Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question.

This is topic To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question. in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002407

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-09-2010, 10:51 PM:

I'm sorely tempted to install a 3-D screen to do Technicolor 3-D. I can't find any significant downside to T3D, beyond some studios not using it. I figure we can only do 1-3 3-D films a year in any case, and there's plenty of good stuff available from the studios that are using T3D.

Now, here's where I hesitate. How significant is the impact on non-3-D films when they are projected on a silver screen? I seem to remember primary colors tend to look metallic (which occurs with 3-D material as well), but what else happens to my 2-D presentations, which would represent the vast majority of my shows?

-David

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-11-2010, 04:15 AM:

A friend of mine owns a theatre that has two 3-D cinemas. He is stuck playing Cats and Dogs for 4 weeks in his large theatre while Inception has moved down to the smallest.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-11-2010, 04:31 AM:

What shape is your auditorium, or auditoria, long and narrow or wide and fan-shaped? How steep is your projection rake? Flat or curved screen? How big is the screen, and how close to it are the closest seats? All of this will affect the angle at which the light hits the screen, and the angle at which the audience will look at the screen. This is important with highly directional screen surfaces.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2010, 07:44 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
A friend of mine owns a theatre that has two 3-D cinemas. He is stuck playing Cats and Dogs for 4 weeks in his large theatre while Inception has moved down to the smallest.

Hence why nearly everyone else opted for sticking 3D in medium-sized houses. I don't think 3D is automatically bad just because your friend made a bad decision.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-11-2010, 08:19 AM:

Stephen,

I thought I had put all of this in my original post, but clearly I was delusional. [Wink]

The auditorium is long and narrow, approximately 40' wide by 80' long. They had two seats against the wall, but I think we're going to combine them all into one seating area. Aisles are, and will be, on the sides.

The screen is flat, approximately 24x13 (fixed-width) with a throw of 107'. Bottom of the screen is five feet from the floor, and the first row of seats is 22' away.

I think angle of view is fine, but what I'm most worried about is the impact a silver screen will have when watching normal films. I don't see myself running more than three 3-D features in a year.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-11-2010, 10:01 AM:

Most theatres I've seen with the exception of two that have silver screens suffer because of it. The hotspot is appreciable in all of them save these two. And one of the offenders is the very upscale Big IMAX in Lincoln Square. Even it has annoying, obvious fall-off.

Theoretically if all things being equal -- the geometry of the room (seats not spreading much past the width of the screen), the projector height to center of the screen -- the hotspot should be tolerable, and in these two venues that I am thinking of, it is almost nonexistant. BUT that being said, my experience with all the others I've seen (and I am an avid 3D fan and have seen many 3D room) is that most silver screens degrade illumination uniformity; how much is the question and it's a crap shoot. I have a silver screen in one of the smaller rooms and this room is about as perfect as you can get --narrow, projector height only slightly off height center, but I still see an annoying fall-off. AND the irony is that we don't even run 3D. They replaced the matte screen because they THOUGHT they were going to run a dual projection 3D retrospect (film) and the director who had that idea left right after they installed the silver screen. Now the new guy canned the project and we are stuck with this for all 2D presentation. Ya gotta love the non-commercial art house thinking.

Anyway, unless you can justify it for SOLID monetary reasons -- have you calculated that you will loose a significant chunk of profit if you can't run 3D, which seems very unlikely give that you only want to run a handful a year? -- if not, I would say the impact on your 2D will be negative and substantial in terms of presentation.

So make sure you answer the question to what end do you want to do 3D? If it's not financial, which it probably isn't, then why? Bragging rights? Image? -- worrying that some patrons may see you as not being a "state of the art" venue if you can't run 3D -- possibly, but will that stop them from coming to see all the 2D releases you will play?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2010, 11:37 AM:

We installed digital 3D here. (Dolby) Our auditorium is roughly the same dimensions as the one in question -- a little larger screeen though (30x15).

We thought briefly about doing the film 3D system, but decided against it because (1) film is going to go away eventually, whether we like it or not and (2) I just couldn't get past that $2000 per title fee -- in 2 years, at 6 titles a year it's roughly the same cost as the digital 3D component, and (3) I've heard that scratches and dust are much more noticeable with film 3D.

With the $2000 fee, we would have had to skip over marginal stuff like Step Up 3 that we normally would play 3 or 4 weeks after the break. With the digital system we can still play those less-than-blockbuster titles and keep the kids happy.

I was also worried about the effect of the silver screen on 2D movies, so that kind of cememted the decision.

We have an extra plus here in that Carmike installed the Real-D system in their Billings theatres and virtually everyone who comes into our theatre raves about how the glasses are way cooler than the ones in Billings.

The only real downside we have is that with the single screen, we can't offer a choice (2D or 3D). We've had a few people upset about that, but they are in the extreme minority. Still I would give just about anything to have enough space to add another screen.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-11-2010, 12:20 PM:

Mike...as you get broken glasses...put tape over the side that might be broken and call them "2D" glasses!

Steve

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-11-2010, 12:36 PM:

I don't see why Dolby couldn't make glasses with two of the same lenses and call them 2D glasses.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2010, 12:55 PM:

Matt - I wish they would do that. Some people don't like 3D and it would be nice to have that option.

Luckily we have only had 1 pair of glasses broken so far. Not bad considering we've run 5 weeks of 3D movies total at this point.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-11-2010, 02:31 PM:

Frank, it's not that big a deal and not even for crowing rights. Most of the justification is promotional. If you weren't a customer of the mini-chain -- no longer even that -- that used to operate this theatre, you would never know it existed. They never promoted the "satellite" locations. There are people that live within a block or two of this theatre who had no idea it was here until we started mixing in more mainstream fare.

Frankly -- no pun intended -- 3-D itself doesn't hold much interest for me. I've been through a couple of these resurrections and I'm sure this one will be similar. Once the novelty has worn off and people start asking "what does this get me for another $3", it'll end up being exactly what it is -- a gimick that will fade out as it so often does. We are already to the "Saw" and "Piranha" level. Unless, that is, someone can find a reason for the 3-D, beyond pushing stuff at the audience.

So, you can probably tell I'm not sanguine about the future of 3-D and won't cry myself to sleep if I don't do it.

Since I have to replace our existing screen, it's just a possibility we were considering. That's really the only thing keeping us from doing T3D. Since it's the only upgrade cost I have to do T3D, it's not something that can't be easily done. I just don't want it to negatively impact my normal shows.

Mike...

quote: Mike Blakesley
We thought briefly about doing the film 3D system, but decided against it because (1) film is going to go away eventually, whether we like it or not and (2) I just couldn't get past that $2000 per title fee -- in 2 years, at 6 titles a year it's roughly the same cost as the digital 3D component, and (3) I've heard that scratches and dust are much more noticeable with film 3D.

1) If I had the money for a digital installation, I would definitely look at digital 3-D. I don't, however, see $100K dropping into my lap anytime soon. [Wink]

2) The $2K fee doesn't bother me all that much. Even if I only showed one 3-D film like HP7, I'm sure it would more than cover the $2K to Technicolor.

3) I've watched many dual-frame 3-D films on 35mm and have never been bothered by dust and dirt. In fact, I would say it's actually better than regular 35, since dust in one eye won't show on the other, thereby causing the dust to have 50% opacity. Come to think of it, dust and dirt never bothered me with anaglyphic 3-D either. I find digital projection aliasing far more distracting than dust and dirt on a print.

As with you, I would love to add a second screen, but we are also "landlocked" so there is zero space to put it.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-12-2010, 02:10 AM:

"Since I have to replace our existing screen, it's just a possibility we were considering. That's really the only thing keeping us from doing T3D. Since it's the only upgrade cost I have to do T3D, it's not something that can't be easily done. I just don't want it to negatively impact my normal shows."

How many screens do you have?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-12-2010, 05:56 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I wish they would do that. Some people don't like 3D and it would be nice to have that option

Yah, but Mike, the reason the ones who complain that they don't like 3D is usually because they don't like wearing the glasses. Handing them 2D "conversion" glasses wouldn't fix that problem. They would still whine about them.

Just once I'd like to ask one of those I-can't-stand-wearing-the-3D-glasses types just exactly what do they do when they go out to the beach all day? Do they bitch about wearing sunglasses for 5 hours at a stretch? So how come they can't wear 3D glasses for 90 minutes without crying about it? Do they say, "I am not going to the beach until they are able to make the sun dark enough so that I don't have to wear those damn sunglasses." [Confused]

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-12-2010, 04:38 PM:

Tom,

We're just a single screen. Which sucks in some ways, but is great in others.

-David

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2010, 06:05 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
I'd like to ask one of those I-can't-stand-wearing-the-3D-glasses types just exactly what do they do when they go out to the beach all day?

I would venture a guess that at least 95% of the people in this country hardly ever (or never) go to the beach.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-12-2010, 09:27 PM:

David,

If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-12-2010, 09:56 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features.

Well, except, as I noted in an earlier message, a promotional benefit.

Again, since I'm replacing the screen at some point, it was musing on my part. There is zero cost -- beyond the screen -- for me to go 3D. I was eyeing the more adult fair, like HP7, etc.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-12-2010, 10:20 PM:

Frank,

Though I do not enjoy the beach, more to the point...I can't stand sunglasses and NEVER wear them. I have fully functional irises and eyelids. The irises are so good that I need scant little light in the dark too. The closest I get to sunglasses is to use a welding mask when working with a lit xenon lamp (adjusting stabilizing magnets and such). I tend to use gloves then too to avoid nasty "sun" burns.

Steve

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-13-2010, 12:18 AM:

The best thing about using the Tech 3d system is be able to run 3d movies most of the time and to take advantage of that $12,000 cap. Having multiple screens helps you to take advantage of that. We have run 3 movies in Tech 3d and we are very pleased with our results. It looks like we could be able to run 11 movies in 3d in the first year.

It would be harder to take advantage of that part of the deal with just one screen.

I do agree that Dirt & scratches DO seem to be less noticeable in 3d than normal 35.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-13-2010, 01:56 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
If you are one screen, then there is absoutely no business case to go 3D unless you are a very busy one screen theatre showing kids features

A year ago I would have agreed with that. I'm no huge fan of 3D as any regular forum readers would know -- but there's no doubt that it's bigger this time than it has ever been, and if it does go away, it will surely be back again. When we bought our system I didn't really consider the 3D as a separate item needing to be paid for, but rather as a part of the whole package. That made it easier to swallow. It's just another tool in the toolbox.

There's also the fact that all these kids movies are in 3D. With film, I could often cut the "in 3D!!" out of the trailers but that's not possible with digital, of course. I just didn't feel like it would be any fun promoting our digital system if we didn't get 3D.

I have found that the biggest "challenge" of 3D is educating people about it. Some are disappointed that stuff isn't flying into their face every second. Some think that now EVERY movie will be in 3D. Some think they get to keep the glasses, and so on.

David - I don't have $100,000 dropping into my lap either -- hopefully it will drop in small monthly increments over the next few years! [Smile]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2010, 04:14 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Though I do not enjoy the beach, more to the point...I can't stand sunglasses and NEVER wear them.

That's fine; you are being consistant. It's one thing to say you don't like to wear glasses at all; it's quite another to be one of those millons who wear sunglasses regularly and yet still complain about wearing 3D glasses.

The sunglass industry is huge -- they are selling, according to the Sunglass Association of America, a trade group, more than $1.3 billion in annual sales. Thems a lot of sunglasses! Most of the population are perfectly comfortable wearing them; in fact that same association says the average American buys 3 pairs of sunglasses a year....more if they sit on any of them.

So my question still remains -- why all the freakin whining and saying they hate to go to 3D movies because they have to wear the glasses?

This is one of the most popular Ray-Ban models that people love so much they walk around with them on even on cloudly days and, gee, if they don't look almost identical to the ReadD 3D glasses.

So why are people gladly paying $40 a pop for the one and wearing them happily, while they bitch about wearing the other that allows them to see awesome 3D movies? All I'm saying is, I don't get it.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-13-2010, 08:28 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
while they bitch about wearing the other that allows them to see awesome 3D movies?

Because there has yet to be an "awesome 3d movie" Just my $.02

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-13-2010, 09:12 PM:

There's also the perceived notion that sunglasses are a neccessity in any sunny region and that most sunglasses are more comfortable than all the 3D glasses I've used.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-13-2010, 09:14 PM:

Mike Blakesley has reasoned a single-screen's transition to digital better then ANYONE on this forum. I think he has used good logic and put a lot of thought into this, as he should. Film will not disappear, but it is going to become so niche that it will be just as difficult for him to get it in Forsyth, Montana as much as it will be for me in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Digital is here to stay whether we want it or not. 3D will die soon, but he is absolutely correct in saying it can come back just as quick as it goes because of this technology.

The point I am trying to make is that if you aren't figuring out some way to digitize one, or all of your screens, within five years you are dead in the water. If you are a single screen you HAVE TO do it. Seriously, was there this much debate to go from mono to SR or SR to digital sound back in the 90's (I understand the cost differential - yes), but the answer is a solid "no". We did it because it made sense and the audiences expected it. The same can be said here as well.

One year ago I still believed there was no need to go with a digital picture. Avatar changed all that. Even the most staunch film people I know agreed with me there was no comparison between 35mm and digital 3D. Granted, there may not be another Avatar for 10 - 15 more years, but as a business owner you have to be ready if that is what your customer base expects. For a brief time I, too thought Technicolor 3D might be the answer, but I am afraid it is not. Digital is here - either sink or swim.

Good luck with your new system Mike.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-13-2010, 09:26 PM:

Alfred Hitchcock was not too crazy about 3-D but Warner Brothers insisted he shoot DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3-D in the fifties and he did. The film is a classic today and I was told the use of 3-D in the movie was very subtle but good. I do not know if the producers of KISS ME KATE wanted 3-D but MGM made sure it was photographed in the format and it too is a classic today both as a film and it's use of 3-D. I did see a lot of 3-D films in the fifties but these two movies played only in 2-D in Honolulu and that is the way I saw them, unfortunately. I saw INFERNO, SANGAREE,,HOUSE OF WAY and many others in 3-D but in addition to the Hitchcock and the MGM musical, I had to see HONDO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON and a few others in 2-D.

If the studio bosses can do the same by pressuring film producers to shoot in 3-D today and have quality movies photographed in native 3-D, I think it will be a big boost for the format. Studios must also realize they cannot fool the public by releasing 2-D films that had been converted to 3-D like the recent CLASH OF THE TITANS and CATS & DOGS. I agree with Bobby Henderson and will refuse to see any 'fake' 3-D films.

-Claude

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-13-2010, 11:24 PM:

Aaron...really, you are using Mono to SR as a case in point? Mono hung around well into the '90s (in fact, some theatres still have it...it is also widely known that Carmike kept mono in some of their digital conversions too!). Mind you, there have been non-mono sound systems for a VERY long time. 4-track mag stereo had a VERY good run from the early '50s till about 1980...Dolby stereo is still kicking after nearly 40 years. Yet mono was indeed pervasive. In fact, the studios were overwhelmingly mono in their pints until about the mid '80s. Even big-ticket high profile movies were mono in the '80s.

Is film dead? No. Will digital replace it? Yes. When? Its anyone's guess. The vast majority (read all) of my conventional DCinema installations have been 3D...only in my screening rooms has digital been used as a 2D source and they have not one but 2 film projectors, typically. If Avatar didn't do what it did in 3D...I suspect my digital installations would be cut in half in the conventional theatres.

As equipment goes, digital remains a poorer financial model than film. The cost of the equipment/year is substantially higher than with film and will remain so into the foreseeable future. The cost of lamps and filters alone are notably higher than belts, oil and conventional cinema lamps. Most have not had to foot the bill of repairing a digital projector yet...what till you see those prices and then compare that to film.

I just got some information on a security update for Christie series 1 projectors that some studios are wanting to force the projector owners...it isn't huge...just a few thousand and there is a rebate of less than a 1/3 of the update cost. I'm real curious as to what studios and where they are requiring this. I can see some exhibitors getting rather POed at having to buy stuff for working equipment just to satisfy someone else's paranoia.

I was just in a theatre complex that had flashing yellow lights (I think 18 of them) because their filters needed changing (Sony)...I hear the bill for them will be staggering.

So the only angle I can see is the reduction of labor that could factor into buying digital (again taking the 3D thing out of the equation...and there is NO real reason that film 3D can satisfy that dwindling demand).

And then wait until these projectors need to be replaced at a far greater rate than any but the most junky film projectors (anyone still running Horizon projectors? If so...how are they doing?)

-Steve

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-14-2010, 07:12 PM:

Admittedly the mono to SR example was weak, and I think Steve made some telling points as to why not to digitize. Still, I believe he made my point here:

quote: Steve Guttag
Is film dead? No. Will digital replace it? Yes. When? Its anyone's guess.

I just think it will be sooner than later.

quote: Steve Guttag
And then wait until these projectors need to be replaced at a far greater rate than any but the most junky film projectors

Digital film equipment will become cheap and throw away. Anybody remember what a VCR looked like and cost back in 1980? Well its 1980 right now for this equipment. Thirty years from now digital projectors will be cheap junk that can be thrown away like a $40 DVD player.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-14-2010, 07:32 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Digital film equipment will become cheap and throw away. Anybody remember what a VCR looked like and cost back in 1980? Well its 1980 right now for this equipment. Thirty years from now digital projectors will be cheap junk that can be thrown away like a $40 DVD player.

Yes and by that time, the standards will dictate that you use a newer, fancier projector. A big reason that 1.3K projectors are cheap now is because few exhibitors want them since they've been told they must use at least 2K.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-14-2010, 08:23 PM:

Exactly.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-15-2010, 12:24 AM:

That's another reason I decided to convert now rather than wait. Admittedly it was a gamble, but I also think that repairs and parts and upgrades will become cheaper as the equipment becomes more ubiquitous.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-15-2010, 12:45 AM:

quote: Matt Fields
I don't see why Dolby couldn't make glasses with two of the same lenses and call them 2D glasses.

So will you charge less for the customer who wants to see it in 2D and gets 2D glasses? Of course you won't. You'll take his money and laugh all the way to the bank. The point is that you still charge the 3D price for the god damn asshole whiner who wants to see it in 2D (what a dip he must be). Why charge 3D price when the customer isn't getting 3D? In fact he's getting a much poorer presentation than a 2D 35mm print due to the glasses and (most likely) the shitty screen you had to install to run 3D. You are not giving him any choice in the matter. But the catch-22 is that if you did charge a lesser price for those idiot complainers who just HAVE to see it in 2D, people would get the "2D" glasses, pay the 2D price and sneak in their own 3D glasses. So 2D glasses will never be a practical reality. I am sick of seeing this "brilliant idea" mentioned on the forums.

If I ever saw a 3D movie in a Dolby 3D auditorium and the staff asked for the glasses back, I'd tell 'em to fuck off, I paid the higher price, they can go to hell.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-15-2010, 02:03 AM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Digital film equipment will become cheap and throw away.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on how fast digital will replace film as the mainstream distribution method.

You, however, do confuse the economy of scale of a consumer piece (the VCR) versus a dedicated industry piece (DCinema). There isn't enough scale in cinemas to really drive costs down that much. And, if your prediction is true of digital replacing film, less so as new-builds and replacements will NEVER be on the scale of the entire industry changing in a short time. A good year in that era will be on the order of 1000 units or less...just like with film equipment in the past.

One thing that allowed film based machines to be cheap is the relatively cheap technology and the fact that most machines were designed about 50-years ago and all a company had to do is keep making it or make relatively minor changes. I dare say, the digital equipment will NEVER be as cheap as film equipment has been in its heyday. What does it take to keep a Century or Simplex going? Has anyone bought one of the boards or light engines for a DCinema machine yet?

Steve

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-15-2010, 07:16 AM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
For a brief time I, too thought Technicolor 3D might be the answer, but I am afraid it is not. Digital is here - either sink or swim.

But note the upcoming Panavision | Deluxe 3D solution based on spectral comb filtering, which can be used with regular matt white screen surfaces and either film- or digital-based projection systems:

Panavision Press Release June 15, 2010

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-15-2010, 10:12 AM:

Digital vs Film: the case FOR Digital is being made using Avatar. This is the case FOR 3D.

The case for Digital is one of FORCE ("I'm being forced to by the studios.") The audience could care less, since digital is certainly no better than film in quality and that is why it is not possible to charge more.

The mono/stereo change was on of evolution: old equipment modified. The film/digital change is one of revolution" throw out the old."

Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-15-2010, 10:35 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
So will you charge less for the customer who wants to see it in 2D and gets 2D glasses? Of course you won't.

I would.

But you are probably right about people asking for 2D glasses and sneaking in their own 3D glasses. The vast majority of people are honest and reasonable though.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-15-2010, 12:30 PM:

Actually, Louis, the case FOR Digital is more than just America, and 1.3K is the answer for most of the rest of the world. I know for a fact that a division of one of my former employers is aggressively pushing for 1.3K digital for rural theatres in India and Japan and other Asian markets. Being the ones who make the movies, distribute the movies and shows them in their own theatres, it is in their best interest to make affordable d-cinema effective. Okay, so maybe the villagers in Sidhi, India or Daga, Bhutan won't be seeing Harry Potter 7.1 in Digital 3D unless they travel to much larger cities many miles away, but digital could bring Harry Potter to them much quicker and more cost-effective than 35mm.

Evolution is a part of reality. Mr. Nedrow will eventually need to switch over to Digital, and will eventually need to install 3D equipment. But just because he has Digital and 3D doesn't mean he only shows Digital 3D, or gets stuck with a Cats and Dogs-type disappointment for a month. Soon, there'll be fewer 3D movies, as Hollywood starts to notice the best 3D grosses are for the movies that originate in 3D. They'll start to notice filmgoers will only make an effort to see 3D movies when it's something worth seeing in 3D, such as an Avatar or an Alice in Wonderland (or, soon, Tron: Legacy).

Digital cinema is not going away. 3D will become the event driver it should have stayed, but it will not disappear again. These are general facts of our industry's life. There is something to be said for 35mm film, which I do miss a bit, and for 70mm film, which I miss a lot more, but one either learns to evolve or one fades away.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-15-2010, 01:37 PM:

What makes you think that 3D won't fade away (again). It is a very expensive feature that has business models built on continuous use for profitability. If it becomes a 4-time a year "event"...will those business models hold up? Real-D's sure wouldn't.

And what happens if the USA is treated like the rest of the world...the theatre has to buy ALL of the glasses...including for Real-D and MasterImage? There are a lot of things poised to cause 3D's demise, again. Not the least of which...crappy product that does not warrant 3D.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-15-2010, 04:21 PM:

Mike - Sure, you and I know that the vast majority of people are honest, but this is the movie industry we are talking about. The studios would never allow it because everyone is a criminal. Plus, they'd see fewer $$$ as a result and they need all the $$$ they can get since they will have you believe that they are on the verge of withering up and dying due to the lack of enough $$$. Greed is the only constant.