Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

This is topic Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. 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=002184

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-26-2011, 02:15 AM:

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case Closed.

Source: Chicago Sun Times

quote:
I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.

The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.

This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect.

Wikipedia writes: "Murch is widely acknowledged as the person who coined the term Sound Designer, and along with colleagues developed the current standard film sound format, the 5.1 channel array, helping to elevate the art and impact of film sound to a new level. "Apocalypse Now" was the first multi-channel film to be mixed using a computerized mixing board." He won two more Oscars for the editing and sound mixing of "The English Patient."

"He is perhaps the only film editor in history," the Wikipedia entry observes, "to have received Academy nominations for films edited on four different systems:

• "Julia" (1977) using upright Moviola
• "Apocalypse Now" (1979), "Ghost" (1990), and "The Godfather, Part III" (1990) using KEM flatbed
• "The English Patient" (1996) using Avid.
• "Cold Mountain" (2003) using Final Cut Pro on an off-the shelf PowerMac G4.

Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:

Hello Roger,

I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

Salt shaker and landscape Photoshops by Marie Haws.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-26-2011, 09:49 AM:

I just spent a few minutes reading the letters reacting to the piece and while many agree with Murch. A lot of them dismiss 3d negativity as ramblings of the old and out of touch?
I think it is they who are a bit out of touch,perhaps they have never seen or learned to love the magic of great presentations in 2d because they sure don't seem to mind losing it in this digital era!
I hate when someone says you can always see it in 2d!?
I don't think it will be easy to find good 2d if the trend continues to go 2k digital,silver screens and prints spit out at 2k by Deluxe!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2011, 11:04 AM:

Why shouldn't it be easy to find a 2D presentation? Any multiplex owner (if he can spare the space, of course) would be nuts not to book 2D and 3D versions of the same show, since around half or more of the business is done in 2D.

The real foolishness is in the studios who won't allow single screen owners (like me) to book both versions at once, and offer the patrons a choice.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-26-2011, 03:37 PM:

Murch is correct with respect to the shifting focus of the eye, something I remember noticing and complaining about when I first saw 3D in the 1970's. I don't think many people realize it is happening since the average movie goer is looking dead center of the screen, as opposed to those of us who like to see what is happening over on the sides and in the background. If you are focused exactly on what the director wants you to focus on, it's probably not a problem, but if you try to focus on something that has the illusion of depth but no actual focal plane, your eyes are going to hurt.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2011, 08:10 PM:

Murch is also correct in 3D images seeming smaller. I saw an IMAX 3D presentation on a very large screen (real IMAX maybe 10 years or more ago) and everything just seemed so tiny. There was definitely no "big screen experience" to be had like there is when watching 2D on the same screen. It seems that the bigger the screen, the more this is exaggerated. He is correct as well about noticing strobing more easily in 3D. It's not that the image "strobes sooner" in 3D, it strobes the same, it's just much more noticeable.

But what is this "Case closed" nonsense? I'm sure Ebert will bitch about it again like he bitches about everything else.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-26-2011, 09:26 PM:

I prefer to sit as close to the screen as possible when seeing non-IMAX 3D because of the "screen getting smaller" problem. But as far as horizontal motion problems in everything 3D... I'm not sure what he's talking about. After sitting through 35 dual strip 3D movies at Jeff's first festival, I didn't notice ANY motion problems in any of them. Now I see motion problems all over the place in EVERY direction on the alternating eyes stuff, but that's because the eyes aren't in sync. That goes for RealD and the 3D TVs.

quote:
A lot of them dismiss 3d negativity as ramblings of the old and out of touch?
I think it is they who are a bit out of touch,perhaps they have never seen or learned to love the magic of great presentations in 2d because they sure don't seem to mind losing it in this digital era!

That's just silly. I think some of the 3D nay-sayers have a hard time believing that some people actually enjoy seeing things in 3D. For me at least, it has nothing to do with not being able to appreciate a good 2D presentation. I'm the guy who said he was NOT going to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in IMAX because it was going to be in fake 3D, and it would be too distracting. But when WB dropped the 3D, I saw it in IMAX before seeing it anywhere else.

I very much appreciate good 2D, and yes it pisses me off that shooting with and presenting film properly is a dying art - or rather is an art that is being killed off is a better way to say it. And I understand that some people can't train their eyes to look at 3D for various reasons without giving themselves a headache. I get that. But I'm also getting tired of hearing Ebert bitch about it because he's one of those unfortunates who can't enjoy it.

We get it Roger. It gives you a headache. Ever hear the joke:

Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Don't do that."

If 3D sucks that bad for you, then you should probably stop trying to watch it. But try to understand that some of us like it. Including Leonard Maltin, who sat next to me during "Charge At Feather River".

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-26-2011, 11:19 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Murch is also correct in 3D images seeming smaller. I saw an IMAX 3D presentation on a very large screen (real IMAX maybe 10 years or more ago) and everything just seemed so tiny. There was definitely no "big screen experience" to be had like there is when watching 2D on the same screen.

I asked someone if they noticed this as well, but I don't think I was able to explain it properly. In 3D, the size of the objects on the screen are determined by the interocular spacing of the camera lenses. If it's more or less like our own, a face will appear normal size, but of course without the 3D, it might be 20 feet wide on the same screen.

You really do lose the "big screen experience," but the size of the IMAX screen permits them to do away with the "stereo window" because the edges of the frame go mostly unnoticed. And that allows the "space" of the movie to extend closer to the viewer. Not a gimmick like a sword or paddle ball, but the entire environment feels closer, and yes, more "immersive," IMO.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-26-2011, 11:34 PM:

It's not silly,It's a tragedy! We only have a few screens left in my city capable of showing 2D on a matte white screen! Real D and Tech 3D are taking over every screen slowly but surely!
I want everyone to get their 3D and enjoy it but it looks like i need to stay home outside of working at my own single screen because i HATE 2D on a silver screen!
Which part is silly?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2011, 11:40 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
the size of the IMAX screen permits them to do away with the "stereo window" because the edges of the frame go mostly unnoticed. And that allows the "space" of the movie to extend closer to the viewer.

This is definitely true. With IMAX knocking the borders of the image into the peripherals or perhaps even beyond, things to tend to be able to appear closer, even paddle balls! This is when stupid kids reach with their grubby hands and try to grab the objects and I push them over the edge for annoying me with their stupidity. Being a child is no excuse not to know everything I know.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-27-2011, 09:02 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
This is when stupid kids reach with their grubby hands and try to grab the objects and I push them over the edge for annoying me with their stupidity. Being a child is no excuse not to know everything I know.

You are providing a valuable life lesson, Joe. It's unlikely they will ever know everything you do, but they may leave that IMAX just a little bit wiser for you having been there.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2011, 09:42 AM:

I definitely notice the "smallness" effect when watching movies in IMAX-3D. The 3D effect removes the real world aspect of the screen's massive size and visually changes the scale of things in order to establish 3D.

15/70 film-based IMAX has superior capability of making objects extend closer to the viewer. I haven't seen the "in your face" effects work nearly as well in digital 3D shows. If I sit too close to the screen in a digital 3D equipped theater I'll see too many convergence problems. That will give me a headache quick. One of the worst experiences was watching a 3D trailer of Coraline. This knitting needle pokes through fabric toward the viewer's face. The effect worked well for me if I was sitting enough rows back from the screen. If I sat too close the knitting needle split in two and made me feel like I was watching the image cross-eyed.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-27-2011, 10:09 AM:

quote: Hillary Charles
You really do lose the "big screen experience," but the size of the IMAX screen permits them to do away with the "stereo window" because the edges of the frame go mostly unnoticed. And that allows the "space" of the movie to extend closer to the viewer. Not a gimmick like a sword or paddle ball, but the entire environment feels closer, and yes, more "immersive," IMO.

Hi Hillary, I agree, the whole the environment of IMAX does immerse you more than any other cinema. I usually sit 3-4 rows from the screen in most theatres, for IMAX I usually sit about 8 rows away. You notice it if you contrast it by going into a traditional theatre right after an IMAX 3D Experience

Did you happen to see the THOR preview? near the end the rocks come right out at you and in your face.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-27-2011, 10:38 AM:

Tom, I haven't seen the THOR preview yet. The last IMAX 3D I saw was the Hubble movie--I must say those IMAX 3D documentaries have the most impressive Warner Brothers shield logos ever! [Cool]

Was the audience dodging the rocks? [Big Grin]

I also tend to sit a bit closer for a "regular" 3D show in order to fill more of my field of vision. Get too close, and the depth of the 3D will flatten out, and as Bobby says, the offscreen effects will make your eyes go wonky. [Eek!]

And compared to IMAX, there is a sense of peering through a window, rather than being in the environment. It can still be good, if not as immersive, and does make for a very different experience than 2D. Not saying it's better or worse (I like both), just different.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-06-2011, 04:46 AM:

quote: Hillary Charles
Was the audience dodging the rocks?

Saw the Thor preview again, the rocks at the end were once again impressive.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 02-07-2011, 12:50 AM:

But you didnt answer the question Tom, Was anyone dodging the rocks as if they were going to be hit by them?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-07-2011, 04:19 AM:

Sorry Jake, I always sit (or try) sit in front of everyone else. I don't pay attention to others.

The Pirates Of the Caribbean trailer looks very good in 3D

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-07-2011, 07:18 PM:

3D comes around about every 30 years, sticks around untill people relize that it is just a gimic, and not a very good one at that, then it goes away. As the article stated "it doesn't work". It's like the pet rock. When it first came out, everyone had to have one (mass stupidity, I call it). Then people started to relize that they just spent good money for a rock in a box, when they have plenty of rocks in the backyard, and throw out boxes all the time. As the "newness" of 3D wares off, people see that most 3D movies are nothing more than collections of goofy 3D effects. The movie itself sucks, and they turn away. This is happening right now. No one is buying the 3D TVs. No one will even bother to put on the glasses and look at one in the stores. Look for the next installment of 3D in the year 2040. Now can we get back to making GOOD movies again (in 2D)?

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-07-2011, 07:22 PM:

Bruce, no matter what you say, 3D works for me. And just so you know, I NEVER spent any money on pet rocks; but I took in plenty of strays for free. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-08-2011, 01:54 PM:

Bruce, Chicken Little came out six years ago to kick it off this time. That's a loooong time for a "fad". Now I didn't watch the Super Bowl, but I hear that every movie ad was for a movie that was going to be showing in 3D.

I don't think it's going away any time soon.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-08-2011, 04:14 PM:

Bruce is right about 3D.

The "bloom is definately off-the-rose." Just look at the 3D/2D boxoffice.

We are in danger of (permanently) alienating the family audience. This is the audience that feeds into the dating years along with teenage ticket sales. Louis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-08-2011, 10:20 PM:

It's certainly is possible for Hollywood movie studios and electronics companies to kill the market for 3D. They're already taking some really stupid chances and pushing their luck by continuing some nonsensical policies (like those exclusive movie bundles with 3D HDTVs and disc players).

However, I disagree this current round of 3D use is a mere fad. The past periods of 3D use (and its ultimate failure in those periods) does not apply this time. The current period of 3D movie-making is already far more successful than it has ever been previously.

3D still has its critics and skeptics. If movie studios and electronics companies can respond to the constructive criticism about 3D then 3D will be here to stay.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-09-2011, 02:01 AM:

3D is alive and doing well right now. The rose is not off the stem, its in full bloom right now. This doesn't mean that 2D is not alive and functioning, its just if you do not have 3D at your theatre, then you will not do well plsying the 2D version.

3D will eventually die out and then come back again, but right now it is at its peak.

Take a close look. Some big heavyweights have entered the 3D segment.

*Michael Bay
*Jerry Bruckheimer (getting more into it)
*Steven Spielberg (directing 3D movie)
*Martin Scorcese (not 100%)
*Marvel is heavily into

Branding such as: Disney Digital 3D, Dolby 3D, IMAX 3D and RealD are working wonders and spawning investment into making and exhibitiong 3D. The only real "Fail" is Technicolour 3D and that is because it is a filmed based format.

James Cameron and Tim Burton have paved the way. This summer as most big tent-poles are going to be 3D.

Another big factor is digital cinema, this has help "BIG TIME"

All "hail" to IMAX 3D Digital as this is the best way to see a 3D movie IMO and IMAX is doing their best to further theatrical 3D.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-09-2011, 02:36 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I hear that every movie ad was for a movie that was going to be showing in 3D.

Not quite true, but there were definitely a lot of ads for 3D movies.

I think a lot is riding on the movie "Hop" coming out soon. If that does well (and it looks pretty cool in the trailers) then the studios will know that it's still possible for a 2D kids' movie to do well and they'll make more of them. If it tanks, then every kids movie for the forseeable future will be 3D.

The idea that it's going to kill the family audience is off the mark. In cities, people can still choose 3D or 2D performances. The studios just need to get off their high horse and allow single screens to book both versions at once, so everyone can have that choice.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-09-2011, 02:56 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
single screens to book both versions at once, so everyone can have that choice

If you have a single screen Why do you want both?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-09-2011, 06:46 AM:

Tom's info is about 8 m onths out-of-date. Too many pitiful 3D films. Too much money for families.

There is definately a "contineum" on 3D acceptance. Louisville had early3D success. Several local cinemas with Digital 3D capacity still have the Digital equipment but are running 2 35mm film prints and no 3D. It is a metter of money and tying up a screen that is underutilized in 3D. Louis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2011, 11:04 AM:

Not all markets are going to perform the same. This is one reason why movie ticket pricing is different between various cities and towns.

When I was keeping track of Carmike's circuit-wide conversion to digital projection I noticed it had small, first run theaters in certain parts of Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina that were charging as little as $2 per ticket. I had a WTF? reaction to that. Again, these were theaters that did first run shows. Carmike closed many of those theaters rather than waste money installing digital projectors in them. Louisville is a much bigger, more affluent market. But then maybe the general public in that part of the country isn't willing to pay nearly as much for a movie ticket as others are paying in many other areas.

quote: Tom Petrov
Branding such as: Disney Digital 3D, Dolby 3D, IMAX 3D and RealD are working wonders and spawning investment into making and exhibitiong 3D. The only real "Fail" is Technicolour 3D and that is because it is a filmed based format.

The branding situation with 3D is a stupid, inconsistent mess. The only message getting out to the public is "3D." The rest is crap.

First, I don't think any movie studio should be applying some fake 3D brand to a movie. They shouldn't be allowed to use this practice in theaters. And I don't think they should be doing it on video either. "Disney Digital 3D" is a fake format that doesn't really exist. There is no unique process or equipment tied to "Disney Digital 3D". IMAX-3D, RealD, Dolby 3D, XpanD and Technicolor 3D are unique theatrical 3D formats with specific processes and equipment. And Blu-ray 3D is the 3D format for home, although particular HDTV sets have different ways of displaying. Again, movie studio fake 3D formats have no place there in the advertising.

Another problem is obviously RealD and IMAX are paying some sort of subsidy or getting some kind of sweetheart deal favoritism in advertising to get their logos onto movie posters, movie trailers and TV commercials.

The only format I see worthy of some sort of exclusive listing on movie posters, trailers, etc. is film-based IMAX-3D. The rest of it doesn't wash. And that's because none of the digital stuff is exclusive to any particular digital 3D format.

RealD gets a lot of ink on movie posters. Guess what? Any movie that's hyped as being in RealD can also be seen in Dolby3D or XpanD. The 48fps DCP 3D virtual print is the same for any of those theaters. The hardware is just different. IIRC, IMAX Digital doesn't get anything unique when it's running 3D; only 2D IMAX Digital shows are getting something set up differently from standard DCP virtual prints.

Technicolor 3D is getting lost in the shuffle the same way XpandD and Dolby 3D are being overlooked. IMAX and RealD are the only 3D processes being advertised (unless you want to count bullshit fake things like Disney Digital 3D).

If was a theater operator using Dolby 3D I would be fairly pissed off about this situation. I have not been very kind to Dolby about some of their past advertising practices (the generic Dolby triple format logo for instance). In this case I think Dolby is getting royally screwed. I can't remember ever seeing Dolby 3D mentioned on a movie poster, movie trailer or TV commercial. The same goes for XpanD and Technicolor 3D. The thing which amazes me more is Dolby has a more recognizable brand name than even IMAX. So if a movie studio is going to hype a 3D format, why not hype the one with that Dolby brand name in it?

Technicolor 3D being a film-based format has absolutely nothing to do with its difficulties. Its main problem is no advertising visibility. RealD and IMAX are hogging all of that.

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 02-09-2011, 11:54 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
IIRC, IMAX Digital doesn't get anything unique when it's running 3D

I believe that's true most of the time, but there are exceptions apparently; Tron Legacy for example had changing aspect ratios depending on the scene unlike the other versions which remained 2.40:1 throughout.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-09-2011, 12:12 PM:

Gee Bobby...Master Image 3D is so overlooked...you overlooked it!

I think Toy Story 3 did use the Dolby 3D add since it paired up with their Surround 7.1 system.

-Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2011, 12:48 PM:

Yeah, I completely forgot about Master Image! That's yet another one stuck in the shadow of IMAX and RealD advertising.

Regarding Toy Story 3, I did see a little bit of Dolby Surround 7.1 advertising with that movie. But I don't remember seeing anything to do with Dolby 3D. What's really funny, when I watched a Dolby 3D/Surround 7.1 screening of Toy Story 3 in Moore, OK (Warren Moore 14) the theater played the Dolby Surround 7.1 trailer, but didn't play the Dolby 3D trailer. Odd. If it was my theater, I'd be running trailers for Dolby Digital Cinema, Dolby 3D and Dolby Surround 7.1 just to pound out that Dolby brand name. And I would run one of the THX trailers to lead into the movie.

quote: Tom Mundell
I believe that's true most of the time, but there are exceptions apparently; Tron Legacy for example had changing aspect ratios depending on the scene unlike the other versions which remained 2.40:1 throughout.

I'm sure IMAX Digital theaters have their own distribution setup and get a unique supply of virtual prints. But I'm wondering if the underlying 2K 48fps video format is any different than a 2K 48fps 3D DCP. You can change aspect ratios from 2.39:1 to 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 in a standard d-cinema theater (provided the lens is set up to allow that).

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 02-09-2011, 02:00 PM:

Ah, I see what you mean, I was just thinking along the lines of content.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 02-10-2011, 06:20 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The only real "Fail" is Technicolour 3D and that is because it is a filmed based format.

Why does being film-based make it a "fail"? I've seen a demo of T3D and it looked great. The image was bright and clear, there were no registration problems or fringing. Even better, no aliasing on diagonal lines, which I find common to all digital projection, including IMAX. Full disclosure, I'm an IMAX investor.

I will admit that T3D has the least amount of product, given that a couple of big studios are babies and don't want to support it. That, combined with the fact that the holdouts have interlocking boards of directors with RealD and Dolby, and RealD has at least one board member (James Cameron) who is fanatically obsessed with digital production and exhibition.

Frankly, if I had a fly loft to store a 3D screen in, I'd have T3D in short order.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-13-2011, 09:08 PM:

Technicolor 3D (IF standards are exeeded) can blow away the Digital 3D.

Contact me by email if you need a demo in Kentucky. Louis

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 02-13-2011, 10:37 PM:

As much as I love film 3D, what sense does it make to invest in T3D when several major distributors have made it clear that 35mm is going away by 2012? Surely the other major players will be announcing similar decisions soon. Film is going away....can't we all agree on that?

Don

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 02-14-2011, 01:31 AM:

I saw someone post that elsewhere. What prof do you have that Its going to 2012? I know its going to happen but this seems to be way too soon.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-14-2011, 01:48 AM:

If we all agree not to agree with these studio suits who could care less about movies long term, than maybe the industry will be forced to change it's retarded strategy?

I agree not to agree! [Smile]

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-14-2011, 07:00 PM:

Film is going away in 2012 because the world will end in 2012 (please don't think that I am dumb enough to believe either of these things). [uhoh]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2011, 02:21 AM:

Well....I just read today that incandescent light bulbs are going away next year. I'm going to have to lay in a supply of the 40-watt medium base clear bulbs we use under the marquee -- those twirly doohickeys would just look wrong under there and I've never seen a bulb-shaped CFL that small yet.

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 02-15-2011, 08:34 AM:

If I'm thinking of the right bulbs you're describing, they do make cfl versions of them; I've seen them at some malls. Definitely don't look as good though!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-15-2011, 10:53 AM:

The whole discontinuation of incandescent thing isn't in one fell swoop. They are targeting the higher wattage (100W+) "A" lamps first...I'm not sure the 40W are even on the RADAR yet. Specialty lamps are not on it either.

What they want is to stop people from buying the common "A" lamp in the high wattage as they are the least efficient and MOST popular (because they are so cheap!).

It is a sad day when the very symbol of a good idea (the light bulb above one's head) is considered something that we want to get rid of.

CFLs are, at best, a stepping stone to LEDs. The CFLs have mercury in them and there is not getting around that. As LEDs come down in price and increase their package styles/color options...you'll see them take over. They cost less to operate and last longer (and deal with temp extremes better than CFLs). The Cost/life of the lamp...LEDs already win...it just takes decades to fully realize that at this time. Most people don't think in decades though.

-Steve

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-15-2011, 12:00 PM:

We buy thousands of incandescent at a time for our big theatre for the house lights -- six coves across the ceiling, each about sixty feet long and each using about 80 bulbs -- we use 40w bulbs. The possibility of them eventually becoming unavailable has worried us. And the handwriting seems to be on the wall; one of our suppliers, 1000bulbs.com, sent out a sale email about a month ago -- all wattages going for 99c for a two pack. About a week ago, they dropped to 25c each. Obviously they are trying to dump their inventory....and we are buying big time.

The spectre of needing to replace them with dimable CFLs which really don't dim nearly as well and which will introduce who knows how much EMI noise into sound and video equipment is daunting. And of course price is out of the ball park.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-15-2011, 03:08 PM:

What are most people going to do with a CFL bulb when it burns out? That's right, they'll throw it away. That right there causes more harm to the environment than any incandescent bulb ever could.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2011, 03:08 PM:

My procedure here has been, if it's a bulb that can be seen by the public, then it needs to be an "old fashioned" style bulb since we have an old building and I'm trying to preserve this historic "look and feel." I would think you could still buy incandescents for some of these specialty-type things where "looks matter" but I suppose they'll drive the prices through the roof.

Thanks for that website Frank, I'll check that out.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-15-2011, 03:53 PM:

Specialty lamps are already priced at a premium. I remember back at the Uptown when the manager discovered he could use "refrigerator" lamps in place of the traditional marquee lamps. The cost savings was pretty major and the refrigerator lamps lasted much longer too!

When you "gotta have" that particular look, there is going to be a premium.

Again, I've heard nothing about the discontinuation of specialty lamps and even the small wattage incandescents (though anything with the traditional light bulb look will come under fire). What would nix the specialty lamp market are the normal market forces if nobody is buying them at some point in time.