|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: SMPTE announces 3D for Home Theatre
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-08-2008 11:16 AM
I know those of us of a certain age sometimes have are a bit more forgetful than our younger counterparts, but I am sure you all remember hearing time and time again, often enough, in fact, that even we of waneing youth will find it pretty hard to forget, the industry digevangelists touting the glories of digital, one of which was that digital will allow exhibitors to show 3D, something that was exclusively the purview of cinema. 3D -- the savior of the exhibition industry. 3D -- they'll never be able to get THAT in their home theatre. Boys and girls, I give you this from the current SMPTE journal:
SMPTE to Establish 3-D Home Entertainment Task Force
SMPTE is establishing a task force to define the parameters of a stereoscopic 3-D mastering standard for content viewed in the home. Called 3-D Home Display Formats Task Force, the project promises to propel the 3-D home entertainment industry forward by setting the stage for a standard that will enable 3-D feature films and content to be distributed to the home via broadcast, cable, satellite, packaged media, computer screens, and more. The inaugural meeting of the Task Force will take place on August 19, 2008 and will be hosted by the Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) at the University of Southern California, near downtown Los Angeles
So how's THAT for a kick in the butt to all those suits at Regal and Carmike and Landmark that thought sinking $120,000 per screen in to digital equipment roll-outs (roll-outs 1, 2 and now 3D) that such an investment would give them an absolutely air and water-tight lock down exclusivity in the commercial cinema vs. consumer home theatre battle! We all hear over and over that digital (all bow heads) would give exhibition 3D, and 3D would give them something that could never be duplicated in those damn home theatres! Tsk tsk....and to think those chain execs were gullible enough to actually buy that studio bull crap, hook, line and sinker. Anyone who would actually think that that the studios wouldn't sell their mother down the river in order to sell their 3D content to the home video market on 3D DVDs is, well, let's just say, less than astute. Very less.
I'll refrain from saying I told you so, but here is a picture from a Texas Instruments press release that I posted, oh, I don't know, over a year ago, all the while they kept mouthing that montra that digital gave the theatres something unique; I guess unique is in the eyes of the beholder...and he's got 3D glasses on then!:
Partners indeed.
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-08-2008 12:17 PM
Well, I've had the 3DTV system for over 25 yrs in my "home theatre." It is based on LCD active glasses same as the IMAX and sequential frame NTSC video it looks just fine -- except there is a slight flicker, but nothing that is glaring. But this is only stuff based on standard NTSC video using SVHS TAPE, not hi rez not even sDVD. I have only personally seen these 3D movies with this system via CRT displays -- a 27in TV set and then front projection video, also based on a 3 gun CRT projector (Advent's VideoBeam). You are right, it may be harder to achieve results with what are the most common displays today, LCD, Plasma and the up-and coming organic super thin screens, but that's today. Give them a bit of time. And a funny thing -- it seems that adding 3D does cover a lot of sins as to what the eye will accept as "good."
It doesn't seem a far stretch to think that if they could get alternate frame/sequential using LCD glasses to work fairly well back in 1982, it won't take long before they work out or around those shortcomings you mention. I am telling you, watching THE HOUSE OF WAX with the 3DTV system on an 8ft screen gave me just as much depth perception as when I saw it at the Egyptian with dual projection); I am saying that with a bit more R&D (which TI seems to be heavily involved in doing, LCD lag and anomolies like that will be a piece of cake to iron out. And you KNOW that with the carrot of the vast home video market, they will invest huge chunks of money and do whatever it takes to get a viable 3D system that's as competitive as present-day 2D displays and as competitive with cinema 3D. Hell, how long did it take them to get DLP from those first cinema projectors into consumer projectors and home displays?
As for anaglyphic ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) ....that was never an acceptable system anywhere, anytime, in anyone's mind, and it certainly doesn't look like the SMPTE, TI anyone else is looking at that when they talk about 3D for the home. So to quote what we have been hearing for years about digital vs film in theatres (digital it's going to happen, whether you like it or not), I am guessing you will be able to say the same about viable, excellent looking, home theatre 3D -- it's going to happen....whether exhibition likes it or not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-09-2008 01:03 AM
$120,000 -- it was the first quotes that industry threw around in the press releases. Yup, that was awhile ago and prices have dropped -- I am waiting for them to drop even further so it can become reasonable for arthouses and non-commercial outfits like ours to include digital along side film.
The producers for the park venue have invested in TWO Barco R6s, which I think was a mistake, but they do the job. Marks says it costs $90,000 now for a complete 3D digital system installed. Fine, but my point was, whatever it costs, it was the 3D capability of digital that they kept saying made it well worth the money. But as Mike points out: quote: Mike Olpin
Buying into any product for your cinema based on the idea of exclusivity is retarded. Everything can be technically reproduced for the home given time and market demand
Absolutely correct, Mark. I just did a search trying to find the press releases but could find them, but there were at least two press releases, one I think by the head honcho for Landmark Theatres, another by some guy from AccessIt, crowing specifically about that -- the great advantage of 3D in theatre because it can't be duplicated at home. I even think he used the word NEVER be duplicate at home.
And Bobby is right; where's the software? The answer -- it's just waiting to be packaged and sold in every video outlet on the planet as soon as there is a viable technology to play it. And again, I admit, it's only my hunch, but given how studios usually want to MAKE MONEY, I can't see them NOT wanting to offer all the films they make in 3D to the huge home 3D market. Why would they NOT make it available in 3D to the consumer? To protect the theatres? Yah....that must be it.
And, Scott, sequential frame really doesn't necessarily need to be compatible with OTA TV because nowadays, that's a very small segment -- the cable companies, pay-per-view are not prevented from broadcasting sequential 3D or any kind of signal they want. Blu-Ray DVD is a walk in the park. BTW, letterboxing on broadcast TV was illegal too, but that was when the FCC had balls. Now the broadcast industry can get regulations changed pretty easily. Letterboxing on OTA now is routine.
quote: Jim Ziegler
Yeah, but something tells me that the dinosaur leaping out of the screen at you isn't quite so impressive if its only 8" tall... Some things just have to be shown on the big screen.
Jim, my screen at home is 8 feet wide and it is proportionally as big a theatre screen given the seating distance. And the 3D IS impressive, even at low rez sVHS NTSC. And that's 80s technology; give them a couple of years to perfect whatever it is Texas Instruments is working on it will be that much better.
quote:
I just love how excited you get over the fact that yet again, something that was only offered in a theater (Good 3D) is now available at home. Regardless of the presentation medium, it's another reason for people to stay home and watch TV, rather than come the theater.
Well to tell you the truth, I AM excited because I LOVE 3D, that's why I got that 3D setup way back in the early 80. That's why I bought up every single 50s and 80s 3D movie that was converted to that system. So yah, I am excited because I love 3D, be it in a theatre or in my living room. I love MOVIES, in a theatre or in my living room, to wit, I am going to get one of those new, 3 chip DLP projectors and retire my VideoBeam. You seem to imply that I am excited because home 3D may hurt theatres -- nothing could be further from the truth. I only get a mischievous glee debunking the crap hype that is constantly fed to us by the people pushing digital as the alpha and omega of the industry, specifically that somehow the reason purchasing a digital system is a must, is because it gives you "something that can never be reproduced in the home."
My only point was, that's a truckload of elephant dung.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-26-2008 05:09 PM
I agree with what Frank says. I was a fan of 3-D before I had hardly seen any film and luckily I have managed to see plenty of them in very good conditions over the years. I remember reading all the lies about digital and 3-D, which also included the big lie that any previous 3-D on 35mm was only anaglyphic and of poor quality. I recently saw lenticular 3-D TV, which was the first example of moving 3-D without glasses I had ever seen and hence it impressed me, although there is still a lot of work to do. But think about it, if TV gets 3-D without glasses and the cinema uses 3-D with glasses, well, I can imagine where audiences are going to watch their films. And yes, they will develop the technology, because they want to sell TVs again to people who have just bought their Full HD TV, and it is very good for gaming, and because they want to sell the same films again with the added bonus of “fake” 3-D. I love 3-D, but I think that The Dark Knight has proven that audiences will pay for something that really they cannot get at home, IMAX screenings in London are being a great success with screenings booked for 3 weeks (so I have been told). And in the ads there has been no mention to the scenes shot in IMAX, it has been a word of mouth. Big screens with superior image quality, with the right film, can still pull the audiences.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic