So I am not the biggest movie buff - I may only go to 2 movies a year at the very most. Just not big into movies except for a few sports movies and star trek movies. So this question may sound silly but can someone please explain the difference to me between 3d and ultraavx 3d? And for a movie like star trek what type of showing should I go see? The regular showing or 3d or ultraavx3d?
Question about movie theatres.
- Thread starter starzero4
- Start date
3D is basically the same theatre, but projected in 3D and requires use of 3D glasses.
UltraAVX is a different theatre (larger screen, different sound system, etc) and reserved seating.
http://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/UltraAVX.aspx
If you haven't seen a movie in 3D, it's worth doing to check out the experience. Some people enjoy it and find it adds to the movie, others find it artificial, distracting, and uncomfortable (because you have to wear the glasses). It's also an extra few bucks for 3D (usually + $3) and even more for UltraAVX (+ $7?).
UltraAVX is a different theatre (larger screen, different sound system, etc) and reserved seating.
http://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/UltraAVX.aspx
If you haven't seen a movie in 3D, it's worth doing to check out the experience. Some people enjoy it and find it adds to the movie, others find it artificial, distracting, and uncomfortable (because you have to wear the glasses). It's also an extra few bucks for 3D (usually + $3) and even more for UltraAVX (+ $7?).
basically is goes:
regular < 3d < ultra avx < imax 3d
then you have dbox which are like vibrating seats with speakers under them in ultra avx theatres. if you want picture quality and sound go to imax. HOWEVER, go to an imax certified theatre such as coliseum mississauga, colossus, etc... dont go to the retrofit theatres that are popping up now. they are the same price but are a lot larger theatres without the better sound. its tough to know which they are though unless you go once (i got caught with that at the former AMC courtney park watching iron man 3 recently).
regular < 3d < ultra avx < imax 3d
then you have dbox which are like vibrating seats with speakers under them in ultra avx theatres. if you want picture quality and sound go to imax. HOWEVER, go to an imax certified theatre such as coliseum mississauga, colossus, etc... dont go to the retrofit theatres that are popping up now. they are the same price but are a lot larger theatres without the better sound. its tough to know which they are though unless you go once (i got caught with that at the former AMC courtney park watching iron man 3 recently).
It really depends on the film. Some films are made properly with full consideration of how 3d is going to work, and it works well.
Other films just add it because they can, don't think it through, and it winds up just being distracting. Especially when they throw in some gratuititous 3D shots in the middle of the film out of nowhere in a not very important scene just to show off what they can do. I hate that.
In that respect it's like any new technology in film -- when films first went colour, there were some pretty ridiculous things done just to show off how colourful they could be, and obviously now the use of colour has become much more sophisticated, to the point where you don't even notice it, and all the while it's planned out and thought about by (good) directors. 3D will eventually be like that, but for now there are too many films with too much "HEY LOOK AT THIS 3D".
I can't do 3-D... My big issue is the refresh rate flicker. 24 fps in 2D, projected, is OK. 12 FPS per eye in 3D, projected, is not. If you're the sort of person that low refresh rate CRTs bother, or old school fluorescent bulbs bother, no amount of good filming will save you until 48 FPS becomes the norm (24 per eye).
Just as CRTs go out, and tube florescent bulbs are getting rarer, 3D movies make a comeback and now I live in fear of accidentally paying for eye searing pain. Uggh. :frusty:
I know nothing about digital 3D formats and projection, but 3D on film projects one image for each eye at the same time. The glasses prevent the other eye from seeing the wrong image and your brain makes one picture from the two slightly views in the same way that it does as you move about in the real 3D world. A 70mm film would project two simultaneous 35mm images, a 35mm 'standard' width print could still use special lenses and prisms to squeeze a pair of (lower-quality) images into a 'standard' frame, but the two side-by side images will always be projected at the same overall frame rate. That is ordinarily 24fps, but IMAX projects faster and Peter Jackson's The Hobbit runs faster still.
Silent films could get away with a 18fps rate when any picture that moved was a novelty, but 12 fps would be jerkier than a flip book and each eye getting an image alternately, as if blinking, would make an epidemic of guaranteed headaches.
Off Topic: Anyone wanna offer on a 35mm Stereo Realist still camera,
i would suggest going to the former AMC theatres then. they were made geared towards a different demographic and dont have the volumes set as high.
.... that would be the case with 3d televisions (which use active glasses, essentially blacking out one eye at a time and alternating them)..... not 3d in movie theatres (which use simultaneous projection of polarized light).
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=56
the eye strain people usually encounter while watching modern 3d movies is one of three things:
1) you cant focus on something: when we look at something in the world and then change to something else which is a different distance away our eyes need to refocus. this causes a problem in 3d movies because our brain thinks that refocusing is needed but our eyes are saying they dont (since the film is already focused). this battle goes on for a little while until our brain eventually wins. a way to ensure that this happens sooner is to relax your eyes and let them unfocus slightly. after a few minutes it will be better.
2) improper separation distance: the 3d effect is a result of 2 different images, one being seen by each eye from a slightly different angle similar to how we would see in a regular 3d world. the difference between these two images needs to be set specifically for the average separation distance of a persons eyes. if your eyes are narrower or wider than what is considered normal than it wont quite make sense to your brain. however, eventually your brain will work everything out.
3) general eye fatigue: points 1 and 2 really only explain the first hour-ish of the movie. after that point than general eye fatigue takes over. when you are watching a movie, tv, on a computer, etc. our rate of blinking decreases SIGNIFICANTLY. this is even more pronounced in movie theatres because very rarely do we look away from the screen. while at home watching something there are visual distractions around which we will occasionally (more than you think though) switch our vision to. when we do this our eyes will refocus and blink (thus moistening our eyes again). in a theatre this does not happen nearly as often. the effect of point 3 can be reduced by blinking every 20-30s at least.
as a side note on point 1 and 2:
you would be surprised at what your brain can do. many studies have been performed on the ability of our brains to adapt to different visual conditions. subjects have worn glasses with lenses in them which flip what we see 180* (make everything appear upside down). after 5 days straight of wearing them the world no longer appeared upside down, but like normal. if the glasses were removed the world again appeared upside down for a few days until the brain sorted everything out again. this is called Perceptual Adaptation and is well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_adaptation
Overall volume isn't the issue. It's the idiocy of pushing the speakers beyond specs. I'd still be just as pissed if it was half as loud but distorted, and I'd be pleased as punch if it were twice as loud and actually clear. So if an AMC theater just has a smaller PA but pushes it just as far past the point of good sound quality, it still sucks.
so... errr.... do they? Have good quality sound, that is? (regardless of volume)
man .. all these different types. To me there are just regular and 3d .. imax, curved screen and everything else is just bull for them to jack up prices xD
agreed. dbox is pointless. i generally go see imax 3d is thats an option. otherwise i just go see regular 3d. to me ultraavx isnt enough of a difference.
without being completely certain because i dont think i have ever seen the same movie in both theatres, i am fairly confident in stating that there is less distortion in the ex-AMC theatres. i know what you mean though, some of those old cineplex theatres were pushed way too far.
