quote:

---

If the built-in lighting wasn’t providing the desired flare, the crew aimed Xenon flashlights at the lenses as the cameras rolled. “Our A- and B-camera operators, Colin Anderson and Phil Carr-Forster, would tell us if we needed to go a little farther in or out of the frame, or up or down, to get the ultimate flare,” recalls Prampin. “It was funny to watch — Dan and I were running around, ducking, jumping and hiding behind things just so we wouldn’t be seen by the cameras. The flashlights were so bright that there are probably several instances where Dan’s actually in the movie, but you can’t really tell!”

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The gimmick factor is fading.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Not sure why Titanic needs to be 3D.

---

One guess: to give Kate Winslet's chesticles some 3D volume.


Getting back to the original topic, if J.J. Abrams is shooting the next Star Trek installment in native 3D won't that present a problem for his fondness of the 35mm anamorphic visual style, particularly all those intentional lens flares? He calmed down a little with the anamorphic flares in Super 8, but still the look was more flare induced than any Spielberg movie made in the 1970's.

I assume Abrams will be using one of the leading 3D digital video camera rigs for this sequel. To the best of my knowledge all of those systems are built only with spherical lenses in mind. Those lenses don't yield the anamorphic look (football shaped bokeh, strong horizontal lens flares, odd telephoto style flattening of perspective). Further, the best spherical lenses have more coatings applied to reduce or eliminate lens flare.

Maybe they'll just add some flares in post production.

 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-02-2012, 09:12 PM:
 


One good thing about a 3D Trek (for me anyways) would be seeing Chris Pine's nads in 3D. he was packing in the scene where he was screwing Uhura's roommate in the first one.

As our late friend Phil would say, Hubba Hubba.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-02-2012, 09:55 PM:
 
Becasuse it's a James Cameron's movie, the TITANIC trailer looks fantastic in 3-D as expected. Yes, I will make an effort to see it when it opens.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-02-2012, 10:15 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Hey, it worked for Lion King.

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

I doubt that Titanic in 3 dimensions will do stellar box office - maybe 3 weeks or so.

---

quote:

---

I was referring to the 3D. We have decided not to go to 7.1.

quote: Ian Parfrey I doubt that Titanic in 3 dimensions will do stellar box office - maybe 3 weeks or so.

Of course it's hard to tell, but take a look at the comments on a youtube TITANIC 3D trailer. There are a few million people who love the film and have never seen it on the big screen who plan on rectifying that. It could actually do extremely well. It IS Titanic after all.

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

Becasuse it's a James Cameron's movie, the TITANIC trailer looks fantastic in 3-D as expected. Yes, I will make an effort to see it when it opens

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Not sure why Titanic needs to be 3D. Can't fathom what it would gain as an "experience".

I don't think Star Trek "2" will fail. Maybe it will fail in 3D, but seriously, who cares? But as a movie I hope it will be good and succeed. Once 3D gets around that whole needing glasses to see it thing, then I think it will be time to become a permanent addition. What's next, requiring customers to put on a special jacket with motors in it to "feel" the bass?

---

quote: John Wilson

---

There are a few million people who love the film and have never seen it on the big screen who plan on rectifying that.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Cameron is on recored for saying that the new prints and even the 2D experience will be superior to whatever was shown for the first release.

---

Tom, I guess you don't care to balance truth against filmmaker puffery and movie studio marketing hyperbole?

The original 1997 release had a few 70mm DTS prints in circulation. I saw one of those projected at the 1000+ seat GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. Even with the newfangled faux 3D of this new release, I don't think there's any way it could outdo the presentation of Titanic I watched.

BTW, wasn't this really a thread about the upcoming Star Trek sequel of the reboot, with the original being an adaptation from a TV show?

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-02-2012, 11:22 PM:
 
Oh, and yes, Bobby, I believe they'll do the lens flares in post. That way they can control their depth more. And they will be distorted as if they were shot with an anamorphic lens.

Hopefully they shoot the movie on one of those 3D cameras I saw on sale at Best Buy.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2012, 11:33 PM:
 
It might look totally bitchin' shot on a 1/6" single chip CCD with 30X digital zoom.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-03-2012, 12:31 AM:
 
After seeing what Cameron did with the Aliens Bluray,cleaning it up and still managing to make it sharper and better looking than should be possible!
Not like other botched restorations such as Patton on Bluray which looks like synthetic crap done for newbie HDTV owners who don't understand what film grain is and want it removed even though the process removes detail.

I now believe Cameron is pushing the boundaries of what you can do to a film negative to clean up and enhance it effectively improving on the original look using new photochemical and digital tools.
Perhaps the 70mm version is still better in some ways but based on what I have seen and what he has said about it, this should be amazing!
If he makes Imax 15/70 prints I will make a 2 hour trip to see it. I plan to see it in every format in fact,it will be an interesting experiment comparing all formats.

The film is 14 years old now and nostalgia is there for many such as I to drown in!
Many young fans have never seen it on a theater screen so this could be huge and yes the 3dee is also a draw since it's a conversion done by Cameron with 18 million spent!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2012, 10:49 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

watching a movie that I have already seen at home on "the big screen" kind of loses its appeal, especially if it's a movie I own.

---

It's too bad more effort isn't put into promoting theatre sound, as opposed to the big screen. Half the fun of watching a movie on the big screen is the big sound, which really can't be replicated in a typical living room. (Of course I realize some people have better sound at home than some theatres do, but it's relatively rare.)
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-03-2012, 12:47 PM:
 
Mike, If you're ever in the southern IN area give me a call. When I show a movie at home, (small room, 10x12 Blu-Ray) people just say "oh Shit". I have jumped at explosions and gun shots from behind me and the sound has knocked shit off shelves from the subs. Right equipment set up right kicks ass . It's cool when you can go outside and feel the sub "rumbling".
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2012, 12:49 PM:
 
The trick is finding a theater whose sound system was properly designed and working in top condition/adjustment. The GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas had a reputation for delivering top notch audio quality along with startling dynamics. Customers cannot find this just anywhere.

Joe talked about how bad the situation is in the Denver area. I doubt if there's a theater in all of Colorado with good sound. Every location I visited in the Colorado Springs area had very weak, very low sound. It had all the personality of watching a movie on TV with just the TV speakers. I observed this at the Carmike and Cinemark locations there. Very disappointing stuff. My guess is the management has 2 reasons for doing this. 1: making people who like movies with very low volume and no dynamics happy, 2: cutting costs (lower risk of damaging speaker drivers and amps when they're not run at "reference" levels).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2012, 12:57 PM:
 
We could probably have a whole other discussion about what's too loud. Personally I think "7" is too loud. I like my sound to be nice and loud, and I think our system is balanced properly (blame Mark G. if it isn't! ) but I still think it sounds best at about 6.3 or so. I thought the sound at CinemaCon -- amazing as it was -- was too loud. I was in the Dolby Screening Room last summer, which probably had the best sound system I've ever heard, and I thought that was too loud at times, too.

It all just comes down to personal taste I guess. I would probably think Richard's system is too loud too. I love my music good and loud, and I love great explosions, battle scenes etc. but dialog doesn't need to blast out of the speakers.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-03-2012, 01:22 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I have to turn sideways in order to straighten my legs. I don't want to sit in the front row.

---

The wheelchair row, Joe, the wheelchair row. In many theatres they are the best seats in the house. Lots of space in front and back AND the sides. Go to an uncrowded show to increase your odds of getting them. And, of course, give them up should someone with a wheelchair arrive
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2012, 01:28 PM:
 
Lots of movie mixes are different. Some movie mixes are made too hot in the upper frequency bands, making sounds from gun fire and explosions painful or making dialog sound shrill. Other dialog driven movies might seem too quiet if the sound system is geared for dynamics of a movie like U-571.

I watched plenty of action/epic style movies at the Northpark theater, but also watched more "grown up" dramas like The Bridges of Madison County there too (I was on a date). They all sounded excellent, but I think the staff often re-tuned the sound system for the given movie that was playing. Very few theaters do this.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-03-2012, 02:53 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

It's too bad more effort isn't put into promoting theatre sound

---

How else can you promote it? Everyone expects digital
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2012, 03:47 PM:
 
I mean it's never mentioned. You always hear the "big screen" but I can never recall hearing the words "big sound," which to me is just as important.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-03-2012, 03:53 PM:
 
Famous Players in Canada always said Big Screen Big Sound in adds and film daters.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2012, 04:42 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

dialog doesn't need to blast out of the speakers.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I mean it's never mentioned. You always hear the "big screen" but I can never recall hearing the words "big sound," which to me is just as important.

---

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

Famous Players in Canada always said Big Screen Big Sound in adds and film daters.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Dialog should not be painful or fatiguing to listen to like it was at the Digital IMAX location I visited.

---

Strange, I have never had a problem with IMAX Digital
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2012, 06:56 PM:
 
All IMAX Digital locations are not created equal. Just because "IMAX" is plastered on the auditorium is no guarantee of quality of any kind. Yours may sound fine but I have found one that definitely does not.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2012, 10:10 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Some movie mixes are made too hot in the upper frequency bands, making sounds from gun fire and explosions painful or making dialog sound shrill.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I watched plenty of action/epic style movies at the Northpark theater, but also watched more "grown up" dramas like The Bridges of Madison County there too (I was on a date). They all sounded excellent, but I think the staff often re-tuned the sound system for the given movie that was playing. Very few theaters do this.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

dialog doesn't need to blast out of the speakers.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Not "often" Bobby. We re-tuned that room for every_single_movie.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Not "often" Bobby. We re-tuned that room for every_single_movie.

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

I think it's awesome that this could be done at the Northpark, but how could it ever be possible in a multiplex?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The GCC Northpark 1-2 delivered the goods on sound and image quality. And it did so for a standard admission price.

---

quote:

---

:cough: Michael Bay :cough:

---

quote:

---

It was Michael Bay's recent shit-fest, Transformers 3.

---