The 3D-quality

[Commishsleer]

I am almost completely blind in one eye so it is always 2D for me.

My husband is legally blind in one eye but can see shapes.
He can see modern 3D films.
He thought STID in 3D IMAX was the best 3D film he ever saw. My teenage son thought the 3D in STID was better than the 'Hobbit'.
They of course were sitting in the best seats in the the cinema while I was sitting to the left of screen.

 

[trevanian]

it didn't have the bugs Avatar had for me, namely structures (e.g. furniture) being cut off and thus looking weird or 3D when it should be 2D (e.g. the picture in the locker).

Ummm, if "Avatar" was filmed with 3D cameras, how did a picture in a locker go 3D? Unless it was 3D to start with?

My boyfriend described the 3D-effect as very natural/real (as real as you can get with this stuff) compared to the effect depicted in the Jurassic Park 3D trailer before the movie, which he described as cardboard cutouts placed in front of each other.

Agreed! I had the same reaction!

3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly...

Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?

Put simply, yes. And if you want genuine brightness on-screen (not just glare, which is how I'd typify the trek09's abovedeck interiors), I'd say ALTERED STATES in a good theater during the tank explosion sequence is THE example ... Jordan Cronenworth's cinematography (film just before he did BLADE RUNNER, at the top of his always-exemplary game) seems to exceed what is possible in terms of luminosity, even going well beyond CE3K.

for TUC, if I'd seen it with sunglasses everything except the explosions would have gone unseen ... the Kirk/McCoy bunkbed scene was just grey-black darkness on the terrible 70mm print shown in San Jose, CA ... it was like a bad drive-in movie, no image at all.

 

[trevanian]

3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly...

Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?

Isn't the simplest explanation that the slight darkening cause by the glasses is compensated by a slightly brighter projected image? )

Feel free to do your own homework on this. There is plenty of information online that is reliable as to what projectors put out and that the glasses are only a factor in all this, not the main issue. Xenon sources will be more of a factor in compensating, but then you're still sacrificing image quality in the form of contrast, just getting a brighter less detailed image.

 

[JarodRussell]

Never notice the darkening unless I remove the glasses during the film. But why would I do that?

 

[beamMe]

Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?

Isn't the simplest explanation that the slight darkening cause by the glasses is compensated by a slightly brighter projected image? )

Feel free to do your own homework on this. There is plenty of information online that is reliable as to what projectors put out and that the glasses are only a factor in all this, not the main issue. Xenon sources will be more of a factor in compensating, but then you're still sacrificing image quality in the form of contrast, just getting a brighter less detailed image.

Suppose I don't really care.

And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

[Kemaiku]

Saw it in 3D today and the detail was amazing, nothing wrong with the lighting or image quality, no ill effects either. But then I've never had any side effects from 3D viewing.

 

[trevanian]

Isn't the simplest explanation that the slight darkening cause by the glasses is compensated by a slightly brighter projected image? )

Feel free to do your own homework on this. There is plenty of information online that is reliable as to what projectors put out and that the glasses are only a factor in all this, not the main issue. Xenon sources will be more of a factor in compensating, but then you're still sacrificing image quality in the form of contrast, just getting a brighter less detailed image.

Suppose I don't really care.

And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

 

[Richard Baker]

I like 3D movies that are designed that way from the beginning- Prometheus and Immortals comes to mind. Most post-production attempts look like bad Viewmaster slides (The Sorcerer's Apprentice). I like the feel of being there, but when they make me aware of the fact I am watching a 3D effect it detracts from the film.

 

[Kpnuts]

Thought the 3D was perfectly fine, just don't sit too close. I was very worried about it going in but it was quite a subtle effect 90% of the time.

 

[beamMe]

Feel free to do your own homework on this. There is plenty of information online that is reliable as to what projectors put out and that the glasses are only a factor in all this, not the main issue. Xenon sources will be more of a factor in compensating, but then you're still sacrificing image quality in the form of contrast, just getting a brighter less detailed image.

Suppose I don't really care.

And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

 

[AntonyF]

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.

That!

I watched it in 2D. Here the pre-booking was in 3D first and my friends rushed into ordering, and I wouldn't go with them. I was patient, then just booked 2D when it came up for booking.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Saw it in 3D today and the detail was amazing, nothing wrong with the lighting or image quality, no ill effects either. But then I've never had any side effects from 3D viewing.

Yeah the 3D was simply awesome.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Well, after today, I've seen the movie in both formats. The film itself is wonderful, I absolutely love it. But, as for the preferred viewing format, 2D is the clear winner for me.

While watching the 2D version, I was struck by what I perceived as noticeably increased clarity, sharpness and overall detail. Certainly, I was able to take much more in, and pick up on minutiae I missed in 3D. The contrast was stronger, the colours "popped" more - and overall - the image had an elevated sense of realism and, well, depth!

 

[trevanian]

Suppose I don't really care.

And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

Sure. I take everything said at face value without crosschecking or doing conventional comprehensive research, then submit the material for publication without even letting all parties proof it for errors or omissions.

What, do you think I write about cinematography for a supermarket tabloid, or Fox News?

If you have no interest in legitimate professional statements of fact -- not opinion -- on actual measured aspects of what you're just babbling about, then wallow away in ignorance, you've certainly got plenty of company here.

 

[beamMe]

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

Sure. I take everything said at face value without crosschecking or doing conventional comprehensive research, then submit the material for publication without even letting all parties proof it for errors or omissions.

What, do you think I write about cinematography for a supermarket tabloid, or Fox News?

If you have no interest in legitimate professional statements of fact -- not opinion -- on actual measured aspects of what you're just babbling about, then wallow away in ignorance, you've certainly got plenty of company here.

The technical facts, aspects and reasons for a somewhat lower image-quality are one thing.
But the personal, subjective impression you get from actually watching a 3D-picture is far more important.

 

[JarodRussell]

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

Sure. I take everything said at face value without crosschecking or doing conventional comprehensive research, then submit the material for publication without even letting all parties proof it for errors or omissions.

What, do you think I write about cinematography for a supermarket tabloid, or Fox News?

If you have no interest in legitimate professional statements of fact -- not opinion -- on actual measured aspects of what you're just babbling about, then wallow away in ignorance, you've certainly got plenty of company here.

It IS curious that you write about it, but haven't experienced it. You are gathering opinions of others, why don't you make up your own?

beamMe's point is a valid one, I think.

The views of industry professionals are not fact. And the technical specs of theater equipment really mean nothing to the personal experience and personal preference.

 

[M'Sharak]

Suppose I don't really care.

And since you've told us that you haven't watched a modern 3D-movie in the cinema, your opinion of the image quality mean absolutely nothing to me.

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

beamMe, that will be enough. I would like very much not to see you sniping at anyone again - not at Deck 1; not at trevanian; not at anyone. Just stop it now.

Disagree with points made or opinions offered by others and, if you choose, rebut those points and opinions with facts and well-constructed arguments of your own, but leave the personal stuff out or take it outside. I'm busy enough here already with things which are actually about the movie; I do not need to be policing schoolyard squabbles and no one else needs to be reading them in this forum.

 

[Duane]

I saw it in 3D today in Thailand (2D and IMAX were not options) and the 3D added nothing to the experience. I hope to see it in 2D soon. I hope this helps.

 

[JarodRussell]

Wasn't offering an opinion on this aspect, -- just the views of industry professionals I interview and write about.

The image looks fine and, because of your lack of personal, subjective experience, you still don't know what you are talking about; you're just repeating what others told you.

beamMe, that will be enough. I would like very much not to see you sniping at anyone again - not at Deck 1; not at trevanian; not at anyone. Just stop it now.

Disagree with points made or opinions offered by others and, if you choose, rebut those points and opinions with facts and well-constructed arguments of your own, but leave the personal stuff out or take it outside. I'm busy enough here already with things which are actually about the movie; I do not need to be policing schoolyard squabbles and no one else needs to be reading them in this forum.

But there's no personal attack in that particular quote. Trevenian DOES lack the personal experience if he has never seen a modern 3D film, and he IS only repeating what others told him.

Trevanian talks about how apples are better than oranges because he talked to experts about it and posts facts about oranges and apples. But he has never eaten an orange or an apple to judge for himself.

 

[M'Sharak]

Sit down, Jarod; you were not being addressed.