Tintin 2D or 3D?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Spielberg did the same in Indy 4, with the ants.

[Josh500 1,615]

And in Saving Private Ryan too, I believe. I am thinking of the opening battle scenes when the camera keeps going underwater....

[Quintus 5,399]

I'l probably see it in 3D, once we finally get chance to.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What's keeping you?

[Elmo Lewis 6]

And in Saving Private Ryan too, I believe. I am thinking of the opening battle scenes when the camera keeps going underwater....

Spielberg did the same in Indy 4, with the ants.

It made more sense in Saving Private Ryan than in Indy 4 -- and it made more sense in Indy 4 than in Tintin.

[fommes 153]

I'll finally have a chance to go and see Tintin in the next week probably, but guess what - no 2D version to be detected anywhere.

[Quintus 5,399]

Don't worry, it's splendid in 3D.

Better had be and all, at the price. That's the first time I've paid a tenner to watch a movie, and I wouldn't mind but I already had my own pair of glasses. A fucking rip-off.

[publicist 4,643]

I grabbed my AVATAR glasses which served me well since 2009 and i found the 3-D splendid.

[Quintus 5,399]

Same.

[Jay 37,364]

You guys brought your own 3D glasses into the movie theater instead of using the ones the theater provided?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

I've never been at a theatre where you could do that. You have to pay the extra price, get the glasses, and return them in your way out.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

I've acquired about four pairs, somehow. It's never a problem to take you own.

[Brónach 1,302]

I've never been at a theatre where you could do that. You have to pay the extra price, get the glasses, and return them in your way out.

You could just hide them when leaving, or pretend you lost them, or just run before the theatre employees get you.

Of course. But to see any other film in 3D you still have to pay the extra price. despite having glasses of your own.

[crocodile 8,012]

I'm thinking of watching it again tomorrow, this time in 3D.

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

What do you want me to tell you? Stop watching 3D films!

P.S.: Is that supposed to be Robin Hood in your avatar? It's been bugging me since you changed it.

It's Takashi Shimura in The Seven Samurai.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Richard Penna 3,689]

I've never been at a theatre where you could do that. You have to pay the extra price, get the glasses, and return them in your way out.

The place we go to (Cineworld) charges £1.50 for the 3D, and 70p or so for a pair of glasses which you can keep.

I've therefore used the same pair to see Avatar, Toy Story 3, Piranha, The Hole and Tintin.

I saw Up at the Odeon somewhere else, and gave the glasses back into a bin for reuse as I wasn't sure what the policy was.

[crocodile 8,012]

You can keep the glasses from Odeon. Got 2 or 3 of them somewhere.

Karol

[Foxfan 128]

I checked on IMDB and noticed there are THREE different aspect ratios?

1.44 for IMAX, 1.85 for Real-D 3D, and 2.39 for 35mm. Which one has the least information cut out?

Is it like Avatar that they rendered everything in 1.85 and then extracted other ratios from there?

[Brónach 1,302]

3D seems to work better with wider aspect ratios, apparently.

[Foxfan 128]

Actually in this case the 2-D has the widest aspect ratio, though if the original 3-D was rendered in 1.85 there would likely be some of the image cut off at the top or bottom.

[TownerFan 4,983]

I checked on IMDB and noticed there are THREE different aspect ratios?

1.44 for IMAX, 1.85 for Real-D 3D, and 2.39 for 35mm. Which one has the least information cut out?

Is it like Avatar that they rendered everything in 1.85 and then extracted other ratios from there?

Yes.

[fommes 153]

Well, I finally found the time to see this film, and it was in 3D - compulsory so: there's no 2D alternative here (and after all these weeks after the release date I've given up hope that there will be). Price was, with the 3D cost, a whopping 11 euros. I went in positively, with hopes that the 3D would finally be worth the while - considering it was Spielberg. But it sucked: very annoying to watch a film with, like viewing it through a tunnel or one of those viewmasters, gave me head- and eye-ache, and added nothing. Don't know why everyone keeps putting the word 'immersion' out there; I was constantly pulled out of the picture.

Very disappointing, it really took the film experience down a lot, and I was so wanting to get caught up in the film - which in itself was very entertaining. This will have been the very last time I've seen a film in 3D, so if they're going to keep this up, too bad for me. First BR-player is on the way so I'm sure I'll find suitable replacement in that branch of entertainment. Filmgoing was good while it lasted!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I found the 3D to be very good. Spielberg used it, but never abused it.

[fommes 153]

It's not that the 3D was applied badly - not at all - it's just that the whole thing's massively inferior to 2D (for this type of art form in this type of environment with this type of 3D) in every possible way. And it's a rip-off to boot.

I know I've been negative about this before, but I really went in with a completely open mind now (again). It's been the last time though; at this point there's just regret that because they're shoving this down our throat, I'll be seeing less films at the theatre now.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Maybe you are not a 3D kind of guy...

[Quintus 5,399]

The 3D debate rages on.

Snore

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The only issue i had was that at time the motion is a bit jittery. Is this why PJ is shooting The Hobbit as double the framerate?

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I think I might have to see it in 2D. Some clown thought it would be a good idea to release Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol on the same day as Tintin so that means no Imax 3D. Plus I'm not a fan of Real D 3D. I might try to see it in one of the XD surround sound theaters if I can.

[Quintus 5,399]

It is, Steef. The jerkiness gets on my nerves as well.

I'm very much looking forward to this upcoming brave new world of silky smooth photography.

[Richard Penna 3,689]

But it sucked: very annoying to watch a film with, like viewing it through a tunnel or one of those viewmasters, gave me head- and eye-ache, and added nothing. Don't know why everyone keeps putting the word 'immersion' out there; I was constantly pulled out of the picture.

Do some people get this and some just not? I've never had a problem with headaches/dizziness/eye-ache with 3D.

In fact, given that Spielberg used it very subtly for most of the film, I found it a very pleasant film to watch.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I will see it in 3d if I can see it at a matinee

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I noticed one thing. The music in the IMAX 3D mix was far more up front then in the regular 3D mix i saw. maybe it was the sound system

[TownerFan 4,983]

IMAX theaters have insanely loud sound systems.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The other cinema I saw it it did not even have surround.

[Jay 37,364]

I checked on IMDB and noticed there are THREE different aspect ratios?

1.44 for IMAX, 1.85 for Real-D 3D, and 2.39 for 35mm. Which one has the least information cut out?

Is it like Avatar that they rendered everything in 1.85 and then extracted other ratios from there?

Yes.

Source?

[Matt C 454]

I doubt our Tintin 3D showings will be in 1.85:1 -- it'll be in Scope like the trailers indicate.

And I'll see this in 3D, since it was made and processed this way.

[Foxfan 128]

Saw the Real-D French version in Québec last week and it was shown in 2.39 (scope). Does it vary from theatre to theatre? Has anyone actually seen a 1.85 3D presentation?

[Jay 37,364]

Is there anybody here who went to the theater twice and saw Tintin in both 2D and 3D? If so, what are your comments on the differences?

The theater in Providence, RI mall is showing it both ways.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Why do you always have to bring that hairy-faggot's-choir- on-tour - trailer to this subforum of quality movies?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Ok, I ask PJ to send you a Christmas card(b/w only,small budget) for your hard work of promoting.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Now that's cool!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I saw it in 3D. It looked alright. The 3D didn't exactly seem necessary. I mean, it wasn't as visually engrossing as Avatar. So I'll say it felt kind of gimmicky. Maybe it was the theater or I sat too close. I did sit pretty close to the screen in that open area for disabled people, where no one can sit in front of you. It all just seemed to blend and felt less traditionally 3D.

My issue was that overall the image was too dark. I also felt this way when I saw Alice in Wonderland in IMAX. Even the trailers beforehand for Titanic and Star Wars looked too dark. But then again, maybe I'm just used to home viewing on bright television monitors. I think the last film I went out to see was Toy Story 3? So it's been a while.

Good movie, though.