Star Trek: Journey into Darkness (er..Loudness) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 06:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Saw this in imax small screen yesterday. It had a mixed format for many shots, some full screen, some 2.35:1. This made the 3D seem disruptive at times. Action shots were so cacophonic with mixed noise, flashing scenes of action and loud, man was it loud, that I found the action difficult to enjoy--but it seems most sci-fi action movies are like this now. While the movie is PG 13, younger kids are always going to show up with their parents, and I think it will be way too intense for them--but who cares these days--right? While the theater was half full, there was only one sound from the audience, which I felt was due to the overwhelming barrage of noisey action. The one "oooh" sound came when a shuttle stopped out over the audience for a couple of seconds. I realize directors don't want to make 3D into old-style popout movies, but people love that stuff, and in some ways is why they go to see 3D movies. The fact that I only heard one sound out of the audience told me that all this wild noisey action is not "doing it" for the 3D fans. Next time you are watching a 3D movie in a theater, listen for audience reaction to various scenes, and you'll see what I mean. I did think the movie was better than the last with more character development that will help carry the "mission to explore strange new worlds" forward in many followup movies to come.
threed123 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 08:55 AM
Senior Member
 
SFMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Saw "Star Trek: Into Darkness" at a Real D 3D theater and have to admit it is a wild ride. The action scenes and effects are first rate and the inside of the ship is bigger and better than ever. You can certainly see all $190 million dollars on screen. The acting is well done also. If you like Star Trek you are going to like this movie. Also, see it in 3D. It is a great 3D conversion that adds a lot to the spectacle. It sucks that only 29% of viewers this weekend saw the film in 3D. As the 3D in these action films have improved 100% it's sad that less people are choosing to take advantage of it. Can't wait to see this again on my 3D TV!
SFMike is offline  
post #3 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 11:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Personally, I didn't think the 3D added much. A few scenes used it effectively (I have to imagine that the opening scene where the native chucks at spear at the audience was an intentional joke), but depth is pretty shallow in most of the movie. It's clearly a conversion, not native 3D. The shot compositions and editing don't seem to have had any input from professional stereographers.

The story and plot also suck pretty badly, but that's another topic.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #4 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 12:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
As a conversion, it's okay, but a lot of the long shot scenes were flat looking. And lens flare--why do the recent directors of sci-fi, especially JJ, think that lens flare adds realism. In 3D it makes the scenes unrealistic. In 2D it's simply annoying. And to think Star Wars will now get the same treatment--eck...It started with Jurassic Park, which in 3D, the lens flare shots are awful as if floating UFOs are in some of the inside shots. I'm a big fan of 3D, but I swear directors and studios keep trying to shoot their feet off so 3D will just go away and relieve them of that extra expense.
threed123 is offline  
post #5 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 01:14 PM
Member
 
jujuforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to agree. The 3D was really underwhelming here. The only shots that impressed me were when they would go to warp speed, the ship would stretch and the audience would be looking straight into a debris of floating blue lights as the ship warped. Looked fantastic, however not worth the extra 3$ premium.

Watched Jurassic Park the day before and I was totally blown away by how immersive the 3D was in that, unbelivable that a brand new 2013 release has worst 3D. It's not acceptable anymore, and doesn't surprise me that only 29% of viewers watched star trek in 3D.
jujuforever is offline  
post #6 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 54
As a longtime fan of the original series, I thought STID was a big, noisy, flashy movie that held my attention but didn't have a single original idea to it and borrowed (stole?) liberally from other, better films. The ending in particular was a direct ripoff (I refuse to look it as a homage) to a really powerful scene from another Trek film. Strip away the shiny coat of paint and the story Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof crafted is a further indictment of how little good writing matters to filmmakers these days. I'm really happy that Abrams is moving on to Star Wars; he obviously identified with that universe more and his attempts at turning Trek into Star Wars have started to become tiresome.

As for the 3D, I also thought it was a mixed bag. When the camera was moving relatively slowly you had a good sense of depth and the shots of the Enterprise going to warp were probably the best 3D effect in the film. But when the action scenes cranked up, the cuts were so fast that it completely killed any sense of depth.
TonyDP is online now  
post #7 of 47 Old 05-21-2013, 08:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Did no one else just about sick up when they jumped off the cliff? (not a spoiler, it's in the trailer). The depth in that shot, and some of the city shots at the end, was spectacular.

Overall, I thought the conversion was pretty well done. But then again, I'm one of those kooks who likes a more subtle approach to his 3D.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #8 of 47 Old 05-25-2013, 06:55 AM
Member
 
huskerbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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!
huskerbear is offline  
post #9 of 47 Old 05-25-2013, 10:55 AM
Member
 
crab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oak Harbor WA
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 14
My brief review, skip to last sentence for maximum brevity...

Up front I did not like the first reboot. I could never get past the fact that they would give a starship to someone who was so young when there would have been many better qualified candidates to take the command in front of him and worse that the Kirk character as written was so childish and irresponsible that most people wouldn't even let him borrow their car. As an older person that watched the original as a kid on TV and has been bit by bit catching it again on netflix the characters not acting in line with the spirit of the originals stood out in stark contrast. Its not that I mind them updating the characters, its that some of them had nothing in common with their legacy counterparts outside of a name.

Fast forward to the second installment and things have much improved. There were a number of people who agreed with me on the Kirk situation for which there was a fair bit of criticism in the reviews and they clearly worked toward changing his character first of all to be somebody who might credibly be given command of a star ship. Cant discuss further without spoilers but the development was welcome and needed IMO. They also changed his character to make him more in line with the Kirk of old, although still updated. The character now works much better for us old folks while still (I think?) probably being someone younger viewers would like to see. This change spreads out throughout the core cast. The characters have been developed more in the spirit of the originals and this is all to the good. People who have never seen the original series or have not seen it for a long time like me may not know or have forgotten that the original had quite a bit of humor in it. They have also brought this back and the movie is the better for it because while some falls flat a lot of it works. Another character that does better in this installment is the villain. In the first movie there was no real sense of menace but in this one the guy actually gave me the feeling of being a scary dude.

I agree with the fellow above who stated that much of the movie including its most dramatic scene is simply a lift from previous efforts, a waste of what amounts to almost endless possibilities. When you consider that the entire galaxy is the Enterprises playground it sure seems like we could have taken the movie out there somewhere and found something to do. This would be one of my greatest criticisms of the franchise as a whole. The could have started with all these characters as youngsters starting out and built them up to the people that they would eventually be. So many wasted possibilities all along the journey to who the would become. There is the technical questions. Why this movies isn't filmed in 3D is beyond me. Space is a natural for 3D where you can have pop that is organic to the story without having to design it in.

The action is typical of a modern blockbuster in that its unrelenting and leaves little time for such niceties as sorting out why we should care. I go into the theater expecting that with an action movie but in a 3D world the movie does have an odd mish mash of cinematography. Some of the scenes that might have benefited by a more aggressive 3D treatment did not have it where there were others that would benefit less yet had more pop. I don't know how to describe this one other than to say it didn't seem like they knew what they were doing and the 3D does not seem entirely cohesive outside of its technical merits.

Overall they did a lot to up the ante in this movie as compared to its predecessor and despite its flaws I did like the movie and feel its worth seeing.
crab is offline  
post #10 of 47 Old 05-25-2013, 11:03 AM
Member
 
scoobywrx99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My thoughts on the 3d. Very little gimmicky pop outs (from what I can recall just some spears). Most of the time I forgot it was in 3d. For me this was the perfect balance. I don't like being constantly reminded this is 3d. Thinking back I just remember the depth of space and the expansive landscapes.
scoobywrx99 is offline  
post #11 of 47 Old 05-26-2013, 03:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
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 don't know, I found the 3D to be one of the better conversions I've seen, and conversions in general I think are getting better and better.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #12 of 47 Old 05-26-2013, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I mentioned it once before, but if you didn't see any depth when they jumped off that cliff, then you had a really crappy projection. I actually had a brief moment of vertigo during that shot.

Is there any kind of "certification" for 3D theaters? Like having people from IMAX or RealD visit the theater on occasion to calibrate the projectors and to make sure everything is still working properly? I hear too many stories of people saying that 3D projections are too "flat", and it makes me wonder if it really is.. like the projector's broken and actually only showing one eye, or sleazy theaters handing out 3D glasses at 2D projections and charging extra for the tickets.

I'm also wondering if people are getting so hung up on the 3D aspect that that's all they go to see. Where the quality of the movie is based on "that scene where that crap came slinging out of the screen" as opposed to "that scene where he beat up the bad guy". Am I really the only one that feels that 3D should, at all costs, NOT be obvious, but merely immersive?

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #13 of 47 Old 05-26-2013, 11:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
ferl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Am I really the only one that feels that 3D should, at all costs, NOT be obvious, but merely immersive?

There are at least two of us biggrin.gif I haven't seen Star Trek yet, but if a cliff scene gives you vertigo, it sounds like effective use of 3D.

ferl is offline  
post #14 of 47 Old 05-26-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
That shot's in like.. every trailer, so it's not much of a spoiler. smile.gif

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #15 of 47 Old 05-27-2013, 01:09 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Saw it Saturday AM and we just enjoyed it for what it was, story-wise. Being a true fan of 3D more than a snooty critic who writes reviews, I enjoy all these 3D movies as long as there is no ghosting or overly dark presentation. If I had to list one bad thing about the cinematography it would be the glare in the foreground and the occasional lens flare inside the ship. IO don't mind the lens flares of the deep space scenes but I do agree they were distracting inside the ship.

Anyway the rest of the film was entertaining. We did not does off. At our age if the movie is bad story and/or acting I tend to does off. Even at the 11:30 AM showing, the theater was about 1/3 full. I try to go at the most unpopular times to have a quieter theater.
dfergie likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #16 of 47 Old 05-27-2013, 01:53 PM
Member
 
jujuforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm surprised at the amount of people saying that this one is better than the first movie. Considering all the major plot holes and serious lack of a story. The exact same things happen as the first film except there is no point. The first movie was about Kirk becoming the captain of the ship. This movie offered nothing new, just a bunch of "oh hey, remember this part from The Wrath of Khan?!!" I guess the explosions were nice....
jujuforever is offline  
post #17 of 47 Old 05-27-2013, 02:18 PM
Member
 
scoobywrx99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think people are saying this movie is better because the first movie threw 40 years of Star Trek in the garbage. I think this movie started to fall into place with the rest of Star Trek history. Characters acted as they naturally would and beginning of their five year mission. I don't like what Abrams has done to the franchise and he is a horrible story teller, but he make fun movies to watch. Hopefully the series will show the universe unfolding as it naturally should and not high jack anymore material. The universe is a big place with plenty of new adventures to add to Star Trek history, not change it.
scoobywrx99 is offline  
post #18 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 01:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Am I really the only one that feels that 3D should, at all costs, NOT be obvious, but merely immersive?
Sometimes, to serve the story, 3D NEEDS to be eyecatching. There is this silly initiative to dumb down 3D during dialog scenes. 3D should be as obvious or subtle as we would expect it to be if we were right there in person. If something's too distracting, don't just decrease the 3D strength- unrealistically weak 3D distracts too. To fix it, the shot needs to be recomposed so that the distracting elements aren't distracting, or so that the 3D captures something that complements the story.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #19 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 02:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Being a true fan of 3D more than a snooty critic who writes reviews, I enjoy all these 3D movies as long as there is no ghosting or overly dark presentation.
So you're a fan as long as the display and the projectionist do their job. I'm a fan as long as the director, cinematographer and stereographer do theirs.

That means working together to either enhance the emotions/story (Hugo, Life of Pi) or blow me away with impressive visuals (Avatar, Tintin).

I don't settle for mediocre. You can't just plug in a second eye and expect praise from me.

I can be a true 3D fan and still "snootily" criticize movies that don't wow me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #20 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 01:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Am I really the only one that feels that 3D should, at all costs, NOT be obvious, but merely immersive?

Personally, I feel that if you're going to make a movie in 3D, then it should be 3D, not 2.2D, which is about what we got with this. I don't find "almost entirely flat 2D with maybe a teeny tiny smidge of depth in a handful of shots" to be immersive. That's the opposite of immersive to me. YMMV.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #21 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 02:49 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Personally, I feel that if you're going to make a movie in 3D, then it should be 3D, not 2.2D, which is about what we got with this. I don't find "almost entirely flat 2D with maybe a teeny tiny smidge of depth in a handful of shots" to be immersive. That's the opposite of immersive to me. YMMV.


I could not agree more. I have not seen ST2 yet so I cant comment on the 3d, but conservative and subtle 3d in general is lame to be blunt. I want good reason to have the goofy 3d glasses on for a few hours or so.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #22 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I got to see Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday and enjoyed the movie, but didn't care for the 3D. The conversion could have been dimensionalized slightly better, but the real problem was the story-boarding and framing of the movie.

I think a lot of movies with dull 3D, mostly conversions but some natives too, are made by directors who think in 2D and don't set the camera still and move characters or objects around in z-axis 3D space. That's the whole point of 3D right? They just story-board and frame their movie exactly the same as all their other 2D projects with horizontal motion and camera cuts to convey moving objects instead of actually showing things move in 3D space for dramatic effect.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #23 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Personally, I feel that if you're going to make a movie in 3D, then it should be 3D, not 2.2D, which is about what we got with this. I don't find "almost entirely flat 2D with maybe a teeny tiny smidge of depth in a handful of shots" to be immersive. That's the opposite of immersive to me. YMMV.
I hate non-existent 3D too (Amazing Spiderman, Harry Potter) but I saw plenty of depth in Into Darkness. Did the movie have a lot of 3D playfulness in it? Mmm, perhaps not. But virtually every shot felt like the right (post-processed) interaxial setting, so the depth felt natural. It was actually a little TOO strong on the larger scale objects like ships and cities.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #24 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 04:44 PM
Member
 
desrtmod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As a rule I stay away from 'conversions'....it's worked well for me so far. There's always blueray rental in a couple of months.
desrtmod is offline  
post #25 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I hate non-existent 3D too (Amazing Spiderman, Harry Potter) but I saw plenty of depth in Into Darkness. Did the movie have a lot of 3D playfulness in it? Mmm, perhaps not. But virtually every shot felt like the right (post-processed) interaxial setting, so the depth felt natural. It was actually a little TOO strong on the larger scale objects like ships and cities.
I agree with this. The overall parallax and volume of individual objects was mostly fine.

My main issue with the technical conversion was that I noticed a little too much "smush face" where facial features looked like cardboard cut-outs. There was also a lot of vertically squashed heads, which I think may be due to the lens choice in the original photography? There was also a brief moment in the Enterprise's control room where one of the CGI display panels overlapped a character who was standing in front of it, while the majority of the display occupied a conflicting depth plane behind him. I think they added the CGI over a green screen in post and forgot to crop out the part that was supposed to be occluded by the character.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #26 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11 View Post

I agree with this. The overall parallax and volume of individual objects was mostly fine.

My main issue with the technical conversion was that I noticed a little too much "smush face" where facial features looked like cardboard cut-outs. There was also a lot of vertically squashed heads, which I think may be due to the lens choice in the original photography? There was also a brief moment in the Enterprise's control room where one of the CGI display panels overlapped a character who was standing in front of it, while the majority of the display occupied a conflicting depth plane behind him. I think they added the CGI over a green screen in post and forgot to crop out the part that was supposed to be occluded by the character.
Yeah, I noticed the cardboard faces on some closeups.

Here's what's weird: layers get compressed like that with native 3D at long focal lengths too. But I would think a conversion would round out those layers because it can. It's bonkers!

But even Avatar and Hugo have some cardboard cutout looking 3D at times.

And yeah, horizontally stretched or vertically squished faces were ugly. I noticed it more on Karl Urban for some reason.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #27 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

And yeah, horizontally stretched or vertically squished faces were ugly. I noticed it more on Karl Urban for some reason.
Can those be caused by long lenses too or was that just poor conversion sculpting?

Urban, Simon Pegg, and the guy who Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
blows himself up at the begining
were almost always squashed.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #28 of 47 Old 05-28-2013, 08:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange11 View Post

Can those be caused by long lenses too or was that just poor conversion sculpting?
Maybe the lens, it's an anamorphic, isn't it? I don't know, maybe someone didn't know what they were doing and messed up the aspect ratio or they had to crop and stretch because something was damaged on the edge of the frame. I have no clue.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #29 of 47 Old 05-29-2013, 06:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Several behind the scenes making 3D conversion short movies show that the artists first create a 3D object scene of the scene and then layer the image over it, which causes the roundness of objects. But I suspect when layering faces they sometimes don't adjust the face correctly especially in the wide angle barrel distortion of most lenses and makes the faces distorted. I saw this too in Star Trek, and Urban's face was the most distorted. I'm sure it's the process causing this.
threed123 is offline  
post #30 of 47 Old 05-29-2013, 10:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Maybe the lens, it's an anamorphic, isn't it? I don't know, maybe someone didn't know what they were doing and messed up the aspect ratio or they had to crop and stretch because something was damaged on the edge of the frame. I have no clue.

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.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
Reply 3D Content

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off