Sorry, Double post. . .
~FS
~FS
Last edited:
Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Why are you assuming that he doesn't put his glasses on before the first frame of the movie? Even the trailers in 3D movies are in 3D. . . some people, especially those who wear glasses, just don't react the same way to the process. . . and he is correct in that 3D movies are dimmer and grayer. . . it works for movies that are animated like "Toy Story 3," "Up," and even "Avatar" which is mostly computer animation, because they are brighter and more colorful to begin with. . .
~FS
That argument is flawed. If you KNOW you are directing a 3D movie, then you can already compensate that during production and post production, so that the movie looks exactly as intended when you wear the glasses. That's exactly what they did when they did Avatar, Toy Story 3, and all movies produced for real 3D (and not that converted crap like Clash of the Titans).
Saying 3D is bad because the glasses dim the picture brightness is virtually the same as saying film is bad because if you turn the lights on in the cinema you can barely see anything on the screen.
One of the problems is that 2D showings are becoming rarer, and at least in LA, a lot of them are in not-as-nice theatres since all the ones that switch to digital projection just go ahead and do 3D now without giving the option of 2D. I've noticed this trend increasing in the last six months, so the point where I couldn't find a 2D showing of Toy Story 3 in a theatre I was willing to go to.
I've been seeing gaming on these 3D televisions for a couple of years now at the Consumer Electronics Show. It seems to get more of a spotlight each year. This year is supposed to be the biggest year for the in-home 3D tech, and I expect this week's CES to be packed with demonstrations from all the major manufacturers. I'm already seeing double, and I'm not even there yet.
Looks natural to me. Avatar and Toy Story at the top, less good movies below. I'd like to see the total box office results of the movies listed. Since 3D is more expensive, you won't pay the extra money if the movie sucks, it's simple.
Would this be "color vs. black & white", and movies would be shown in two versions (with color being more expensive than b/w showings), you would see similar results, I'm certain of that.
I'm not the biggest fan of 3-D, but I see a couple things wrong with the way this article was written.
1. Having "Cats and Dogs 2" in there is gonna skew it bad no matter what since the movie is a huge bomb. Same with "The Last Airbender" which is pretty crappy.
2. They really should have put total box office derived from 3-D and not just opening weekends. Since 3-D screens only amount to something like 30% of available screens for most movies, there's only so much that can be made from them in their opening weekends before they're sold out. EX: When I watched Toy Story 3, all the 3-D showings were sold out. So opening with 50%+ of box office from 30% or so screens is actually pretty good.
3. Ignoring the actual box office figures, especially considering how successful/no successful the films shown have been, it still averages out to over 58% of opening weekend box office from 3-D.
^ Indeed.
It still comes down to "Good movies with well-conceived use of 3D effects will most likely do well, while poor movies which tack on 3D effects as an afterthought in an attempt to jump on a perceived bandwagon probably won't perform nearly as well." The Last Airbender is kind of a different case: the 3D effects seem to have been part of the plan from the beginning and (from what I read) were executed well enough, but the conception of the movie itself was all wrong, both for longtime A:tLA fans and for those coming to it cold.
It's not 3D which is on a downward trend, so much as it has been the quality of the movies which employ it. A movie which sucks out loud in 2D is still ultimately going to suck in 3D. Whether the practice of using 3D effects survives in the long term remains to be seen.
It still comes down to "Good movies with well-conceived use of 3D effects will most likely do well, while poor movies which tack on 3D effects as an afterthought in an attempt to jump on a perceived bandwagon probably won't perform nearly as well." The Last Airbender is kind of a different case: the 3D effects seem to have been part of the plan from the beginning and (from what I read) were executed well enough, but the conception of the movie itself was all wrong, both for longtime A:tLA fans and for those coming to it cold.
It's not 3D which is on a downward trend, so much as it has been the quality of the movies which employ it. A movie which sucks out loud in 2D is still ultimately going to suck in 3D. Whether the practice of using 3D effects survives in the long term remains to be seen.
Last edited:
2-d for me -- 3-d has given me headaches every time I have seen a film with it!!
Dudes, 3D doesn't take away from a story. When you come up with a story and write a script, you don't write with technical stuff in mind.
I voted no, but they probably will "3D" it simply because all the cinemas have spent so much on the technology. I reckon the current 3D is just the same (Well, slightly better) as the last time we had it with those red and green glasses. It was supposed to be the next evolution of film back then too.
The day when we don't have to wear special spacker glasses to watch in 3D is the day I look forward to. Hello Holodeck!
But yeah, they will make it in 3D, even if it wasn't filmed for that.
The day when we don't have to wear special spacker glasses to watch in 3D is the day I look forward to. Hello Holodeck!
But yeah, they will make it in 3D, even if it wasn't filmed for that.
Once again as a reminder:
"The benefit for 3-D is for action that is close to the camera. Just like in real life. Depth perception from our two eyes is only usable out to about 20 feet."
If filming ST12 in 3D truly adds to the movie experience then I'm all for it. If it's done just to rake in the extra $3 or $4 that Regal charges (for no reason) then I'm against it. End of story.
"The benefit for 3-D is for action that is close to the camera. Just like in real life. Depth perception from our two eyes is only usable out to about 20 feet."
If filming ST12 in 3D truly adds to the movie experience then I'm all for it. If it's done just to rake in the extra $3 or $4 that Regal charges (for no reason) then I'm against it. End of story.
3D can take away from the movie-watching experience.
"2-d for me -- 3-d has given me headaches every time I have seen a film with it!! "
I know why. While watching Avatar my eyes tried to focus on blurry objects at least a dozen times that appeared to be closer in the foreground. That's a big un-fixable flaw with 3D. Wether a film is recorded in 2D or 3D the depth-of-field of the shot is fixed. Even if the shot is created digitally the amount of the frame that's in focus is unchangeable. Anyone remember those crazy split-diopter shots on the bridge in TMP?
Part of the human eye's real 3D processing is the ability to adjust focus between near and far objects. That's in addition to stereoscopic vision (having two eyes). Simulated 3D in film can resolve the stereoscopic effect but can't do anything about depth-of-field. If the image projected is out of focus then no amount of eye strain will bring it into focus.
Similar threads
