|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3D Coming back to film?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Fraser
Master Film Handler
Posts: 499
From: Houghton Lake, MI, USA
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 02-06-2010 04:16 PM
I dont mind large upfront expenses. I just hate paying licensing fees, mortgages, rents, etc.
I just think they could have thought out a better strategy to charge for this system.
I would be perfectly happy paying a few thousand for the lens, a few thousand for the screen, and maybe a "3-D print" surcharge in the way of a 5 to 10% higher film rental.
As the pricing is now, it just seems more wise to get a loan for a digital 3-D setup and at least own something in the end, at a similar annual cost.
We will be waiting though until all of these competing systems flush themselves out. Could be 2 years, could be 10 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:02 AM
Digital also has a "per 3D film" cost one way or another. First, higher watt lamps/higher electricity. Then, per-person royalty with RealD/Sony or glasses cost with other systems (i.e. clean and replace Dolby/XpanD glasses, batteries or purchase Master image one's etc).
You need to factor the upfront "cost" of say $100k also carries a significant financing (interests) yearly cost. You either lose the money the bank will give you yearly if you left it invested or you'll have to pay a yearly interest if you borrow it. This is money you "dump" to the bank instead of to Technicolor any way. Perhaps get a modest profit. But if you couldn't show any 3D film before and you cover your cost, what's to lose? The 12K you are "giving" Technicolor you wouldn't have been able to raise w/o the 3D surcharge to begin with ...
It's true that worst-case scenario with Tech3D is not very good for the small theaters they are trying to serve. Worst case scenario is when you can only show 6 3D shows a year and you can't get around 2000 people on each show. I wouldn't do it unless I KNEW I could get some 8 films a year or so and get the clean $12000 out of surcharges. Then, it just becomes a way to slightly increase the audience to get them to buy more popcorn and keep the competition at bay.
Also, you agree to this pricing scheme for 3 years. Who says that in your 4th year perhaps you could get a better deal from Tech 3D or move to digital then. 3 years from now, the digital equipment may be cheaper (better be) or better quality (4K) which will allow you to give your audiences a better experience over 35mm instead of the same-or-worse from a 2K investment.
I do think the Tech3D scheme is not the best there is and certainly a bit high. If I were them, I would've cap at $10k a year and allow other pricing schemes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23 24
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic