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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Who Is Installing Digital Projection For "Chicken Little"? (Page 11)

This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14

Author Topic: Who Is Installing Digital Projection For "Chicken Little"? Joseph L. Kleiman Master Film Handler Posts: 380 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 11-04-2005 07:02 PM                     Chuck, since you're in the Bay Area, do you have plans to catch the 3D version at any of the four area theaters?  |  IP: Logged Amanda Jones Film Handler Posts: 92 From: Indianapolis, IN, USA Registered: Aug 2005 posted 11-04-2005 10:37 PM                     552 people the entire day for Chicken Little 3D this is out of a 1475 capacity for the theater if you add in all the shows (295 seats times 5 show times) Not too bad but hopefully it will pick up tomorrow.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-04-2005 10:41 PM                        Eyewitness report from a friend who attended the 5:45PM show today at Megaplex Jordan Commons in Sandy, Utah... Paraphrasing him... "The 3D effect was best I've ever seen. The glasses are lightweight and comfortable and did not cause a headache. The image was bright and crystal clear. There were no video or audio glitches in the show at all. The show was sold out and seats were assigned/reserved. The green sofa had been removed." (The eyewitness is not particularly interested in the technical aspects of film or digital. The show looked great to him as an average moviegoer.)  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-05-2005 01:27 AM                    Please forgive me, Joseph, maybe I'm an idiot but this still isn't clear to me for some reason. If Disney rendered the first eye themselves, why did they need ILM to render the other eye if that's all ILM did? The articles sure sounded to me like ILM was CONVERTING Disney's 2D film into a 3D film the same way they're converting Star Wars from 2D to 3D, which is by artificially generating the 2nd eye using the REAL D algorythms. So, which of these is correct? A) Disney created and rendered the entire 2D movie using some computer animation software, like Renderman for example, and then handed the Renderman source files for all of the scenes and all of the 3D models over to ILM so they could move the virtual camera in all of the shots two and a half inches to the left (or right), and using Renderman render the entire movie again, using the exact same software and source files that Disney used to render the first eye, thus creating the 2nd eye. (If this is the case, I'd like to know why ILM was brought in. Was it a case of raw computer power? Maybe Disney didn't have the computer power to render the other eye themselves in time, but ILM did?) - or - B) Disney created and rendered the entire 2D movie using some computer animation software, like Renderman for example, and then handed the completed movie file over to ILM so they could use REAL D's algorythms to artificially generate the other eye just like they're doing with Star Wars. (If THIS is the case, I'd like to know why this was done as opposed to option A.) Thanks.  |  IP: Logged Joseph L. Kleiman Master Film Handler Posts: 380 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 11-05-2005 02:24 AM                     Mark, If I'm not mistaken it was A. However, the conversion of the film by ILM had nothing to do with REAL D's algorithms. It could be shown just as easily in IMAX or with an old 3D system like Natural Vision once ILM completed the process. I've been told that ILM was chosen because on such short notice they were able to design a way to convert the film in only four months, roughly half the time what it took to convert Polar Express. The funny thing is that when ILM took the job, they were prepping for their move to San Francisco. One other note: the Star Wars conversions are being conducted by In-Three, not ILM, and use a completely differnt process and software.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-05-2005 08:13 AM                    Ok, so first, I guess I'm confusing the companies and their roles in all of this a little bit. Thanks for clarifying that. The confusion I think is coming from the word "convert". The difference between Polar Express and Star Wars is that with Polar Express, one eye was rendered, and then the second eye was rendered, thus generating two unique eyes from the same source files - the live action equivalent of being filmed with two cameras like Natural Vision was. Star Wars is being "converted" in the sense that it was only filmed with one camera, and In Three (NOT Real D or ILM, sorry about that) is artificially extrapolating the second eye. The story about ILM redoing some scenes to make them more "immersive" added to my confusion. Thanks for clarifying.  |  IP: Logged Stephen LaPadula Film Handler Posts: 50 From: New York, Ny Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-05-2005 01:42 PM                     OK, so heres the recap.... Chicken Little in 3-D played on 2 screens last night. The combined capacity was still less than the house playing the 35 mm print. The 3-D print, with less available seats, more than doubled the gross of the 35mm. Its still too early to tell if this is a fad or novelty, however its the best possible scenario for opening day. I'll recap the weekend on Monday. Would anyone else like to share how thier grosses did?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-05-2005 02:32 PM                     Thanks Stephen. A note to everyone, there is no need to give actual $ numbers. Just stating it did X% more or less is plenty enough for this discussion and could keep you out of hot water with your employer in the event they don't want actual numbers given out.  |  IP: Logged Joseph L. Kleiman Master Film Handler Posts: 380 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 11-05-2005 02:51 PM                     How's the advertising for the 3D version in the NYC area? It's been very minimal in the SF Bay Area and my editor reports it's almost nonexistent in Las Vegas.  |  IP: Logged Dan Lyons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 698 From: Seal Beach, CA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 11-05-2005 02:58 PM                     I'm shocked that the 3D version isn't being played at Downtown Disney's AMC. What's the deal with that? The closest places to see the 3D version are Long Beach or Irvine, both a 20 minute drive from the MickeyHouse. weird.  |  IP: Logged Joseph L. Kleiman Master Film Handler Posts: 380 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 11-05-2005 03:16 PM                     But it is playing at Downtown Disney's AMC at Disney World.  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 11-05-2005 04:51 PM                     A special color ad was in the Columbus paper for the 3-D version at the Rave Polaris. It was also specially noted in the Friday ad. The true test of Chicken Little will be the second week grosses. It will certainly lead this week as it has been very heavily promoted by Disney, and they have one of the best promotion departments around. My high school students were very anxious to go see it. The important thing will be the word of mouth the comes out of this film. Will people tell their friends that they just HAVE to go see this great, funny movie. That will tell how well it will do in the long term. My guess is it will be a success, but not the Pixar or Shrek success they want.  |  IP: Logged Joseph L. Kleiman Master Film Handler Posts: 380 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 11-05-2005 05:16 PM                     My editor, Amanda Gardner, teaches high school in Las Vegas. She told her students she was going to see the film in digital 3D and their mouths dropped. None of them even knew the 3D version was showing in Vegas. She saw the film yesterday at the Regal Colonnade. Her assessment was that the 3D was crisp and sharp, especially in 2K, however the film's story overall wasn't that good. She also stepped in to check out the 35mm version and said it confirmed the 3D really made a difference. However, she would not see the film a second time, even in 3D. I'm planning to see the film tomorrow at either Metreon or Daly City, but I have a feeling this film will not be in the Polar Express range. One other thing to keep in mind - the international engagement (except for Mexico) in 3D has yet to happen.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-05-2005 05:23 PM                    No one around here that I've talked to seems to have the slightest idea of the 3D version.  |  IP: Logged Amanda Jones Film Handler Posts: 92 From: Indianapolis, IN, USA Registered: Aug 2005 posted 11-05-2005 07:23 PM                     We were busier today than yesterday but no sellouts. With only one show left of 3D and 2 shows left on 35mm the 3d did 300 more on one screen then both screens of the 35mm combined.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14

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.