Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Solving 3D problems

This is topic Solving 3D problems 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=000495

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-22-2010, 05:25 PM:

I was going to post this in the random videos thread, but it is just too important to not get its own thread in the digital cinema forum.

link

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-22-2010, 05:52 PM:

"It doesn't solve the 30% colour loss"...or the 30% increase in your ticket.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-22-2010, 07:16 PM:

What a douchebag. I have a better idea: go see it in 2D.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-22-2010, 08:37 PM:

I think his point was that some theaters are no longer giving the OPTION of seeing it in 2D.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-23-2010, 05:18 AM:

Hmmh. We tried running the same film in 2 and 3D. Guess which was the one people went to? Even with the 2,5 euroes more they had to pay. So; no more 2D-option unless there's actual demand for it. We're a business, be play what people want to see and will pay for to see.

Plus we're using Xpand, and modifying glasses will not be that easy [Big Grin]

or cheap. Only option, if you really want to see Avatar in 2D is to wear an eyepatch...

Why is this such a big deal for some, I cannot understand. Can anyone explain what the point is? If the ticket price isn't the hold-up, then what on earth is bugging people about 3D..?

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-23-2010, 07:13 AM:

Well it's quit simpel.

Some hate to see Dark 3D images.
Some prefer the 2D version for it's colors, light.
3D films give some people headache.
3D films and litlle kids?
And if you have a big difference between left and right eye the 3D effect is lost any way.

I still believe people need to have the choix between 2 or 3D version.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-23-2010, 07:58 AM:

Elise.

Kris has very valid points, but I would like to add one point of my own, Sensory Overload.

I work at an Arthouse Cinema with a predominatly middle aged to senior citizen age group. On more that one occasion patrons have mentioned when they went to see a 3D film, they felt bombarded with too much image and audio information to really enjoy the show. One man said he felt the technology overrode the story.

Granted, this is a select portion of the moviegoing audience, but these were unsolicited comments and to have 10 similar comments over the course of a weekend seems to indicate that there IS an audience out there that doesn't like, or require, 3D technology in order to enjoy a film.

Admittedly, the type of product we screen has little need for 3D to tell stories, and for certain studio execs to predict that all films will be made in 3D is just plain stupid. There will always be story and dialogue driven movies that are made to appeal to a select arthouse audience and one such film we screened this week. It is a Japanese film subtitled in English called "Departure" and it used the usual storytelling tools to leave an indelible impression on most who saw it- no loud effects, no 3D, no flashy gimmicks (that some consider 3D to be) but just brilliant talent, beautiful music and a wonderful story.

..but if you are an Exhibitor, then the additional revenue raised due to 3D surcharges and the like will always skew bias in favour of the latest "proven money making" technology and rightly so but ultimately, it's patrons through the turnstiles that pays our wages.

In the case of "Departure", I just can't imagine 3D making the film any better.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-23-2010, 08:47 AM:

Remember, not everybody sees "the same thing" you see.

About 10% of the population can't see 3D "right" for technical (medical) reasons, so they much rather go to a 2D show to begin with and save the $$$$.

Some people can see the 3D, but are truly bothered when stuff comes out of the screen to "poke at their eyes", and once again, prefer the 2D version.

Some people like the 3D ok, but they have poor(er) night vision. They also much rather have a choice in 2D, so they can watch it at a much brighter 14/16fl illumination level, instead of the 3.5-5.5fl of the 3D version. At low light levels, the colors are perceived differently and more "muted" (as there is more "black and white" signal from the eye's rod receptors and less from the color-sensitive cones).

Some people like the 3D ok and can see fine the dimmed picture, but they know the 3D show, compared with the 2D, has these drawbacks:
-Usually shown at 1/4 the number of colors (10 bits against 12 bits)
-Usually shown at 1/2 the color resolution (4:2:2 vs 4:4:4)
-Usually shown in time-sequential mode: both eyes never see the same image at the same time -- one eye is always seeing black while the other may be watching the same frame or another frame in the "future" (3D "flicker"). A small group of people are really sensitive to this.
-Sometimes, in older projectors w/o triple-flash, the total screen resolution if reduced once more (1628 x 880 vs 1998x1080 IIRC). Not to mention the additional re-scaling.
-If they are watching a 1.85 movie in Sony 3D, you are also missing 40 lines of information.
-You get some amount of ghosting, which goes from a (negible) 1:1000 in Dolby to as much as 1:20 in RealD if you are sitting (way) off center.
-If you are watching a ghostbusted movie, you are watching reduced contrast artifacts through one eye.
-If you are watching a Dolby 3D movie, you are watching a further reduced color space (not to mention, slightly different for each eye).
-If you are watching a polarized (or XpanD) film, you are also changing the color, as the filters in the glasses are not linear across the whole visible spectrum.
-If you are watching on a Silver Screen, you get the SSC™ (Silver Screen Curse) [Razz]

-Etc, etc.

Most of this, of course, you don't solve by simple making yourself a 2D version of the film through the glasses. But if the eye-poking bothers you, it's a start [Wink]

Don't get too carried-away with Avatar being so grossly preferred in 3D. After all, we've been told by marketing over-and-over that this movie MUST be watched and it MUST be watched in the largest 3D screen you can possibly find or you-are-an-idiot. A lot of people don't want to feel like idiots, so they are forced to the 3D version. A different story is when a kid's film is playing and you try to convince your 5 year old to keep the glasses on for 2 hours.

http://displaydaily.com/2009/05/27/3d-brighter-is-better/

quote:
In the May issue of Large Display Report, we covered a summary of a demonstration run by Inter-Society of Digital Cinema Forum (ISDCF) last March. The demonstration had originally been closed and targeted at studio executives but details leaked out, as could be expected.

This test involved 3D content mastered or re-mastered for showing at different luminance levels. 4.5 Ft. lamberts served as a baseline since that is the specified luminance of 3D content in the theaters. The material was also re-mastered for showing at higher luminance levels. The different versions of the material were then shown at 4.5 6, 10 and 14 Ft. Lamberts. 14 Ft. Lamberts is the normal theatrical luminance for 2D material. Video material in the home is typically shown at still higher levels, from 30 Ft. Lamberts on up.

Why is this important? The way the eye perceives color changes rapidly as a function of light level at these very low luminance levels. 14 Ft. Lamberts was chosen as the standard for 2D cinema for two reasons. First, it is well within the range of film projectors with reasonable sized lamps. Second, and perhaps more importantly, at this low light level, the eye does not normally perceive the flicker produced by the 48 Hz field rate of double-flashed film. While digital cinema is more commonly triple flashed to 72 Hz, eliminating flicker as a problem, it continues to use the 14 Ft. Lambert standard. This allows digital and film theaters to have a similar "look and feel," an important property to the movie industry.

3D digital cinema projectors are very inefficient compared to the same projector showing 2D content, 14% efficiency is a typical value. By using a larger lamp and a high gain screen, the current generation of 3D digital cinema projectors can make about 4.5 Ft. Lamberts on the screen but not 14 Ft. Lamberts. In general, 3D presentations have been in the smaller auditoriums of a multiplex, since it is easier to achieve 4.5 Ft. Lamberts on a small screen than a large screen.

Since human perception of color is different at 4.5 and 14 Ft. Lamberts, studios need to color correct their 3D movies twice: once for 2D screens and once for 3D screens. This is an expensive process and studios would like to eliminate the second color correction.

There are two approaches to doing this. First, they could color correct for some intermediate light level, say 6 or 10 Ft. Lamberts, and use that color correction at both the higher 2D and the lower 3D light levels. The ISDCF demo showed that this might actually be an acceptable path.

The other approach would be to increase the light level on 3D cinema screens to a value closer to the 2D light level. From a studio’s point of view, this would be ideal: only one master would be required and the 3D experience would then match the 2D experience, with the addition of depth.

Theater owners would not like this, however. Current digital cinema projectors strain to achieve 4.5 Ft. Lamberts, especially on larger screens. Lamps must be run at maximum power, leading to high electric bills and short lamp life. High-gain screens help but there is an upper limit to acceptable gain. Going to a high enough gain screen to achieve 14 Ft. Lamberts in 3D means that only the seats on the theater centerline will get an acceptable image. When brighter 3D projectors are available, theater owners want to put them into larger auditoriums with more seats, not make brighter images on the same screens.

Some day, when the studios can deliver a 3D "print" that is also perfectly projectable as a 2D "print", perhaps, it would be possible just to press a button a program a 2D show or two out of a 3D print on a non-busy day to accomodate for people that prefer that version w/o having to book two prints.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-23-2010, 09:07 AM:

Great!

I just have two spare pair of RealD glasses on my desk!!

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-23-2010, 09:35 AM:

All rigt. I see your point(s).

And there I do agree with you Ian, 3D is not for every film, definitely not. I have said it before and will say it again, there are only a limited number of movies that will benefit from the effect and none should be done for the sake of technology alone. IMHO 3D is a tool like any other special effect, and should be used as such.

Wow, Julio, you are definitely bursting with information! Well I do learn new things every day and geesh have I learned here. Just one more; what in the name of every supposed deity is Silver Screen Curse? [Big Grin]

As an exhibitor, we do play what makes money that's for sure. On the other hand, if there is demand, it will be met. We listen to our customers very hard, and act on the feedback. Plus about 15% of the movies we show are 3D at the moment so there's a wide selection for anyone, for any taste. We make a point of getting the arthouse movies (those that make their way to Finland, few as they are) that some other theaters will not show because they know they won't make money. The way I see it they do, because they bring in people who rarely go to he movies, and they bring them to us instead of the competitors, and the more they come... well, customer loyalty.

I guess this does apply to showing 2D versions of popular 3D movies as well. Hmmh. I do need to ask around on this, do a little research... and in the meanwhile try to convince the owner to run a couple of 2D shows of Avatar and see what happens. Mybe if it was a "thing", always showing 2D's of 3D movies every two weeks or so, that it would grow on the audience and get its own? Although in my opinion Avatar is a movie done for 3D, and would lose much in 2.

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-23-2010, 10:27 AM:

Elise,

The curse of the silver screen?
When you have a silver screen in your theater you have what we call a hot spot. On that point you have a lot of light.
The problem is thatthat hotspot is not the same for everybody.
When you are seated in the middle of the theater you will have a hot spot in the middle of the screen. When you are seated on the lower left seat of the theater you have the hot spot in the lower left corner.
With a silver screen you have 30% of good seats. 70% of not so great seats
To talk more in numbers: In Paris there was a test of the CST. Projector NEC 1600 lamp 3000W on a silverscreen Demospec (of 12m with) 14 footlambert at the center of the image and 6.5 at the edges. So you have less then 50% of your light.
And I'm told that the Demospec screen are even the better onces.
On others there should be even more loss of light.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-23-2010, 10:42 AM:

Thanks Kris, again. It's odd to find out just how little one knows of her own trade. Disturbing, even.

Hmmh, our new screen is pearlescent, seller says it doesn't hot spot but other sources say it does. Can I bother you to tell me some more, perhaps? Google is not my friend today it seems... does the size of the theater vs. screen affect the tendency to hot spot or is it the same with every screen?

Can you kick me to a right direction for information?

*thinking I may have to get the light meters out and start climbing*

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-23-2010, 11:37 AM:

Sure:

http://harkness-screens.com/ds/screen_selection_for_digital_projection_pr.pdf

http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/commercial/materials/specialty_fabrics/silver_3d_luminance_chart.pdf

http://harkness-screens.com/ds/3D_screen_surfaces_lft.pdf

Basically, the lower the gain, the less problems with the screen (except you may need a brighter projector). The higher the gain, usually the "worse". Polarized 3D systems (RealD, RealD XL, Master Image, Sony, Dual, Imax, Technicolor, Oculus) all need silver screens which, unfortunately, have very (very) high gain.

XpanD and Dolby don't require them silver. But Dolby is so very light-inneficient, you usually need a high gain screen to make up for it a bit.

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-23-2010, 11:38 AM:

Sorry can't help you with info on your screen.
But for what it's worth a little more info over screens.
You have 'normal' screens' with a gain of 1.6 to 1.8, those don't have the silver screen effect.
After that you have screens with a gain of 2 up to 2.6. The higher the gain the more you have that hot spot effect.

And if you have a light meter (the camera version) just go inside the theater. Take a seat in the middle and messure (there a quit a few nice mirrors on the digital servers for that). If the level of light on the edges is 80% less then the center then you have a 'normal' screen.

But either way, go inside the theater, have a good look at your screen and walk around. If theire is a hotspot you will see it.
And a last stupid thing (I think), normal screens are a matt white, here our silverscreen are gray/silver/aluminium (very light but gray).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-23-2010, 01:38 PM:

Sorry 3D fans, but in one complex with 3D digital and 2D film running Avatar, the 2D film print outsold the 3D...and it had the worse set of showtimes too.

The option should always be offered to the customer. Otherwise a group of the clientele will end up finding other alternatives of entertainment.

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-23-2010, 02:00 PM:

Brad,
this used to be the case where I work up until not so very long.
We proposed a 3D version on a dolby 3D screen (so not a very big theater, 300 seats) and a 2D version on a bigger screen (700 seats). In numbers it was indeed the 2D version that won.

Now it's a bit differend with Avatar. Now we propose 4 screens for Avatar 3D (1500 seats) and still the big screen in 2D (700 seats).
In numbers: Avatar is selling the best in 3D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-23-2010, 02:55 PM:

I have no doubt that it will vary by title and also as people loose fascination with the 3D gimmick.

I know my wife (theatre manager) want to be able to offer some show times in 2D just to satisfy all customers. I know my son really doesn't want to fool with the 3D glasses (he tolerates them a little now but a year ago...not a chance).

Steve

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-24-2010, 02:15 AM:

Thank you Julio, yet again! And Kris, I have a guy with a meter coming in next week so I can satisfy my curiosity.

Seriously? 2D show sold better than 3D? I cannot imagine, but I'll put that down to a huge difference in audiences. I guess we have all the 3D nuts here [Big Grin]

let's see what happens.

Posted by David Stone (Member # 4846) on 01-24-2010, 02:31 AM:

Further to the 3D 2D debate, BVI in Australia informed me that they will supply me Alice in Wonderland 3D, but can't for reasons only they know supply me a 2D drive to play selected sessions in 2D. However they are happy to supply the multi a 3D drive and a 35mm 2D print.
Basically if I screen the film on 35mm I can run 2D, but if I screen it 3D I can't run any 2D sessions...Can anyone explain the logic.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-24-2010, 10:13 AM:

I can only assume the logic behind the decision not to make any digital 2D copies is the utmost faith in the audience preferring 3D whenever possible. Plus the fact that some theaters (like ours) can show the 3D copy in 2D as well. Don't ask. I have no idea why some couldn't. I didn't believe it was actually possible, I thought there'd be color issues or something if you tried to run a 3D dopy just switching the settings on 2D but no, looks just fine... *shrugs* I'd be willing to bet that someone here can explain that one. As for me, I take what works and question later.

I know I'm a rookie here, and one that can't shut up on top of that. Sorry [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2010, 10:23 AM:

I'm certainly no digital cinema expert, but there should be no reason why the 3D and 2D versions cannot coexist in a single copy. There should never be any need for a 2D-only copy. A simple firmware update would fix this on any DCP server.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-24-2010, 10:43 AM:

2D basically means you're only showing one eye. There's no reason I can think of not to have that as a switch in the software.

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-24-2010, 12:19 PM:

Well it's not that simpel.

Yes you can project a 3D film in 2D.
There is a loss in color depth (the coding is in 4.2.2 in stead of 4.4.4).
Will people see it on the screen?

Is there a problem with the movie rights? Yes.
The licence (key, KDM) you were given was for a 3D screening.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-24-2010, 01:29 PM:

Does that make a difference, which format the KDM was for, is it even mentioned anywhere at your end? For example here it's all the same, the license is for that movie, for a certain time window and that's it. Is it really different somewhere? Do distributords not trust theaters to make that call, in which format to show the movie? It's in both their interests to make as much money off it as possible after all. Assuming there is no loss of quality in the showing that the audience can tell, that is.

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-24-2010, 01:57 PM:

No answer to this one. You should ask a distributor what he thinks of this.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-24-2010, 02:20 PM:

The issue has never come up as we have shown the same movies in both formats and sent the numbers directly to the distributors. I don't think this is an issue that has been raised at all in their midst, now that you mentioned it. I see it more than possible that many procedures differ here and your part of the world, and even more in the US. Interesting point, though.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-24-2010, 10:51 PM:

My comments were meant purely from a technical perspective. It should be technically possible to show only one eye. Whether or not it can... I have no idea. Whether or not you're allowed to... I have no idea. And a loss in color - well, you're showing DLP which doesn't have the color range of 35mm, so in a way you already decided that doesn't matter. [Razz]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-25-2010, 03:21 AM:

quote: David Stone
Further to the 3D 2D debate, BVI in Australia informed me that they will supply me Alice in Wonderland 3D, but can't for reasons only they know supply me a 2D drive to play selected sessions in 2D. However they are happy to supply the multi a 3D drive and a 35mm 2D print.
Basically if I screen the film on 35mm I can run 2D, but if I screen it 3D I can't run any 2D sessions...Can anyone explain the logic.

David

I can run a 3D version in 2D at Randwick and have done from time to time. It's really very simple...they're spinning you a line. Call me if you'd like more info.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-26-2010, 06:43 AM:

There seems to be an opinion that 3D is, de facto, a gimmick. It didn't last in its previous incarnations because of the difficulty in the technical end of it and in the way Hollywood used it, i.e., the PFIYE (Poking Fingers In Your Eyeballs) Syndrom. Both those objections are not intrinsic to the process.

Digital 3D today is technically much less dependent on the expertise of people in the booth "getting it right" than the days of left eye/right eye prints, dual projectors and selsyn motors. As for directors not being able to resist throwing stuff at the audience, Cameron has proved that a movie can be made without exagerated 3D "effects," just like after the very early Technicolor films where it was obvious those bunches of multicolored flowers didn't always have to be in every scene just to show off the color process. Directors learned how to use the technology to enhance the story without drawing attention to it.

Yes, it's the story, stupid....and the characters. That's a given, but when you have a good story and interesting, developed characters, the technical tools can be used to enhance the experience and needn't be thrown out just because you have those other elements. Should we throw out color and stereo sound because we have a good story? Do we make movies in black and white because there is a percentage of people who are color blind or make them in mono because there is a percentage of the population who can't perceive stereo?

I think 3D has its place as a very effective tool that a director can now choose to use to tell that story. And now that presenting a 3D image is finally in a stage where it can be done easily and with repeatable accuracy, I don't think it will be the fad like the other incarnations were. And as we go along here, the technology will get even better, resolving the brightness issues and ghosting, etc.

As for the thing about how there are some people who always whine about "the glasses" and how they can't stand them. Give me a break. Do these people not go to the beach and wear sunglassed for hours on end? Why are the 3D glasses any more uncomfortable? It's all perception and bias. The glasses I've gotten at each of the half dozen recent 3D films I have been to were perfectly comfortable and fit perfectly well over my regular glasses, just the way my sunglasses fit perfectly well over my regular glasses. If Hollywood continues to make popular 3D releases, a whole industry will grow up around making personal 3D designer 3D glasses, even clip-ons for regular glasses for those who prefer them. Theatres could even get in on the act and sell them in the lobby.

Will the 3D "fad" continue....did the color fad, or the wide screen fad or the stereo sound fad continue? Look, given the fact that producers will soon have the huge consumer home video market to sell their 3D product, no reason to believe they won't want to repeat the blockbuster "experience" the size of AVATAR; it's guaranteed they are going to want to do it over and over and over again).

And lets face it, Hollywood is not going to stop making 3D if it remains profitable just because a small minority of the general public is bothered by the process. They don't make blockbusters for a small nitch audience. Sure, they want that cash from the 10% who can't enjoy 3D, but they can still get at their pocketbooks thru other markets, like BluRay and the many other avenues thru which they can sell the 2D versions. They are not going to let their marketing decisions be determined by the minority. Just like the music industry didn't stop making CDs because a small minority of people claimed they hated the square wave sound of digital sampling instead of the smooth roundness of the analog wave (I have a friend who insists he can hear the square wave of a violin note on a CD playback). Neither will the movie industry stop making a film like ANATAR in 3D because a handful of people see temporal anomolies or seem to be incapable of wearing sun glasses.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-26-2010, 07:01 PM:

I do agree with Frank in principle. That is why we installed 4 track mag, then optical stereo, then SR, then dts, then DD.

Our dilemma with 3D is on we probably share with other single screen cinemas that have to share with a live theatre group. A silver screen would necessitate building a fly tower that would also then require a sprinkler system, adding about $70,000 to the cost, also considering frames, winches and controls.

The only logical option would be to go dci and Dolby 3D.

Unless some co-payment scheme evolves soon, I would have to live to about 127 for that to pay for it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2010, 08:52 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Yes, it's the story, stupid....and the characters.

Ummm, you must not have seen Avatar.

quote: Frank Angel
Should we throw out color and stereo sound because we have a good story?

Woody Allen movies anyone?

Sorry Frank, just felt like throwing a few [Razz]

at you.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-26-2010, 09:19 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Woody Allen movies anyone?

And when was the last one of them that made any money? [uhoh]

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 01-27-2010, 05:15 AM:

quote:
Sorry 3D fans, but in one complex with 3D digital and 2D film running Avatar, the 2D film print outsold the 3D...and it had the worse set of show times too

well i don't know what to think. personally I would quite happy sitting through Avatar in 2d without a problem, guess i am old school or just old , i do find 3d distracting , one is Watching the effects and missing points the story.

As alot will know with my huge Qube problems i have had to switch between 2d film and 3d, canceling many 3d shows.

My local population just walked right out the door when they found it was in 2d. People from 8 years old to 80 , no way they wanted 2d it has to be in 3d, funny considering 3 months back we never even had 3d at my cinema , now it has to be the normal.

On the opening week we ran 2d and 3d on same day , every 3d session was sellout the one prime time 2d session attracted 10 people.

Phil

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-27-2010, 07:28 PM:

Get the feeling eventually 3D will be like Cinemascope or surround sound, where it is good for 'event' films and certain genres, but not for rom-coms or character-driven 'art' films. You already get films where shooting in scope added nothing to the film or maybe made it less intimate than it should have been, the same will happen with 3D.

Have not personally noticed the brightness issues with 3D, is that because I've seen virtually all of them in near-empty screens sitting in the middle?

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-28-2010, 09:09 AM:

Another disappointing Film-Tech discussion in that it only takes account of the views of operators on three continents. Come on, South America, Asia, Africa and Antarctica, speak up! [Wink]