|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 3-D Still Going Strong?
|
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-15-2015 10:47 PM
While "good 3D" is largely subjective, I think everyone can agree that it should be exactly as bright as a normal 2D picture, and have NO crosstalk or ghosting which happens with some equipment (my Sharp 3D TV has a bit of that, and I'm hoping the next one I get will be much better than that- and noticed that I said that I hope it improves, not "this proves that 3D sucks and they should just give up on it". It was a bit of a miracle that I was able to get a 3D TV at all with my current financial situation, and I'm just glad to have it right now.) One person I heard wanting to see a 3D movie in 2D said "The picture is ALWAYS darker in 3D." That should not be the case (and his assumption COULD have been wrong for that particular movie and theater!)
3D movies I've really enjoyed for their 3D effects, off the top of my head, include the Step Up movies, Avatar, Piranha, House of Wax, Inferno (somewhat-obscure 50s movie available via import), Man of Steel, Life of Pi and most of the IMAX movies. Hotel Transylvania still stands out as the one that really didn't do much for me- I've heard Clash of the Titans (which was post-converted) is pretty awful and turned a lot of people off to 3D- I have the Blu-Ray but haven't watched it yet.
Steve- so you are saying that the theaters didn't pay anything for the RealD equipment, and instead RealD is getting extra money for each ticket? If that's the case, it's one of those things that makes sense in the short-term but not long-term. And if they only take 50 cents per ticket, why is the upcharge not 50 cents but $3.50 at most places? And again, why are customers forced to see COMMERCIALS in 3D after forking over that extra dough? If it really does cost extra to show 3D, charging the regular price with a nice message saying "These sponsors have made it possible for you to see this movie in breath-taking 3D!" would have given me a much more favorable reaction.
As for "living in a fantasy world not based in reality," I would have said that to anybody who seriously thought that customers would happily pay that much extra for every 3D movie. I immediately thought that was insane when the theaters here first started showing 3D movies, but seeing how unpredictable the public is with such things I wasn't sure if there would be any backlash or not- from what you're saying now, apparently there has been. I initially wanted to go to EVERY 3D movie that first came out just to show my support, but the price turned me off very quickly. One of the first 3D movies to show here was "My Bloody Valentine", a cheap horror remake. I checked the ticket prices for that and immediately said no way! I later bought that movie on Blu-Ray for $20 (which some might also say is too much, but having been collecting movies since the days of $40 laserdiscs I think most current Blu-Rays are a steal). I felt $20 was a fair price to pay to have my own copy of that movie to watch whenever I want, but it really IS a bad movie and I would have felt ripped off paying upwards of $10 to see it once.
I just checked the current ticket prices for the Spongebob movie- ONE ticket for tonight would be $13.65! That is absolutely insane (unless it's on a Cinerama-sized screen), and I expect that if I do go ahead and see it tonight there will be a LOT of empty seats- there usually are already for a late showing of a kids' movie! If I wait long enough, I'll be able to buy the 3D Blu-Ray for just a few bucks more than that. You can tell me "That's what it costs us" but as a customer I don't care! All I care about is what I'M spending, and that's simply too much! I'd even dare to say that anybody who thinks that families will go ahead and pay that price several times for everyone, AND overpay at the snack bar AND happily endure insulting ads before the show is living in a fantasy world! (And again, when they DON'T do that, you're still running the show to empty seats! And if you're alternating 3D and 2D showings on the same screen, during those 2D showings your precious 3D equipment is sitting there doing NOTHING!)
One thing I learned working at theaters for 10 years is that there ARE rabid fans of the new technology you put out there, but people who DON'T like it are going to stand out more. When we played Jurassic Park in DTS, the most memorable customer reactions were from people who complained that it was too loud! Thank goodness we weren't charging them extra for the new sound equipment or they might've really let us have it!
3D came along in the 1950s because theaters were losing customers to TV. They weren't charging people extra for 3D because they were just happy that they wanted to patronize their theaters at all! Now that 3D has come back and lasted longer than ever, it's been motivated more by squeezing even more money out of customers' pockets, and that's just a shame. You're saying now that it's finally blowing back up in the faces of those responsible- if that prevents movies being converted to 3D just for the sake of money then that might be a good thing, but if 3D ever goes away completely because the industry would rather do that than give up the increased prices, then that certainly won't be.
There's an on-going thread on Home Theater Forum called "How the Studios, Theatre Owners, and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D" where people with NO financial interest in the business have expressed their frustrations at the mishandling of 3D both at the theaters and the home market. I still don't get this forum's rules about posting links but a Google search for that thread title should bring it right up if you're interested in checking that out.
But one more thing- I wear regular glasses, and wearing 3D glasses over them have NEVER been an issue for me- even after an entire day in my living room watching 3D movies. I think those who complain about that are just looking for another reason not to like 3D.
In reply to what Mike just said, who posted at the same time as I did:
Some people DO have misconceptions about 3D. I gave the old red-and-blue format a chance, and it looks TERRIBLE. I've seen some good 3D effects with it but the way it messes up the color just KILLS it for me and I suspect many others. Very few theatrical movies have actually used that format, but for some people that's the first thing that comes to their minds.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Having to wear the glasses, and having to try to convince their kids to wear them.
I don't have kids, but when I was younger I thought the glasses were "neat" and you'd think today's kids would think so too. But I was also raised to be RESPECTFUL at a movie theater, meaning not talking or making any noise whatsoever, and many of today's parents don't seem to do that.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason 3-D hasn't caught on at home is simple -- the picture is too small.
I have a 60-inch screen at home- it's the biggest I've ever had and hope to get an even bigger one eventually. One of my friends who's even more cynical than I am thought that 3D at home wouldn't catch on because it forces people to actually sit and pay attention to what they're watching. He's right about that- I read one comment saying "The one thing I don't like about 3D (at home) is that it's harder for me to check my phone and stuff." You shouldn't be doing that anyways while you're watching a movie! Home 3D has gotten a lot of bad press, one reason why I've been going out of my way to buy all the 3D Blu-Rays I can as a way of showing my support for it. But I do think the electronics industry expected it to catch on much too soon. Lots of people had just gotten new HDTVs when 3D came out, and most weren't about to go ahead and buy a new TV right after that just to get 3D. They need to give it a few more YEARS to grow- after all, color TV took about a decade to really take off.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-16-2015 03:01 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest majority of people I've talked to don't necessarily object to the price -- it is the GLASSES they don't like. Having to wear the glasses, and having to try to convince their kids to wear them. People who don't already wear glasses don't like the feel of "one size fits all" glasses, and people who DO wear glasses don't like wearing the 3-D glasses over their regular ones.
I guess glasses will be here to stay for a while. All those glassless stereoscopic solutions I've seen up until now really don't cut it. The modern reincarnation of 3D might not be as nauseating and headache inducing as the 3D of yesteryear, but all current glassless implementations are.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason 3-D hasn't caught on at home is simple -- the picture is too small. (There's also the cost of extra glasses to consider.) Unless you're Claude who is a huge 3-D fan, I don't see how you can enjoy a 3-D picture when it's just a 50" image on the other side of the living room. I like to sit in about row 4 or 5 at the theatre so the image just about fills the glasses. I think if more people sat that close they would enjoy 3-D more.
I've been making the same argument for years. Although, screens at home are getting bigger and bigger, which unfortunately will further increase the competition with the exhibition industry.
quote: Jesse Skeen
One of my friends who's even more cynical than I am thought that 3D at home wouldn't catch on because it forces people to actually sit and pay attention to what they're watching. He's right about that- I read one comment saying "The one thing I don't like about 3D (at home) is that it's harder for me to check my phone and stuff."
An interesting argument and one that hasn't seen much exposure. But I guess you do have a point there. People tend to do all kinds of stuff in front of their TV and the "3D" interferes with this lazy couch-potato-multitasking.
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I watch only in total darkness and the only thing that stand out is the gorgeous image on my set, People have complained about cross talk (ghosting) on their set when they watch a 3D blu ray but I never see that on my Samsung set even with a movie like DIAL M FOR MURDER that so many people complained about the problem.
Since you're using active, shutter glasses, crosstalk really should not be an issue. If it is, there is something wrong with the timing configuration, causing both images to slightly overlap.
Professional cinema gear uses a technique called "ghost busting", to decrease the contrast difference between left and right images in problematic regions. Last time I checked, this "ghost busting" was a much less defined field for retail 3D products, although ghost busting should really only be necessary for 3D solutions using passive 3D glasses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-16-2015 07:10 AM
quote: Jesse Skeen
Steve- so you are saying that the theaters didn't pay anything for the RealD equipment, and instead RealD is getting extra money for each ticket? If that's the case, it's one of those things that makes sense in the short-term but not long-term. And if they only take 50 cents per ticket, why is the upcharge not 50 cents but $3.50 at most places?
Jesse, you only read what you want to read with your preconceived notions and bias. The exhibitor pays the 50-cents. However, the exhibitor doesn't get 100% of the box...for ease of math, lets say they get 50% (true to within 10% in most cases)...so in order to break even with RealD, they need to charge an extra dollar to get the 50-cents. But lets look at the lamp costs on running 3D, again...if you move from merely a 2KW lamp to a 3KW lamp to run 3D...your operating costs just DOUBLED. This has to do with not just the lamp cost but lamp life. As wattage goes up, life drops geometrically above 2KW. Yet the exhibitor is not charging double...it absolutely less profitable to run 3D. If you have Dolby 3D (a zero crosstalk type that can use a low-gain screen that will yield a more even image), then your cost of showing the movie is going to be more like 4-times to light the same screen.
It would be downright dumb to charge the same price...you'd be more profitable to run it in 2D otherwise. At least as a normal business mode of operation.
As for the RealD business model...yes, it is the most expensive to exhibitors in the long-run because they have a permanent partner and yes, every exhibitor we service paid little to zero for the RealD equipment. MasterImage has the most up-front costs for equipment (though they have come up with plans to make that easier)...but they have the lowest ongoing costs in the states due to free glasses. If glasses are not free, then Dolby starts to win out since it is mostly a matter of keeping the glasses from walking away. Your idea of owning one's glasses would help in that too.
As for the cost of seeing a movie. You have to judge prices by the times. A movie ticket price has typically cost a minimum wage employee (the typical movie going age wage earner) about 1.5-2-hours throughout time. We still are there. Yeah, it seems high but compare the minimum wage, such as it is, to what it was when ticket prices were $5.00 or $3.50 in those same markets. It is about buying power. And remember, the exhibitor is typically paying their employees those increased in minimum wages. You ask ANY exhibitor how they are doing on the profit side of things...they are not exactly rolling in dough. Furthermore, 3D is an ADDED expense to the whole digital cinema conversion...it has to pay for itself.
When you compare the cost of putting in 3D in the 50s compared to today...the technology was pretty trivial...polarized filters and a "silver screen." The biggest technology there was syncing the two projectors (anywhere from selsyn motors to a mechanical gear belt strapped to the two projector motors. It double the cost of carbons, naturally. And look how fast it came and went.
Image quality for 3D always takes a hit...it costs a LOT more to light 3D to the same levels as 2D. It is inherently a lossy system. And using a gain screen to make up the difference is a farce. Yeah, you can get the center up by putting in a 2+ gain screen but at the expense of all other parts of the screen. And if that was true for 3D, then it still applies to 2D so again, you've still raised 3D costs by 2-4-10 times. RealD's XL system was designed around really a low-cost way for working within the 4.5fL "standard"...but it is a lie. It presumes you are good with 14fL on a silver screen. Yeah, you are at 14fL in the CENTER...but on the sides/corners are you are down to 1fL...it doesn't meet standards at all. So with 3D, you are down to 4.5fL in the center and less than 1 in the corners. 3D ruins even 2D shows by putting in substandard screens with the lie that they somehow magically get you more light...but in fact they get you LESS light.
No matter how you cut it Jesse, 3D cost more to run and it costs a lot more to run properly (good light levels, color, focus, crosstalk)...and to thing one shouldn't have to pay more for a more expensive performance is just not realistic. Furthermore, it makes poor business sense unless you think you'll really "steal" the market share by being the cheap 3D theatre in a competitive market on a movie title that people want to see in 3D over 2D. In the last 10 years, you will have less than 5 examples where that would hold true.
Try running a theatre and report back to us the financial realities of supporting all 3D all of the time due it being the proper way to show/see a movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-16-2015 10:54 AM
I just saw JUPITER ASCENDING last night with a few friends. No one to a person complained about the glasses and most of these theatre techies that were in our crowd are particularly 3D aficionados. I didn't hear a single complaint about the glasses. Not to mention, no one has EVER explained to me why wearing 3D glasses is so objectionable given that people wear sunglasses for much long lengths of time and yet nary do you ever hear them complain, "Oh I don't like going to the beach because I have to wear those damn sunglasses."
I wear prescription glasses and both the RealD glasses and the IMAX glasses fit right over them; 60 seconds after I put them on, I forget they are even there. I just don't understand the perception that the glasses are annoying, but given that, I agree that there are people who do find them objectionable....I'm just saying, I have never heard a rational explanation as to the reason for the complaints. Irrational or not, that doesn't mean the perception has no impact on the public's acceptance (or not) of 3D. The one thing that may be a kind of subconscious reason people say they don't like the glasses not the physical thing itself, but simply because when they put them on, there is an immediate and perceptible drop in brightness and that may translate to a strong negative. A less bright image on the screen isn't a good thing and is perceived as the "fault" of the glasses. In reality, it's not the wearing of them but the effect of wearing them that they don't like. Difference with sunglasses of course is that when they put on sunglasses, they WANT it darker.
The theatre was nearly full to capacity last night. When our show was over, I checked out the two SPONGEBOB rooms -- one playing 3D, the other playing 2D. Both were filled about the same, maybe 80 percent capacity. And REGAL did play the 3D in the larger room, so that has to tell me they are not loosing business on the 3D presentation. For the JUPITER ASCENDING, they only ran that in 3D. That said, they will ALWAYS lose my business to IMAX if a title I want to see is in 3D. I missed JUPITER ASCENDING in IMAX so I had to see that is dull, underlit REAL.Dull 3D....with a hot spot. That SURELY is a reason why people, whether consciously or unconsciously, feel negative about 3D. Add the surcharge and it's certainly an uphill battle. Laser light source will change the 3D landscape substantially.
Home 3D has never taken off because of inept bungling on the part of BOTH the studios and the manufacturers. The set makers because they did practically very little marketing of the technology -- literally NONE. I saw more marketing for LaserDiscs by Pioneer years ago than I have ever seen for 3D television sets. I remember going to the TV section at Target -- they literally had only one 3DTV on display, but the "sales person" had to walk up and down the line of sets and I had to point out which one said 3DTV on it. He didn't have working glass nor was it hooked up to a 3D source, so he couldn't even demonstrate the 3D. Bestbuy did a have a room that had a number of working 3D sets, but no passive versions and only one working active glasses, and their guy knew next to zero about the technology.
Then it was the studios -- there were precious few titles released on 3D BluRay in the first launch years. I still have a hard time locating 3D titles of releases where the 2D version is readily available of the same title. And of course there seems to be a "surcharge" for 3D BluRays just like in the theatre, which is absurd.
Regardless of the other negative factors that might be theorized, I think there is universal agreement, no matter how the business model works for the theatre, the public perception is a strong negative when it comes to the surcharge. It may not be a valid objection, from an actual operational cost rational, but it's a negative just the same. That said, the surcharge added business model gets skewed when you consider, in order to capture those patrons who would opt to just forgo a movie, especially with the family because of the premium price, if the theatre tries to capture them by playing it in 2D as well, like REGAL did with the SPONGEBOB movie, that maybe more expensive than eating the additional cost that Steve enumerates in running 3D vs. 2D.
I still haven't set up my projection 3D, which will consist of dual projectors and it will be using the optical interference principal (Dolby's technology), so that means a white screen, no hotspot and passive glasses. It's the Omega system (actually it's better than Dolby's because Dolby uses a 3 band filter for each eye and the Omega system uses 5 band filters so the color is more balanced and more accurate for each eye -- no color correction in the projectors necessary). Anyway, until then, we watch 3D on a 50in LG passive and we just sit a bit closer. I don't agree that the 3D effect is ineffective farther back, it's till quite perceptible but it just don't have the same impact as sitting where the image fills a major part of your vision. But that is a matter of personal preference, just like where people sit in the theatre.
Given the number of 3D films that IMAX runs --nearly back to back, 3D certainly can't be considered "dead." The number of 3D films seems to be leveling off to it's natural place in the exhibition lexicon, just like when Fox insisted that EVERY release would be in Scope, now there Scope and flat, some years one more than the other, but no one even thinks about it any more and there certainly isn't a question of whether or not the Scope as a format is "dead." The format is chosen simply depending on the filmmaker's vision; 3D will be that kind of presentation format -- some filmmakers will feel their film warrants it, other will not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-16-2015 12:01 PM
quote: Jesse Skeen
I don't have kids, but when I was younger I thought the glasses were "neat" and you'd think today's kids would think so too.
I can tell you that every single kid that comes to a 3-D movie immediately wants to grab the glasses and put them on, even if Mom tells them to wait till they get inside. Kids have a short attention span though; after the novelty wears off, they start taking the glasses off and throwing them around, just like they do with everything else.
There are quite a few people who will say they don't like 3-D and don't really give a reason, they just don't like it. It's like peas -- I don't like them, but I can't really tell you why. I just don't.
People who say that 3-D is "dead" are not looking at the numbers. It's been around far longer this time than any other time in history, and the technology keeps improving. It's still accountable for something like 40% of the boxoffice on many films, which is pretty good for a "dead" format.
It hasn't "taken over" like some pundits used to think it would, but it's just another feature that's available to film makers. The trick for them is only using it when it makes sense. Animated moviemakers should consider that, too -- not every cartoon should be in 3-D.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-16-2015 05:29 PM
quote: Jesse Skeen
I have to think that somebody, somewhere is saving a good amount of money lately also, from not having to print and ship film prints anymore and theaters not having to pay anybody to run them. And let's not kid ourselves- THAT'S the main reason the industry switched to digital, nothing to do with quality.
Jessie, you are completely right on this issue. But it's not the theatres. Theatres were the ones who had to spend all the money to convert to digital projection, while studios are the ones who realize all the savings by not having to produce and handle all those thousands of prints for each movie.
To help level the playing field, studio pay a virtual print fee to some theatres - basically returning some of the money not spend on film prints to the theatre to offset the cost of buying digital equipment. But these VPFs only last a certain number of years, then theatres are on their own to pay for upgrades and replacements.
While there is some savings to the theatre by not having to handle film, this is relatively minor. In a typical 6-8 screen theatre, there might be 2-3 hours a week to handle build-up and break-down, and then maybe an hour and a half per day to thread projectors (assuming no full-time projectionist). That adds up to less than a half-time employee each week; not really a significant savings to the theatre - especially when projection staff had other duties and didn't require extra people.
As for your notion about not playing a 3D movie at all if you can not play it in 3D as you like, this is just stupid from a business point of view. Unless you have so much money that you can afford to run a theatre as a passion project without regard to the bottom line, you can't afford to do anything to turn away business. Whether it's not playing the movie at all, or showing it exclusively in 3D, you're not going to sell a lot of tickets if you are doing something other than what the public wants. If you're in a competitive market, then you would likely be driving customers to your competitor. If you're in a closed market, they you would just be making it easier for people to stay home.
You made a point earlier about the cost being the same to run a show for one person or for a full house. While this may be basically accurate, you also have to sell enough tickets to cover expenses. If you have $10,000 in monthly expenses, but only sell $7,500 in tickets and snacks, then you have a $2,500 gap you have to cover out of your pocket. While the typical theatre business cycle kind of requires you bank money during the summer and holidays to cover shortfalls in the fall and spring, you can't stay in business if you come up short every month.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic