Yes those scene transitions were great, but again so much better if he'd pushed the interaxial distance out further. I understand you don`t want to do it for the whole movie, although personally I would love it, but keeping it so small isn't doing the format any favours. That wow factor you get with computer games just isn't there for movies at the moment. Mainly because a lot of people whinge about headaches and what not, but they're going to do that anyway, so you might as well go for it. Avatar and dreamworks movies push it way more. Tintin never gave any more depth than the height of the screen. The two shots that spring to mind that really disappointed me from a 3D perspective was the shot of the palace on top of the dam and then the shot of TinTin riding on a bike round the top of the dam looking down on the city. Such great shots, but with a little more depth would have been so much better. I checked a couple of times during the movie as well by taking off my glasses, there was very little separation, the screen was only slightly blurry vs seeing double. It's not realistic to make it so shallow, it just looses it's oomph, I mean what the hell am I paying this extra money for?
There are definitely times where you want to dial down the 3D, like in intimate dramatic shots to bring characters closer together or multi layered action shots to allow your eye to jump all over the screen, but not when I want to look out over a vast city scape or see the detail in the ship crashing over the dunes. Granted he did push it a little in those shots mentioned, but he was still a pussy about it.
) before Tintin, so I guess my gauge wasn't a very good one.