusion: such effects would be scaled back, *IF* they go 3D.

 

[Sabataage]

If you have seen Avatar, there is one example where a flashlight is aimed right at the viewer (when Jake is taken out of the pod the 2nd time), and the effect is very disturbing.

There's also at least one CG lense flare when Jake's an avatar in the jungle. The camera pans up through the canopy and you see the effect as sunlight hits the "lense", its quite funny you consider not only is it manufactures like in Star Trek but the entire world is as well. That fake lense flare probably cost a couple thau. And for the record in three-d the effect is just a series a of blue spots receding diagonally through the space. Nothing to get a head ache over.

 

[Hyperspace05]

If you have seen Avatar, there is one example where a flashlight is aimed right at the viewer (when Jake is taken out of the pod the 2nd time), and the effect is very disturbing.

There's also at least one CG lense flare when Jake's an avatar in the jungle. The camera pans up through the canopy and you see the effect as sunlight hits the "lense", its quite funny you consider not only is it manufactures like in Star Trek but the entire world is as well. That fake lense flare probably cost a couple thau. And for the record in three-d the effect is just a series a of blue spots receding diagonally through the space. Nothing to get a head ache over.

Do you mean this scene? Those blue streaks are 'god-rays', volumetric effects from light shining on dust in the air. (like you might scene some days when light streaks through clouds or fog)

Those are not lensflares, strictly speaking, since lens flares are an effect caused by the optics of a camera. (or a simulated CG camera)
And nothing like JJ's Trek lens flares.

 

[npsf3000]

BS??? Extreme lensflare will be very hard to accomplish without giving a 3D viewers a big headache. And since most of them were accomplished in Star Trek XI practically (not in post) by shining sharp lights right into the camera lens, you know have two lenses to aim at, which will make it difficult to generate an even effect between the two of them.

See! Not one thing stating that lense flare is harder to do, just more annoying and problematic

But don't worry there will be less lenses flares - even JJ thinks he went overboard.

I personally liked the lenses flares, and am interested to see if they can achieve a similar effect (Future to bright[i/]) with another system - without the headaches.

So yes, there will be less lens-flares, but technically it is no harder to do.

 

[Mistreaper]

I would love to see it in 3D, if they do great, and if they don't ok, just make it a good movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If the studio head don't insist upon Star Trek 2 being shot in 3D they're fools. After Avatar that's going to be necessary in order to "future-proof" the production.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D and thought it was absolutely gorgeous....

But that said, I could care less if Star Trek XII is in 3D or 2D. I want it to have a fantastic story, great acting, and believable visual effects. If it has all those things, I'll be swept away whether it's in double-D or triple-D.

 

[Flake]

It will be in 3D because it means much more $$$ for Paramount!