Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So is the Technicolor 3-D any good??

This is topic So is the Technicolor 3-D any good?? 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=010448

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-03-2010, 07:26 PM:

Surprising silence on this topic since it debuted. Is it good, does it suck or what? What do customers think?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-03-2010, 07:32 PM:

A super set up will yield results equal to or better than any "silver screen" digital 3d. Likewise an inadequate set up will yield less than spectacular results. We are at the mercy of the installed equipment. The certification program is supposed to reduce the lower quality results.

The process itself is superb. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-03-2010, 10:23 PM:

I agree with Louis completely, it's excellent quality. However when I do site surveys I will insist that a customer bring his gear up to spec before I will even send in the site survey. This usually involves the lampenhousen more than any other piece of gear. Some projectors require some work to get them steady enough, and some turret machines don't even qualify... this process requires VERY steady projectors that meet or exceed SMPTE specs because the frames are small and the magnification is very high. This is also a polarized system requiring a silver screen.

The main thing to realize here is that this process is not designed to replace digital. It's meant to be a stop gap and a temporary thing until one can afford to install digital. There's no stopping the advancing number of digital installs in North America these days.

There have been no real complaints that I know of. And thats a good thing!!

Mark

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 05-04-2010, 04:14 AM:

I'm amazed at how low profile T3D has gone so far.
Our location is only running 2 Digital 3D Screens and could certainly use another.
Out of curiosity, i asked our tech if there were any plans for T3D at our theater, and he hadn't even heard of it yet.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 05-04-2010, 07:50 AM:

They don't want anytihing, the fuck, to do with it, because they have just spent a fortune on new classes on how to scrap film equipment and install digital equipment.

Digital is great for the right techs: Plenty of install, removal work, and practically no user-serviceable parts, with the writing on the warranties. The fact that all of these idiot chains are putting in 2K with 4K on the horizon means they will have plenty of scrap-re-install work with the 2K projectors in just a few years' time. . .

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 05-04-2010, 07:51 AM:

They don't want anytihing, the fuck, to do with it, because they have just spent a fortune on new classes on how to scrap film equipment and install digital equipment.

Digital is great for the right techs: Plenty of install, removal work, and practically no user-serviceable parts, with the writing on the warranties.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-04-2010, 08:38 AM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
The fact that all of these idiot chains are putting in 2K with 4K on the horizon means they will have plenty of scrap-re-install work with the 2K projectors in just a few years' time. . .

Switching to 4K only requires a swap of the light engines on the Generation 2 projectors. I suspect many 2K light engines might even be traded back in and also upgraded to 4K DMDs.

Mark

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 05-04-2010, 09:48 AM:

Aren't the current 2K Barcos not upgradeable though, Mark? You'd know better than I as that is not really my area of expertise.

My understanding was that they had to be 4K-ready projectors (Was it Christie that I heard about coming out with 4K-ready 2K models?). Sony already has a 4K out though, although the 3D is disappointingly 2K from what I've read, that's 2K divided by two beamsplitters, so 1.4K each image?

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-04-2010, 11:47 AM:

To answer your question Mike, in my opinion our 35MM install is every bit as good as our digital 3D screen. My opinion comes first hand, and there is nothing wrong with my eyes. FWIW, there are others at my complex who feel the same way.

I know a lot of people were very displeased with the way Titans was converted over. That's too bad, but it should NOT be a knock on the Technicolor process.

That said, I'm sure the studios will disagree with my assessment because we all know what their agenda is. I have heard that Katzenberg will not allow 35MM prints for Shrek. If true, that would be a shame, because it would only give us one house to present it in 3D.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 05-04-2010, 12:30 PM:

Disney WILL NOT allow the T3D to be used with ANY of their movies. This is a fact. There is another company also that won't allow it, but I forgot which one. As far as the quality goes, when set up right it looks super.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-04-2010, 12:44 PM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
Aren't the current 2K Barcos not upgradeable though, Mark? You'd know better than I as that is not really my area of expertise.

All the newer series 2 Barco projectors I believe will be able to go to 4K with an upgrade.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-04-2010, 01:15 PM:

Fox & Disney have (as of yet) not signed an agreement with Tech. We do not know if they will or if there will be a picture-by-picture decision. In other words, no one knows.

Remember Tech3D has only been out a few weeks and already has an impressive number of installs and a large number of technicians trained. I might add; far more than digital had at the end of the first year.

Who can blame them for waiting to see what the situation is? Louis

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 05-04-2010, 01:22 PM:

I've heard the smaller (0.98") gen 1 Barco's are 4k compatible, but the larger ones (1.2") are not, just rumors though.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-04-2010, 08:45 PM:

First off...ALL (NEC, Barco or Christie) of the Series 2 projectors are potentially 4K upgradable. Their circuit design/controllers...etc all all designed with 4K in mind. This is all in the TI realm.

Now as to what if they are ready, if you believe the TI noise, it will be the 1.2" machines first (I don't know if they have even rumored about the .98"). Depending on the rumor you believe, that could be in 2011 (heard at ShoWest) or 2013 (heard at NAB).

If the chips ever come out, the upgrade is supposed to be relatively minor with little more than the imagers themselves being changed. One would send the light engine back, get the upgrade and reinstall. I would presume the idea is to get some seed stock and then merely start swapping. There is also the fact that not every screen will get 4K, if available, simply because you get progressively diminished returns as one gets to the smaller screens/auditoriums.

My personal opinion, if this happens is to merely put the latest and greatest into the big theatre and moved the older system down to a smaller theatre with in the complex. As such, no money is wasted as I'm sure the upgrade will be 10s of thousands...it would be far cheaper to move the older system down.

Steve

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-04-2010, 09:06 PM:

0.98" 4K chips are a rumor. And a very unlikely product reality.

Also, the new 4K chips that are most likely coming out (eventually), are suppossed to be a bit larger than 1.2" (1.38"), so depending on zoom ranges etc, more than likely the lenses would have to be changed as well in a current series 2 1.2" installation. Life expectancy of the 4K chips: 10 years.

But I don't know for sure, as no manufactured has pre-released specs for the future offerings.

Again, upgrading to 4K an existing 2K machine doesn't make real sense, economic or otherwise, and until 4K projectors materialize, never before year's end and even then ... the whole thing is mostly vaporware designed to stop Sony from devouring the market by offering their 4K option at competitive prices against TI's four-times-fewer-pixels current stuff.

Also, a great way to obsolete the market once 4K comes out and sell a second round of projectors to theaters which should have moved to digital straight to 4K since, at least, 4K is a decent substitute for 35mm while 2K is basically THE SAME OR WORSE AS ANY $900 TV EVERYBODY HAS IN THEIR HOUSE TODAY, no matter what they say.

Before you argue, remember there are also higher end TV's in the market with resolution above HD, more contrast, higher color bith depth, faster refresh rates, 2.35 native aspect ratios, etc, etc. So no, DCI 2K is NOT clearly superior to current home techonology. At all. Much less to future home technology a couple years down the road.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-04-2010, 09:52 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
0.98" 4K chips are a rumor. And a very unlikely product reality.

Not as far as NEC is concerned. They gave me a date of about a year after the release of the 1.2" chips. Of course IS 4K really necessary on screens 30 feet and under.... I say nope to that. Also, even Sony admits that with the present trend in 3-D production most 4K stuff has been shelved or the productions changed over to 3-D. So for the time being there is so little 4K material to run that it makes no real difference if it were all in place.

Richard.... Technicolor's goal is 2500 to 3500 3-D screens. Once Disney hears the cash regesters going ka-ching they will also want some of that action.

Mark

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-05-2010, 12:32 AM:

Well, there is always hope. I do think they'll be coming out with a 1.38" 4K DLP chip by early next year. The rest, time will tell.

About Technicolor 3D ... if you don't like it, you can always use Panavision 3D.

Haven't heard of it?

Picture a Dolby 3D clone. There, you have it in digital Panavision 3D.

Now picture a Technicolor 3D clone. Color correct the (over/under) print and replace the polarizing filters in the lens with frequency bandpass ones. There, "Dolby-like" 3-D in film. No silver screen, no ghosting.

quote:
The 3D solution uses a patent pending spectral comb filtering process that creates two spectral bands of light; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each band contains all of the spectral content necessary to generate the sensation of color to the human eye. What is sure to bring some attention to the system is that it can be used with a white screen.

The solution was developed over the course of two-and-a-half-years, in a joint venture between Panavision, Omega Optical, a company based in Brattleboro, Vermont that specializes in high-end optical filters, and Deluxe, the motion picture lab. Panavision and Omega have a longstanding relationship having worked on some of the filters for Panavision’s camera’s and lenses. Of course, Deluxe, brings both technology experience and a deep understanding of movie distribution and exhibition.

We were told that we were one of the first groups to receive a demonstration of the technology. A few studios saw the system earlier in the week.

The 3D system works by placing a special filter in between the light source and the lens. Viewers wear a pair of glasses with special lenses that interpret the spectral content in each of the two bands reaching the eye. With no need for a silver screen the system might be compared to Dolby’s digital 3D solution both operationally and technologically. But actually there are some huge differences. For instance, unlike Dolby’s offering, Panavision’s solution also works with 35mm film using an over/under method.

For film-based 3D each frame of film contains two images stacked on top of one another; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each image is two perforations high and is combined on the screen with a special split lens.

We were first shown digital footage which included a clip from “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” along with the trailer for “Avatar”. The same exact footage was then screened on film. Keeping in mind that some of the film-based systems I’ve seen were demonstrated in less than desirable conditions, Panavision’s produced the most pleasing results. It was almost impossible to tell that it was film and not digital.

To show how bright the 7.5 foot lamberts reaching each eye are a 30 foot white screen was lowered over the top half of a silver screen of the same size to provide a side-by-side comparison while watching some of the film footage. On the sides of the auditorium the white screen appeared to be brighter than the silver one. In the center of each row the silver screen, as expected, was noticeably brighter, though not overly so.

Afterwards some who had seen the demonstration said that the colors were off - a little too yellow. However, this could have been due to color timing or the fact that the content was mastered for 4.5 foot lamberts of light.

For the purposes of the demonstration a Sony 4K digital cinema projector was used, although it was said that they are working to integrate the system with Barco, Christie and NEC projectors as well. As for the glasses, they are reusable, as I mentioned, and it was estimated that they would cost in the $5 to $7 range.

Notice the price of glasses. $5-$7 range. Makes you wonder about Dolby's $100, then $80, then $40, then $27.50 pricing, doesn't it? Before you start talking about layers, curved optics, etc, let me tell you that I know the aprox. manufacturing cost of the glasses and are happy to report Dolby could sell them perfectly fine under $10 and not lose money. If you think you know differently and that indeed the glasses must be sold at around $25 to be profitable ... your choice.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-05-2010, 10:13 AM:

For the record, Dolby's price is now down to $17.00.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 05-05-2010, 10:35 AM:

Julio, where did you find this?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-05-2010, 02:56 PM:

quote: Jake Spell
Julio, where did you find this?

Don't remember, as it was about a month ago, but it's here among other places:

http://3dcinecast.blogspot.com/2010/03/panavision-heads-into-theatres-with.html

quote: Steve Guttag
For the record, Dolby's price is now down to $17.00.

... which perhaps could indicate that, maybe, their $27.50 price until very recently was a bit high? I know there are volume consideration, R&D and licensing costs, etc, etc. But still ...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-05-2010, 04:49 PM:

And the company is entitled to make money. Running profits very low can make ANY company unstable.

Their demand has also gone up so I'm sure their volume has gone up and possibly lowered their price.

Steve

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-06-2010, 01:16 PM:

quick question, does a scratch on the T3D film cause different issues than just a regular scratch (mainly, does it affect the 3d effects)?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-06-2010, 02:07 PM:

quote: Manny Montes
quick question, does a scratch on the T3D film cause different issues than just a regular scratch (mainly, does it affect the 3d effects)?

It doesn't "affect the 3d effects" specifically, but depending on what kind of scratch, its position, shape, size, scene where it happens, etc, that we are talking about, it may look anywhere between "weirder than in 2D" to "really weird".

If the scratch is you usual "thin vertical line", then the line will appear at the screen plane. If the action in the movie (or say a character) is suppossed to be in front of the screen but it has a (long vertical whole-frame) scratch on top of it, the brain will kind of get confused about it a bit (how is the scratch at the screen but it's OVER a person that is IN FRONT of the screen????? it wonders... ). Also, it would just generally look weirder, as the scratch would be in two different parts of this foreground (or distant background) object for each eye.

Long story short: nothing wrong with 3D in film per se, but all the problems film may have (weave, uneven illumination, lamp flicker, focus, scratches, shutters out of adjustment, etc), many of which digital can also have, usually look "weirder" (=worse) in 3D. Sometimes, MUCH weirder and distracting.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 05-06-2010, 02:31 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
(...) About Technicolor 3D ... if you don't like it, you can always use Panavision 3D.

Which I find particularly interesting because - at least in theory - it could break Real D's monopoly on SXRD projectors.

Of course the results remain to be seen, but to silver screen haters like myself, such an alternative for Sony machines would be welcome.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-06-2010, 03:44 PM:

From Technicolor 3D experience, those "wierd film problems" are the responsibility of the certified tech.

In the real world, it looks really really good. Basically no worse than film does anyway. Light is always an issue on anyone's 3D and that does not change. In any event, any problems, if you are actually seeing any, are the responsibility of the certifying technician. He is not supposed to certify if problems are not resolved. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-27-2010, 05:47 PM:

We have been running the Technicolor 3d film system for a week now and we are very pleased with it. Customers are pleased with it. No one has said it was worse than what they have seen elsewhere.

A theater 15 miles from us had the following line in their Shrek 4 3d email newsletter "presented in RealD 3D. Callaway County's ONLY true digital 3D". Nice to know they are thinking of us!

Technicolor says they have 200 active installations going right now with 30 waiting silver screens.

Again, I pleased.......so far.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2010, 06:01 PM:

I have 11 T-3D systems going in. Waiting for screens right now. All systems should be in by the end of June. The system works great!

Mark

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-27-2010, 07:41 PM:

I find Shrek in Tech 3d looks far better than How To Train Your Dragon in Tech 3d!
The 2d trailer of The Last Airbender in Tech 3d looks very murky.

Still wondering how a flat movie will be handled in Tech 3d?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-28-2010, 09:41 AM:

Mike(above) has a 2500 watt Super Lumex and a recently remanufactured XL. More light than required. I am continually amazed at just how good this looks.

You should see the Tech3D test chart run through the scope lens! Best picture I have ever seen. Louis

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-28-2010, 11:57 AM:

Wow...Louis...it is JUST the opposite of what I have seen. The resolution drops by about half on the Tech 3D lens. Putting the regular lenses back in...the image pops (and that is just with Ultra lenses, no plus or super cinelux). Put the Tech lens in...the image just won't focus anymore (either eye).

Next time I get a minute...I plan to quantify this...run 35PA with a special plate to block each eye separately and measure just what this thing resolves. Note too, I was evaluating without any of the zoom adapters since the prime lens just about perfectly fit the screen.

Steve

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-28-2010, 12:26 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The resolution drops by about half on the Tech 3D lens.

So it's almost as bad as DLP 3D? [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-28-2010, 02:29 PM:

I dunno...the client thought it looked pretty good and "better than the digitals he has seen" He hasn't seen my digital 3Ds then [Wink]

Again, I want to quantify the resolution of the lens rather than just say it looks bad.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-28-2010, 03:46 PM:

Well, I can answer some of this. The theoretical resolution available is about the same as 2K Digital 3-D. About 2K of rez. It's about half a film frame or half of a 4K equivelent full film frame. The IM's are done digitally and through a aproprietary process. Of course it's not as sharp as a full frame filum print is and don't expect it to be but it's still better n digital IMHO because the contrast ratio is far superior and the color range is more what filum people expect to see. All in all for the cost it's a great way to stave off digital until some decent VPF deal comes along. It's more or less a no brainer with the 3-D upcharge completely paying for this system.

Steve... I think what you need to be paying attention to is the MTF curve the lens is capable of. That will have far more meaning than what line per mm you can actually see on the RP-40.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-28-2010, 05:14 PM:

Bull...there is no magic one answer to how something looks/sounds...it is the summation of the individual parameters.

In truth...the Tech 3D should have MORE resolution than 2K digital. It should still have about 4K of resolution (closer to 3K though)...the 4K = film was always based on the 1.85 frame. The two tech frames a little less in height but the same width as a 1.85 frame. The limiting factor remains the 2K intermediate.

However, I question the lens' resolving power...or at least the one I've been able to give a real up close look. Then again, I was totally underwhelmed at the Tech 3D demo set up by Technicolor themselves.

That said...if 35PA comes up with only 30 line pairs of resolving power...that is all the system has...(this is an example, I have NOT measured it yet). I suspect that I will find that it is far less than 48 pairs in the best target.

As for color and contrast ratio...it is a Silver screen...the colors are going to be wacked anyway. And contrast ratio is almost meaningless due to narrow viewing angle...sure you can measure it but there is no uniformity.

Having set up for Shrek alone Real D, Tech and Dolby 3D...it isn't even a close call...the Dolby 3D is FAR AND AWAY superior to the others, in terms of 3D quality. It just has a real problem with getting enough light. After color correction, I only had a 6% throughput on Flat (this was a vertical masking theatre so scope did a little better).

Cost wise, there is no comparison, Tech 3D is the cheapest way in and there doesn't seem to be many/any complaints.

Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-29-2010, 12:17 AM:

the only issue i have seen has been when the throw vs image size has required too many different adapters

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-01-2010, 11:34 AM:

quote: Manny Montes
does a scratch on the T3D film cause different issues than just a regular scratch

I haven't had any scratches, but I have a trailer that picked up some dirt specks during the last 5sec or so because the roll came apart during shipping. This produces an effect that makes it look like you're in the middle of a "black snow storm". Small random black dots seem to be floating slightly in front of the screen. It's both weird and fascintating!

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-01-2010, 06:52 PM:

"Special effects" for free!!! Louis

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-28-2010, 08:15 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Cost wise, there is no comparison, Tech 3D is the cheapest way in and there doesn't seem to be many/any complaints.

Allow me to correct you. In the long term is actually more expensive than any of the Digital systems out there.

3 Year lease option fixed price 22500 Euros
Lets say 6 features x 7000 Glasses each x 0.60 Euro (which is not but for figure of argument) 25200 Euros per year for glasses x 3 Years 75600 Euros

75600 Euros Glasses + 22500 Euros Lease 3 Year = 98100 Euros Cost for the first 3 years and then another for then next 3 Years. Digital 3D with ANY system is cheaper in the long run.

Demetris

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 06-28-2010, 08:24 AM:

I don't think you have to pay for the glasses in the US.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-28-2010, 09:20 AM:

That is correct, there are no additional charges for glasses in the USA.

Thus, the cost for Tech 3D is $12K/year, MAX. After the 3-year deal, you are out $36K total. However, like Real-D, the meter is always running but on a yearly basis rather than on a per-ticket.

It will ALWAYS be cheaper than Real-D as most any theatre, at 50-cents/ticket the break even with Real-D is at 24,000 tickets or a mere 65-66 tickets/day (13-17 tickets/show, average). That does not include the investment in the digital equipment...which when you add it all up is going to be close to $75K US. Now that number, per year, will reduce the more years you get out of the projector...estimate 10-years and you are down to about $7,500/year plus the payment to Real-D. So you are only really trying to make up the $4,500 difference for break even, per year. Do the math...if you sell an average of just 3 tickets per show, your cost is even between Tech 3D and Real-D...sell anymore, Tech 3D runs away with it.

Now, with the other two digital 3Ds...your start up costs are higher due to the more expensive apparatus. In the long haul, yes the digital solutions will be cheaper since you no longer need that $12K/year payment to Technicolor...certainly, before the 10-year period is up you will have at least broken even but it will be near that 10-year period before you do break even with Tech 3D in your total cash outlay for getting 3D.

A big factor in this (in the USA, not everywhere else) is that for the silver screen systems, including Tech 3D, Real-D and Master Image, the glasses are provided to the theatre. If that was not the case, the Dolby business model would zoom to the top of the long-term solutions in many markets. If you are in a market where reclaiming glasses is improbable to impractical, then Master Image has the best long-term solution.

But I maintain, Tech-3D is the cheapest out of the chute and will remain the cheapest for nearly a decade, as it currently stands, in the USA. However, like renting vs owning, money sent to Technicolor, is money gone. Money spent on a system like Dolby 3D is money spent on your physical assets and the greater potential for profit at the theatre level.

Steve

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-28-2010, 10:15 AM:

Hmm. I did not know that about the glasses in the US. That means in Europe we are being cheated!! [Eek!]

In any case, Disney has not yet started supporting the system and with only about 200 screens so far, its difficult to say whether it will take off or stay there. Also I found out that in order for Technicolor to consider making prints for a territory with subtitling they require more or less 50 screens in the territory otherwise print costs is not justifiable which I understand the point. T3D is good for the English/US big country market.

Demetris

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-28-2010, 10:23 AM:

My experience is subtitling destroys any 3d effect anyway

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-28-2010, 10:29 AM:

I've never seen a subtitled 3-D print, or digital image. Do they apply it to both eyes?

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-28-2010, 10:30 AM:

Actually the subtitling on Digital prints I've seen so far all are in 3D and appear as if sticking out the screen and not flat on the screen. Yes they do apply it in both eyes.
Demetris

Posted by Catalin Balaceanu (Member # 3712) on 06-28-2010, 11:19 AM:

Demetris, how do you know these things, about the minimum number of screens on subtitled copies? Did you manage to get in touch with an official Europe dealer?
I'm very interested in the T3D system...and in Romania, we show the foreign movies subtitled, except children movies, which are dubbed. Therefore, I'm in the same situation as you are, regarding this.
For some reason, TC3D GmbH and their partners Cine Project, are not that eager on giving too much details. So, I'm still struggling over here.

Catalin

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 06-28-2010, 02:35 PM:

I predict this will be a very short lived solution as I dont see studio's wanting to pay for the extra prints.

Neat, but I bet the life of this system will be short indeed.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 06-28-2010, 07:10 PM:

I do use the the Tech 3d film system and I was very pleased after running Shrek 4 in 3d. I did 70% greater than my 2nd highest grossing movie.

Keep in mind we have no idea what the cost will be after the 3rd year. Technicolor may very well lower the cost if they have decent use of the lens. They may increase the rate as well.

For me, I could possibly run as many as 12 movies in 3d over the first year (based on the current announced 3d releases). That will be significantly cheaper than real 3d as the cost to run 6 movies is the same as running 12.

The cost comparison does not take into account the cost for the digital equipment 3 years from now.

Plus what about exhibitors who do not have access to capital to get the digital equipment today?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-28-2010, 07:51 PM:

FYI: there is NO cost for extra prints. A print is a print is a print. There is a one-time fee for making a film copy of the digital 3D master. After that, no extra for the studio.

In other words, one 3D print replaces one 2D print.

This is not hard; don't make it so. Louis

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-28-2010, 09:11 PM:

Has anyone seen or heard much about the Panavision lens system and what happened to Julio?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-28-2010, 09:30 PM:

quote: Victor Liorentas
and what happened to Julio?

I was in Vegas at Infocomm and in Orlando at the new Harry Potter thing at the Universal theme park [Big Grin]

Back now

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 08-24-2010, 10:51 PM:

I saw Technicolor 3D demonstrated last week and left the screening very impressed. It was sharp, clear and had amazing depth.

Those less-technical folks in the demo. were shocked to see at the end that it was actually film running. They all thought it was a digital system........and some of them were theatre owners!

In my opinion this is an excellent solution for those who want 3D right now, but not the huge digital cash outlay.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 10-18-2010, 09:12 PM:

Did the Panavision 3D 35mm system ever get off the ground?

Don

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 10-27-2010, 07:17 PM:

Apparently so. I just got a call about it from one of my theaters that may be installing it soon. As far as T3D goes, how many foot lamberts do they require?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-21-2010, 05:51 PM:

I must say Megamind is the best Tech 3D i have seen yet!

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-21-2010, 06:35 PM:

I have seen it here in the GTA. Looks terrible to me. RealD always look better IMO

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2010, 03:18 AM:

35mm T3D by its nature is an add-on to old film projectors, so what the final presentation quality is will be significantly determined by whatever existing equipment the split lens is getting shoved into. The "light engine" (digital speak for lamphouse) in the 35mm projector is what it is, good bad or mediocre. I would venture to guess that in most installs, they will be trying to do this 35mm3D on the cheap. Changing out a lamphouse to get better light on the screen is probably not going to be an option for most theatres. No one will be getting a new lamphouse and projector head so they can be assured of brand new out-of-the-box specs for film 3D presentation, whereas digital 3D was added on to near new 2D digtal equipment. After all, the reason the theatre is going 35mm3D is because it's a poor man's answer to digital.

Besides, isn't the acceptable standard now for illumination in digital 3D presentation been adjusted downward to a whopping 3 to 5 foot lamberts? I am assuming that will equally apply to film 3D as well....what's good for the goose, etc.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-22-2010, 10:37 AM:

Yes, that is correct. However. . . there are exceptions. The point of "certification" is to set a minimum standard.

The majority of our T3D installations have 50+ foot lamberts. Some are in excess of 130 ft/lm. (Measuring on scope, of course.)

I would venture to guess that 50 ft/lm and lower is just minimally adequate for 6 ft/lm of T3D.

Boy! You should see what Scope 130 Ft/lm looks like when you use the T3D system! Louis

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-22-2010, 01:26 PM:

quote:
I must say Megamind is the best Tech 3D i have seen yet!

I'll second that opinion, although I must admit I was quite
surprised by the 3D cinematography in "Jackass 3D" which
also looked very good in T-3D. In fact, I'd say that of
all the T-3D features I've run since putting in the system,
MEGAMIND looks best, with JACKASS a surpising close 2nd.

quote: Frank Angel
35mm T3D by its nature is an add-on to old film projectors, so what the final presentation quality is will be significantly determined by whatever existing equipment the split lens is getting shoved into.

Well, yes & no.
The techs who came out to pre-inspect our system were
rather picky about it being "up to specs". I don't think
they'll approve any old system to "shove" the lens into!

I do agree that the final result may look a little better
in some venues than others. But there appear to be
certain minimum standards for both illumination, image
steadiness, even lamphouse and gate temperatures (which
they measured) before they'll approve a site for installation.

I've also found, particularly with my particular installation
which was done on a Century JJ, that it takes a bit of care
and attention to detail when making the change from FLAT to
3D presentations. It's not just a matter of sticking the
lens in. There is some careful alignment that needs to be
done in the relative positions of frame and lens centering,
projector elevation and the auxillary port and screen
masking positions that can greatly affect the final look
on screen. Right now, I'm apparantly the only person at
'my' theater who has a good understanding of this.

On one of my nights off, someone managed to throw things
'out of whack' and a number of refunds had to be given.

I should point out that once I've got things "set" they
will generally remain OK for the run of the 3D engagement,
although I do run the alignment film at least once a day
and definitely when I come in after a day off, since that's
usually when someone manages to change an adjustment
that I've clearly labeled "do not touch".

I can sit down at a piano and make sounds come out,
but that doesn't make me a pianist.

You can show someone how to run a projector,
but that doesn't make them a projectionist.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2010, 04:10 PM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
You can show someone how to run a projector,
but that doesn't make them a projectionist.

Jim -- you mean you don't already have a supply of those cards printed up? I've got my pre-printed supply: "Do No Feakin Touch On Pain Of Loss Of Opposable Thumbs"

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 11-25-2010, 05:20 PM:

Frank,

I upgraded by lamphouse and projector(rebuilt) when I add the Technicolor 3d system.

I was under the impression that the minimal standards needed to run the system were actually set pretty high. Anyone? Louis?

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 11-25-2010, 06:19 PM:

Panavision wants to see 32ft lamberts with no less than 75% on the sides. They said the MINIMUM they would do it would be 27. I'm assuming T3D would be fairly close.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2010, 06:52 PM:

Is this BEFORE the polarizer and glasses? Most 3D specs are now read THROUGH the glasses.

It isn't really hard to hit those high numbers on a silver screen. If you had 16fL on a Matte White...just adding the silver screen kicks you up to 37fL if you are reading before the polarizer and glasses. The reason for the high spec is because the efficiency of polarized 3D...especially circular polarized is so poor. You are down to less than 20%, typically. So even with the 32fL spec...yields a net of something closer to 6fL.

For Dolby 3D...we spec not less than 50fL before the filter/glasses and prefer to have yet more headroom because that is only 10% efficient (at best).

-Steve

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 11-25-2010, 08:22 PM:

These numbers are before any polarizers or filters. No silver screen needed with Panavision3D.