|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3D Coming back to film?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 10-24-2009 07:54 PM
You guys just said it all. My personal summary:
1) Of course there is no need whatsover to go digital to have 3D. It can be done just as well, if not better, in film, like it has in the past. It has some advantages and some disadvantages. Overall, it's probably slightly better to do the 3D digital, but mostly because film relies on projectionist doing the job right, and that's proven to be harder. Resolution, illumination, artifacts and other performance measures can be just as good, if not better, in film.
2) Of course 3D doesn't bring significant higher profits to theatres or producers, except like they always had in the past: as a novelty for the first couple of years and to those who offer it while the competition doesn't. This is a no-brainer. Sure, on the long run, it can gross a little more, but it also costs a little more to produce/exhibit. Overall: just a modest profit-maker that is cool to have, but not a paradigm shifter. You SHOULD install a 3D screen or two, but NOT spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$ on it and expect to recover it all from the ADDED benefit compared to showing the same thing 2D while spending $0 additional with your current setup.
3) If Technicolor can offer this worldwide for the lowest absolute price and get backed up by film manufacturers/labs and ALL major studios then it will take off big time. Even I would purchase one or two of those for those screens where digital is totally out of the question $$$$-wise. This should be sold "not for profit" as it's a means for film/labs to keep their core-business for a little longer and for producers to allow recoup of their 3D stuff in a world full of 35mm only screens. One or two studios not participating can be ignored, but if i.e. Disney and Fox BOTH don't fold in, it starts to be a though sell. Also, the 3D prints must be available in all markets, not just the USA.
I'm interested in the Technicolor lens. It sure hurts that I have tons of similar 3D lenses in the closet, but if they are not too-greedy-expensive, I don' mind installing a few of those as to get "optimum" (I hope) performance and less (I hope) compatibility problems (i.e. frame spacing).
If anyone has more info or is about to install one of this, I'd like to know more details. Wonder if FOX's desire to make $$$$ out of Avatar will overpower their desire to save the $$$ in digital distribution and they'll release it in glorious Technicolor 3-D ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Weren't they complaining of not-enough 3D screens? So what now that a 35mm one can be converted for (say) under $15k without paying the $100k digital-3D tax?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-25-2009 04:24 AM
When MOMI was built in London its cinema had four screens, two different conventional ones, one silver for 3-D and one rear projection one. All of these were roller screens. I saw the silver screen used a few times, and it didn't seem to suffer from being rolled. Nor did the rear screen which I only ever saw used once to demonstrate some early projection equipment, which had been set up behind the screen, during a lecture. Behind all of the screens was a large window, covered by a roller shutter, through which it would have been possible to see the real world if the shutter was opened. I don't know if this was ever done; I never saw it open.
I believe this set-up was replaced by a conventional screen after MOMI closed, and the cinema became NFT3, not to be confused with an earlier NFT3 which was a tiny viewing room which had been converted into an office some years previously.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 10-25-2009 09:26 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
EXCUSE ME! In the past 3-D debacles of the 1980's 98% of all the film 3-D sites have sucked beyond belief.
I was talking more about the 50's, with the dual 35mm projection, but still, I don't know what joints you went to during the 80's, but the ones we did over here worked fine. Why were they so bad around there? (besides the low light levels which, in digital today, suck just as bad)
I guess you were exagerating when you said 98%. Technicolor proved the system, the same used during the 80's, was "perfect" on itself:
quote:
Warner Bros. teamed with Technicolor for initial consumer testing at the AMC Burbank 16 and were encouraged by moviegoers’ response to the Technicolor 3D Solution. Sixty-five percent of moviegoers polled after viewing Warner Bros.’ box-office success The Final Destination in Technicolor 3D said the “overall image quality of the 3D” was “excellent” or “very good”—this compares identically to the results from digital 3D exit polls.
Movie Exit Poll Highlights from Technicolor’s 3D Presentation of Warner Bros.’ The Final Destination
• Satisfaction of Overall Viewing Experience. Overall satisfaction was similar in Technicolor 3D and digital 3D and both test groups felt “satisfied” to “extremely satisfied” with this experience. The 35mm 3D group registered somewhat higher “extremely satisfied” responses that the digital 3D group.
• 3D Quality Compared to Last 3D Movie Experience. Comparing this experience to the last movie they saw in 3D, moviegoers who watched in 35mm 3D were near-identically inclined to perceive the 3D quality as “excellent” or “very good” as those who watched in digital 3D — comparisons to their last 3D experience were at parity.
• Movie Ratings & Recommendation. Moviegoers who watched in Technicolor 3D were more inclined to rate the film itself “excellent” and to “definitely” recommend it to friends versus those who watched in digital 3D.
And I have a hard time believing that 98% of projectionists/installer in the USA weren't capable of aligning an over/under film to the silver screen during the 80's. If you tell me 40%, fine, I concurr. But 98% could only mean the system is VERY flawed, and that, I don't agree with (what did the other 2% do differently?)
Now the MOVIES themselves were another story. Many in the 80's were shot with all kinds of optical problems. But the projection "system" itself is just fine. You can ask SONY that uses the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE of splitting the FULL frame horizontally and project each half through polarizers. Or Technicolor, which showcasted it publicly to press and public and they couldn't tell it appart from any other (digital) system. Because, of course, they are all the EXACT same principle: to put two frames on the same screen with a way to separate them on the eyes through filters in glasses.
Or see LieMax, which does the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE of 3D during the 50's of dual polarized projection.
I think we can all forget about the VERY (very) few anaglyph 3D engagements in the history of cinema (compared to non-anaglyph 3D engagements). Anaglyph always sucked, even when shown on (real) Imax or in digital, of course.
quote: Ron Curran
Our screen must be rolled to clear the stage for live theatre twice a year. A silver screen wouldn't like that.
Most (all?) silver screens can easily take a couple of rolls a year without a problem. It'll be a bitch, as they can get dirty easily etc and can usually not be effectively cleaned, but if very careful, can be rolled a few times during their lives.
If in doubt, consult the manufacturer and they'll be able to advise on how much they can take. There is even one manufacturer's silver material that can take a bit of folding, cleaning, etc, but it's also the material that performs worse for 3D ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Regardless, one could always use Infitec (Dolby) passive 3D filters with a 35mm film system, but that would mean that the 35mm print would have to be colour corrected just for those types of engagements. I think Technicolor is having a hard enough time convincing the distributors to strike over/under 35mm prints for them, much less to carry yet another dolby-corrected stock ...
While the majors in the USA have pushed digital adoption, forcing some small players to follow suit, overseas it's another story. People are installing digital, yes, but as one's off to do 3D with no intention to converting the rest of the screens until the dust settles (full DCI compliance, 4K), the prices come WAY down (if ever) and the real beneficiaries of digital pay for at least part of it (distributors offering no BS VPF in offset to print costs).
Somebody at Technicolor needs to get this thing in high gear.
http://www.technicolor.com/GlobalEnglish/Deliver/Film/Welcome-to-technicolor-in-3D/Pages/default.aspx
I heard of the lens price bracket between $5k and $7k. If it is the lower part of the bracket, then maybe they have a chance. $7K is a lot of money for something we all know will be worthless in 5 years, but $5K could be recouped by 3D surcharges during that time frame in many sites. It's much better than current non-DCI $120k 3D 2K digital systems that who knows if it will work in 15 years or be an obsolete piece of museum paraphernalia.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 10-25-2009 11:09 AM
They could (should) time the 3D 35mm prints for a lower light level of (say) 6ft (better than digital's 4.5) and no lamp upgrade would be needed in many cases, as the gate would use the whole 4perf area and the lenses would be non-anamorphic, hopefully light optimized.
Sure the polarizers suck over half the light. But the silver screen "gives back" over "double" the light as well. And the illumination circle fits better 4-perf than 3-perf, so some 25% more light can be squeezed out of current lightboxes in some (non Scope-sized) screens.
Overall, just a slight adjustment to the print density to allow good contrast at lower light output would be needed. They do this in digital (not to mention ghostbusting or colour correction), so no point in not-doing it for film.
That was one of the problems in the 80's. They timed the prints just like if they were going to be 16ft on the screen. When it was half that (sometimes below), it all looked too dark and lacking contrast.
Renting the lenses or lowering the price to the bare minimum would be a good move. Kodak should purchase a bunch and rent-them-out for non-profit to keep their 35mm business alive a little longer ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I agree that moving to digital is the "sane" choice. But not as it currently stands. You are forced to buy, IMHO, inferior (2K), expensive (by many times), obsolete (non-DCI compliant) equipment with almost zero help from distributors, who are the ones saving money.
I'll say it again, and sorry for repeating myself. If the WHOLE digital 3D system for a (small/medium) screen was $50k with current equipment (i.e. 2K), fine, I'll buy.
Or if the studios paid for most (say 80%) of it through VPF in time.
Or if the equipment was $80K -BUT- it was top quality, 4K, over 8fl-in-3D, and fully DCI compliant. Then, I would also consider buying on my own without the help of VPF as an "investment" and hoping to recover some of it through savings in labor and 3D surcharges.
But to buy current "bad" (2K), "obsolete", "non-compliant", "expensive", "low-light 3D" equipment for ABSOLUTE TOP prices many-times over a GOOD 35mm system ... hell no.
Since 4K equipment is non-existant to expensive-and-propietary, the only option today is to remain 35mm. And if you want 3D (which you should want if the competition has it), then 35mm 3D is the only (sane) option.
For the time being.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 24 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic