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

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: To 3-D screen, or to not 3-D screen? That is the question.

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 08-12-2010 04:38 PM

Tom,

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

-David

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 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.

| 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.