Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-29-2011 09:51 AM

This doesn't surprise me a bit. It is more likely happening with Sony first because Sony is doing so very badly in terms of profit and loss. It was predicted by market analysts earlier this year that Sony Pictures would be one of ten major companies that will be either shut down or sold off within two years. Sears was also among those 10 companies... It'll be interesting to see if they keep it or not.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-29-2011 12:43 PM

I'm hoping Sears can last, otherwise my mother will have to get a job selling appliances somewhere else.

I wouldn't be surprised about any major movie studio getting into very deep financial trouble in the future.

The economy is still in the toilet, but the majors (along with exhibitors) are price gouging the public on the theatrical experience -with 3D and Fake IMAX being big parts of that process. So many people are having to cut back in the face of rising prices for food, utilities, various types of insurance (health, home, etc.). The extreme drought that hit Texas, Oklahoma and other southern states forced many cattle farmers to sell off much of their herds. Look for beef prices to spike badly soon.

The video rental industry has all but committed financial suicide in race to the bottom pricing and economics. But they're giving the general public an extremely cheap alternative to going to the movies. You don't even have to leave the house to get a rental. Just download it. The image/sound quality isn't great, but most people don't care. Combine this with the fact Hollywood now prefers to remake old ideas rather than take any chances on new (unproven) story ideas. Why spend more for a superior viewing experience when the movie itself is a "been there, done that" kind of thing?

| IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: California, U.S.A.
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 09-29-2011 03:58 PM

Enough of us are digital now due to them cramming 3D down our throats that they can finally tip the industry that direction.
They no longer need to pay for the glasses themselves to try and "work with" exhibitors in the "upgrade" process.
In the outset or the 35mm genocide they would have had much stronger resistance if there weren't as many concessions made to exhibs.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 09-29-2011 04:33 PM

..for 3D is the only gimmick out there to keep the people coming in - digital itself didn't do it...

It just made it easier to operate on the cinema end of the spectrum.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-29-2011 09:05 PM

What was always unfair, and NATO nevers said peep about it...if Real-D and MasterImage get free 50-cent glasses for each show (or pick whatever the studios are paying in bulk)...that is what each exhibitor that had Dolby or XpanD should have received, off the top, per ticket sale before the split...fair is fair. 50-cents a patron is 50-cents a patron, regardless of whose 3D system is being used. If they played fair, Dolby's 3D would be even MORE profitable (and it already is the 2nd most but it would scream into the lead if all forms of 3D were treated equally by the studios).

All the studios would have to do to end this "who pays" business is to use the model above...declare a "house-nut" for the cost of the glasses and take the amount off the top of the up-charge. The it wouldn't cost the studios anything or the exhibitors...it would cost the patron...who is allegedly getting some form of superior experience.

One could also sell the glasses on the concession stand so if you have your own, you need not repurchase...again, putting the financial burden/savings on the patron.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 09-30-2011 12:37 AM

True about figuring that into the "house nut" - be tons easier along with being a figure that is more easier to work out.

quote: Steve Guttag
One could also sell the glasses on the concession stand so if you have your own, you need not repurchase...again, putting the financial burden/savings on the patron.

And I'm sure other cinema owners/employees as I have seen and dealt with in "Real D" venues, patrons coming back with the glasses they keep, figuring that they don't have to pay for the upcharge since they believe that the upcharge was for the actual purchase of the glasses.

But, they are told that the upcharge is for the usage of the system and the glasses are free where the patron still has to pay for the upcharge no matter if they get new glasses or not.

Can you feel the "heat' from the patron(s) through the boxoffice glass when this above reply is given to them....

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 09-30-2011 08:06 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Cool, if "Sony-Baloney" does that, we can drop the twin lens setup and go single lens for true, 4k experiences.

This has nothing to do with Sony projectors. We're talking about the studio.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
I don't get it - what's with the blue recycle bins that RealD supplied at each venue for the patrons to toss the glasses in..in which the glasses fall into a shipping box that is sealed, then shipped via UPS to wherever so they can be cleaned and repackaged?

Real D glasses are disposable. The point of these recycle bins is just that -- to recycle them, rather than sending them off to a landfill.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 09-30-2011 09:55 AM

so what's the problem in actually keeping (not recycling) the glasses and just bringing them back for the next 3D movie?

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-30-2011 11:47 AM

Nothing, except that a theatre with a 3D surcharge will still charge the same even if the customer brings his own glasses. (Maybe this policy should change, although that could lead to confusion with various sytems that use incompatible glasses.)

Note that this only works for the systems that use disposable glasses. The Dolby glasses are semi-expensive (something like $15-20/pair...Steve G. has posted about this before) and are kept by the theatre for cleaning and re-use. In theory, you could order your own pair of Dolby glasses (will cinema equipment dealers sell these in quantities of one?), but you would probably still be hounded by theatre employees to return them after the screening.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-30-2011 12:53 PM

I thought RealD was supposed to be working on some sort of non-disposable 3D glasses concept with a leading sunglasses company to sell to theater customers. If not, they'll have to start on the effort very soon.

Dolby could also do this. Make Dolby 3D compatible glasses that look stylish, come in a variety of sizes and look different enough from the standard theater glasses that staffers won't be asking for them at the end of the show.

At any rate, customers aren't going to be very pleased if they have to pay for their glasses and pay another fee for 3D up-charge/licensing fees. The bloom will be coming off that rose.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-30-2011 01:43 PM

Scott is right and no doubt if the glasses have to be bought Real-D will come up with a cheap way out of the issue. This may well indeed fall back on Master Image as well... I seriously doubt that Master Image is paying for the glasses out of their coffer. They have to be getting some kickback from the studios for that service. I'm not for or against any certain 3-D system even though some here "think" I am. They ALL have advantages and disadvantages. If lamp cost is your worry then the Real-D X-L will certainly rescue you there and cut your required lamp wattage literally in half. I do not consider the Standard Z screen an alternative I'd even bring up any longer.

Dolby is best overall IMHO if higher lamp costs and added labor to recycle glasses do not bother you. It is certainly the best for smaller single screen houses that may need to be able to utilize every single seat they have, it's 3-D looks the same from every point in the theater. It is the least light efficient and will drive your normal lamp costs even higher.

Master Image is a dust and grime sucker and the polarizing wheel only lasts so long in reality... a year at best. It eats up half the light but gives a slightly better 3-D effect than Real-D.

All of the above systems can be purchased, some can be leased.... it's your own call there.

In reality I think we will be seeing the number of 3-D releases falling off after next summer. It takes quite a while to drain the tank on green lighted 3-D productions that are already shooting in 3-D. Heck, it's alrady at a point now that the studios will allow 2-D showings at the same location and screen after you've run your 7PM show n 3-D.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 09-30-2011 04:34 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
so what's the problem in actually keeping (not recycling) the glasses and just bringing them back for the next 3D movie?

Called: "Sanitation Issues". RealD glasses are a single use only product.

Whereas the cinemas with Dolby 3D has a professional, restaurant quality Hobart dishwasher in the kitchen to wash and sanitize the returned glasses.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-30-2011 05:06 PM

If Dolby were to do sell-able glasses, then collapsible ear pieces would be the key to the difference between Theatre/Patron versions (in addition to color/style).

Most of my Real-D systems remain Z-screen...it looks much better than XLs. I also don't have light issues. Only the larger systems get the XL to avoid getting into projectors requiring above 4K lamps. The NEC target with the reasonably fine grid is a good target for setting up the XL...and if you know the colors, it also lets you see the "other" ratios too. It will also show off just how imperfect the XL system is...particularly on curved screens.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-02-2011 12:38 AM

quote: Frank Cox
If you've lost 10 glasses in a year, that's what -- pushing $3000?

More like about $120.

On a completely unrelated note -- we're at Disney World this week and we managed to see the new updated "Star Tours" four times. It looked and sounded terrific and it uses Dolby's 3-D system and glasses. If those lenses can stand up to the kind of traffic Disney guests dish out, they should do fine in the average movie house!

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-02-2011 10:08 AM

Agreed, Mike. We were there a week ago and that was my first Dolby 3D experience and I thought it was FANTASTIC. I saw no ghosting or temporal problems at all. I assume they're using two projectors to achieve the latter, and that the Dolby process itself takes care of the former. But it did look great. We also rode it four times. I did get a pair of glasses that had a scratched lens once. I showed it to one of the cast members there and asked if I could get another one and she said "Sure!" and threw my pair in the trash.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.