Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX. (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX.

Allan Young
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: EGHAM, Surrey UK
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 04-17-2013 06:22 AM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process and have converted IMAX documentaries like Egypt/ Mummies many years ago that still screen today

Thanks for the correction; I'd assumed the IMAX 3D shorts were all filmed with a 3D rig.

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 05-01-2013 05:31 PM

I just wish they'd call 3D converts "faux D."

Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-01-2013 05:55 PM

I think one difference is that, by and large, the conversions aren't being done to movies where the directors have already passed away and have no control over the product. Then again, it's arguable as to how much control they have over it despite being alive. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 05-01-2013 08:29 PM

Then there's the TItanic and Jurassic Park 3-D converts. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-04-2013 10:46 AM

quote: William Kucharski
Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

It's very different. Back then the technology was lame and a colorized movie NEVER looked real. Today they can put a tiger in the same boat with a boy a few feet away from him and do it in 3D and you don't think for a second that the two of them were not shot there together, it's THAT real. I have actually come to the conclusion that with CGI 3D, they can control it BETTER than live capture 3D. After all, how much of a scene in a film like THE HOBBIT can be live capture in the firest place, when 90% of it is computer generated. In many films, the only elements that are live are the actors -- all the other elements are CGI -- so how much of a jump it is to render what they are already redering in the computer, in 3D?

With CGI, they can have much tighter control over precice convergence from scene to scene so that eye-strain from severe disparity between one shot and another can be minimized.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-04-2013 01:16 PM

CGI has nothing to do with what he was asking, imo. He was asking about 3D movie conversions; as in movies captured for 2D then later converted to 3D. Whether or not an all-CGI 3D looks better compared to a live-captured 3D doesn't say anything about a conversion.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-04-2013 04:09 PM

I can't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that almost all live-action 3-D movies have some scenes converted and some scenes shot in 3-D. Even Avatar, supposedly had a good portion of the movie shot in 2-D and converted later.

The bad rap conversions got in the beginning is no longer deserved, IMO. They have learned how to do it properly. Of course there will still be bad conversion jobs -- just like there are still bad sound mixes or bad cinematography.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-04-2013 05:25 PM

Holy crap 3D is still a thing?

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-06-2013 05:24 PM

quote: William Kucharski
I just wish they'd call 3D converts "faux D."

Why? So what's faux here? Isn't the whole essence of a movie one big pile of make-believe..? It's not the process that counts, it's the end result.

The only reason not to call it 3D, is because it is no real 3D, it is stereoscopic, but that's another discussion.

quote: William Kucharski
Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

Maybe it is not that much different, only nobody cares about that anymore. Like Frank pointed out, back in the day when this was popular, the tech to do it sucked, so the end result was rather non-convincing.

quote:
Then there's the TItanic and Jurassic Park 3-D converts. [Big Grin]

I'm certainly not the biggest fan of "3D", but in some cases, it does have its merits. Have you actually seen the conversions? They're surprisingly good to be honest.

| IP: Logged

Jim Henk
Master Film Handler

Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-07-2013 02:30 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe it is not that much different, only nobody cares about that anymore. Like Frank pointed out, back in the day when this was popular, the tech to do it sucked, so the end result was rather non-convincing.

That quote was about colorization. I beg to differ. I still remember seeing on TV a colorized Film Noir. I almost [puke]

Completely spoiled the whole intent. Yes. People still care.

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 05-07-2013 07:44 AM

The reference to Titanic and Jurassic Park was because those conversions were overseen by their creators, whereby most every colorized print was done without any involvement of the filmmakers whatsoever.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-07-2013 02:50 PM

quote: Jim Henk
Yes. People still care.

I guess you misunderstood my point. Nobody cares to produce colorized releases of old black and white movies anymore, color isn't something new and shiny. Black and white is even considered an art form nowadays.

Regarding most of those colorizations, yeah, they suck. Just like the Star Wars: Episode I 3D conversion sucks.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-19-2013 06:27 PM

So where is this playing in 70mm? I asked King of Prussia and they don't have it. Grrr. [Mad]

Is there a list somewhere?

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 05-20-2013 01:04 AM

So apparently the IMAX footage on the 15/70 prints are matted down to 1.66:1? Can anyone confirm? And if so, why?

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-20-2013 07:44 AM

If that's true then it goes against what J. J. Abrams says in this.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.