Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 3D Coming back to film? (Page 16)

 
This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ...  22  23  24   
Author Topic: 3D Coming back to film?
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 12-31-2009 03:46 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm wondering about the reuse of the old lenses...they would just need the circular polarizers and they should work.

I still don't get how Real-D has anything that they can actually license...what is so special about their system? Certainly there isn't 50-cents, or whatever they get per ticket worth of technology there.

I also don't get Master Image's price either...its a motor that is kept in sync with a pulse...okay...yes there is technology there but $25K or whatever they are going for? Dolby's actually seems the most reasonable in that the pricey part is in the color wheel (seemingly expensive to make or others would do it cheaper) and the glasses...again...nobody seems to be making them cheaper).

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 12-31-2009 04:38 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
I still don't get how Real-D has anything that they can actually license...what is so special about their system
I bet some generic company can design the same circular polarization box to get hooked up to the system that would cost much less.

Yet, I call it that RD shot out of the gate with their system right in first place and are determined to remain there.

Plus RD knowing that they got something that they've got a good lead on along with knowing that cinema owners are nowhere anything close to being tech savvy who will grab at the first straw that waves in front of them and pay the consequences to beat out the competition.

TECH 3D might shake this monopoly up some.

-Monte

 |  IP: Logged
Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

- posted 12-31-2009 05:21 PM      Profile for Richard Fowler   Email Richard Fowler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Real D basically is licensing the Z-screen modulator which they obtained when they bought out SteroGraphics. Lenny Lipton, who was the inventor, was around the last time 3D was hot in the early 1980's.....he wrote the textbook "Foundations of the Steroscopic Cinema".
The past over and under 3D systems used several spacings from .380 to .404.....it would make sense for Technicolor to pick their own "unique" spacing and simplify matters by sticking to one "designed" spacing.
Some of the Stereovision type split lenses in the 1980's where all over the map technically due to their limited hand made production. The elements where mostly available camera lenses cut up, repurposed and mounted to set spacings within new projector barrels; which was O.K. for rental but not for large sale lots. Technicolor split lens makes more sense on hopefully more new projectors with lens turrets...which was a rare item in the early 1980's.
Think of film 3D in the 1980's as Madonna and film 3D for now as Lady Gaga......both good singers [Cool]

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 12-31-2009 05:46 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
I also don't get Master Image's price either...its a motor that is kept in sync with a pulse...okay...yes there is technology there but $25K or whatever they are going for?
I agree. It's literally just several hundred dollars worth of components all wrapped up in a nice little box. Even the logic circuit is nothing special at all. The replacement wheels are not over 500.00 either... The biggest problem with Master Image is the fact that the filters tend to pick up and become coated what ever is in the booth air... at most locations I've seen them installed at they they become coated with muck that eventually stops the circular polarizers from working and you loose all 3-D. The filters can be cleaned off a number of times with a micro fiber rag before it has to be replaced. They need to seal up the area where light passes through the wheel in order to stop this. For 25 grand it should be sealed!!

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

- posted 12-31-2009 06:05 PM      Profile for Jack Theakston   Email Jack Theakston   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Fred Georges
It was easy to burn up the internal polarisers
Depends on how you treat them, naturally.

quote: Fred Georges
I always thought the contrast of those things were dreadful.
Matter of opinion, but for the good lenses, I disagree.

quote: Fred Georges
I remember some of the siruis lenses would expand slightly when heated & knock your convergence off.
Those lenses were crap.

 |  IP: Logged
Fred Georges
Master Film Handler

Posts: 257
From: Lombard, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

- posted 12-31-2009 07:47 PM      Profile for Fred Georges   Email Fred Georges   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jack Theakston
Matter of opinion, but for the good lenses, I disagree.
What, pray tell, are the "Good" lenses? I own every example of split lens ever made (including a couple of Russian models) save for the new Technicolor lens(which I'll bet is just the current Isco split with circular polarizers) & have set them up for 30 years. So which one is the "Good" one because I must have missed it?

 |  IP: Logged
Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

- posted 12-31-2009 08:23 PM      Profile for Jack Theakston   Email Jack Theakston   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Still got a chip on your shoulder about me, eh Fred? [Roll Eyes]

The best split lenses that I know of were the ones that Col. Bernier used in the late '60s/early '70s. They were custom made for him. Got those?

 |  IP: Logged
Kevin Fairchild
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: Kennewick, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

- posted 12-31-2009 09:28 PM      Profile for Kevin Fairchild   Email Kevin Fairchild   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How difficult would it be for MasterImage to relesase an internal polarizer? Couldn't they just utilize the same location inside the projector that Dolby has? If it were internal, you wouldn't need to clean the polarizer nearly as often, due to the projector's air filters.

I know they are touting that their unit is portable, but that only works if you have a digital projector and a silver screen in multiple rooms.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 12-31-2009 09:34 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Where Dolby's is you would have heat issues with the polarizers...Dolby's come right in the light beam from the "lamphouse" before the integrator...you are going to get much of the heat of the lamphouse there.

Why not just have optical glass on the in/out of the disc shield and seal it up like Mark said.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 12-31-2009 10:06 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It is possible to make linear polarizers that can take heat like the Dolby wheel but they would be uber expensive... probably more expensive than the dolby wheel costs(15+ grand).

There needs to be a cheap copy of the M.I. put out by someone. The thing is way way way over priced!

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted 12-31-2009 10:26 PM      Profile for Ron Curran   Author's Homepage   Email Ron Curran   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Seeing we can’t install a silver screen, I was thinking that replacing our 35mm projector with a Kinoton electronic intermittent set-up would give enough increase in light to compensate for 3D losses.
Could I assume that the whole ensemble (projector, lamphouse and Tech lens) would cost a fraction of going dci 3D?
Our 175-seat single screen would probably never recoup the cost of dci 3D, particularly as we mostly cater to a mature crowd.
Anyone guess at the cost of the above?

 |  IP: Logged
Fred Georges
Master Film Handler

Posts: 257
From: Lombard, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

- posted 12-31-2009 11:34 PM      Profile for Fred Georges   Email Fred Georges   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jack Theakston
"Still got a chip on your shoulder about me, eh Fred?"
Don't flatter yourself I could care less about you BUT, I do like "Opinions" backed with personal experience lest some poor schmuck go off half cocked & take them to heart.
I Met Col. Bernier when I ran a retrospective of Obolers Bwana Devil & 2 SpaceVision pictures Years ago. (Col.Bernier was the "inventor" of the SpaceVision over/under Camera system.)I ran "The Bubble" on break & the Attachment We had from the Distributor was of eastern European origin & it did say for "SpaceVision". Any attachment of that vintage will be a horrible contrast killer by todays standards. But, I'm sure this History is boring the Forum to tears. So, I stand by My statement, backed by experience,that a modern Isco or schneider attached to a quality Mirror box will outperform any of those old "Coke Bottle" split lenses.

 |  IP: Logged
Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

- posted 01-01-2010 12:13 AM      Profile for Victor Liorentas   Email Victor Liorentas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh there is nothing boring here ,i am hanging on every word!
Every bit of info on old lenses gives me a better perspective on where we have been and where we might end up!

Great stuff!

 |  IP: Logged
Don Furr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 509
From: Sun City, Ca USA
Registered: Nov 2002

- posted 01-01-2010 12:42 AM      Profile for Don Furr   Email Don Furr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fred I too have StereoVision, Sirius and Paramount Mirror Box lenses in my screening room. My problem with the Mirror Box is that with a 20 foot throw I can't seem to get the spacing right. The split lens (Sirius) seem to work really well. I installed a new polarized filter on my mirror box but can't get a sharp picture. I assume that a mirror box was not made for a short throw.

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 01-01-2010 01:18 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Don Furr
I assume that a mirror box was not made for a short throw.
Maybe not for short throws, but screens back then were dinky sized.

I worked at a 3plex where we used this mirror box setup and the throw was close to 35 ft, but the screen size was a dinky 10.3ft x 24ft - a common height screen with manual side maskings.

If I remember: the prime lens was taken off the scope lens, then added an extension so it can be attached to the mirror box to keep the same scope image size, especially for the 1983 Columbia release: "Spacehunters: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone" (which was excellent in 3D..), but can't remember now how it was all done since I was only doing PT at that 3plex.

Amazing: the advantages of Film 3D is definitely coming over the horizon ...

Oh brother [Roll Eyes] ..."Paramount just listed Jackass 3-D as a 2010 production (via Cinematical)...."

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ...  22  23  24   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.