Star Trek: Journey into Darkness (er..Loudness) - Page 2 - AVS Forum
1  2
3D Content > Star Trek: Journey into Darkness (er..Loudness)
GregK's Avatar GregK 03:41 PM 05-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This was a problem on the last Star Trek as well, and that was entirely 2D. Both movies were shot with anamorphic lenses, which will cause geometric distortion if you push in too tight on a close-up. That's exactly what Abrams does in a lot of the scenes on the Enterprise bridge. He doesn't seem to mind the distortion. Like his love of lens flares, it's a flaw that he feels adds "character" to the movie.

+1 That is exactly what it is.

cbcdesign's Avatar cbcdesign 04:30 AM 06-03-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This was a problem on the last Star Trek as well, and that was entirely 2D. Both movies were shot with anamorphic lenses, which will cause geometric distortion if you push in too tight on a close-up. That's exactly what Abrams does in a lot of the scenes on the Enterprise bridge. He doesn't seem to mind the distortion. Like his love of lens flares, it's a flaw that he feels adds "character" to the movie.

I wonder if JJ's particular vision defect, he wears glasses after all, means he doesn't see the distortion in the same way as the rest of us do? Its certainly an odd "choice" to distort facial features in any case and not mind when its obviously going to be an issue for many due to the way in which we are programmed to recognise faces including anything that looks odd. Directors shouldn't mess with 150,000 years of evolution and think everybody will be ok with it and that includes flat 2D faces in 3D movies!
GregK's Avatar GregK 05:16 PM 06-03-2013
I don't think it has anything to do with his actual vision or a vision defect, but more so with his love of the "look" of anamorphic lenses. Anamorphics have been in use since the early 1950s, along with their given artifacts. Most who work in the business have grown up with anamorphics and are very accustomed to the look that goes with it. A large number of features have been shot with anamorphics, including almost all of the STAR-TREKs (sans VI), STAR-WARS IV, V, VI, all of the INDIANA JONES (Spielberg insisted the last one be shot in anamorphic to fit the look of the previous releases), just to name a few..

Josh Z nails it: "Like his love of lens flares, it's a flaw that he feels adds "character" to the movie."
huskerbear's Avatar huskerbear 08:22 AM 06-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by huskerbear View Post

It seems to me like they have been taking away more and more depth and pop out for a couple years now. I guess they are trying appeal to the 3D haters who are going to hate anyway, that's what those people do with anything new. I haven't seen star Trek yet, maybe this weekend but it sounds like I will be disappointed in the 3D as they continue de-3D the 3D!



I finally got to see this. I have to say the Imax 3D was very good, the best I've seen in awhile for depth through out the movie. What I'm not sure of is if this added depth was because of the movie, the theater or both?
cbcdesign's Avatar cbcdesign 01:57 PM 06-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregK View Post

I don't think it has anything to do with his actual vision or a vision defect, but more so with his love of the "look" of anamorphic lenses. Anamorphics have been in use since the early 1950s, along with their given artifacts. Most who work in the business have grown up with anamorphics and are very accustomed to the look that goes with it. A large number of features have been shot with anamorphics, including almost all of the STAR-TREKs (sans VI), STAR-WARS IV, V, VI, all of the INDIANA JONES (Spielberg insisted the last one be shot in anamorphic to fit the look of the previous releases), just to name a few..

Josh Z nails it: "Like his love of lens flares, it's a flaw that he feels adds "character" to the movie."

I am not so sure. This is a man who claimed that the 3D in the Last Harry Potter movie was cool which speakers volumes about the way he "sees" images on screen in my opinion. tongue.gif
GregK's Avatar GregK 07:25 PM 06-10-2013
While I understand his love for anamorphics, lens flare and such, I have to agree with you on the HP 2-D to 3-D conversion. I don't know what he was watching, but it was anything but "cool". wink.gif
PGTweed's Avatar PGTweed 07:55 AM 06-18-2013
In case anyone that doesn't have the Star Trek game for the PS3 and XBOX 360. The game has a 3D mode. It references a line from Dr.McCoy about delivering Gorn babies from the movie.
blastermaster's Avatar blastermaster 07:38 PM 06-18-2013
Quote:
Am I really the only one that feels that 3D should, at all costs, NOT be obvious, but merely immersive

If it's more immersive than 2D, then it's going to be obvious, at least for the first few minutes until our eyes adjust to it. I do feel, though, that it's ok for the 3D to be obvious sometimes, as a means to augment the story being told as long as its not cheesy. I am getting sick of conversions, though, as I really think they're killing the potential for people to accept it as a technology. Native 3D, when done right, is so much better than a conversion. Transformers 3, while a bad movie, had some really, really good 3D.

That said, I will probably buy this because of the relative drought of good 3D movies out there. However, if they choose to ask us to double dip by making separates (blu ray, blu ray 3D), then I'm not going to buy the 3D one (suck it, Oz!).
Jedi2016's Avatar Jedi2016 08:37 PM 06-19-2013
That's one advantage that native 3D has, it feels much more natural. Conversions, even the really good ones, still have an "artificial" feel to them compared to films shot natively. I was reminded of this the other day when I finally got around to seeing Oz the Great and Powerful.
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 06:36 AM 06-20-2013
I've seen my fair share of lens flares with anamorphic cinematography, but J.J. seems to actually add them digitally in post and they look fake. Look at Die Hard and it's nowhere as "flarey" and actually looks quite good. Why can't he just leave it at flares that come naturally from using these Panavision type lenses?
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 09:04 AM 06-20-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I've seen my fair share of lens flares with anamorphic cinematography, but J.J. seems to actually add them digitally in post and they look fake. Look at Die Hard and it's nowhere as "flarey" and actually looks quite good. Why can't he just leave it at flares that come naturally from using these Panavision type lenses?

If you watch the supplements on the first Star Trek Blu-ray, you'll see behind-the-scenes footage where Abrams has crew people standing just off screen shining lights directly into the camera lens. The lens flares were "artificial" in the sense that he went out of his way to create and emphasize them, but they weren't added digitally in post.
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 03:19 PM 06-20-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If you watch the supplements on the first Star Trek Blu-ray, you'll see behind-the-scenes footage where Abrams has crew people standing just off screen shining lights directly into the camera lens. The lens flares were "artificial" in the sense that he went out of his way to create and emphasize them, but they weren't added digitally in post.

Either way, my god it's overbearing. Just like the rapid editing and handheld shots. As David Fincher would say: it's lazy film making. Watch 13 episodes of "House of Cards" and you'll witness some carefully crafted cinematography. Also view the A-list action and adventure films of the 70's, 80's, and early 90's and the flow of the films is actually almost elegant by comparison to today's standards. Smooth, flowing editing and shot selection and you could easily follow the action while still being on the edge of your seat. John Frankenheimer's ode to classic thrillers in the late 90's, Ronin, is filmed this way as well.
GregK's Avatar GregK 09:46 PM 06-20-2013
Somebody once asked JJ about the excessive lens flares in his first STAR-TREK feature.

JJ's reply?.. "The future is very bright..." wink.gif
Robert Clark's Avatar Robert Clark 10:26 PM 06-21-2013
If you think it's limited to just J.J. Abrams films, take a good close look at Man of Steel. It's loaded with lens flares...
Dan Hitchman's Avatar Dan Hitchman 11:45 PM 06-21-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post

If you think it's limited to just J.J. Abrams films, take a good close look at Man of Steel. It's loaded with lens flares...

[throws his head back and shakes fists violently in the air]

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Josh Z's Avatar Josh Z 09:17 AM 06-22-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post

If you think it's limited to just J.J. Abrams films, take a good close look at Man of Steel. It's loaded with lens flares...

The Total Recall remake is full of them as well.
TonyDP's Avatar TonyDP 02:36 PM 07-13-2013
The official street date for the BluRay and 3D BluRay is September 10. More info is here....

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=11613

It would be nice if we got the 3D Imax version but I doubt Paramount Home Video has enough ambition to go the extra mile.
1  2

Up
Mobile  Desktop