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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 3D Coming back to film? (Page 8)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  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 11-15-2009 04:26 AM                     quote: signed an exclusive real D agreement, Most definitely true. Cinemas that are using "Real D" are simply stuck, for this is where the prospective venues searching for a 3D usage could gain an advantage in TECH 3D with their lens lease (lens isn't allowed to be purchased which the venue owner doesn't have to anti up the $7k for a lens purchase) and recycleable glasses that TECH would distribute. This definitely could be a big plus for "mom and pop INDIES" and small business cinema operators.. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2009 10:44 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer This definitely could be a big plus for "mom and pop INDIES" and small business cinema operators.. It would be a plus if 3-D actually caused any real increase in ticket sales... overall... It actually doesn't.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2009 11:38 AM                     Also the glasses surcharge is subject to the distribs taking their standard percentage cut also here they are subject to entertainment tax  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-15-2009 08:45 PM                     quote: Gordon McLeod Also the glasses surcharge is subject to the distribs taking their standard percentage cut Is that true in the US and across the different 3D formats? I wasn't aware as an example that the Dolby 3D system (where the distributors don't supply glasses) was handled in that manner.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-16-2009 01:10 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen It would be a plus if 3-D actually caused any real increase in ticket sales... overall... It actually doesn't. Thus, it's still in the "fad" section of the entertainment world then... Thus, is it this "fad" that is keeping digital in a whole alive? From what I gather is the majority of films released in 3-D has mainly been CGA, fantasy/children's features...and that is going to get old pretty quick down the road..  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-16-2009 08:11 PM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen It would be a plus if 3-D actually caused any real increase in ticket sales... overall... It actually doesn't. Better be careful Mark, I bet that can be said about digital period.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-16-2009 08:43 PM                        What do you mean "I bet?" That's just a given. Digital never sold any tickets. Most movie fans don't care how the picture gets on the screen, just as long as it gets there.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-17-2009 04:07 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley Digital never sold any tickets. Most movie fans don't care how the picture gets on the screen, just as long as it gets there. Dang, this can get routed back to square one then: why convert to digital - what is the concrete and absolute reason to convert if the venue owner isn't going to gain any more sales?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-17-2009 06:46 AM                        The reason is, Monte, because it saves the distributor print costs, period. That's the beginning middle and end of it. But also because distribution rules and because NATO is an emasculated, eunuch organization which laid back and let the studios screw its members and then NATO said, "Thank you," and added, "Sure we'll spend $150K to put in 1.3K digital projectors that will be obsolete after they've played half a dozen releases." Also because the studios kept floating the big bugaboo, "Film is finished Mr. Exhibitor; it's on the way out and you'd better not let this new technology pass you by or you'll be out of business, what with your old film projectors that we won't supply any film for you to run in them. Film will be gone in the next 5 years, Mr. Exhibitor (said in 1999)." The studios also said, "We'll help you pay for this new technology with Virtual Print money (wink, wink, nod, nod) and you won't have to worry about the reason no one is coming to your theatre -- thos horrid scratches and image jitter and color fade that makes it impossible for customer to ever enjoy a movie if it is on film --but all that will be gone with digital and attendence will skyrocket without those scratches and jitter and faded color. All you have to do is put in this $150K piece of spanking new DIGITAL equipment. How can you go wrong....IT'S DIGITAL just tell your patrons that and they will flock back to your theatre to see the same crap we will still be putting out. AND, Mr. Exhibitor, if you have digital, you can spend even more money and make it 3D capable -- we'll make dozens of 3D cartoons for you to show, and the best thing is, 3D will never be able to be duplicated in those pesky home theatres, and even if somehow 3D technology for the consumer does becomes a reality, we're PARTNERS with you; we would never, EVER release our 3D product to the home 3D video market (wink, wink, nod, nod)." And SOME exhibitors bought it. Distribtuion said the word DIGITAL, and Exhibition's eyes glazed over like a deer caught in headlights. And that's why, Monte.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-17-2009 11:38 AM                        Point of order: the digital print is significantly more $$$ than the film print, especially if you include the cost of administrating the "key code." Also, the quality of the demo at Showeast was equal to or better than Digital 3D. Steve G. was there along with many others who were suitably impressed. The primary difference "this time" is that theatres will need a check out PRIOR TO getting the lens. Those lower than 16 ft/lm on the old screen will be de-selected. Louis  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-21-2009 06:37 PM                     Louis, while I am a big film fan, I can't fathom it costing more than $2500 a hard-drive to encrypt a movie. . .  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 11-22-2009 10:05 AM                        Geez, Frank. What a great bedtime story to tell the kids!  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-22-2009 10:44 AM                        It really does come down to (take your pick):Greed or penny pinching on the distributors part. On a tens to hundreds of-million dollar film production, the cost of the prints is insignificant, it's a rounding error. What's a full page four color ad in the NYT cost these days? How much do they spend on the star's lunch? Going cheap on the print--which is the part the public actually sees, is like saving money on washers in an automobile. Sure, it adds up after awhile, as long as the gas tank doesn't fall off while the car is still under warranty. And if making digital prints is really cheaper, why haven't the indies all converted (ok, no place to show them, still...)  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-22-2009 12:20 PM                     Print costs are more like $1000'ish for a typical movie. Regarding digital, think of it like the pharmaceutical industry. They may be able to make a pill for one penny each, so why do they sell each pill for $20? Its because that FIRST pill cost them $5 million in research to develop it. Likewise, it may cost the studios a fortune to create that first hard drive, but after that it is cheap, cheap, cheap to duplicate.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-22-2009 04:20 PM                     I think $1000 is definitely too low, even for a 6-reel movie. Let's see. I think print stock is something like U.S. 27¢/ft. (88¢/m). Let's call it a quarter. For your average 90 minute movie (Let's say 100 minutes for simplicity of numbers and the credits.) there is 9,000 feet of film. That's $2,250 just in raw stock. I'm sure big labs can get print stock even cheaper, maybe half that, say a bit per foot, but that's still over a thousand just for the physical media, and then there are chemistry, labor, miscellaneous lab, and shipping costs all on top of that. That isn't including the cost of striking interpositives, or film recording them as is almost always done now, several internegatives, on much slower, more-expensive machinery and on more-expensive stock. So maybe they can churn this stuff out for under $2,000 with a sweet deal from Kodak or Fuji (are Agfa & China still making print stock?) but I can't see under, say $1,600 to make a print. Martin, while I agree with you that studios wanting to phase out film is regrettable, it's certainly understandable that their thinking is that will stick the studios with all the real costs of "equipment" (considering a film print as such for them), since currently theatres do the same thing to *them*. Personally, I wish there'd be some sort of compromise, as film is still a better experience, IMHO. It seems that the transition is very haphazard because of these conflicting agenda.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  22  23  24

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.