Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question.

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question.

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 08-12-2010 09:27 PM

David,

If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features.

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 08-12-2010 09:56 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features.

Well, except, as I noted in an earlier message, a promotional benefit.

Again, since I'm replacing the screen at some point, it was musing on my part. There is zero cost -- beyond the screen -- for me to go 3D. I was eyeing the more adult fair, like HP7, etc.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 08-12-2010 10:20 PM

Frank,

Though I do not enjoy the beach, more to the point...I can't stand sunglasses and NEVER wear them. I have fully functional irises and eyelids. The irises are so good that I need scant little light in the dark too. The closest I get to sunglasses is to use a welding mask when working with a lit xenon lamp (adjusting stabilizing magnets and such). I tend to use gloves then too to avoid nasty "sun" burns.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mike Frese
Master Film Handler

Posts: 465
From: Holts Summit, MO
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 08-13-2010 12:18 AM

The best thing about using the Tech 3d system is be able to run 3d movies most of the time and to take advantage of that $12,000 cap. Having multiple screens helps you to take advantage of that. We have run 3 movies in Tech 3d and we are very pleased with our results. It looks like we could be able to run 11 movies in 3d in the first year.

It would be harder to take advantage of that part of the deal with just one screen.

I do agree that Dirt & scratches DO seem to be less noticeable in 3d than normal 35.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-13-2010 01:56 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features

A year ago I would have agreed with that. I'm no huge fan of 3D as any regular forum readers would know -- but there's no doubt that it's bigger this time than it has ever been, and if it does go away, it will surely be back again. When we bought our system I didn't really consider the 3D as a separate item needing to be paid for, but rather as a part of the whole package. That made it easier to swallow. It's just another tool in the toolbox.

There's also the fact that all these kids movies are in 3D. With film, I could often cut the "in 3D!!" out of the trailers but that's not possible with digital, of course. I just didn't feel like it would be any fun promoting our digital system if we didn't get 3D.

I have found that the biggest "challenge" of 3D is educating people about it. Some are disappointed that stuff isn't flying into their face every second. Some think that now EVERY movie will be in 3D. Some think they get to keep the glasses, and so on.

David - I don't have $100,000 dropping into my lap either -- hopefully it will drop in small monthly increments over the next few years! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-13-2010 04:14 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Though I do not enjoy the beach, more to the point...I can't stand sunglasses and NEVER wear them.

That's fine; you are being consistant. It's one thing to say you don't like to wear glasses at all; it's quite another to be one of those millons who wear sunglasses regularly and yet still complain about wearing 3D glasses.

The sunglass industry is huge -- they are selling, according to the Sunglass Association of America, a trade group, more than $1.3 billion in annual sales. Thems a lot of sunglasses! Most of the population are perfectly comfortable wearing them; in fact that same association says the average American buys 3 pairs of sunglasses a year....more if they sit on any of them.

So my question still remains -- why all the freakin whining and saying they hate to go to 3D movies because they have to wear the glasses?

This is one of the most popular Ray-Ban models that people love so much they walk around with them on even on cloudly days and, gee, if they don't look almost identical to the ReadD 3D glasses.

So why are people gladly paying $40 a pop for the one and wearing them happily, while they bitch about wearing the other that allows them to see awesome 3D movies? All I'm saying is, I don't get it.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008

posted 08-13-2010 08:28 PM

quote: Frank Angel
while they bitch about wearing the other that allows them to see awesome 3D movies?

Because there has yet to be an "awesome 3d movie" Just my $.02

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-13-2010 09:12 PM

There's also the perceived notion that sunglasses are a neccessity in any sunny region and that most sunglasses are more comfortable than all the 3D glasses I've used.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-13-2010 09:14 PM

Mike Blakesley has reasoned a single-screen's transition to digital better then ANYONE on this forum. I think he has used good logic and put a lot of thought into this, as he should. Film will not disappear, but it is going to become so niche that it will be just as difficult for him to get it in Forsyth, Montana as much as it will be for me in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Digital is here to stay whether we want it or not. 3D will die soon, but he is absolutely correct in saying it can come back just as quick as it goes because of this technology.

The point I am trying to make is that if you aren't figuring out some way to digitize one, or all of your screens, within five years you are dead in the water. If you are a single screen you HAVE TO do it. Seriously, was there this much debate to go from mono to SR or SR to digital sound back in the 90's (I understand the cost differential - yes), but the answer is a solid "no". We did it because it made sense and the audiences expected it. The same can be said here as well.

One year ago I still believed there was no need to go with a digital picture. Avatar changed all that. Even the most staunch film people I know agreed with me there was no comparison between 35mm and digital 3D. Granted, there may not be another Avatar for 10 - 15 more years, but as a business owner you have to be ready if that is what your customer base expects. For a brief time I, too thought Technicolor 3D might be the answer, but I am afraid it is not. Digital is here - either sink or swim.

Good luck with your new system Mike.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-13-2010 09:26 PM

Alfred Hitchcock was not too crazy about 3-D but Warner Brothers insisted he shoot DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3-D in the fifties and he did. The film is a classic today and I was told the use of 3-D in the movie was very subtle but good. I do not know if the producers of KISS ME KATE wanted 3-D but MGM made sure it was photographed in the format and it too is a classic today both as a film and it's use of 3-D. I did see a lot of 3-D films in the fifties but these two movies played only in 2-D in Honolulu and that is the way I saw them, unfortunately. I saw INFERNO, SANGAREE,,HOUSE OF WAY and many others in 3-D but in addition to the Hitchcock and the MGM musical, I had to see HONDO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON and a few others in 2-D.

If the studio bosses can do the same by pressuring film producers to shoot in 3-D today and have quality movies photographed in native 3-D, I think it will be a big boost for the format. Studios must also realize they cannot fool the public by releasing 2-D films that had been converted to 3-D like the recent CLASH OF THE TITANS and CATS & DOGS. I agree with Bobby Henderson and will refuse to see any 'fake' 3-D films.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 08-13-2010 11:24 PM

Aaron...really, you are using Mono to SR as a case in point? Mono hung around well into the '90s (in fact, some theatres still have it...it is also widely known that Carmike kept mono in some of their digital conversions too!). Mind you, there have been non-mono sound systems for a VERY long time. 4-track mag stereo had a VERY good run from the early '50s till about 1980...Dolby stereo is still kicking after nearly 40 years. Yet mono was indeed pervasive. In fact, the studios were overwhelmingly mono in their pints until about the mid '80s. Even big-ticket high profile movies were mono in the '80s.

Is film dead? No. Will digital replace it? Yes. When? Its anyone's guess. The vast majority (read all) of my conventional DCinema installations have been 3D...only in my screening rooms has digital been used as a 2D source and they have not one but 2 film projectors, typically. If Avatar didn't do what it did in 3D...I suspect my digital installations would be cut in half in the conventional theatres.

As equipment goes, digital remains a poorer financial model than film. The cost of the equipment/year is substantially higher than with film and will remain so into the foreseeable future. The cost of lamps and filters alone are notably higher than belts, oil and conventional cinema lamps. Most have not had to foot the bill of repairing a digital projector yet...what till you see those prices and then compare that to film.

I just got some information on a security update for Christie series 1 projectors that some studios are wanting to force the projector owners...it isn't huge...just a few thousand and there is a rebate of less than a 1/3 of the update cost. I'm real curious as to what studios and where they are requiring this. I can see some exhibitors getting rather POed at having to buy stuff for working equipment just to satisfy someone else's paranoia.

I was just in a theatre complex that had flashing yellow lights (I think 18 of them) because their filters needed changing (Sony)...I hear the bill for them will be staggering.

So the only angle I can see is the reduction of labor that could factor into buying digital (again taking the 3D thing out of the equation...and there is NO real reason that film 3D can satisfy that dwindling demand).

And then wait until these projectors need to be replaced at a far greater rate than any but the most junky film projectors (anyone still running Horizon projectors? If so...how are they doing?)

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-14-2010 07:12 PM

Admittedly the mono to SR example was weak, and I think Steve made some telling points as to why not to digitize. Still, I believe he made my point here:

quote: Steve Guttag
Is film dead? No. Will digital replace it? Yes. When? Its anyone's guess.

I just think it will be sooner than later.

quote: Steve Guttag
And then wait until these projectors need to be replaced at a far greater rate than any but the most junky film projectors

Digital film equipment will become cheap and throw away. Anybody remember what a VCR looked like and cost back in 1980? Well its 1980 right now for this equipment. Thirty years from now digital projectors will be cheap junk that can be thrown away like a $40 DVD player.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-14-2010 07:32 PM

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Digital film equipment will become cheap and throw away. Anybody remember what a VCR looked like and cost back in 1980? Well its 1980 right now for this equipment. Thirty years from now digital projectors will be cheap junk that can be thrown away like a $40 DVD player.

Yes and by that time, the standards will dictate that you use a newer, fancier projector. A big reason that 1.3K projectors are cheap now is because few exhibitors want them since they've been told they must use at least 2K.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-14-2010 08:23 PM

Exactly.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-15-2010 12:24 AM

That's another reason I decided to convert now rather than wait. Admittedly it was a gamble, but I also think that repairs and parts and upgrades will become cheaper as the equipment becomes more ubiquitous.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.