Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine

This is topic 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000343

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-02-2009, 09:18 PM:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1888264,00.html

The last paragraph in the article:

quote:
The business model behind the new 3-D push is simple enough: the movies cost only a little more to make than flat films, while the ticket price is about 25% higher in 3-D theaters. (I sprang $15 to see My Bloody Valentine in Manhattan.) As a rabid movie watcher, I'm not immune to the pleasures 3-D can bring to certain genres. It's an advance in visual appeal similar to, but not greater than, Blu-ray. Which is to say, a difference in degree, not in kind. And with Blu-ray, you don't need the damn glasses.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-04-2009, 06:02 PM:

This is old news about 2 weeks old now. I can mail you my issue if you like... Its in 3-D and the glasses are included with the Time Magazine.... Just don't wash these glasses for re-use!

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-04-2009, 08:36 PM:

The article is dumb because they totally miss the point that it's not the PRODUCTION that raises the ticket price, but the PROJECTION.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-05-2009, 12:12 AM:

Well, the production does cost more, too. Especially for animation...

--jhawk

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 04-05-2009, 12:21 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
Well, the production does cost more, too. Especially for animation...

Why would animation cost more? Don't they just render a second image?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-05-2009, 02:47 AM:

Computer-generated animation needs entirely different algorithms to generate three-dimentional imagery and needs to model a three-dimensional world, not just a two-dimensional viewport into a 3D world.

And they are more computationally intensive.

Apparently Rhino the Hamster from Bolt required a substantial amount of work to deal with his rolling ball.

--jhawk

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 04-05-2009, 04:13 AM:

3-d is reasonably trivial for computer-generated movies.
Extra work is needed with the lighting model to ensure that objects are lit correctly from multiple directions, but it is just a matter of generating a second image from a slightly different camera position (in the computer). More storage is needed, but not much else.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-05-2009, 08:26 AM:

Given that video can look well enough . . . .and 3D looks measurably worse. . . . . can we afford to reduce our "acceptability" enough to accept 3D as "good enough?" Louis

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-05-2009, 08:47 AM:

I think it's a lot more complicated than that, Peter. I did sit through a presentation from one of the software guys at Walt Disney Animation Studios on the work that went into Bolt, but I can only pull stuff from memory...

But I want to say a 15% penalty on rendering time?

Louis: I don't think we'll know until we see a big-budget live action 3D flick. Perhaps Cameron's Avatar will tell us.

--jhawk

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-05-2009, 09:45 AM:

It's going to get harder to truly measure because I think that by the time avatar hits they're going to have enough screens (3000+) to go 3D exclusively. I'm sure all the major chains will have at least 1 3D screen at every location by Avatar. Our tiny little chain has 1 screen at 4 of our 6 locations for Monsters. We only had 1 location capable for Hannah Montana last year. Added one more for Bolt. Then one in time for Bloody Valentine and now the fourth in time for monsters (just in time installed 2 days before opening).

They won't be able to run a typical 10,000 print major release but limiting showtimes and auditorium capacity should help with legs if they go 3D only.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 09:47 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
Well, the production does cost more, too. Especially for animation.

I guess I need to send you the article too! It only added 12% to the production cost of Monsters vs. Aliens.

quote: Louis Bornwasser
and 3D looks measurably worse

How would you know... Have you seen ALL the 3-D systems available? Let me answer that for you... NO! Its possible to get 7fl on a 39 ft wide screen with the old light engine and Master Image. That can go up between 20% to 25% with the newer projectors that can do full frame triple flash. The studios are going to be raising the 3-D light levels shortly to the 6 to 7 fl region. No worse then many Omnimax theaters light level. Funny... I was sitting next to a guy that had brought his kids to see MOnsters yesterday at a screen in Dolby 3-D... And the guy out of the blue said WOW! when the paddle ball part came on screen at the beginning(stolen right from House Of Wax!). His kids oohed, ahhed, and laughed too. Oh and I forgot to mention the house was also sold out right down to the front row and it's the second week of the movie... Now you don't see that too often these days!

Contrary to what some here "think"(I believe they flat out just don't know) 3-D does work and even at the dim light levels of Dolby it works quite well. Its sells tickets in the areas I service and our customers are installing more of them.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2009, 11:24 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Its possible to get 7fl on a 39 ft wide screen with the old light engine and Master Image.

Well, at one point on the screen...less than half that for the rest with over 75% of the image below 3fL. You only get 20-degrees of off-axis light that is above 1/2 the peak level on a silver screen.

As for the studios increasing the light levels...possibly but they would have to be uniform about it as they have no desire to have multiple inventory (they are already trying to phase out ghost busting)...the problem with increasing the light levels is that the black levels also increase so it has to be a planned increase...not just increasing the light levels and saying....WOW that looks so much better. The only thing you have going for you in a Silver screen situation is that the light uniformity is so abysmal that most of the screen is still below the 3-5 fL spec so as to not show it off.

As for sell outs in the 2nd week...yeah...not that uncommon in 2D. Depends on the venue and the market but mostly the movie, not the technology.

Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-05-2009, 12:23 PM:

The better business model is the movie sells the ticket not the technology
If technology is the selling point then one will constantly upgrading and changing the technology at great cost to keep it fresh and saleable

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-05-2009, 01:00 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Contrary to what some here "think"(I believe they flat out just don't know) 3-D does work and even at the dim light levels of Dolby it works quite well. Its sells tickets in the areas I service and our customers are installing more of them.

Sure, it "works", but it's not even on par with the '80s material when done properly.

39 foot screen 3D? Try sitting in the front row and tell me you don't get eye strain, Mark. Bigger is not better with 3D. Your eyes must be 9 inches apart or something for you to converge two images so close.

A dim image will cause eyestrain, in 2D or 3D. That's why your mom told you not to read in the dark.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2009, 01:35 PM:

dim light does not in, and of itself, cause eye strain...or at least it hasn't with me.

I'm not advocating low light levels on screen though...it makes everything look like an overcast day.

Steve

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-05-2009, 05:05 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
dim light does not in, and of itself, cause eye strain...or at least it hasn't with me.

Studies show that trying to focus in low-light situations can cause eye strain. Again, the book in the dark situation. Not everyone does, because eyesight is subjective, obviously.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2009, 06:11 PM:

There are a lot of people that have worked in "dark rooms" and never complained of eye strain.

Then again, I do not wear sun glasses either, never have. I tend to allow my irises and eyes do their thing. Furthermore, I think that showing movies, for me has helped my eyesight a great deal. While in school, I would be reading books/computer close up and then switch to focusing a screen at over 80-feet away (I worked large theatres mostly and the throws were typically from 70-feet to 120-feet) really exercised my eyes (lenses and iris) and is the prime reason that at 44, I still don't need glasses to drive legally...despite everyone in my family needing them in grade school. I also did a lot of dark room work, once upon a time...again it tends to get one's iris a work out.

I'm wondering if the "eye strain" is nothing more than the effect of one working out those muscles they have not used enought....kinda like doing exercise for the first time after a period...those muscles you used tend to ache afterwards. If you do it more often, you will build up those muscles and not have the aches.

However, I can only speak for myself on eye strain...dark/bright/near/far...none of it causes me particular eye strain. As I age, I notice the recovery time going from near to far (or vice-versa) is longer than in my yute. I'm most defintely near-sighted and always have been...I've just been able to keep it at bay thus far.

As for studies...I dunno...I've found you can get a study to show most anything you want it to show.

I've also noticed that those that NEED lots of light to read/work CAN'T work in the low light...it doesn't seem like a benefit to me. I, on the other hand, can work in a much wider range of light levels comfortably.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 07:21 PM:

First off all people I know that did darkrrom work relied far more on feel of where thngs were than by the usual 7 watt equivelent safelight... or in color Darkroom work there is no safelight at all... so dim light in a dark room is of little factor at all. In fact even when working with B&W no light in the Darkrrom is best.

quote: Steve Guttag
I tend to allow my irises and eyes do their thing.

I used to feel the same way until I moved out west, never wore sun glasses or any eye protection at all. While your own iris's may compensate for change in light levels the UV and IR is very definately gonna get you no matter what. I have worn UV(polarizing) type eye protection when I drive for years now. It not only makes driving much safer but your eyes are not going to suffer from IR and UV in the long haul... they very definately will without any protection... just ask any good opthamologist.

Ha... Just wait till you turn 50!!!

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-05-2009, 07:37 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
by the time avatar hits they're going to have enough screens (3000+) to go 3D exclusively.

I don't think that'll ever happen. Don't most complexes have 2 or possibly three 3-D houses, tops? Avatar could blow its wad in 2 weeks, but if it has any kind of legs they'll want to keep it playing longer, but if the next 3D blockbuster is waiting in the wings, they will want to give that the biggest houses. So a 2-D version will be made available, I'd bet.

Besides, even if there are 3,000 screens, that is a far cry from the 5 or 6 thousand that serve up a huge blockbuster these days.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-05-2009, 07:39 PM:

That's when the parts start to fall off. Louis

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2009, 08:25 PM:

Oddly enough...30 was the big year for me in terms of aging. 40, not so much. Perhaps I noticed it most since at 25, I was at my peak in terms of stamina and most everything else.

As to darkroom work...I could see very easily by safelight. And I mean a single safelight in a relatively large space.

I did okay doing color in the dark too...but as Mark said...that is all by feel or familiarity. I mostly used a changing bag to handle the negatives/slide film into the reels (metal or plastic...once upon a time, metal was required). My darkroom timer (Heathkit PT-1500) had foot pedals which made activating the timer in the dark easy (never hit the focus pedal by mistake). There was also a lockout on the enlarger to hit the timer with the color filters out by mistake.

I'm pleased to say that all of my B/W and Color darkroom work seems to be holding up to this day. At least the stuff I've seen on a daily basis.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 08:44 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
That's when the parts start to fall off. Louis

Ha, thats really a good one Louis but you are 100% correct!!! Steve just hasn't gotten there has he...? Speaking of Stamina I was out hiking around some old mines up in the mountains about 7800 feet above Eureka, Utaw today. That altitude plus climbing almost straight up the mine dumps will test anyone's stamina really well!!

Mark

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-05-2009, 10:05 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
There are a lot of people that have worked in "dark rooms" and never complained of eye strain.

Difference is that most people who work in dark rooms aren't reading or in this case, focusing on a deciphering a particular image. Your brain "knows" where everything is from seeing a room in normal light before you dim the lights.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 10:42 PM:

Also--- When focusing the enlarger projected image with the aid of a grain magnifier the image you're looking at is actually quite bright... even the dark areas of a negative appear quite bright with the magnifier.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2009, 06:55 AM:

Not really true...you do a bunch of critical looking in the dark in a darkroom...including when developing the image.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-06-2009, 07:51 AM:

Yes, one does do critical looking at composing an image you're going to expose but that image at least from my enlarger(Omega D-5) is pretty darn bright even at f-4. Paper should always be fully developed and a timer or stop watch should also be used here as well. Full development creates the proper contrast range a given paper is capable of providing. Under developed prints are not always stable over the long haul nor will they exhibit the proper contrast range. Sure one can pull out an over exposed print early from the soups in attempt to save it but that's not the correct method of printing/processing paper.

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-06-2009, 11:23 AM:

According to boxofficemojo Monsters vs. Aliens fell 43% in week 2 on 3D screens vs 45% on 2D screens. It doesn't look like 3D is creating any kind of incredible legs. All it's doing is giving incremental revenue to the studio (since the theater's share of it is just going to pay for the 3D equipment).

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-06-2009, 11:55 AM:

Steve, granted, and you've probably got very good eyesight to boot. But everyone else's eyes are not as good as yours.

From the Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/eyestrain/DS01084/DSECTION=causes

quote:
Common causes of eyestrain include:

* Extended use of a computer or video monitor
* Reading for extended periods
* Exposure to bright light or glare
* Straining to see in very dim light

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2009, 01:18 PM:

Jack,

I think the key there is "straining" to see in very dim light...that is a self-defining definition. Strain caused by straining. I don't "strain"...my eyes just adapt and everything looks normal. Mind you...as the light levels lower, color perception goes down...my eyes are still bound by that.

Mark...as to development times...I've always judged my B&W stuff during development...it is one of the many controls as well as other techniques I did during development to create a look I was going for.

I was not a lab in the sense that I'm WAS trying to put my technique into the final outcome...not merely processing the image. I also experimented a lot to get different looks...who didn't in their darkroom?

As for equipment...I used a Bessler 23CII w/dual-dichro color head. I processed B&W negative, C-41 color negative, E-6 reversal, Cibachrome paper (slide to print), Ilford paper/film (B&W) and yes Kodak paper/film in B&W or color. I did all of the color papers in drums...I could handle up to 16 x 20

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-06-2009, 06:52 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I think the key there is "straining" to see in very dim light...that is a self-defining definition. Strain caused by straining. I don't "strain"...my eyes just adapt and everything looks normal. Mind you...as the light levels lower, color perception goes down...my eyes are still bound by that.

Exactly. What I might strain to see in a dim room you may not. That's why it's subjective. But that's why an acceptable light level should be mandatory if 3D is to survive this time around.

Of course, with the overhead price on 3D in a recession, less people are going to go in the first place.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2009, 09:32 PM:

Letter to the editor in this week's Entertainment Weekly:

Could someone please let 3-D movies die a quiet death, just like they did in the 1950s? A good movie is a good movie and doesn't need gizmos, especially astigmatism-inducing glasses. If I want 3-D, I'll take out my old ViewMaster disks. Oh wait, they stopped making those, didn't they?

And another one:
Jeffrey Katzenberg is right that "to bring peole back to the movie theaters, we've got to do something exceptional." But instead of gimmicks like the third coming of 3-D, how about some solid scripts and good stories?"

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-06-2009, 09:38 PM:

And then there is Roger Ebert
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/REVIEWS/903259989

quote:
"Monsters vs. Aliens" is possibly the most commercial title of the year. How can you resist such a premise, especially if it's in 3-D animation? Very readily, in my case. I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 04-07-2009, 01:06 AM:

Agree 100% with Roger Ebert.

If "Monsters and Aliens" is "this year's most commercial film" heaven help us!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-07-2009, 02:56 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
But instead of gimmicks like the third coming of 3-D, how about some solid scripts and good stories?"

That's what great about TCM where one can see these movies that contains these two attributes.

I think Hollyrock is aware of the gizmometry of 3D. Why they are only releasing a handful - one each month for the next two years.

(going on the eyes/vision thing: I have to wear dark, or amber shades outside due to the extreme brightness and not wanting cataracts when I get older. My father and mother both suffered cataracts in their advanced ages since, being farmers and working outside in the bright sun - the sun finally took the toll on their eyes..)

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-07-2009, 06:01 AM:

Roger Ebert has been notoriously anti 3D for decades. Reading anything by him against 3D is a "dog bites man" story. Nothing new.

And for those people whining that the current 3D fad should soon fade; every title can be seen in 2D, so why bitch about something they never need bother with? So those of us who want to see 3D no longer have it?

"Good scripts and good stories" play just as well on DVD at home, not as likely to put asses in the seats as 3D may. Perhaps it isn't the hoped-for panacea, but for John and myself, the last two movies we went out to see were 3D. It's the only thing getting us to the cinema at this point. We can wait to watch the other stuff at home.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could dig out some old Photoplay magazines to find similar letters to the editor about sound and color.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-07-2009, 08:33 AM:

Let us not forget that roger had major problems too including if memory serves me a stroke... Who knows how things look to him any longer...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2009, 09:48 AM:

quote:
If "Monsters and Aliens" is "this year's most commercial film" heaven help us!

To be fair, he didn't say it's the most commercial FILM, he said the most commercial TITLE. Meaning it's a title with a great hook.

Mark - Ebert's medical problems have mostly to do with his voice. His eyesight and writing ability are apparently unaffected. He's just not a fan of 3-D.

quote: Hillary Charles
every title can be seen in 2D, so why bitch about something they never need bother with?

That's not always true. What if a single-screen theatre goes digital? I'm still not sure what to do about the 3-D dilemma. On the one hand I want to give the customers what they want; on the other hand I don't like the idea of pissing off the people who don't like 3-D, especially when I am one of them! Maybe running a film in 3-D in week 1, and 2-D in week 2, is the answer.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-07-2009, 11:53 AM:

Mike: A single screen theatre can't afford to add 3D.

I can't believe it. . . . I finally found something I agree with Ebert on. . . . . hell must be frrezing over! Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-07-2009, 12:48 PM:

Mike,

I don't think that's the answer nor do I think they'd let you do that... I think the best answer is to run a balanced schedule of shows... meaning by not playing all the 3-D stuff that happens by if you equip for 3-D...

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-07-2009, 02:29 PM:

I've had some exhibitors talk about doing some 2D shows mixed with 3D. That is, say the first show on Sunday will be 2D or something like that.

Steve

Posted by Todd Leach (Member # 883) on 04-07-2009, 06:10 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Mike: A single screen theatre can't afford to add 3D.

I'm a single screen theatre operator and I have 3D and can afford it. Right now there is no question for me, run the 3D, most everyone else is running 2D. I've had no complaints about having 3D only shows.