No 3D

[Crazy Eight]

The digitally shot Star Wars films are irrelevant in todays discussion. Technology has changed greatly since then, and having seen recent tests of Super 35mm film being shot under the same conditions as the Arri ALEXA, it's clear that digital can out do 35mm in low light, and it's highlights are right up there to the point that which you find better for highlights comes down to preference. Color is another neck and neck thing with film vs. the ALEXA... actual resolution is the only thing I'd give 35mm over the ALEXA, but the ALEXA's perceived resolution since it lacks any native grain or blemishes is much higher than Super 35mm's. And the EPIC would of course beat both the ALEXA and Super 35mm in terms of actual resolution, and perceived resolution. As of this point in 2011, the only moving image capture device that is actually ahead of digital capture would be 5/65mm, and 15/65mm (IMAX)... everything else boils down to which you prefer.

Digital is my preference. If I had a choice, I'd go with a RED EPIC and print on IMAX.
But some have complained of the long boot up time for the EPIC.
Very true, it's just the users preference.
Digital will surpass everything film has to offer, soon.

RED's products have been known for not being the most reliable cameras in the world. Cheap cables, over heating, etc... whereas the ALEXA comes from a tried and true company and is built like a rock... but it's more expensive so that's expected. In terms of pure image quality and not user quality, the EPIC has the upper hand, but it still pales in comparison to IMAX (theoretical resolution of 18K, perceived 12K resolution). But of course, it's also 1/10th the price and much easier to use, so there's a trade off for that resolution loss.

[tykjen]

With this one, I might welcome 3D.

First, Sony has optimized the integrated lenses to give users a wide 45-degree view, eliminating much of the borders surrounding the integrated OLED displays. Within the context of Gran Turismo 5, instead of looking at what appears to be a tiny screen at the end of the visor, the HMZ-T1 gives players a much larger, almost wrap-around view of the race track or in-car perspective.

[BlairCo]

If done right, 3D can be a great factor for a film experience. But if done wrong (I'm speaking to films like 'Pirates of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides', 'Cars 2', 'Thor', 'The Green Hornet', etc.), it can make a movies experience a horrible one to sit through. Films like 'Avatar', 'Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole' and 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' were all prime examples of what 3D is becuase they were shot with 3D cameras, but conversion is a basterd; it's flate, lifeless and uninteresting. It's as though you're watching a 2D film with glasses on. 3D films should only be allowable to films that have a grand-scale setting, not films like 'Gulliver's Travels', that Justin Bieber' movie or 'Jackass'. If Christopher Nolan chooses to shoot a film in 3D, I would have no problems, since he would be doing it for a reason.

[Crazy Eight]

If done right, 3D can be a great factor for a film experience. But if done wrong (I'm speaking to films like 'Pirates of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides', 'Cars 2', 'Thor', 'The Green Hornet', etc.), it can make a movies experience a horrible one to sit through. Films like 'Avatar', 'Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole' and 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' were all prime examples of what 3D is becuase they were shot with 3D cameras, but conversion is a basterd; it's flate, lifeless and uninteresting. It's as though you're watching a 2D film with glasses on. 3D films should only be allowable to films that have a grand-scale setting, not films like 'Gulliver's Travels', that Justin Bieber' movie or 'Jackass'. If Christopher Nolan chooses to shoot a film in 3D, I would have no problems, since he would be doing it for a reason.

On Stranger Tides was shot in 3D... and Cars 2/Guardians were both animated and rendered in 3D...

[BlairCo]

If done right, 3D can be a great factor for a film experience. But if done wrong (I'm speaking to films like 'Pirates of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides', 'Cars 2', 'Thor', 'The Green Hornet', etc.), it can make a movies experience a horrible one to sit through. Films like 'Avatar', 'Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole' and 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' were all prime examples of what 3D is becuase they were shot with 3D cameras, but conversion is a basterd; it's flate, lifeless and uninteresting. It's as though you're watching a 2D film with glasses on. 3D films should only be allowable to films that have a grand-scale setting, not films like 'Gulliver's Travels', that Justin Bieber' movie or 'Jackass'. If Christopher Nolan chooses to shoot a film in 3D, I would have no problems, since he would be doing it for a reason.

On Stranger Tides was shot in 3D... and Cars 2/Guardians were both animated and rendered in 3D...

The problem with 'On Stranger Tides' was it was too dark all the time, and you couldn't see the 3D. 'Guardians' may have been converted into 3D, but it was one of the many few conversions I was actually amazed by.

[Crazy Eight]

On Stranger Tides was shot in 3D... and Cars 2/Guardians were both animated and rendered in 3D...

The problem with 'On Stranger Tides' was it was too dark all the time, and you couldn't see the 3D. 'Guardians' may have been converted into 3D, but it was one of the many few conversions I was actually amazed by.

That's not the films problem, that's your theaters problem. 3D projection is so easy to flub up... the image needs to be incredibly bright since you're literally putting sunglasses on to watch the film, and since theaters like to push their lamp's hours to the limit, sometimes you get stuck with a shitty showing.

[Cilogy]

The problem with 'On Stranger Tides' was it was too dark all the time, and you couldn't see the 3D. 'Guardians' may have been converted into 3D, but it was one of the many few conversions I was actually amazed by.

That's not the films problem, that's your theaters problem. 3D projection is so easy to flub up... the image needs to be incredibly bright since you're literally putting sunglasses on to watch the film, and since theaters like to push their lamp's hours to the limit, sometimes you get stuck with a shitty showing.

I agree with BlairCo, I saw POTC4 in three different theaters, twice in 3D, and it was uncomfortably dark every time. The 3D was rather useless for the film. However, Guardians was animated, so it's natural that it would have more brightness than a live-action film.

That being said, the darkness makes a huge difference, even if the movie itself is dark.

[thezodiacspeaking]

I tried to watch both Avatar and The Avengers in 3D, and I walked out of both because it just gave me headaches.

I really hate 3D.

[Threshold]

I generally avoid 3D, but the fact it decreases brightness by 20% (apparently, don't quote me on it) would be just a nightmare for movies like Prometheus.