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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-23-2012 12:39 PM                        I think most people's problem with the glasses is the comfort of them and/or having to keep track of them in the dark, especially with kids. Either people aren't used to wearing glasses, or if they are, the cheap plastic frames aren't comfortable. I sure wish Dolby would make a 'clip-on' version of theirs. That's one thing I'll have to give Real-D -- their glasses win on comfort. Dolby's newer design is better than the original.  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 08-23-2012 12:46 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley I'll bet glasses-free 3D will provide a picture that's "not as good as regular 3D, but close enough for most people." And probably a far worse image for 2D content unless another screen is used.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 08-23-2012 01:49 PM                        I wear glasses all the time and when I put the Real D glasses on over them I really don't notice that they are even there. So the Real D glasses don't bother me at all.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-23-2012 03:54 PM                     My personal suspicion is that people who enjoy 3D movies don't mind the glasses. This whole nonsense about "getting rid of the glasses" is just a means of keeping 3D around a little longer instead of letting it fade away (one more time). Speaking for myself -- the glasses are NOT the reason I stopped going to 3D movies. The main issue is that 3D doesn't represent an improvement (or even an "enhancement") over the 2D aesthetic. And then there's the up charge -- why pay more for something that I don't consider to be better? Getting rid of the glasses won't suddenly get me on the 3D bandwagon. 3D has done its job -- the digital conversion is happening. Time to move on.  |  IP: Logged John Thomas Film Handler Posts: 75 From: Boston, MA Registered: Sep 2011 posted 08-23-2012 04:20 PM                     People are probably under the impression that glasses-free 3D would be upcharge-free 3D.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-23-2012 04:54 PM                        John - you are probably right. But, it'll be another huge outlay for equipment and/or screen, so that's not gonna happen. quote: Manny Knowles just a means of keeping 3D around a little longer instead of letting it fade away (one more time). It's still doing anywhere from 35 to 60% of the grosses for 3D movies, depending on the movie. Been that way for a while. Those are people who really do like 3-D, as impossible as it might seem to haters. I do wish Pixar and Dreamworks would back off of doing ALL animation in 3D though.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-23-2012 09:37 PM                     I won't buy into those statistics right off the bat. There are ways to manipulate that data. If 60% of all shows are in 3D then it stands to reason that 60% of the gross could be from 3D. Also, the percentage of 3D in primetime versus off-peak will be a factor. I suspect the box office revenue for a given movie would be the same if the entire release was 2D. I can think of three films that I insisted on seeing in 3D -- (a) "Avatar"; (b) "Cave of Forgotten Dreams"; and (c) the re-release of "Titanic." Even so, I don't think people are going to say "too bad it's not in 3D or I would've gone to see it." Serious question: Has anyone been losing business because your showing was in 2D and not 3D? I honestly don't know the answer, so let's see what our findings are...  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 08-24-2012 05:44 AM                     When there is local competition showing it in 3D - for sure. Yes, we get the occasional email 'please show this in 2D not 3D, as I hate 3D'. But these few people are not representative. Just as we cinema guys are not representative. The biggest money is made with younger people, and they usually consider 3D more entertaining, hip, whatever. It certainly is a good idea to have 3D AND 2D screenings. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 08-24-2012 05:58 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley It's still doing anywhere from 35 to 60% of the grosses for 3D movies Don't forget that the ONLY way to see a 3D movie in IMAX or the theatre chain knock off's is to see it in 3D. I've never seen a 2D option in those auditoriums. That skews the percentages. If (in an alternate universe) all theatres had duplicate clone auditoiums and showed 2D and 3D versions at the same exact time and neither sold out, the 3D show would probably get maybe 20% of the audience. I know it is anecdotal but NOBODY that I know prefers to see movies in 3D. Except Avatar (which wasn't really a good movie and closing one eye half the time didn't make any real difference to the experience).  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-24-2012 05:59 AM                     I have a client that has seen their revenues go UP by NOT offering 3D. That is, their two nearest competitors have 3D and will offer 3D of the title while they only offer it in 2D...the net result was their revenues on that title are actually higher than their competitors and they can track it when a title is offered in 3D...they always get a boost now. People will drive further to not pay the premium and deal with the dislike of 3D. While I think there will be titles where 3D can be a benefit...by and large, it is a distraction that costs money and compromises too many factors of the show.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-24-2012 07:44 AM                     The glasses don't bother me, either. As Mike said, a lenticular system probably won't look as good as what we have now (however good that is). I suspect it might be like those 3-D pictures in childrens' books and postcards, with the ridged lenticular "lens" plastic over the image. The 3-D is there, but isn't quite the same. The best quality 3-D is seen in a dedicated viewer, where each eye is directly shown its respective view, without any possibility of crosstalk, and where the viewing lenses can accurately provide the proper focal length. Of course, that's not practical in a theater setting, but every time a system goes farther away from that "perfect" method, the quality becomes compromised. Right now, I feel we have the best tradeoff. It is likely to improve, but I'm not holding my breath that this that next step.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-24-2012 11:25 AM                        quote: Manny Knowles Has anyone been losing business because your showing was in 2D and not 3D? When we played Lion King 3D, we had two nights of 2D shows. We had one whole family come in on one of those nights, and when they found out it was in 2D, they left. The kids were heartbroken. The dad (who made the decision) was being kind of stupid -- the kids would have loved seeing it on the big screen either way. So -- not much, but it does happen.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-24-2012 01:02 PM                     I still think it is different when we're talking about a novelty re-release like that (or, in my case, "Titanic").  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.