Star Wars format question

[clutter]

If you go to see The Force Awakens in IMAX 3D, does that mean the 3D glasses? Seems like most places around here are the IMAX 3D.

 

[Jennasis]

Yes. Glasses for any 3D format. FWIW, I wish we hadn't seen it in 3D. It was distracting and didn't add all that much. The 3D causes the whole picture to be much darker/muddier and the action scenes were hard to watch. I look forward to watching it again on our 60" at home when it comes out though!

 

[clutter]

Thanks!

 

[PollyannaMom]

I saw it last weekend as my first IMAX 3D movie and loved it! Yes there were glasses, but totally worth it to me!

 

[dclpluto]

I hate 3D have to wear them stupid glasses. But thought it would be worth it for Star Wars. I was wrong now I feel like I have to see it again without the 3d

 

[clutter]

Follow up.

We saw the 2D on Christmas Eve, and it was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are very fortunate to live near DC, where one of the limited number of non-3D IMAX showings are. I can imagine how wonderful it would be there. However, I'm glad I didn't have to wear the glasses.

 

[bcla]

IMAX 3D and Real 3D still use traditional polarized lenses. That's been around for years. I remember watching that kind of 3D in the early 80s. My 5th grade teacher was a photo nut, and he had a 3D camera that produced Viewmaster images. He also had a projector for Viewmaster.

I also saw Jaws 3D back in the day.

I suppose technology like the active 3D glasses from Star Tours would be too expensive and most theaters would worry about theft. I'm pretty sure Disney Parks uses some sort of security system.

 

[nkereina]

I personally don't care for 3D in general. I have a big head and those glasses hurt my ears after a while. I also found it didn't add much - barely noticed many effects.

 

[bcla]

I personally don't care for 3D in general. I have a big head and those glasses hurt my ears after a while. I also found it didn't add much - barely noticed many effects.

I've seen some 3D glasses with these curved loops that hold against the head and not ears.

Also, when I took my kid to see Inside Out in 3D, they had kid sized glasses for my little one.

 

[bcla]

I recall seeing 3D-like technology that didn't require glasses. I guess it didn't quite take off. I saw it in the 80s, and I was thinking anyone watching it too long would get dizzy, not that 3D glasses won't do that too.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm not a fan of 3D. I wear glasses already and don't like wearing 2 pair at once. And it always feels like the 3D makes the movie darker. I wouldn't have wanted that with Star Wars. We saw it in 2D last weekend and loved it! $5 a head for the matinee wasn't bad at all.

 

[bcla]

I'm not a fan of 3D. I wear glasses already and don't like wearing 2 pair at once. And it always feels like the 3D makes the movie darker. I wouldn't have wanted that with Star Wars. We saw it in 2D last weekend and loved it! $5 a head for the matinee wasn't bad at all.

There are clip-on flip lenses for that. However, Real 3D/Disney Digital 3D (linear polarization) or IMAX 3D (circular polarization) are different technologies and you would need a specific set of lenses for each technology.

Oh - I was incorrect that Star Tours uses active 3D glasses. It apparently uses Dolby 3D, which has a passive glasses using something called a "color wheel", but those are more expensive than Real 3D or IMAX 3D glasses.

Active 3D technology uses lenses with LCD shutters that are synced to the projector, and the glasses are battery powered. I remember seeing some specialty movies using those, and they were really strict about returning them when the movie was over.

 

[bcla]

Just as an aside, there are different ways to view 3D without glasses. One is the cross-eyed method. I've seen older 3D images (stereoscopes) that look like two side-by-side photos to be viewed with special lenses. However, some of these are made today for "cross-eyed viewing" where you sort of try to lose focus and regain it like looking at a stereoscope. Not exactly easy on the eyes.

This one is really odd but it works. It requires that the right eye stay fully open and the left eye squinted. After about a half minute it started to hurt.

I can't really find much about it now, but I remember in the 80s there was some technology that sort of worked on TVs. It used two cameras but then some sort of flickering between the two images to give the perception of 3D. I've found a few GIF files that show something similar. Don't look too long or you're going to get a headache.

I got it from here:

http://brainden.com/3d-pictures.htm#prettyPhoto

 

[andiraye]

Just as an aside, there are different ways to view 3D without glasses. One is the cross-eyed method. I've seen older 3D images (stereoscopes) that look like two side-by-side photos to be viewed with special lenses. However, some of these are made today for "cross-eyed viewing" where you sort of try to lose focus and regain it like looking at a stereoscope. Not exactly easy on the eyes.

This one is really odd but it works. It requires that the right eye stay fully open and the left eye squinted. After about a half minute it started to hurt.

I can't really find much about it now, but I remember in the 80s there was some technology that sort of worked on TVs. It used two cameras but then some sort of flickering between the two images to give the perception of 3D. I've found a few GIF files that show something similar. Don't look too long or you're going to get a headache.

I got it from here:

http://brainden.com/3d-pictures.htm#prettyPhoto

That is really cool. That third pic looks 3D!

 

[disneychrista]

Personally, I would rather pay more to NOT watch a Movie in 3-D.

 

[tcufrog]

3D movies give me a migraine. I was lucky that several local theaters are showing Star Wars in 2D.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Oh, by the way, most "IMAX" theatres don't show true 70mm IMAX. Be warned.

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

 

[bcla]

Oh, by the way, most "IMAX" theatres don't show true 70mm IMAX. Be warned.

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

There's one large IMAX screen in San Francisco at the Metreon complex. That had a 70mm IMAX projector and one of the biggest screens in the world. And that's 70mm, 15 perforation on the narrow side, which makes it over 3x the theoretical resolution of traditional 70mm, 5 perforation film which is measured horizontally. However, they've recently replaced that setup with a 4K laser digital projector - the "IMAX Laser" system that uses two 4K laser projectors.

I suppose the new system doesn't quite have the theoretical resolution of the 70mm film, but it is supposed to be superior in some aspects such as contrast ratio. There are also practical limitations in the source material. Most of The Force Awakens was filmed in 35mm and edited on 4K digital editing systems. There were supposedly some IMAX filmed scenes. However, most of the movie in IMAX will probably just look like it's been blown up and kind of grainy if placed on a huge screen. I've seen a few feature movies there on that IMAX screen in San Francisco, including Kung Fu Panda 2 and Toy Story 3 (in 3D). It was interesting seeing them on a 100 ft wide screen, but to some degree it did seem kind of grainy even though it was projected in 70mm. I've seen those traditional short IMAX movies filmed completely on IMAX equipment, and those look incredibly sharp. They're supposed to apply some sort of digital upscaling to get 35mm quality material into IMAX, but there's only so much that they can do.

Even the Chinese Theater in Hollywood where they had the world premiere is using the IMAX Laser system.

http://www.imax.com/news/star-wars-force-awakens-imax®-tickets-sale-now

The other deal is that the 70mm film stock showings of The Force Awakens are only in 2D.

 

[Flight]

I watched Star Wars the Force Awakens in IMAX 3D. Admission was lots of money! I do not recall any amazing 3D effects. However, I enjoyed the entire movie because of the sense of depth the 3D combined with the IMAX screen helped create. Would see it again in that format.