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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Bolt Released Digital Only (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Bolt Released Digital Only Vaughn Hamrick Film Handler Posts: 21 From: Jacksonville , Florida USA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 09-30-2008 09:07 AM                     We are in the process of attempting to start a drive in theater in town since the only one left recently closed. My booker tells me that the new Disney 3D film Bolt isn't going to be released on 35mm 3D, but digital only. Who knows anything on this and can more of the same be expected from Disney? We recently came a cross a set of brand new 3D lenses for our projection system and were very dissapointed to hear that it won't be released on 35mm 3 D. Does this mean that no 35mm prints at all will be available?  |  IP: Logged Danial Simmonds Expert Film Handler Posts: 107 From: Kota Damansara, Selangor, Malaysia Registered: Jan 2008 posted 09-30-2008 09:14 AM                        There has been rumours of this going around, Bolt 3D - Digital Format Configuration we are going to use will be CP2K Projector with Dolby 3D... However still waiting for more info from Disney. Movie is expected to be released somewhere in November i heard. Regards Dan  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-30-2008 09:57 AM                     You can still get a 2D 35mm print. The current generation of 3D films all use digital. Additionally, I would not recommend 3D for a drive in as screen luminance may already be an issue. 3D cuts perceived light in half.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 09-30-2008 10:59 AM                     quote: Vaughn Hamrick We recently came a cross a set of brand new 3D lenses for our projection system As far as I know, the only "3-D Lenses" I'm aware of were made by Paramount in the late 1950's & early 60's and by STEREOVISION in the late 1970's & early 80's. All the other 3D systems used the theatre's regular lenses with polarizing filters attached either to the front of the lens or on the projection ports. Both the PARAMOUNT and STEROVISION systems used the "over-&-under" process where the left and right images were printed as two two half-height (2-perf high) frames into the space of a standard 35mm 4perf high frame. The "3-D Lens" then superimposed the two images as one onto the screen. To the best of my knowledge, the 'over & under' system is not currently being used by anyone anymore and is pretty much obsolete. (And if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure someone here will correct me) Both the PARAMOUNT & STEREOVISION systems introduced some significant light-loss due to the extra prisms,etc necessary to their operation. (I've heard the PARAMOUNT lenses were the worst as far as light loss goes) As several other people here have pointed out, this would make the use of either of these systems impractical or in many cases impossible for drive-in use. Tech literature for both systems also stress the absolute importance of having good screen masking for proper perception of the 3-D effect. I don't think I've ever seen a drive-in screen with masking.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 09-30-2008 11:02 AM                        I'd agree with all the above... especially the part about trying 35mm 3D at a drive-in. We've got really good lamps, really good reflectors and really white screens. The last 3D film we tried was "Spy Kids 3D", and content aside, the 3D was TERRIBLE... and yes, you do lose a lot of light. I wouldn't do it again. Congrats on your project. Hope you can get your drive-in open soon.  |  IP: Logged Galen Murphy-Fahlgren Master Film Handler Posts: 405 From: Canton, MI, USA Registered: Oct 2007 posted 09-30-2008 11:20 AM                     I wouldn't hold my breath for any film 3D ever again. For all its weaknesses, digital is a much better 3D technology (in my opinion) and nobody is going to strike a dual inventory of 2D/3D 35mm prints. I also wouldn't count on having it in 3D making you any more money, because if it sucks, it sucks, and people will only sit through so many gimmicky and substanceless movies before they tire of 3D. To put it another way, if it is going to do well, it will do well regardless of how many "D"s are involved. If it will do poorly, well, you can't have forgotten Journey to the Center of a Plotless Gimmicky Piece of Crap already, nor Fly Me to the Cheesy Idiotic Piece of Crap.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-30-2008 12:27 PM                        Since no one has mentioned it, I'll point out that polarized 3D requires a silver screen. Has anyone ever tried painting a drive-in screen silver and, if so, how did it work out? The angle of view would be reduced due to the higher gain, which might be an issue in most drive-ins. For what it's worth, Surplus Shed sells the Paramount 3D mirror boxes cheaply. These are for the over/under system. The mirror boxes for the side-by-side system are similar but not interchangeable. Someone (Stereovision?) rents these and would probably sell them expensively if you wanted them.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 09-30-2008 02:52 PM                     quote: Scott Norwood For what it's worth, Surplus Shed sells the Paramount 3D mirror boxes WoW! Cool! Looked at the website and I'm definately ordering one of these to play around with. I have access to some over-under stuff and also a bunch of over-under camera tests shot in the mid 1980's.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Pitt Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: May 2007 posted 09-30-2008 03:37 PM                     For Spykids 3D (and the later film Sharkboy & Lavagirl), they produced 35mm anaglyph prints in addition to the digital 3D versions. The anaglyph worked by taking the red channel from the left camera, and the blue&green channels from the right. I had the (mis) fortune of seeing the anaglyph versions at the Sheffield VUE... While the 3D effects were pretty good and worked well, the 'ghosting' you got around the images was very distracting. That's probably why they don't make anaglyph prints any more. The advantage is that the theater doesn't have to upgrade any of its equipment; it's just a normal 35mm print run through the projector like any other. But the disadvantages far outweigh this small advantage. Full-color 3D systems are the only way to go forward, and in these days that often means digital projection.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-30-2008 04:40 PM                        quote: Scott Norwood Has anyone ever tried painting a drive-in screen silver Isn't a lenticular surface also required?  |  IP: Logged Robert Minichino Master Film Handler Posts: 350 From: Haskell, NJ, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 09-30-2008 04:54 PM                        The screen doesn't need to be lenticular, it only needs to preserve polarization. I don't know if any old silver paint would suffice for that, but there might be some that do.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-30-2008 05:42 PM                     quote: Thomas Pitt For Spykids 3D (and the later film Sharkboy & Lavagirl), they produced 35mm anaglyph prints in addition to the digital 3D versions. All of those shows were anaglyph, even DLP shows. The current string of "Digital 3D" films began with Disney's Chicken Little.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-30-2008 05:45 PM                     Disney's current knack of having 'In selected cinemas in Disney Digital 3D' on the trailers is annoying. It's OK if I have it, but if I don't...why on earth would I want to advertise the opposition?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-30-2008 07:01 PM                       quote: Scott Norwood Surplus Shed Scott, you're good! Although, I did NOT need to know about this place... nor that it's right in my back yard! I'm spending enough money as it is!  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 09-30-2008 07:46 PM                    quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren For all its weaknesses, digital is a much better 3D technology (in my opinion) I would say "cheaper" and "easier", but not necessarily better. Especially when you're talking about one projector putting both eyes on the screen, which results in the eyes being slightly out of sync. Admittedly, most people don't recognize that as a problem, but some people do. A properly run and perfectly tuned single projector digital 3D setup can not compare to a perfectly tuned and properly run dual strip 35mm setup. The digital setup is certainly easier to run though, and for a lot of people, the end result on the screen is also "close enough".  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.