I am pondering whether to see the film in 3D or 2D (No Imax in Sweden). My experience with 3D is limited, but they seem to differ a lot in how well they are done. Does anybody know if Into Darkness is on the better part of the spectrum, or if I just as well could see the 2D-kind?
The 3D-quality
- Thread starter Marten
- Start date
Here is my rule of thumb; if the movie was shot in 3D, with 3D cameras, then I might see it in 3D. If the movie was shot in 2D and converted to 3D during post-production then I'll watch in 2D.
STID was converted to 3D during post so, I'm sticking with 2D.
I'm still not a huge fan of 3D, I think it is more of a gimmick then anything and it never really adds anything to the enjoyment of the story IMO, just eye candy. I also don't like how the glasses make the movie appear darker. I also hate that it cost $3 more at my local theater, which is why I always keep my glasses when I do see a 3D movie just because I can. I know that keeping the glasses doesn't really do anything but I pretend I'm sticking it to the theater for charging me more.
STID was converted to 3D during post so, I'm sticking with 2D.
I'm still not a huge fan of 3D, I think it is more of a gimmick then anything and it never really adds anything to the enjoyment of the story IMO, just eye candy. I also don't like how the glasses make the movie appear darker. I also hate that it cost $3 more at my local theater, which is why I always keep my glasses when I do see a 3D movie just because I can. I know that keeping the glasses doesn't really do anything but I pretend I'm sticking it to the theater for charging me more.
Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D
Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:
Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.
Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?
Personally, I find 3D super gimmicky - and often quite distracting. Too much "ooh" or "ahh" that was a "kwel" 3D rendering can take me right out of a film. I will probably watch STID several times, with a "curiosity" 3D viewing at some point. But certainly not the first time (which is only 1 day, 18 hours and 09 minutes away 
). LOL, there's only one first time!
). LOL, there's only one first time!
I'm a Star Trek dork so I will see it both ways just to say I did. May 15th opening night tickets are Imax 3D, May 18th tickets are regular 2D. On a side note I have seen it advertised in Imax 3D, Real 3D, and 2D. I know it will be out there, but here in the area there still are no showings advertised in Imax 2D.
Normally i'm a 2D type of guy. But i did happen to see Titanic in 3D and it was great. James Cameron really did a good job with it after the fact. But he had 60 people working around the clock for a year or two to convert it...and he is crazy. Maybe I just remember it being really good as I was not to enthused to see it again in the first place, to say nothing about the 3D. But hey if it makes the wife happy then I'm set. But I thought it was good.
If Into Darkness came out in "Sense Around" or in "Smell Vision" I would go see it...just to see what they think the Enterprise smells like. The ship probably smells like window cleaner since there is so much glass in the nuEnterprise.
Normally i'm a 2D type of guy. But i did happen to see Titanic in 3D and it was great. James Cameron really did a good job with it after the fact. But he had 60 people working around the clock for a year or two to convert it...and he is crazy. Maybe I just remember it being really good as I was not to enthused to see it again in the first place, to say nothing about the 3D. But hey if it makes the wife happy then I'm set. But I thought it was good.
If Into Darkness came out in "Sense Around" or in "Smell Vision" I would go see it...just to see what they think the Enterprise smells like. The ship probably smells like window cleaner since there is so much glass in the nuEnterprise.
Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D
Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:
Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.
Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?
Indranee, since you're apparently in Warrrrrrshington, if you want to drive out towards Dulles, the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum's IMAX theater is showing STID in IMAX 2D (not 3D). And when you think about it, what better place could there be to see a "Star Trek" movie than at the Air and Space Museum?
I've seen a load of 3D films and to be honest, the 3D doesn't add much and the dark picture detracts more. Its a gimick, as is Imax.
OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.
OK - I realise Imax is better quality but by the time you factor in how far back you have to sit, there is no benefit. You've paid all that money for nothing.
Is IMAX only available in 3D or can one get IMAX quality in 2D? I just absolutely hate 3D
Okay, I just checked my theater. It seems there are three options:
Standard, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D.
Those of you who've seen it already, any recommendations as to which one?
Indranee, since you're apparently in Warrrrrrshington, if you want to drive out towards Dulles, the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum's IMAX theater is showing STID in IMAX 2D (not 3D). And when you think about it, what better place could there be to see a "Star Trek" movie than at the Air and Space Museum?
OMG are you serious?!?! I most certainly will!! I used to live in Sterling and drive to DC to work (hellish 2.5 hours ever spent in a day) for a while and we took family trips to the Udvar-Hazy almost every month.
We did see ST2009 there, as well. Totally forgot about that! Thanks Franklin from the home of Warrior-America
Btw, thanks for reminding me... they have some great programs on Trek coming up in the next week or two:
http://airandspace.si.edu/events/calendar.cfm
And here's the STID schedule:
http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/theaters/uhc/index.cfm
Your right. The only noticeble differnece for me with Imax, and it may just be the theater itself, is the sound is so much louder and more crisp. I find this funny in that you go to Imax for the view, but the sound is what is actually better.
So if you have a tiny screen just right in front of your eyes, it's the same as having a gigantic screen far away from your eyes?
I was unimpressed by the quality of the 3D nine-minute preview shown before the IMAX version of "The Hobbit", but the 3D screening of STiD at the Sydney premiere a few weeks ago was... wondrous!
I've seen interviews with JJ where he describes the considerations he made while shooting, knowing in advance that the film would undergo conversion, and he, himself, is now a 3D convert.
Go see it twice is you need it and compare for yourself.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
He may be a convert, but from what his collaborators have said in the only tech article I've seen thus far, he pretty much ignored all the 'rules' for shooting with post-conversion in mind.
It makes sense that he would stick with conversion rather than originating in 3D, since he prefers originating on film (odd, how some of the few folks who still shoot film -- not Nolan and Pfister, they do just fine with film -- do what looks to me to be a bad job of it. Spielberg's MINORITY REPORT looked so 'affected' it might as well have been shot digital, the whole look seemed hellbent on sabotaging the movie.
Based on the really good comments about CAPT AMERICA's postconversion and what Nolan has said about tests he has done with it, I imagine a slow pricey postconversion is definitely the way to go, even if it isn't the popular view (probably because the camera guys want to sell more equipment.)
Then again it has been well over three decades since I saw a 3d movie, so I'm not losing sleep over it either way. That might change when the next- or next-next-gen projection happens, which is going to increase brightness by one helluva lot (and in the case of IMAX, it is going to keep contrast very strong, which is the problem with current 4K projectors.)
Last five paragraphs of this piece discusses some of this (note that the reference to dual-4K is a typo, and should be dual-2K):
http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2013/05/03/size-matters/
Yeah, when I saw TDK in a regular theater the sound wasn't loud enough so the whole gag with the guns and Alfred saying "I don't think you made it loud enough" didn't even work. But when I saw it again in IMAX that part was really loud as clearly intended.
As far as the picture is concerned? There's definitely a benefit. I don't think it really matters how far back you sit, but in any event you can sit up front if you really want to. Take the opening shot of TDK as an example. This looked unremarkable on a regular screen, and actually looks slightly crappy on DVD. But on the IMAX screen it was a whole different ballgame. The greater visual depth provided by the format actually created a momentary sense of vertigo.
But that's not the comparison. It's a big screen with a digital projector Vs a huge screen with an Imax projector. I sit around a third of the way back normally, or much further back for Imax, and there just isn't a big difference.
There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.
I saw the last movie in the Glasgow imax, it was not 3D and it was my first experience of a imax, and i was but i was simply blown away by the size of the screen, so for me personally 3D in the movie is simply a extra cherry on top of the cake.
But with a movie like this full of visual eye candy, i dont think the screen size or fomat will matter, your going to enjoy it either way.
Cant wait till Saturday.
But with a movie like this full of visual eye candy, i dont think the screen size or fomat will matter, your going to enjoy it either way.
Cant wait till Saturday.
40%, according to JJ.
Does it expand (change aspect ratios) like in the Nolan films? There is a fair bit of grumbling among the videophile crowd who dislike the fact that the Blu-ray releases of TDK and TDKR change aspect ratios during the movie--it messes with their constant height theatre setups for cinemascope projection (some also complain because they're not getting the original aspect ratio in any case--IMAX 15/70 [often called "real IMAX"], has a 1.44:1 aspect ratio (quite close to the original Academy ratio of 1.37:1 that dominated films until about 1953 and the 1.33:1 ratio of a standard-def TV). On the Blu-ray, the aspect ratio changes from 2.40:1 for non-IMAX scenes to 1.78:1 (thus filling the screen--just as it did at the cinema).
In any event, I'm just curious if the aspect ratio changes in the IMAX presentations, but I would guess not, as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on the A/V fora I frequent and, by now, someone would have pointed it out.
There is almost surely an aspect ratio difference between the 2-D non-IMAX (which I'd expect to be 2.40:1, as it was in the last movie) and any IMAX presentation (2-D or 3-D). Skyfall was shown in 1:78:1 at IMAX screenings but in 2.40:1 at non-IMAX cinemas and home video releases. Makes for a few differences in framing the shots but they're likely unnoticed by most viewers in the absence of a side by side example.
In any event, I'm just curious if the aspect ratio changes in the IMAX presentations, but I would guess not, as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on the A/V fora I frequent and, by now, someone would have pointed it out.
There is almost surely an aspect ratio difference between the 2-D non-IMAX (which I'd expect to be 2.40:1, as it was in the last movie) and any IMAX presentation (2-D or 3-D). Skyfall was shown in 1:78:1 at IMAX screenings but in 2.40:1 at non-IMAX cinemas and home video releases. Makes for a few differences in framing the shots but they're likely unnoticed by most viewers in the absence of a side by side example.
This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.
To me it's hardly worth the premium price for a movie that has no genuine IMAX footage in it, unless all the other theaters around you have really poor sound and/or image quality, which is where IMAX theaters always deliver.
For those that say they don't think IMAX offers much a difference, it is possible you've been to what many refer to as a "lieMAX" theater and not one of the proper more "old school" IMAX venues, many of which are shaped more like a dome, or are at least generally very large, much larger than what you'd see in a conventional multiplex.
Most "lieMAX" theaters are basically just converted standard movie theaters, where they sacrifice a row of seating to put in a larger screen, upgrade the sound, often upgrade the chairs, and put in a bit higher-end digital projector. These theaters are more like the premium upgraded theater experiences such as Cinemark XD and Regal RPX here in the US than a real IMAX theater.
Similar threads
