|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DreamWorks To Go 3-D
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-13-2007 12:02 PM
DreamWorks going 3-D in 2009
Article
quote:
DreamWorks going 3-D in 2009
Studio to produce two versions of 'Aliens'
By BEN FRITZ
DreamWorks Animation is joining the digital 3-D wave.
Studio plans to release all its pics in 3-D starting in 2009. That should give a major boost to the fledgling technology now available on just a few hundred digital cinema screens.
New digital 3-D exhibition process, enabled largely by technology company Real D, has been gaining significant interest in Hollywood recently. Fox will release the James Cameron-helmed "Avatar" in 3-D in 2009, and Disney will put "Meet the Robinsons" on about 600 digital 3-D screens this month.
DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg said the studio considered adding 3-D effects to some of its 2007 and 2008 releases but wanted to produce pics with the new exhib process in mind from the outset.
"We have not really been enthusiastic about turning 2-D into 3-D in post-production," Katzenberg said, referring to the way 3-D effects have been added to pics thus far. "It doesn't begin to touch the quality of product that is originated in 3-D."
DWA summer 2009 release "Monsters vs. Aliens" starts production this spring and will be made with 3-D in mind from the outset. Studio will produce two versions, with a standard version for nondigital screens, DVD and TV.
By waiting until 2009, studio will also benefit from a significantly higher availability of 3-D enabled digital screens.
"By that time, I think that in domestic markets we will be able to release a film entirely in 3-D," said Jim Tharp, prexy of domestic distribution for Paramount, which releases DreamWorks Animation pics.
There are just over 500 digital 3-D screens in the U.S., but that's expected to expand to several thousand by 2009.
While the studio is counting on its movies to be available exclusively in 3-D in the U.S., foreign markets will likely still be installing digital cinema systems, which are required for the new 3-D process.
Katzenberg will be discussing the studio's 3-D plans with exhibitors this week at ShoWest. Many in the exhibition industry have been getting excited about digital 3-D as a way to differentiate cinemas from home theater systems. In addition, many exhibs have been charging $1 or $2 more for 3-D films.
"This is the first thing I've ever seen that is an actual opportunity for the movie business to become something completely new and unreplicatable at home," observed Katzenberg.
He said production costs on DreamWorks toons will go up, but he's confident his studio will make up for it with added revenue.
After "Robinsons," next pic released on some 3-D screens will be Par's "Beowulf" this fall.
In 2008, New Line will release "Journey 3-D," the first live-action pic produced exclusively for the new technology.
Disney is also expected to release most of its future toons in digital 3-D, though the studio hasn't announced any definite plans beyond "Robinsons."
DreamWorks has hired Jason Clark, an exec producer on Sony's 3-D toon "Monster House," to head up its 3-D efforts along with Jim Mainard, the studio's head of research and development.
It has also tapped Phil McNally, who did 3-D work on Disney's "Chicken Little" and "Meet the Robinsons," to oversee 3-D for "Monsters vs. Aliens."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-13-2007 03:01 PM
quote: Ben Fritz' article
He said production costs on DreamWorks toons will go up, but he's confident his studio will make up for it with added revenue.
I'm surprised the costs for creating 3D animated movies aren't actually declining at least a little. Computer rendering horsepower continues to improve by tremendous leaps and bounds. Granted, studios like Pixar do push the technology they have available to the limit. But today's computers, graphics cards, etc. are hundreds of times more powerful than PCs of just a few years ago. It's going to be over 2 years before Dreamworks' "Monsters vs. Aliens[/i] hits theater screens. By that time any high end gaming computer bought today wouldn't compare well next to an entry level machine bought new 2 years from now.
quote: Mike Blakesley
They've always said that digital 3-D is "non-replicatable" at home. Why is that? Is it something to do with the projected image vs the plasma image or along those lines?
When it comes to the polarizing method of 3D, I don't think there's any way one can make that work with back-lighted, traditional television sets, whether they're CRT, plasma, LCD or whatever. The trick works by polarizing light beams from a projector and the 3D glasses correctly filtering the reflected light from the silver projection screen. You're not looking at reflected light when watching any back-lit TV set.
To get 3D in the home, one would need a video projector with an active polarizer filter attached to it. Or they would have to align two synchronized video projectors, each with circular polarizer filters turned in opposite phase with each other. Either setup would be expensive. Most people aren't very turned on by video projectors in the first place; they typically want a one-piece TV, preferably a thin, sexy one they can hang on a wall.
I've seen demonstrations of other 3D methods for TV and computer screens. The formats haven't been as effective as polarized 3D. Then there's the high price and lack of product as well.
I suppose some electronics genius somewhere could figure out how to get really good 3D video into the home. Computer gaming would be a huge potential market if the technology could work.
Dolby reportedly has a new 3D system they say is ready for demonstration. They claim it is compatible with standard high gain screens and that silver screens are not necessary. Is it based on something different than polarization? Most important: does it deliver results as good as polarized 3D on silver screens? I'll remain skeptical until I see a successful demonstration.
Some gripe about the higher cost of RealD ticket prices and royalty fees. Doesn't some of that go to pay for many thousands of plastic 3D glasses given away at movie showings? Movie theater staff cannot collect and re-use those glasses -not unless they want to install an antiseptic washing system to clean them between each show. I don't want to get head lice from used RealD glasses!
quote: Chris Parry
Sports Illustrated had no trouble adding 3-D to their recent Swimsuit Issue. And I seem to recall a Three Stooges film being shown on TV as 3D about twenty years ago - there were free glasses in our daily newspaper and it (mostly) worked like film.
I assume you're referring to the old and pretty crappy red/blue 3D glasses method, right? That trick has been applied to printed comic books and a number of black and white movies. I think Shark Boy and Lava Girl or some other recent kids movie also tried to use the old red/blue lens trick as well (with very limited, mediocre results).
It's a different thing entirely to get full color 3D video happening in the home.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-14-2007 04:21 PM
Jeff Katzenberg now quote:
"This is the first thing I've ever seen that is an actual opportunity for the movie business to become something completely new and unreplicatable at home."
Jeff Katzenberg in 2000 quote:
Q: Are you still planning to take Shrek to the IMAX form several months into release, or at the end of the year?
JK: We're trying. We are creating the digital file that would allow us to do that. The problem is the entire exhibitions industry in the United States of America has filed for bankruptcy in the last four months, so that's prohibitive. Unless we can get out into 100 theaters, it's going to be very, very difficult to do. What I'm certain of is that it will have value someday. I would love to be able to do it immediately. We are creating a 3-D, digital IMAX file. When and where and how we get it out there into the world, I'm not sure of. But I am sure that the file will be of great value at some point.
I saw a great technology the other day that, for about $20, there's an attachment that you can put on a VCR or a DVD player that would allow you to watch a pretty compelling 3-D presentation on your television set. That price point is pretty good. So we're ahead of the curve here right now. I don't know whether we're ahead of the curve by three months, six months, 12 months, 18 months. We're not years ahead of it. So, at some point, that 3-D file will make its way out into the world.
Full 2000 Interview
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-19-2007 09:34 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
They've always said that digital 3-D is "non-replicatable" at home. Why is that? Is it something to do with the projected image vs the plasma image or along those lines?
Who said that? They are wrong. Since the mid-80, I've purchased at least ten 3D videos, mostly the 50s classics -- THE HOUSE OF WAX, DIAL M FOR MURDER, FORT TI, and the 80s -- AW'S FRANKENSTEIN, JAWS 3D, HALLOWEEN 3D, etc. All are in sequential frame 3D using the IMAX-type LCD shutter glasses and a very simple driver circuit about the size of a pack of cigarettes into which you plug the video output of the VCR (or DVDs) and that tells which eye shutter should be opened and which shut. You can use it with any display type, LCD, plasma, old CRT tubes, video projectors -- it doesn't matter because it doesn't rely on polarization. I project an 8ft picture using an old three gun Advent Video beam and the 3D depth is every bit as good as the original film 3D.
The important thing is, this is a VERY reasonably priced system. And it's not proprietary -- many manufacturers make the glasses -- I got a few from Toshiba:  (Sorry for the focus)
I've got another bunch which I got from Nintendo -- they all work the same. Mine are are wired; for a little more $$, you can get IR versions that need no wire hookup at all, just like the ones that IMAX uses: 
And they are activate by this little, inexpensive driver unit (sitting on top of the 3DTV Corp's SVHS copy of AW'S FRANKENSTEIN): 
The only thing about this system is that it does produce slightly more noticeable flicker than watching a normal NTSC signal, but it's not objectionable; in fact, I've shown these titles to many family and friends and everyone to a person is amazed and thrilled by it. They are wildly impressed with the 3D depth. Plus, they can't understand how I've got 3D movies that they've never seen in the rental stores, or heard of this system.
I am certain with a little tweaking and better transfers, and these old classic titles are transfered to DVD and high def, they will figure out a way to reduce the slight flicker, but even if they don't, the 3D is perfectly watchable and enjoyable.
My point is, that given there is an existing method of doing home video 3D, and at a cost-point that is very do-able for the average Joe -- the control box cost about $75 and each pair of shutter glasses cost around $70 -- does anyone REALLY think that the Dreamworks, Pixar, Disney et al are going to limit themselves to releasing their new blockbuster 3D films ONLY to theatres then there is a whole consumer market out there just waiting to pay plenty of $$ to get their fat little hands on these 3D releases for their home theatre screens in 3D? I think not. I wouldn't even put it past the studios to release their 3D titles to the DVD market in horrible anaglyphic, just to grab that lucrative home market. But with this much better LCD shutter system, there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually make any new 3D release on which they spend millions to produce, available to the vast home video market which we already know brings in more revenue than the theatrical run.
And once again, the exhibitor invested in digital video with the unspoken hope that he will have something totally unavailable to the home video screen, STILL won't have anything the public can't get at home, even though he's had to sell his first born to install that spanking new digital video projector. So sad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic