[martok2112]

I will likely see the new Star Trek in 3D first. I do not suffer from problems with 3D, and don't mind wearing the glasses.

I recently went and saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it was not a bad conversion at all. Largely I went just to see it on the big screen again, but the 3D conversion was a nice touch. No new effects added (save for the 20th Century Fox logo and the Lucasfilm Limited logo) to cash in on the 3D, as much of the movie was shot as if it were already in 3D.

As for those who are talking about getting the 3D without the glasses...well...Nintendo may well be the trendsetter for solving that issue. Their new Nintendo 3DS handheld achieves 3D without the need for glasses, because the main screen has a glass that rectifies the 3D effects. Some say the effects are pretty cool, while others say it looks like Photoshop layers. Your actual mileage may vary.

I thought I'd heard somewhere that a company was already working on a Hi-Def TV that had 3D without the need for glasses, using a similar technique.

[DNA-1842]

Well, the only films I'd have to absolutely see in 3D are ones made with that specifically in mind. So, with a post-conversion, I would probably see it in 2D first. If it is good enough, I'll see it again in 3D. (ie, if Michael Giacchino scores the music. :P )

With the Hobbit, I'd consider running down to Glasgow to catch it in the IMAX theatre. (There ain't none in Aberdeen). And then I'll see it in 3D several times before seeing it in 2D near the end of its run. All because they made a big effort to shoot it for 3D. It should be good.

[samwiseb]

I have nothing against post-conversion 3D other than "what I've heard." I saw Harry Potters 5-6 in 3D (the ten minutes of each film that were converted) and never saw a problem with it. And I caught the last Narnia film in 3D by accident. It didn't look great, but it wasn't bad either. As for shooting in 3D, Avatar looked great in either format (although I did end up needing to see it flat just to reassure myself that it was in fact a movie I had seen and not some kind of animation).

In general though, my attitude is "see it however the director wanted." JJ is fond of shooting anamorphic, and has cited that has his reason for not shooting 3D (I don't know enough about 3D filming to be aware that the two formats are mutually exclusive, however I take his word for it). As I happen to like his cinematic style, and think it is just what ST has needed, my preference will be in 2D.

On the other hand, it's ST. Unlike most movies, I probably will see this more than enough times to justify one or two trips to the IMAX. And cynically, I have no doubt in my mind that the one theater in town with an 'actual' IMAX screen will choose to project a 3D print of the film.

[samwiseb]

Now The Hobbit, I really, really want to see at 48fps without 3D. Just because one experience would detract from ever fully knowing what you're experiencing with the other.

But there's the rub. Will YahooMovies be able to tell you which theaters in town will be projecting it 48fps, versus which ones will have standard 24fps prints? I have no doubt in my mind that some 24fps prints will still be 3D. But will any 48fps prints NOT be 3D? And if so, would any theaters in town choose to run them? (I live in Las Vegas; there's probably fat chance of that. I've never seen a 3D-capable theater not choose 3D where the option existed. And any theater that can project 48fps? They wil also have 3D).

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

You could probably call the theaters and find that out

[FireDevlin]

IMAX movies make me nauseated, I can only imagine what a 3D one would do to me. Ugh.

I just jope there is always a regular flick for us folks that cannot deal.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by FireDevlin

IMAX movies make me nauseated, I can only imagine what a 3D one would do to me. Ugh.

I just jope there is always a regular flick for us folks that cannot deal.

There will be.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

You could probably call the theaters and find that out

If the person you talk to even knows. I imagine over half the people going out of their way to see [The Hobbit] in 3D, won't know or care what this other thing is.

But I've heard the 48fps frame rate described as being almost like looking through a window. And while this will no doubt improve the 3D, it just seems to me the watery texture of 3D would detract from an otherwise unique experience (in this case).

[martok2112]

It sounds to me then like the 48fps for big screen presentations is the same as getting 120Hz on a 1080p HDTV.....the picture quality is markedly different.

With a 120Hz HDTV, blu-rays (and even upconverted DVD presentations) look as if you were on the set, in person...no film grain (except for those movies where the blu-ray conversion seemed almost pointless because there was no digital remastering done). It looks as if you are looking through a window into the movie itself.

I imagine it's the same for 48fps tech on the big screen?

[samwiseb]

Probably. I didn't do 'enough' research when I bought my TV, although even if I had I doubt I could have found a 26" with a 120Hz refresh rate (my studio apt is only so big). If you can then I'm a sucker, because motion blur is a real b**** when it happens.

I find it hard to understand how refreshing the picture twice as fast can reduce film grain though. That grain is an artifact of film and is supposed to be there (I know a lot of digital remasters try to clean it up, however I find that philosophy somewhat misguided). But as for reducing strobe/flicker and motion blur, sure why not.

I don't know that shooting 48fps is that high tech per say... though obviously you double the amount of film that you shoot, and need projectors that can project the film twice as fast. Then I imagine you drop every other frame to create 'standard' 24fps prints for those theaters that can only project film at the normal speed.