Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D Coming back to film?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 3D Coming back to film? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 22 23 24

Author

Topic: 3D Coming back to film?

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2009 10:18 PM

True, Frank - sorry, should have put quotes around the word "organized" - meaning if you get a person, as you say, pay them well enough, to take care of things which is an ideal situation.

Just that he'll soon get a head on his shoulders and get "organized" - meaning that he'll develop an operational organization to an eventual perfect system in of doing stuff which that could be a possible "threat" to that employer which could possibly disrupt the harmony of that operation and create a hostile work enviornment when other employees see this alternative form of operation.

Sorry, if I mislead on that term-not meaning the actual term of Organization as in joining a Union....

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 09-18-2009 10:51 PM

quote: Julio Roberto
No "3D flicker" (temporal disparities).

How can that be when the shutter opens on one eye before opening on the other eye, and moves a little slower than the DLP chip flashes. I'd think you would have some sort of temporal problems with over/under, but not so (or significantly less so) with side by side 3D. No?

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 09-19-2009 03:48 PM

Is thia for sale NOW? Louis

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 09-20-2009 12:30 PM

Who's thia?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-20-2009 12:59 PM

And why is she for sale?

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 09-20-2009 01:20 PM

All over/under 3D films I saw in theatres did suffer from insufficient brightness. Back in the early 1980s, many theatres had no more than 1600 or 2000W bulbs for screens sizes that no one would try to fill today with less than 4kW. With such low levels to begin with, the light loss from beam splitters and polarizers seriously hurt the stereoscopic effect.

Also, most films were low budget and some did not use an experienced 3D supervisor/consultant which resulted in eye straining images.

It's funny how some people from the post production world explain that over/under 3D was so bad that it never could compare to digital, because it used such tiny 2-perf height images.

The same guys will praise Super-35 cinematography (as long as James Cameron uses it) because "filmstocks are so good that you don't need anamorphic any more". Well, you have to decide whether it is inferior or great, please make up your mind.

I'd really like to see some footage shot with state-of-the-art film stock and high quality stereo lenses in over/under.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 09-20-2009 01:39 PM

quote: Christian Appelt
The same guys will praise Super-35 cinematography (as long as James Cameron uses it) because "filmstocks are so good that you don't need anamorphic any more". Well, you have to decide whether it is inferior or great, please make up your mind.

Read your own words. The reality of it is that Super 35mm photography is FAR BETTER than anamorphic photography from the 1980s. Yes, the filmstocks really HAVE improved that much...particularly in regards to the stocks the final prints are made on.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

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

posted 09-20-2009 01:49 PM

But there's no contest (in my opinion, at least) to modern anamorphic elements. And you don't have DPs compromising their compositions with true anamorphic, either!

Super 35 is here to stay ONLY because everything is a DI now. If actual optical work had to be put into these productions, many producers would reconsider the cost.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-24-2009 04:11 AM

quote:
Strong Industry Support Accelerates Technicolor 3D Rollout
Multiple Movie Studios Planning on Showing Content in Technicolor 3D
HOLLYWOOD, Calif., Oct. 22, 2009 – Thomson (Euronext Paris: 18453; NYSE: TMS), through its Technicolor Business Group, today announced support from multiple major motion picture studios for the release of theatrical content presented in Technicolor 3D, a high-quality 3D solution that works with existing 35mm projectors that was announced last month. DreamWorks Animation, Lionsgate, Paramount, Overture, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros., and The Weinstein Company are working with the company to deliver content for presentation in Technicolor 3D.
With the continuing success of 3D movies at the box office, 17 3D titles have already been announced for 2010 release, with more expected from several distributors. The studios noted above account for the majority of these titles, including How to Train Your Dragon, Piranha 3D, Shrek Forever After, Despicable Me, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, Friday the 13th: Part 2; Guardians of Ga’Hoole, Alpha and Omega, Burst, Oobermind, and Yogi Bear.
Additionally, Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. has agreed to enter into a marketing and technology arrangement with Technicolor and will provide their customers with the necessary post production and film printing services to deliver Technicolor’s 3D solution. Kodak and Fuji have also announced support of the Technicolor 3D solution and will be working with Technicolor and Deluxe to ensure their film stocks are delivering the highest quality possible for the Technicolor 3D experience.
“The Technicolor 3D rollout substantially increases the 3D theatrical footprint, delivering to studios a larger platform for reaching masses of moviegoers – and thereby increasing the box office for distributors and exhibitors” said Frederic Rose, Chairman and CEO of Thomson/Technicolor. “Technicolor is thrilled to extend our partnerships with these top studios and other key industry players to address the 3D gap and ensure every exhibitor that wants quality 3D will be able to afford it.”
Numbers show 3D is a driver of ticket sales with 3D engagements outperforming 2D by more than 2-to-1 in attendance and even greater in box office. Prior to Technicolor’s 3D solution, 90 percent of theatre screens in the U.S. were not able to provide a 3D experience to moviegoers. The Technicolor 3D solution will provide a solution to immediately bridge the gap until digital cinema can be more widely rolled out, providing additional screens to advance the medium of 3D to mainstream levels.

quote:
About Technicolor 3D
Announced earlier this year, Technicolor has innovated a high-quality, affordable 3D solution that works with existing 35mm projectors. Technicolor puts high quality 3D within economic reach of all theatre circuits, allowing them to complement 2D engagements and benefit from incremental revenue generated from increased ticket sales and ticket sale surcharges. The Technicolor 3D Solution is an opportunity to deploy 3D immediately, without waiting for financing to be available for digital conversion and can not only bridge the gap until such financing can be put in place, but actually help generate the funds required by distribution and exhibition to pay for the conversion.
According to exit polling interviews conducted by independent research firm OTX, moviegoers ranked Technicolor 3D as being comparable to digital 3D cinema technologies.
How the Technicolor 3D Solution Works
The Technicolor 3D Solution employs a propriety “production to projection” system that leverages 35mm (or film) projectors already in use by 90 percent of U.S. and international theatres today to deliver high-quality 3D content to moviegoers. A patent-pending lens system assembles the left and right eye images as the film runs through the projector and delivers a 3D ready image onto a silver screen. The solution works with circular polarized glasses—identical to the ones used for existing digital 3D cinema—to “translate” the film’s content into an image that is perceived by the viewer as being three dimensional. The silver screen can be used for the projection of both Technicolor 3D as well as digital 3D content. The Technicolor 3D Solution can be installed nearly immediately. No build-out or significant modifications of the projection booth are required.
###
About Thomson
Thomson (Euronext Paris: 18453; NYSE: TMS) is a worldwide leader of services to content creators. http://www.thomson.net.
Press contacts:
Season Skuro +1 818 371 0006 season.skuro@technicolor.com
Julie Mathis, Hill & Knowlton +1 415 281 7189 Julie.mathis@hillandknowlton.com

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 10-24-2009 04:36 AM

Great articles. Thus, could this put a possible damper on digital unit sales where it shows that the above mentioned studios are now looking forward to work with TechniColor in doing 3D film releases - something that approaches a contradiction where they wanted to reduce print production from the beginning?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 10-24-2009 07:18 AM

I wonder just how well thought out this is for the studios, that want digital.

The BULK of the Digital installations I see are FOR 3D where the myth has been you need digital for 3D.

So now exhibitors will have this cheap alternative to Digital (how expensive can the lens be?). Lets just say it is pricey at $10K. So why would an exhibitor spend 7-10 times that on a digital system?

This could slam the digital sales to a crawl. Then you will have those (including the "big boys" crying "foul" since they spent so much on Digital 3D when film 3D was ALWAYS possible. Furthermore, if, like in the '80s, most every theatre dedicates one or two screens to 3D...the "Take" on 3D will approach zero since every theatre complex will have it. Gone will be the concept of getting more than your normal share of patrons (stealing them from the 2D only theatres). Thus, per screen, 3D profits will take a HUGE nose-dive to the point only the film 3D would be somewhat viable.

And it all comes back to 3D is only going to be around a short time (relatively). No matter how they dance around it...if you look at the profits of all of the movies and rank them...you can't pick out the 3D titles because they "took in more"...they don't. The best movies make the most money...regardless of how many "Ds" are in the title.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-24-2009 08:43 AM

Steve, I think you meant to say "The movies that appeal to the most people..."

I really don't think too many of the films on this list are going to down as "the best";>

Gross Movie
399,416,040 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
294,258,075 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
289,639,811 Up (2009)
270,237,753 The Hangover (2009)
256,673,273 Star Trek (2009)
198,255,437 Monsters vs Aliens (2009)
193,250,211 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)
179,863,544 X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
176,461,908 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)
160,154,402 The Proposal (2009)

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 10-24-2009 10:10 AM

Best is too subjective...you will find plenty to argue that they loved the movies that grossed well too.

But look at that list you provided.

How many were in 3D? Now if they didn't do them in 3D would their position on that list change any?

Then take into account that the average increase in production costs are 15% to make a movie in 3D...would that lower any of the 3D rankings in terms of profitability rather than gross?

No matter how you cut it, 3D doesn't increase studio revenue and it definitely cuts into theatre revenue once prime saturation is reached. Special formats always do better when there is a bit of exclusivity to them (70mm, IMAX and even 3D). If it is common, it just costs more.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-24-2009 11:28 AM

I have to agree with Steve on some of this. Only cuustomers that have 3-D and are locked into their own area seem to do better with it. I personally have not seen any 3-D movies in a long time and pretty much go out of my way to avoid them. If the light levels ever come up to near normal then I might re-consider seeing more 3-D but not until. Oh, and don't expect 3-D film based light levels to be much better. Just because it's film doesn't mean it will be any better. In fact I'm betting that on average it will be worse. In past times film based 3-D has been what has killed 3-D and ALWAYS a short time period. The cost for film based 3-D will also be high if one takes into account installing a larger lamphouse which in the past film based systems has usually been ignored. Then compare the total below to what the Generation 2 digital projectors will cost you... The reality is that you're probably about half way to buying a Generation 2 digital system and since digital is still going to end up taking over the town for both 2-D and 3-D I would say save your money for digital and skip any 3-D all together.

Lens 8,000
Screen 4,000
Lamp/rectifier 7,000
Labor-Install 5,000
Realisitc Total 24,000

Oh, and another thing... Just how many theater owners do you think are going to take this seriously? They probably are not interested in adding to the stack of already unused/obsolete 3-D lenses they have in the projection room closet.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 10-24-2009 12:21 PM

The mom n pops are already flooding us with calls on the Technicolor thing. Are you kidding? A cheap way to get 3D?

As for light...right now film has no advantage to digital...if you NEED 3KW for digital, you also NEED 3KW for film.

However, if the theatre is lamped correctly for film and hits 16fL on their matte-white screen. Adding a silver screen will kick that up to about 40fL (in the middle)...then add in the polarizing process and you are back down to 6fL (15% efficient), typically. And hey...guess what...we are back to the current silver screen light levels for DCinema or Film. No magic there.

So...to the typical theatre, you are talking about $12-15K total in a lens/screen (for get about the lamphouse since it isn't going to be needed too long)...the question is...will the EXTRA profits from 3D repay that sort of investment? One can knock off part of the screen price since odds are, the white screen needed to be replaced anyway in many theatres.

Steve

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 22 23 24

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.