3-D will probably be pushed again for Avatar sequel(s) - how many will be onboard?

[Steve Guttag]

Jesse, what you really don't seem to "get" is that you are part of a very small (but devoted and enthusiastic) minority that actually wants 3D. For the business of running a movie theatre, it doesn't generate revenue...quite the opposite, it causes revenue to not be generated (takes up a show or shows that a 2D performance would outperform).

For one that is so altruistic about presentation standards, you seem to take a blind-eye to what 3D does to the venue. With any of the polarization systems, you alter the color space (silver screens don't reproduce the colors properly), you alter the light uniformity (high gain screens) and you reduce the quality for both 2D and 3D in order to have the 3D capability. It's a bad investment if one is concerned about presentation quality. It's a bad investment if one is concerned about profiting from their business. It is a liability.

Sure, when 3D goes through its fad-cycle, like it does every couple of decades to get the next generation, it has a bubble of interest...then crawls back under the rock from which it came. Even for the home market, 3D lost its luster as I believe 3D was dropped from the HDMI 2.0 and above standards.

If you really want to see 3D in cinemas now, I suggest seeking out a Dolby Cinema. They don't use a silver screen and will have the brightness levels you desire. Sure, they cost more but so does the equipment that goes into them. Their 3D uses two of the most expensive projectors in cinema to pull off. But hey, you'll get the best in cinema sound with the best in cinema picture with it.

As for charging more for sound. While people may complain about the volume in 5.1 and above, that is about it. You don't get people that get headaches and such because they were in a 5.1 movie (or Dolby Atmos). The equipment they use and the manner in which it was set up has a greater effect on customer comfort than the number of channels. And, for the record, we do have clients that do, in fact, up-charge for their Dolby Atmos presentations. It does, in fact, cost a lost more to put in a system that has over 50-channels of speakers (typically) than one that has 8-channels. There is a significant increase in the cost of rigging, aiming and going through the entire certification process than for a 5.1/7.1 system. If people didn't pay for it, they wouldn't do it. It's a business, afterall. We also have some clients that don't upcharge for Dolby Atmos too.

[Jason Sharp]

if there were an upcharge for surround sound and people didn't want to pay it, would you just run shows in mono instead?

YES!!! Always follow what your customers want. If my customers wanted black and white on tiny screens that's what I would show. It doesn't matter what YOU like. The only thing that matters is what YOUR CUSTOMERS like.

[Jesse Skeen]

Funny how that doesn't apply when they say they don't want pre-movie commercials. I've always believed there is only ONE correct way to show a movie, anything else is an alteration or compromise. If a movie is in 3D, it should be shown in 3D, period. If people don't like that, they can see something else- and if they get a 'headache' from 3D then either something is wrong with their vision or the presentation.

But if people really dislike 3D as much as you say, then what sense does it make to charge MORE for it? That just seems like a recipe for disaster.

For one that is so altruistic about presentation standards, you seem to take a blind-eye to what 3D does to the venue.

Maybe so, but if those are problems then they should be FIXED, don't just go back to 2D even for 3D-shot movies! That's like those who say they don't like 3D because it's too dark. I've heard about problems with silver screens but I haven't noticed them, most of the presentations here have been too dark to show any problems with the screens anyways whether in 3D or 2D, which is why I hardly go to theaters anymore.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I have had one customer in Central Utah run Dr Strange in 3-D movie last two weeks week. The 3-D did not really provide any revenue boost in ticket sales over what the 2-D would have been. He said most people didn't know that 3-D was still around.

[Jesse Skeen]

I've heard the 3D in that is great, and showing it in 2D would be a huge disservice. ALL of the Marvel movies since the first Captain America have been in 3D.

I've found that the vast majority of people don't care either way about presentation, for better or worse- it's just that some, usually the ones who are wrong, tend to be more vocal. In the 90s, the people who complained about the sound being too loud (even when it really wasn't) got the most attention, so at times the sound got turned down too low (ruining the experience for those who really cared about quality) to appease those people. But for the most part, they'll just take whatever you give them.

Take my dad for example- he doesn't dislike 3D, but can take or leave it. I've had him over to my place to watch 3D movies and he's been impressed with some of them. A few years ago he mentioned that he went with some friends to see the first Wonder Woman movie, at the theater I worked at for nine years. I asked if they were showing it in 3D and he said "No, I didn't know that movie even was in 3D." So they would have happily seen it in 3D had the theater bothered to show it that way, but just took whatever was there.

[Steve Guttag]

If there wasn't money in the preshow ads, they wouldn't run them. As the exhibitor has been squeezed more and more at the boxoffice and no longer can run a movie with "legs" ad revenue is where they have turned, for the most part. I don't agree with it but I understand it. I think preshow ads take away from the theatre experience and I'm sure it has turned away some potential patrons but you'd be really pressed to show on a spreadsheet just what that percentage is due to a lot of variables.

and if they get a 'headache' from 3D then either something is wrong with their vision or the presentation.

Just because YOU don't get a headache (or eye strain) doesn't mean that a significant portion of the population doesn't. You can be sitting in a perfectly calibrated 3D show and the person next to you could be clutching their head in pain or rubbing their eyes or even using "2D" glasses {https://store.dftba.com/products/2d-glasses} just to make it stop (a product made so couples/family members could go out and not have those who suffer from the headaches have to skip out of your one-and-only-format theory.

I've heard about problems with silver screens but I haven't noticed them

Oh, I see, so if Jesse doesn't see well documented issues with silver screens, then they are good presentation and everyone should suffer with substandard presentations, 2D and 3D? Is there something about the physics of light that you understand more than the rest of us, including those of us that actually study and measure it, in cinemas?

Here are the numbers on an actual commercial silver screen. I do apologize, I could only locate the PDF outputs for the "FLAT" PSA outputs but the Scope camera shots for both Flat and Silver. I do have the Scope PSAs...just not in PDF form, at the moment as I'm at home:

Screen Shot 2022-05-29 at 4.08.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2022-05-29 at 4.17.38 PM.png

Compare that to an identical sized white screen:

Screen Shot 2022-05-29 at 4.18.49 PM.png


Screen Shot 2022-05-29 at 4.19.52 PM.png

And that doesn't even address color, which can't be well represented here.

Very few movies are actually composed for 3D. Ang Lee and James Cameron being notable people that purposely and design their movies around 3D. Most of Ang Lee's 3D ventures (well, all) have been flops. 3D or no. It's a format that the vast majority of people do not want or, are at best, indifferent to. You also fail to realize that there IS an increased cost to running 3D movies on every show. Single projector 3D systems, at best are 38% efficient and to achieve that, they take a hit in resolution. If you want it bright, it is going to require putting more light into the system. Dolby Vision uses a dual-projector system and you'll get your high brightness there but you are talking about a system they is, no like, more than 10-times the cost of a typical cinema system that can meet SMPTE standards for 2D on the same screen.

Conversely, the difference between 7.1 and 5.1 is the cost of 2 amplifier channels, in most places and possibly adding a couple of surround speakers in others. Now, immersive does cost a lot more but those too often have up-charges associated with them.

But again, at the end of the day, 3D doesn't sell tickets or not enough tickets (or TVs) to justify it's business existence. It, like high-frame-rate, hasn't sold itself to the public as a desire for movie going aside from a very small percentage.

[Jesse Skeen]

OK, you've convinced me- silver screens are bad. So find a better way to show 3D.

But I still seriously doubt, given all the other things customers have tolerated over the decades, that enough people would simply not to go a 3D movie if that was the only way it was being shown. If it's a popular movie, they'll see it in 3D, Atmos and D-Box or in 2D, mono and black and white if that's their only choice. If they get a headache even from perfectly-calibrated 3D then that's on them. I could say that Jennifer Lopez makes me vomit whenever she appears in a movie, but I wouldn't expect her to be cut out for my sake, I just wouldn't go see that movie.

It's funny how the most vocal people are like "I don't care if you show it out of focus, without masking, with dead speakers, Exit signs shining on the screen, but for god's sake don't show it in 3D!" The same people who keep their TVs at the default setting and it doesn't bother them, then yell at you when you adjust them- "I don't care how it looks, but for god's sake don't set it the RIGHT way!"

[Mike Blakesley]

But I guarantee that technical problems are the main reason why people avoid 3D;

Are you willing to back up that guarantee with cash? If so, I'm here to collect.

When we ran 3-D movies I never had one, NOT ONE, complaint about technical issues because I'm pretty finicky about our presentation and it's always the best I can make it. But I had lots of complaints about:

They don't like to wear a second pair of glasses
They don't like to wear glasses at all
The kids don't want to keep the glasses on
There's not enough stuff flying out of the screen so they don't see the point of 3-D in the first place (I would explain that it's more about depth than projectiles coming toward, but whatever)
They get a headache
They "can't see 3-D"
They just don't care for 3-D (personal taste)

I never had a complaint about the upcharge either, as a matter of fact. We charged $3 at first, then we lowered it to $2 because I felt like a pirate charging $3.

My own personal gripe with 3-D is, it makes my eyes dry out. I don't know if it's because my "blink" impulse is diminished with 3-D or what. But after an hour or so I'm rubbing my eyes to get them liquefied again. (Maybe this is what leads some to have headaches, but I don't get that result, thankfully.)

[Steve Guttag]

Jesse,

Why would one force 3D on people? What is the point? The desire is minimal from a patron or even a studio's perspective. Studios are only concerned about the money. It costs more to shoot in 3D so it has to justify its existence just like every other format. It cost more to shoot in 65mm back in the film days. Nobody would dispute that it was superior to 35mm in most every respect. It would alter how movies would be shot (much lower depth of field, needed more light to expose) but even its meger increase in a movie's budget (thinking tent pole movie, not independent) wasn't done because it costs more from beginning to end (all effects/sets, makeup, post production...everything had to allow for the better format). The format has to complete economically as well as technically in a business world. Far and Away was mostly shot 65mm and because it didn't bring in people in Star Wars like numbers, it was deemed a flop and a "see, 70mm doesn't mean anything" rather than people first judge a movie based on the content and THEN the technicalities.

But here is a difference, 3D is a technical change that, unlike 70mm, call attention to itself, constantly. 70mm tries to remove the technicalities of presentation (higher resolution, higher steadiness)...3D introduces problems. Instead of creating reality, it introduces a flaw not seen in the real world...that is when one looks at an object, their eyes both aim and focus on that object. That isn't the case with 3D cinema...there is only ONE focal plane, the screen. So no matter where your eyes converge in z-space, the focus remains on the screen. It isn't normal/natural. For single projector systems, something like 99% of the installed base, you introduce a field-sequential artifact. That is, the left and right eyes are not projected simultaneously. They are alternated. Triple-flash reduces the effect but it can be noticed more on horizontal movements. HFR highlighted the issue as often one had to reduce to double-flash so one's eyes dart back/forth with a motion artifact.

So, you'd say, that is a technicality that should be fixed (for whom...remember, there isn't this large cry for 3D)...but it has...Dolby Cinema uses dual projector 3D so you won't have the issue of field-sequential images...just lower convergence of the eyes (not really an issue unless it gets out of hand) but you are left with the issue of a single focal plane for objects in different z-space. Dolby Vision uses a white screen and high dynamic range. So, that is what you and your 3D afficnadios should seek out for your 3D cinema experiences. That is the state of the art in 3D cinema, at the moment. Oh, and you'll get a sound system that matches the image too. Just don't gripe that it costs more...because it does.

[Jason Sharp]

If it's a popular movie, they'll see it in 3D, Atmos and D-Box or in 2D, mono and black and white if that's their only choice.

But Jesse, that not true. A sizeable portion will will drive to a competing theater to see it in their preferred format.

I admire your strive to give the best possible presentation. But respectfully, while 3D may be technologically more advanced it doesn't necessarily mean it is superior. This isn't like 2K vs 4K.

As a business owner, I can't imagine trying to force a customer to purchase regular Coke if they want Diet. Why not sell them what they want? This is a business after all. It can sometimes be a struggle to eliminate your preferences from the equation, but you must learn to cater to your customers' wants if you want to run a successful business.

[Jesse Skeen]

This shouldn't be like regular or diet Coke- they don't have separate "family-friendly" versions of every R-rated movie, do they? You shouldn't get to choose a "preferred format" for every movie. If it isn't meant to be seen in 3D, a 3D "version" won't even exist to begin with. Would anyone demand a color movie be shown in black and white? Or conversely want every movie converted to 3D no matter what?

From what I remember in the 80s, when there were a few 3D movies in 35mm over/under format, that was the ONLY way they played in indoor theaters. Drive-ins got 2D prints because they weren't able to show polarized 3D, but that was it. Granted these were mostly B-movies, but I can't imagine that many people disliking 3D that much that they'd seek out a 2D showing. If they really are, then it's pretty sad THAT of all things is keeping them away, but not any of the other issues with theaters in general which has caused me to give up on them (which people on this board may be innocent of; I can't help noticing there seems to be nobody from any of the theaters in my area on here.)

It was "giving the public what they wanted" that forced everyone to watch pan-and-scan movies at home for many years, since people complained about "dem black bars" when they were properly letterboxed. (I'm REALLY surprised there aren't more complaints about that in theaters now with unmasked screens being common; at the very least you'd think they'd be asking to have the picture zoomed to fill the screen.) Fortunately that's largely in the past now, I've still heard some people complain about it but I no longer have cropped movies forced on me. I'm sure those who disliked letterboxing just learned to live with it and even understood why it's needed. Nothing is being "forced on" anyone but the correct presentation.

So answer this- if people really dislike 3D so much, why are studios STILL producing movies in 3D, even post-converted? I know they were doing that originally to charge more money, but now people aren't willing to pay it, and instead of lowering the prices most theaters are just dropping 3D showings (and the studios are partly to blame for that if they are allowing/providing 2D versions). Seems like studios would be losing money on 3D production now and just not bother with it. (Incidentally I think high frame rate movies look silly, but I wouldn't watch those downconverted to a lower frame rate either. In fact the Hobbit movies and Gemini Man are among the few 3D Blu-Rays I haven't bought because those aren't in the proper frame rate.)

[Mike Blakesley]

So answer this- if people really dislike 3D so much, why are studios STILL producing movies in 3D, even post-converted?

Probably because it doesn't cost all that much to make a 3-D version and/or there is still enough demand to make it a profitable version.

You should know by now that everything in this business (and any business, if we're really being honest) revolves around money. If the studios see a buck to be made, they will for the most part do whatever it takes to make it.

I only have one screen here, but I can feel very confident in assuring you that if we had two identical screens playing the exact same movie, one in 3-D and one in 2-D for the exact same money, the 2-D showing would be more crowded every single time. I mean, when we were showing 3-D I had quite a number of people who would say "This is in 3-D? Crap" or words to that effect, but I don't think I've ever had more than a random very few who are disappointed because a movie isn't in 3-D.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I do know quite a few people that dislike or rather hate 3D to such extend, that they will seek out other venues if a 2D showing compatible with their planning isn't available.

Now, Avatar may be the one movie franchise that's the exception. It was the original Avatar which more or less brought the previous 3D breakthrough. Also, Avatar was one of the few movies to use two cameras for almost all scenes, resulting in superior 3D compared to most if not all of the post-3D conversions out there.

But the situation obviously has changed. A lot more people are familiar with 3D right now as back then and have made up their opinions about it. Back then, Avatar was for many, their first or one of their first digital 3D experiences.

I still think that 3D will only be somewhat important if you're in a competing market, where the venue down the road is ALSO playing it in 3D and you're not. Then again, in many competing markets at least one of the "big name" PLF versions (IMAX, Dolby Cinema) will probably be available and those will certainly offer 3D showings.

[Jesse Skeen]

I mean, when we were showing 3-D I had quite a number of people who would say "This is in 3-D? Crap" or words to that effect

I hope to God I never meet any of those people.

But I do hope the industry has learned by now not to do lazy 3D conversions; they can look good when done right but I wouldn't mind if conversions just stopped altogether- however as long as those exist I still consider those the 'correct' versions- I know the end credits of the 2D versions still include the 3D conversion artists. I actually would've given 3D a bit of a break but it seems some already don't know it's still a "thing", hopefully Avatar can do it right and set a better precedent for other movies than before.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I hope to God I never meet any of those people.

Yeah, imagine people that refuse to wear a bunch of sunglasses while watching a movie on a giant mirror and don't want to pay for that privilege... The horror!