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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Technicolor 3D installations- How many? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10

Author Topic: Technicolor 3D installations- How many? Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 03-14-2010 11:44 AM                        Fox does not have a 3d release until next April (Rio). Disney has always done things their way b/c they can. They have devoted much energy to "Disney Digital" If you can afford to pay for digital 3d, I believe that is the way to go. Unfortunately, not all of us have the $$$ to do digital. So for me, if it works (and publicly only one person on either FT or BSbiz has spoken negatively of it) it is almost a no-brainer even without Disney. You still have 17 3d movies that have signed on to Tech 3d in the next 12 mos.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-14-2010 01:07 PM                     I believe you will find that Disney wants digital implementation. Going with Tech 3D would slow that down. Steve  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-14-2010 02:10 PM                    All the distributors/studios have a hidden agenda to push digital. It's just much better for them and, they feel, for the industry in general. Which is mostly true in the long run. Specially once everything moves to 4K. Except that they don't want to pay for it and, for the exhibitor, it carries the least advantages per dollar spent. If they could all snap their fingers and make exhibitors cash out for digital, they would. But they have figured people are NOT moving to digital (specially outside the USA) and they have just been putting 1 or 2 screens digital mainly for 3D and because it made sense for them (i.e. replace the oldest equipment in the booth). Also made sense for some new installations. Otherwise, moving to digital is in deep freeze. Dual 35mm-and-digital inventory is gonna go on for a long time. Plus all the big guys that have signed up for digital, most of them with Sony 4K, are already receiving VPF's from integrators or direct deal, so the distributors know in the short term they'll save very little with digital. Just keeping the dual inventory and KDM's is probably a hassle for them. They also know the 3D thing is "a fad" in the sense that people are going to see it "more" because it's something new to many that they haven't seen before. As soon as they watch 10 or 15 films in 3D, they'll lose all interest and start complaining about ticket prices, dark images, ghosting, whatnot again. So they want to cash in on the 3D while the can, with fake-3D rushed releases, independent "crap" horror 3D movies, kid's CGI, etc. For this, they must embrace Techicolor 3D 35mm solution. Specially outside the USA.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 03-14-2010 09:23 PM                        Technicolor 3D is one non-dci option. The other is being created by shorter windows, whereby it will be possible for sub-runs to book the title, buy the 3D Blu-Ray and show the movie with modified e-cinema gear. Either way the cost would be minimal, particularly outside the US where e-cinema is well established.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-16-2010 10:21 AM                        Well, just to muddy the damn waters, there is now a SECOND 3D film based system to compete with Tech3D. From what I was told second hand, mind you, it arranges the two image pairs vertically with anamorphic squeeze and then its lens, prism and possibly the kitchen sink contraption in projection unsqueeses, flips, converges and polaroizes them so they wind up properly on the screen. It uses linear instead of circular polarization and a of course a silver screen. Great - another wrench in the move to expand available 3D venues by making 3D titles available on film, which is good at least in the short term for the studios and good for exhibs who can't afford digital just yet. But now, what distrib is going to support TWO 3D film formats PLUS 2D prints? Triple inventory? Clearly THAT's not going to happen.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-16-2010 11:51 AM                        There are also ghost-busted and non-ghost-busted versions to be considered.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 03-16-2010 12:33 PM                       Frank is correct on the details except it is not anamorphic. It's called Occulus. Lenny Lipton is doing this and his street cred is pretty good, but two film formats surviving seems unlikely. This process does use the whole 35mm image so there should be more light available.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 03-16-2010 01:12 PM                    quote: Scott Norwood There are also ghost-busted and non-ghost-busted versions to be considered. They are getting away from that....Disney doesn't even offer the two versions anymore. When they sent out the drives for A Christmas Carol they clearly stated that they would not offer that anymore. We currently do not have the ghost-busting within the server option on our Doremi server. When I watched both Christmas Carol and Alice in Wonderland I did not notice any ghosting problems between the left and right images.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-16-2010 02:40 PM                     This: web page Shows it as being a same-sense system, whereas this: web page Shows it as being opposite-sense. Neither would be a new idea; both have been used in the past, at least on 16mm, I'm not sure about 35mm. It doesn't seem to say what the aspect ratio is; if you split a 'Scope frame vertically I think you get something not too far removed from 1.85, so I assume that's the ratio it's intended for. For that ratio it would probably be better than masking down the Technicolor system, while the Technicolor would be better than masking down Occulus for 2.39. There's nothing technically wrong with it, but I doubt that there's room in the market for two competing systems, and most of the studios now seem to have committed to Technicolor. I think this might have had a better chance if they launched it a year ago. Exhibitors who want to do 3-D at low cost might like it, but if the studios and distributors don't offer product in this format then it's not going to get anywhere, and I think that's what is likely to happen.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-16-2010 06:29 PM                        Steve, you are right about the 1.85 as the AR that it ports out naturally without cropping. Just saw the article in Film Journal on the Oculus 3D system, and to his credit, the author was quite up front about the fact that the studios are conflicted about the arrival of 3D film because it has the potential to derail the speed to the digital conversion, which we all know is the alter at which they worship. On the other hand, they do see the advantage in this age of the growing number of 3D releases and too few screens to play them on, that anything which gives them more 3D venues, film or not, has to be a good thing. And here comes a way to quickly and substantially ratchet up the ability to increase those opening weekend BO grosses. The studios are not going to kick THAT gift horse in the mouth, no matter if it comes in the form of film rather than digital; an extra $4 per ticket is an extra $4. What the article didn't mention was the pricing structure. If they can keep down that $2000 per engagement to something more reasonable, Oculus 3D might have an edge, but as Steve notes, it just may be too little to late at this point.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-16-2010 08:36 PM                        Remember, guys, that T3D is capped at $12k/year. The $2k each is for 6 or less films. Obviously if you book 12 films, that is free after the first six. Louis  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-16-2010 09:44 PM                        At $2k/feature vs. $12k/year (plus screen, etc.) it might make sense in a small multiplex that can dedicate one screen to 3D, but it's still a loser for a single-screen house that might show a handful of 3D titles per year. It would really be a loser if the fee doubles for changeover houses (a question which has not yet been answered, as far as I know). If a theatre owner has no particular emotional attachment to film, he would have to at least consider the idea that he could buy a system outright, with the Dolby 3D system, and actually own something for the cost of (roughly) eight years' worth of rental of the Technicolor system. If it (and the 3D craze) lasts longer than that, then he has probably come out ahead. Admittedly, the cash flow situation is better with the Technicolor system. I thought that this incarnation of 3D would be another fad, but it has gained more traction that I would have expected. It will probably be around for years, at least for animated films and anything targeted towards kids. I love film as much as anyone here, but the Technicolor system still seems very expensive for what it is. It would be a good deal if it were half the price, though, or if they would sell the complete lens outright for $12k. (Is the $2k vs. $12k pricing fixed? Or is it simply a list price from which discounted prices are derived?)  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-16-2010 10:10 PM                     Scott... It's a three year contract. It is a maximum fee of 12k per year for those three years. On the average that would amount to 2K per booking and 6 films. If you can run more than the 6 films you still do not pay any more than the 12k fee per year so then the cost per booking goes down. You can also run the films interlocked in 2-D or if it's a real dog just move it to a 2-D screen. They still get their fee though. Frame size is about the same as Super 35. Mark  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-17-2010 02:02 AM                        What happens after three years? Can it be renewed at a lower rate? The ability to move a film to a 2D screen (requiring a new print?) has some value (but, again, only to multiplexes).  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-17-2010 08:52 AM                        This is a pay-as-you-go system. Maybe you only book 3-4 titles/year that are 4D titles. It is CAPPED ar 12k/yr. 2 titles=$4k. As for Digital, it is not proven that ANY equipment will be functional in 4-10 years. Only time will tell. (I know you would not get me to make payments on anything without a "non-obsolensence insurance policy." This is no different than buying a house on time.) Louis  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10

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.