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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » RealD Shares Collapse to All-Time Low, Lose Nearly 21% of Value (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: RealD Shares Collapse to All-Time Low, Lose Nearly 21% of Value Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-02-2011 06:01 AM                        Wow, Steve, that is really shocking; I was almost going to say that it seems that Hollywood has set exhibition backwards in order to push 3D as its savior and has done it without any consideration for the palpable, negative impact it has on image quality. It seems like, except maybe for IMAX Digital 3D, "standard" one projector digital 3D was terribly conceived and, worse, they don't seem to care but just keep pushing ahead, to a cinema experience of possibly LESS quality than home theatre. For most of its history, cinema technicians, researchers, inventors, have mostly labored to make film presentation BETTER. Innovations rarely were designed to DEGRADE presentation, except for that one foray into mediocrity when UA and Technicolor teamed up to diabolically hoist the 3 sprocket frame "long play" print on us in order to save on shipping costs and print-to-platter labor. Luckily that went nowhere. Little did we know they had their sights on a much bigger prize -- getting exhibition to save them money by installing digital. And I may be cynical here, but I truly believe the REAL reason 3D is being pushed so hard, regardless of its impact on screen image quality, is solely to expedite a speed-up of digital conversions; they rushed to 3D with what seems like terribly little regard for quality. At least in the 50s, the second eye was an additive process for both brightness and I would guess at least the perception of better resolution; it certainly didn't REDUCE resolution. The 80s system wasn't nearly as good, but then again, at least both eyes saw the image at the same time and its run was mercifully short. And believe me, this is hard for me to say as this lad simply LOVES 3D; I have seen both dual projector film 3D and dual projector digital IMAX 3D -- both are additive systems they result in a 3D image Done Right (I've yet to see Dolby 3D). Unfortunately, given the pervasive use of ReadD, me thinks we are going to be stuck with this inferior system for a long time. Hell will freeze over before exhibitors install a SECOND projector for high quality 3D presentation.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-02-2011 06:19 AM                     Frank, why does almost every post of yours go on and on about how digital is so awful, yet it is clear you haven't been involved enough to actually know one way or the other? It's time to get with the program buddy. Film will be gone in a couple of years here in the US. Nothing, and I do mean nothing...not even complaining posts here on this forum...will stop it. Cinema digital is NOT inferior or even equal to consumer HD. Anyone that says it is needs to be slapped. Consumer HD looks pretty lousy for the most part (particularly HD tv), although some blu-rays are pretty good. There is MUCH MUCH MUCH more than a friggin' pixel count to affect final quality. I hope I didn't offend. If you want something valid to complain about, how about the content of the movies these days? Also you really need to check out Dolby 3D. It is the best of all the digital 3D formats and if you are a fan of 3D you will be quite amazed. Be sure to turn your head sideways too.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-02-2011 08:41 AM                        Brad, you don't offend -- but, you do misread me sometimes. What I criticize in the post above is specifically RealD THREE DEE, NOT digital. And I base the criticism on how it screws with resolution and brightness. So let's just set the record straight, I have no grip with digital -- haven't for a long time since I have seen how good it can look when it's done well. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Digital is here; it's the way commercial cinema will be shown and when it is done well -- again I point to IMAX digital, both 2D and 3D, which I have said over and OVER, looks quite stunning -- it certainly does the job. But given what I have seen of single projector RealD 3D, I and lots and lots of people say it produces lifeless, dull images, especially in the theatres where it seems they try to get pictures bigger than they should, or the system they installede is undersized. I think even you will admit that there can be digital done wrong just like there's film done wrong. Then comes Steve's eye-opening numbers which tell how resolution takes such a big hit by the RealD system, it is clear to me that Hollywood rushed into 3D without carefully evaluating if they could actually produce a decent 3D image. And what is worse in my mind is that they seem to have rushed into 3D specifically to motivate exhibitors to jump to digital to save THEM money, NOT because it is a particularly good system. And yes, I do want to find a Dolby 3D screen to check that out. It probably won't be too hard for it to look a lot better than RealD 3D.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 08-02-2011 09:34 AM                     quote: Frank Angel Then comes Steve's eye-opening numbers which tell how resolution takes such a big hit by the RealD system Not true. He posted numbers showing a big hit taken by the "Sony/Real-D system". The important part about that resolution drop is the fact that it's a Sony projector. It wouldn't matter who Sony hired to help them get a 3D system working, the resolution drop would still be there because Sony made something incapable of supporting using the whole imager for 3D unlike everyone else. Perhaps Sony's 3D would be better if Dolby had been the firm hired to work out their kluge... it'd still suck big because of Sony. In short: those numbers apply to Sony projectors only.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-02-2011 12:45 PM                     My apologies Frank for the misunderstanding.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-02-2011 02:32 PM                     Digital cinema prints are superior to home HD in a number of specific ways. The color depth in a DCP is greater than anything you can watch via broadcast, cable or Internet download/streaming. Blu-ray has deep color capability, but to the best of my knowledge no movie releases have used it yet. More emphasis is being placed on Blu-ray 3D. Digital cinema prints usually use far less data compression than the HD video encodes for Blu-ray. And Blu-ray typically has far greater video bit-rate bandwidth than any other form of home HD anyone can watch. However, certain studios (Warner Bros.) needlessly squeeze compression ratios to severe levels on their DCPs. One studio's 2 hour movie DCP may weigh well over 200GB while a DCP from Warner may be only 50GB. Of course Warner Bros. maintains the "let compress the hell out of it" policy on other mediums. So the Blu-ray version of a given movie is going to be even more compressed, probably squeezed enough to where the movie and all the extras could fit on a 30GB HD-DVD disc. Did anyone tell WB the HD-DVD format was dead already? Maybe they didn't get the memo. Digital Cinema Prints really consist of a huge number of still image files encoded in JPEG 2000 format. Each movie frame is a separate, discrete, still image. That's not the case for the various video compression formats used for Blu-ray, HDTV broadcast, Internet streaming, etc. They all take various kinds of short cuts to squeeze file sizes smaller and smaller. That includes repeating pieces of certain imagery across multiple frames. There's a number of other technical rules regarding the creation of DCI compliant digital cinema prints, some of which I wonder if Warner Bros. has broken to make their DCP's a lot smaller than those from other studios. For instance there is a rule about a limit of transform blocks allowed. When we see something macro-block all to hell on something heavily compressed it's pretty obvious the video is using a large number of transform tiles. A DCP is supposed to be limited to only 3 transform tiles per frame and the master can have only 1. I don't know if that rule is still valid. Maybe some bean counters came in and talked about how much money would be saved if the standards lightened up a bit.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-02-2011 02:35 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson still image files encoded in JPEG 2000 format. a version of the old MJPEG format... quote: But seriously, a theatre with a screen many times the size of a home screen should not be competing with similar resolution, let alone lower! Are we then, possibly seeing a revamp of what happened in the early 50's when TV came abroad and studios panicked to keep folks coming to the cinemas - where this time, home entertainment has a more stronger influence?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-02-2011 07:09 PM                        quote: Chris Slycord In short: those numbers apply to Sony projectors only. Gotcha. Still, of the RealD 3D presentations I've seen, all but one looked annoyingly dark. Granted, I don't know which of the systems was being used -- the Z-screen or the XL (which is brighter, yes?) No matter, the bottom line was, they were disappointing 3D experiences for me. No need to appologize, Brad, but I thank you anyway.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-03-2011 02:16 PM                     With Sony, it'd be neither for 3D: each lens has their own permanently mounted, passive polarizer.  |  IP: Logged Peter Howard Film Handler Posts: 44 From: Forster, NSW, Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 08-04-2011 12:44 PM                        No wonder their share price is going tits up - in Australia, the major exhibitors and a lot of independents are mass-recycling their glasses. Collect, clean, re-package, re-use. Do you think RealD are getting paid their slice of the pie on those admissions? I think not somehow. Why order new glasses stock, and why remit the full fee back to RealD? RealD, if they had any brains and were intent on recouping the dollars they are owed, would have a huge team of auditors checking those exhibitors with their system installed.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 08-04-2011 02:09 PM                        I had a woman come around about a month ago with a letter from Real D stating that I was to allow her to count the glasses.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-06-2011 05:26 PM                     In the US at least glasses counts are done to ensure exhibitors aren't lying about their inventory. Since the glasses are provided free tot he exhibitor it can be a great cost to RealD. We box up our used glasses and send them to RealD for cleaning repackaging. As far as RealD no getting their cut, unless you are lying to the distributors about how many tickets you are selling-which will get in so much more trouble than just from RealD-RealD knows what you owe them.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 08-06-2011 05:49 PM                        I send mine to the film warehouse, now called Canada Cinema Distribution, formerly Technicolor Cinema, formerly Victoria Film Service, formerly.... One of the guys there told me that they pallet them until they have a truckload and then get them hauled to where-ever they go in the US. My new glasses stock is sent out from the film warehouse, too. I've always wondered what Real D actually does to "recycle" those glasses. The frames are pretty solid but the lenses seem to be rather flimsy. I wonder if they clean the frames but replace the lenses; that would be one way to avoid issues with scratches and the like.  |  IP: Logged Peter Howard Film Handler Posts: 44 From: Forster, NSW, Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 08-07-2011 12:48 AM                        Reading Dustin's above comments, it's apparently a different deal in Australia. In Australia, the exhibitor has to buy the glasses, they cost $1.00 a unit from RealD though I understand you can get generic cheapies out of China for a fraction of what RealD charges, so many exhibitors do just that. The distributors supplied the RealD glasses only for a short window right at the start of 3D (circa 'Bolt') and then stopped supplying them. Hence why I suspect that if exhibitors are buying glasses out of China or India or wherever that are not genuine RealD units and thus RealD wouldn't have a clue how many people are seeing films using their equipment. No doubt the exhibitors are remitting to the distributors correctly, but the exhibitor deals with RealD directly hence the very strong likelihood (imo) that RealD would be getting shortchanged a whole lot by less than scrupulous exhibitors who have been lulled into a sense of security since RealD never check them. Also, in Australia there's no compulsion to send your 'disposable' glasses off to a RealD approved facility to be sanitised. There are many companies doing the job and some exhibitors just do it themselves with alcohol wipes or commercial dishwashing machines. How would RealD keep a track on anything? Until RealD start spedning some money doing rigorous auditing, they'll continue to see revenues fall.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 08-07-2011 12:53 PM                     RealD will see another nice boost with the large Sony sale in the UK. Only few Sonys will go without a RealD system. However, if you look at Disneys list of approved 3D equipment, there are now far more competitors in the market than three years ago. Most of them take no royalty, but simply sell the system. As soon as they get more renowned or some chains reevaluate their RealD contracts... leaving aside the fact that the standard zScreen technically is the inferior system of all the major players in that market. There is still a large market share to loose for RealD with the current percentage of digital screens. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.