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

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: 3D or not 3D? ... an article in Time Magazine

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-05-2009 12:12 AM

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

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Kevin Fairchild
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: Kennewick, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 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

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.