Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?

[jefferiestubes8]

2D and depth of field vs deep focus

What about depth of field and motion blur in films? Nobody complains about that, even though it's almost always highly unnatural.

This is out of the scope of a a thread about Should Star Trek 2012 be in 3D?

That was my point about depth of field. You'd see far more detail if you weren't forced into focusing on a certain subject. But nobody complains about that.

I'll humor you.
Hollywood tends to shoot shallow depth of field for most 2-D movies controlling where you do look with the lens and that is part of the whole cinematic look. It has been this way since color movies became the norm. Look at any romantic comedy. Wrong genre? Okay look at any closeup on CSI, any closeup on Star Trek XI (2009)
Deeper focus is not always great.
a prime example:
Public Enemies - Grading and Discussion (Johnny Depp, Christian Bale)

There were parts that just seemed almost fake, like you were looking at a 2D painting because the depth of view was just too deep.

-a commenter on the article Co-Producer Bryan Carroll on the Tech Behind Public Enemies

Michael [Mann] likes depth of field, images with deep focus, and that camera has a chip that’s more like 16mm that gave us that depth of focus. It’s the same reason why I chose the same camera for the film I am going into now, The Chronicles of Narnia. [The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)] The depth of field works in our favor.

DP Dante Spinotti on Public Enemies
Working with Michael Mann, Lighting for HD, and Going for Deep Focus

The color you see on film is also not the natural way you see color.

Unless it is a black and white movie, Saving Private Ryan, Amélie, or Band of Brothers a color movie is generally the way it appears in real life. The Technicolor process captured light split into R,G,B and was able to be brought back together for the The Wizard of Oz: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition which accurately represented the color on set from 70 years ago if slightly saturating them, but that can be dialed down on your HDTV's chroma setting.
Today film and digital capture are used for motion pictures to create entertainment and tell stories and we suspend our disbelief to be caught up in the moment.
That's it. I'm not going into a more technical discussion. If you want to discuss aesthetics of artistic choice of a director for intentional style ala CSI Miami or se7en that's a different story and also out of the scope of this thread about Star Trek XII & 3D.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: 2D and depth of field vs deep focus

Hollywood tends to shoot shallow depth of field for most 2-D movies controlling where you do look with the lens and that is part of the whole cinematic look.

Works for 3D, too. Nobody ever complained about being forced to focus with shallow depth of field, yet with 3D, suddenly people complain about how unnatural it is.

Unless it is a black and white movie, Saving Private Ryan, Amélie, or Band of Brothers a color movie is generally the way it appears in real life.

Zing. Same goes for the 3D effect, if done correctly, using the cameras they developed for Avatar for instance, which where constructed to emulate human eyes. They even become cross-eyed when the object in focus gets too close.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Movies that are in 3D are also available to be watched in 2D. So it shouldn't be concern if someone likes 3D or not.

The thing is that 3D does bring in more of a crowd because it is 3D. However, will the time invested be worth it and or will they have to do it for the next movie, too?

I voted I would like to see the next film in 3D... just because I haven't seen a Trek film in 3D before.

I mean, why have your cake without frosting?
Granted some people can't eat frosting, but that shouldn't stop them from offering both versions, though (if they think it would be worth it).

 

[Captain Rob]

I don't think that 3D will last very long with the way the theater companies are gouging the customers for it. It turned my stomach when my former employer, Regal Entertainment Group, announced a few months ago that they were going to charge an even higher premium for 3D features. I'm currently out of the industry so I don't know how the projector setup is for RealD 3D but it can't be much different from the older style 3D with the Red/blue glasses. All we had to do was to use a different lense for 3D, which you only touched at the beginning of the film's run, and show the film in an auditorium with a silver screen, which you don't need anymore. The only other extra work was handing out the glasses at the box office or ticket box. And these guys are charging an extra 5 to 6 dollars per ticket?
And to the guy saying the movies should be shot on 70 mm instead of 35 mm. I believe that Avatar was shot using a special made 4K digital stereoscopic camera. It's resolution is higher than 70 mm. Most digital motion picture cameras are either 3K or 4K. I think that 4K is about 4 times the resolution of BlueRay. I've got a chunk of "Top Gun" in 70 mm around here somewhere. Check out Wikipedia to see the huge difference between 1080p and 4K. I want a 4K digital TV and a 4K video player. The file sizes are HUGE.

 

[Geckothan]

Movies that are in 3D are also available to be watched in 2D. So it shouldn't be concern if someone likes 3D or not.

The thing is that 3D does bring in more of a crowd because it is 3D. However, will the time invested be worth it and or will they have to do it for the next movie, too?

I voted I would like to see the next film in 3D... just because I haven't seen a Trek film in 3D before.

I mean, why have your cake without frosting?
Granted some people can't eat frosting, but that shouldn't stop them from offering both versions, though (if they think it would be worth it).

Seeing it in 2D is a possibility, but when a movie is specifically made for 3D, it usually ends up being a special effects wankfest where they try to make the stupid people in the audience go "WOW" every other shot with shit flying off the screen, so the movie would still suck. If they used 3D the same way colour and surround sound are used, e.g. not making them a big deal but just using them to make the experience a bit more realistic and immersing, and still managed to make a good movie, it might not be so bad, and it might actually be acceptable in 3D as well.

The funny thing is, 3D has been around for years and movies that use it still feel like tech demos.

And to the guy saying the movies should be shot on 70 mm instead of 35 mm. I believe that Avatar was shot using a special made 4K digital stereoscopic camera. It's resolution is higher than 70 mm. Most digital motion picture cameras are either 3K or 4K. I think that 4K is about 4 times the resolution of BlueRay. I've got a chunk of "Top Gun" in 70 mm around here somewhere. Check out Wikipedia to see the huge difference between 1080p and 4K. I want a 4K digital TV and a 4K video player. The file sizes are HUGE.

From what I've heard/read in interviews, J.J. Abrams specifically chose film over digital for XI as an artistic decision, I'm not sure if he's directing XII, though, so I'm not sure if he'll have any say in it or not this time around. Personally I like the film look, so I'd rather see it on 35mm, let alone 70mm over some super high resolution digital format. Film just has a certain "look" which I find very pleasing and easy on the eyes, the same way most people find the vinyl "sound" with it's compression, hiss and characteristic EQ curve more pleasing to listen to than a CD made from the same master where unlike vinyl, it's characteristics actually DETRACT from the sound (dithering, worse frequency response, etc).

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Movies that are in 3D are also available to be watched in 2D.

And the film distributors know that they are going to do very well with home video releases as evidenced by Avatar's multiple Blu-ray releases.

I would like to see the next film in 3D... just because I haven't seen a Trek film in 3D before.

I totally agree and would like to see a future Trek series in 3-D.

 

[Captain Rob]

"From what I've heard/read in interviews, J.J. Abrams specifically chose film over digital for XI as an artistic decision, I'm not sure if he's directing XII, though, so I'm not sure if he'll have any say in it or not this time around. Personally I like the film look, so I'd rather see it on 35mm, let alone 70mm over some super high resolution digital format. Film just has a certain "look" which I find very pleasing and easy on the eyes, the same way most people find the vinyl "sound" with it's compression, hiss and characteristic EQ curve more pleasing to listen to than a CD made from the same master where unlike vinyl, it's characteristics actually DETRACT from the sound (dithering, worse frequency response, etc). "

OK. While I'm not a cinematographer or a projection engineer, I have logged over 22 years in the projection booth as first a projectionist, then Assistant Manager, and as General Manager. While JJ Abrams did shoot the live action on film (probably 67 mm), all of the rest of the movie was created digitally. I read somewhere that he went to great effort to recreate the feel of film in the digital portions including those pesky lens flares. At some point in postproduction, all of the footage was composited into a master digital print. There were probably several versions, culminating in the final master release version (still digital). From that digital master were the 35 mm film release prints were digitally printed and multiple digital copies created as needed. So regardless if you saw the movie in 35 mm film or digital format (including IMAX), at some point in the production process what you saw was entirely digital.
Now the big difference in the projection booth between digital and film. All film versions were 35 mm. Nobody ships 70 mm theatrical prints anymore. The equipment is too expensive. My theatre had one 35/70 mm capable projector and I loved running 70 mm back in the 90's and 80's. But they were a pain to maintain. The last 70 mm print that I ran was Titanic back in 97, and it was only one of two 70 mm prints in Texas. 70 mm IMAX prints are completely different and are done for IMAX specific productions. 70 mm theatrical prints are 70 mm wide by 5 sprockets high with the image oriented horizontally. IMAX 70 mm is 70 mm wide by 15 sprockets high, with the image oriented vertically. If you saw Star Trek or Avatar in IMAX, then you saw a regular print (film or digital) run through a regular projector with a wide-angle lens to fill the screen.
With digital projection, the theatre presents a consistent flawless performance. The movie looks just as good the last day of it's run as it did on the first day. Which is great considering the state of projectionists these days. Most projectionists today don't know squat. They know how to thread the movie, press the start button, adjust the sound and maybe how to fix a film break. The days of union projectionists that were professionals are long gone. I was taught everything I know by a senior one back in the day. And maintenance is almost nonexistent. When you see a film presentation today, which you're paying through the nose for, the screen image is probably wandering around the screen a little bit, indicating that the projector film gate isn't adjusted properly. The sound isn't set right; you have to adjust it depending on crowd size. And the light isn't consistent on the screen; indicating a lamp that's out of adjustment. Let's not forget about the scratches on the film. Amd it's probably out of focus too. And if you're really lucky and your movie is doubled-up with another movie; the projectionist starts the wrong one. Which happened to me on Star Trek my second viewing. And the worst thing is; the movie doesn't start on time because of the stupid ads. That was the biggest complaint we got from our customers after Regal took over United Artists. We had no control over those damned ads. And if we shut them off and started the film on-time the stupid computer reported us to Regal's home office as a early start even though the movie would be 5 minutes late otherwise. AMC and Cinemark now use the same stupid system. At least with digital all of the film related issues are gone. No scratches and the image is rock-solid stable.
Before anybody says anything; Yeah, I'm bitter. And so are alot of former United Artists people that lost their jobs.

 

[Captain Rob]

Sorry for the novel. You guys should know what you're paying for when you go to the movie theatre.

 

[Trilliam]

If I wear my glasses, the 3D effect doesn't really work, and if I don't (just use the 3D glasses), the rest of the screen is blurry and I feel motion sick.

ETA: Captain, Rob, reading your post reminded me of my late father-in-law. In the 50s& 60s, he used to manage a theatre/cinema in regional NSW.

 

[JarodRussell]

If I wear my glasses, the 3D effect doesn't really work, and if I don't (just use the 3D glasses), the rest of the screen is blurry and I feel motion sick.

Contact lenses.

 

[Trilliam]

If I wear my glasses, the 3D effect doesn't really work, and if I don't (just use the 3D glasses), the rest of the screen is blurry and I feel motion sick.

Contact lenses.

No good for me since I've needed multifocal lenses, plus there's something with the astigmatism that interferes with the effects with corrective lenses - I have the same problem with those magic eye 3D pictures if I have my glasses on.

 

[startrekrcks]

I wouldn't mind what style Star Trek XII is in 2d or 3d anyway I really want more updates on the progress.

 

[6079SmithW]

I hope not. I find 3-D to be distracting and that it makes the movie less enjoyable because the glasses are uncomfortable, to me at least. It's OK for things like nature documentaries that you see in IMAX but gives me a headache with faster paced action movies.

 

[JarodRussell]

I hope not. I find 3-D to be distracting and that it makes the movie less enjoyable because the glasses are uncomfortable, to me at least. It's OK for things like nature documentaries that you see in IMAX but gives me a headache with faster paced action movies.

I have a really hard time understanding this, because my experience is entirely different. How can the effect be so extremely subjective?

 

[Trilliam]

I hope not. I find 3-D to be distracting and that it makes the movie less enjoyable because the glasses are uncomfortable, to me at least. It's OK for things like nature documentaries that you see in IMAX but gives me a headache with faster paced action movies.

I have a really hard time understanding this, because my experience is entirely different. How can the effect be so extremely subjective?

Not everyone has the same visual acuity?

 

[Captain Rob]

If I wear my glasses, the 3D effect doesn't really work, and if I don't (just use the 3D glasses), the rest of the screen is blurry and I feel motion sick.

ETA: Captain, Rob, reading your post reminded me of my late father-in-law. In the 50s& 60s, he used to manage a theatre/cinema in regional NSW.

Jeeze; I feel old. If I start saying "Well in my day we did yada yada yada..." then just shoot me. Man, I'm only 44. I started in the movie business when I was 17.
Did any one else that saw Avatar in 3D notice their eyes trying to focus on blurred objects in the foreground? Other than that the 3D effect seemed perfect.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

A billion times no. I saw star trek 5 times in the theater and bought the bluray. If the sequel is in 3D I will just pirate it to make a point.

 

[Trilliam]

If I wear my glasses, the 3D effect doesn't really work, and if I don't (just use the 3D glasses), the rest of the screen is blurry and I feel motion sick.

ETA: Captain Rob, reading your post reminded me of my late father-in-law. In the 50s& 60s, he used to manage a theatre/cinema in regional NSW.

Jeeze; I feel old. If I start saying "Well in my day we did yada yada yada..." then just shoot me. Man, I'm only 44. I started in the movie business when I was 17.
Did any one else that saw Avatar in 3D notice their eyes trying to focus on blurred objects in the foreground? Other than that the 3D effect seemed perfect.

You're younger than my little sister .

 

[SalvorHardin]

A billion times no. I saw star trek 5 times in the theater and bought the bluray. If the sequel is in 3D I will just pirate it to make a point.

What point ? I really don't get this.
What on Earth is the problem when it's 100% certain you will be able to easily go see it in a classic 2D screening & buy the 2D dvd/blu-ray ?
Please feel free to elaborate.

I'm all for a 3D version if they're going to shoot it and not do a bad conversion job. I get no headaches or have other problems when watching 3D so it would be something interesting to see.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I thought I saw another poll on TrekBBS:
Star Trek 12 3-D???

from January 2010 and the poll is still open to vote.