Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital 3D more expensive than conventional 35mm?

This is topic Digital 3D more expensive than conventional 35mm? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008592

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 03-22-2007, 08:11 PM:

A higher-up in our company recently claimed that the Digital 3D versions of "Meet the Robinsons" is vastly more expensive to show than the conventional 2D 35mm version of the movie and this is why theaters that are showing it are charging $2.50 more per ticket.

What makes a 3D digital movie that expensive that it would dwarf the costs of print production and distribution?

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 03-22-2007, 08:53 PM:

Well, 'cause it's, y'know, digital.

Patience, little one. "Robinsons On Ice" will come to your town soon enough, it will cost less, AND it's 3d!

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 03-22-2007, 09:02 PM:

I am in no way involved with purchasing equipment or booking film, so I cannot say for certain, but my guess why it would be so much more expensive is because of the initial cost of the equipment. Not only do you have to pay for a digital projector and server, but you need a Real D system and a silver screen, the latter being very expensive.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-22-2007, 09:03 PM:

Initially the cost will be higer for a few years while the exhibitors try to recover the initial capital required to go with digital 3D. Digital 3D requires several expensive components beyond regular digital cinema including a silver screen.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-22-2007, 09:03 PM:

The digital equipment is vastly more expensive than the film equipment (just read many threads on this)...then there is the 3-D aspect...cost of glasses, upkeep, polarizing unit (if Real-D then you have an initial investment payment to them plus yearly payments or there another deal that involves a percentage of the box).

Since when HASN'T digital projection been vastly more expensive than film projection?

Steve

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 03-22-2007, 09:57 PM:

I was assuming that the theaters in question already had a D cinema setup and that the cost discussion was over and above their "normal" digital cinema presentation.

I guess a silver screen and polarizing unit would be rather expensive. Guess that answers the question! Thanks!

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-22-2007, 10:56 PM:

I was involved in my company's decision to get 2 RealD systems . . . . it is not cheap - the RealD side of the system is not purchased, it's leased/licensed with a large initial capital outlay . . . so far we have not even come close to recouping our costs after Monster House and Nightmare, we are hoping MTR will do well. We were lucky in that we already had digital projectors on all our screens . . . .

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2007, 11:47 AM:

Lack of content is the biggest problem for RealD.

After Meet the Robinsons, it's probably going to be November before most RealD equipped theaters get another show. That's when Beowulf is supposed to open.

Further hurting the system is lack of more grown-up oriented fare in 3D. The bulk of RealD shows thus far has been CGI animated movies for kids. Where are the 3D movies for teens and grown-ups?

The horror movie genre is something that has used 3D well in the past. How come newer horror movies aren't trying to utilize the process? A good number of action movies and even some comedies would play well in 3D.

Of course, the catch is the movie has to actually be shot for 3D using two camera systems for the process to work properly. Screw any of that "we'll expand it to 3D in post" baloney.

Old 3D movies could be revisited in RealD for midnight movie showings. I recall a theater here in Lawton trying to show Friday the 13th: Part III in 3D as a midnight movie attraction and the engagement was a horrible ordeal. The print was in absolutely shitty shape, badly faded and riddled with lots of splices here and there. Every time a splice came through the projector the 3D was thrown out of sync. Using RealD, one could revisit those old 3D movies that were a pain in the ass to try to show and be able to run them without a hitch. The part 3 installment of Friday the 13th looked great in 3D, when I saw it back in 1982. It might be able to look great again, provided Paramount Pictures has good quality originals to draft into RealD.

Anyway, for RealD to gain traction it needs more than just several hundred equipped theaters. The format needs a lot more content. With a regular stream of content the hardware lease and royalty costs might not seem so bad.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-23-2007, 12:02 PM:

It would be nice to see some of the old 3-D films in Real-D. It would have to be selective, though...HOUSE OF WAX would work well, but some of the old stuff like CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER and KISS ME KATE would not find much of an audience.

The n-Wave 3-D package locally played all day for a week, then shifted to a single showing in the early afternoon.

We must remember, though, that most people don't come out to see 3-D, they come out to see an entertaining movie. If the movie sucks, it won't do any business.

If MEET THE ROBINSON'S turns out to be a bad movie, there are going to be lots of empty 3-D theatres out there.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-23-2007, 02:49 PM:

Actually, Real D has a slate of great specialty films for the summer, including two National Geographic documentries, and the U23D concert. At ShoWest, they showed clips from each of them, and they all looked excellent.

National Geographic: ROAR! Lions of the Kalahari (converted from IMAX)
Real D available Spring 2007
National Geographic: Sea Monsters
October 2007
U23D: Summer, date unknown.

If I understand correctly, the National Geographic films should allow for flexible booking, so you could hold off on Lions until after Meet the Robbinsons dies off.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-23-2007, 03:24 PM:

There is potential . . . . only question is how much exhibitors will be required to pay in "alternative content" fees . . . RealD wants their share, AccessIT wants their share, National Geographic wants their share, not much left for exhibitors . . .

I understand the 3D process that generates the Imax 3D scenes can be used for digital projection as well - rumor is that Lucas may re-release all episodes of Star Wars in 3D . . . . could be interesting to see if it happens.