XD? Real 3D? Digital 3D? Imax 3D? So many choices!!

edited June 2011 in General Movies & TV Posts: 823
so here, I have my choice of Transformers 3 in IMAX 3D but it's a 45 min drive and the ticket is $14.50

or I can go to the Real 3D which is only a 15 min drive and the ticket is $10

or I can go to the XD Real 3D (bigger screen and auditorium than then Real 3D) which is a 25 min drive and the ticket is $12.50

there is also a Digital 3D and the ticket is only $7.50, at the same theater that has the regular Real 3D.

which one is better?

are all of these on a Disc or on 35mm print?

which one should I pick?

Doesn't anyone show a new first run movie in regular 35mm 2D for $4 anymore?

Comments

  • Posts: 4,069
    It´s not showing in 2D :O ? That´s a shame, because I wanted to see it, but after all the 3D films I´ve seen I´m really not keen on another one. The trailer looked fantastic even on youtube, so 2D on the big screen would be just the right thing.
    I really wonder if Spielberg and Scorsese can turn things around for 3D. Otherwise I truly hope their films will be the last 3D films for the time being.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,687
    Digital 3D is an oxymoron... as 3D films can only be in digital. 35mm reels cannot be in 3D. So yes your regular cineplex/multiplex that offers 3D showings will evidently be in digital. Only IMAX 3D is non-digital 3D, as 70mm reels can be in 3D.
  • Friends of mine who have seen many 3D films say that the advantage to seeing one in Imax is small...our first run theatres have huge screens so the size difference isn't significant. I've only seen one movie in Imax 3D (Avatar) and the size of the projection was only about 20% bigger than the "main" theatres in the same multiplex.

    I've only read one review for Transformers 3 but it said that it's one of the films that does 3D well, so it's probably worth it to see it in 3D (unlike what I heard about Clash of the Titans, which was recommended to be seen in 2D!). As for what type is best I don't know if there are noticable differences in quality between them or if it's something that only an afficionado would notice.

    DaltonCraig007 - I could have sworn that I've seen 35mm 3D in the 80's - Jaws 3D and Spacehunter. What makes 35mm unsuitable for 3D?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,687
    You recall correctly, @thelordflasheart, but they don't do 35mm 3D anymore. This pushes cineplex/multiplex/small cinemas to equip themselves with digital projectors if they want to make 3D. Purely a business scam to make movie theatres upgrade to digital projectors, as there is still a big number of them that still have 35mm projectors. With digital projectors costing near $100 000 per unit... no wonder they want to sell as many as possible by not allowing 3D films on 35mm reels. In my country, there are several thousands of screens that still are not equipped with digital projectors... so huge money to make if you force them to upgrade to digital if they want to follow on the 3D craze.

    And, digital copies of films cost less than 35mm copies, so another money gain from studios, especially when it takes more 35mm copies for a film than digital copies.

    And switching to digital projectors will raise ticket price in itself, as the multiplex/cineplex has to make up for the big investment... Money made on the back of audiences, as most of them can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital... Working for several years in movie theatres, I can count the amount of reels per 35mm copies without ever going to the projection room... You just have to have the eye for it, but when you watch a 35mm film in a cinema, you can spot the switch from the 1st reel to the 2nd reel, and so on.
  • Posts: 823
    I think I will see it in Digital 3D instead of IMAX 3D

    the IMAX theater here is not easy to get to, it under where an Interstate and a Loop meets:

    you exit and you have to get over to the right to turn right and it's not easy because you exit into the Interstate service road.

    If you miss the turn, it's almost 2 miles down to make a u-turn back.

    Stupid location!!
  • Posts: 13,142
    @j7wild why not just skip Transformers altogether? ;-)
  • Posts: 823
    @j7wild why not just skip Transformers altogether? ;-)
    nooooooo..... that's like saying why not just skip Bond 23 altogether!!

  • edited June 2011 Posts: 13,142
    @j7wild why not just skip Transformers altogether? ;-)
    nooooooo..... that's like saying why not just skip Bond 23 altogether!!

    It's not. The Transformers films are awful. The fact they make so much money makes me even madder.
  • I agree with Samuel007: They are not good films, although watching the first Transformers from about the half-way point is pretty entertaining, number 2 was an absolute mess of a film, and the 'action' was just robots punching eachother for a few hours. I'd recomend seeing something else.
  • Posts: 823
    I'd recomend seeing something else.
    this is everything new that's playing in my area

    Bad Teacher
    Cars 2
    Double Dhamaal
    Turtle: The Incredible Journey
    Buck
    Green Lantern
    Mr. Popper's Penguins
    The Art of Getting By
    Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer
    Midnight in Paris
    Super 8
    17 Miracles
    Beginners
    Ready
    Submarine
    X-Men: First Class
    Kung Fu Panda 2
    The Hangover Part II
    Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
    Bridesmaids

    I've seen Super 8 and X-Men: First Class - not sure if I want to see any of the other movies in that list
  • Hmm, ok, yeah i think you're right. The thing is that this film just had better not be just the Exact same thing again, i will watch it someday.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 11,687
    Mr Popper's Penguins looks great - love Jim Carrey !! Submarine looks awesome too (music from Arctic Monkeys' Alex Turner), The Art Of Getting By looks quite good too (I really appreciate Freddie Highmore as an actor), I saw Beginners and it was great... So there you go, 4 movies other than Transfomers 3 to watch !!
  • Posts: 823
    Martin Campbell directed Green Lantern?!?

    WHY?

    Why doesn't he do another Bond film instead!!
  • Posts: 4,069

    Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer
    This sounds rather promising 8-X ...
  • Posts: 6,646
    I want to see Avatar 2 in 3D.

    But mostly I like my cinematic menu in the old fashioned 2D which suits me just fine. Some movie not available in 2D will get seen at home on dvd/bluray.
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 823
    gonna go see it in XD Real 3D - it's only $2.50 more for the ticket (compared to real 3D) but the auditorium is bigger, the screen is bigger and the sound is better and as compared to IMAX 3D where it uses two 35 mm projectors projecting at the same time, with the image overlapping each other to create the 3D effect, this one uses one digital projector (no 35 mm film) to create the 3D effect making it cleaner and crispier and sharper.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,687
    j7wild - The bigger the screen and the auditorium, the pixels on screen will be more and more visible. Based on testing a digital projector, you should sit near the middle of the lenght between the screen and the back of the auditorium. The closer you'll get to the screen, and the pixels will be very visible - I made this experience this summer with Inception and Knight And Day... The image was horrible. It really puts you off the film. So take my advice j7wild... and don't sit near the screen !!
  • Posts: 823
    I always sit halfway between the screen and the back of the auditorium and between both side walls right smack in the middle of the row - and it was good today!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 11,687
    j7wild, I meant that 'bigger screen and bigger auditorium' hurts a digital projector, as the pixels will be more and more visible, like when you download a movie, your avi file looks great small, but the pixels appear when you play it full screen. So, the bigger the resolutions on a digital projector, the better the image will be... on a screen the correct size. The place where I work, one of the digital projectors has the biggest resolutions available on the market, and it really works wonders !! Really, a big screen doesn't always mean the best image !
  • Posts: 823
    this digital real 3D was great - it was clean, sharp, bright, clear and no pixels.

    It was well worth the $8 (first show of the day special price, after that it would had been $12.50) per person we spent!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 11,687
    this digital real 3D was great - it was clean, sharp, bright, clear and no pixels.
    Maybe I'm used to analyzing projections and testing different materials, but the pixels really are visible when you sit too close to the screen.
  • Posts: 823
    I didn't notice; I was too busy ducking the debris coming at me from the movie
  • Posts: 4,069
    Isn´t this beautiful news? My heart felt the breeze of spring upon reading this:

    http://collider.com/3d-movies-are-dead-again/#images
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,076
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Isn´t this beautiful news? My heart felt the breeze of spring upon reading this:

    http://collider.com/3d-movies-are-dead-again/#images

    Good! I'm so sick of paying extra to see a shitty 3D conversion for a film that doesn't even utilize the technology in a worthwhile way. I actively avoid 3D showings, not just as an "f*** you" to studios for trying to milk our wallets, but watching a film through those uncomfortable, dim, blurry glasses ruins my movie experience.
  • edited April 8 Posts: 4,069
    While I think 3D on a lot of Blockbusters did improve to the point it is not annoying or bothering me much anymore, I still by far prefer 2D. It´s not just that, as the writer of that article writes, that most filmmakers didn´t find enough ways to put 3D to good use (which IMO is undebatable), but that really in many films 3D isn´t at all necessary, let alone helpful, in order to tell the story, thus making 3D superfluous baggage.
  • I never jumped on the 3D band wagon, the format often looked naff and gave me headache. I always preferred IMAX, when I got my first Smart TV, 3D was a definate avoid
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your family
    Posts: 8,249
    I wholeheartedly despise 3D. Honestly one of the worst things to happen to movie going. Adore IMAX though. I've had some of the best cinematic experiences with the latter.
  • I watched Avatar in 3D that was a chore in that format, 3D gaming was even worse 15 minutes was enough after migraine inducing experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.