Does 3D Work?

http://techland.time.com/2011/01/28/does-3d-work/#ixzz1CnUofQOT

By Michelle Castillo on January 28, 2011

The debate whether 3D technology is necessary has basically boiled down to one question: Does the technology even work? Leading the anti 3D group has been Roger Ebert. Vehemently against the technology, he's posted time and time again his reasons to why he doesn't believe it's worth our time and money. In his post "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)," he argues that the image is always darker than the 2D version, and it rarely provides an experience that's worth the extra money. In addition to making some of us nauseous and being a distraction, he said that our brain, which is already used to seeing things in the third dimension, automatically converts what we see on the screen. His most poignant argument, however, comes from the fact that he believes Hollywood is dumbing down entertainment and losing the importance of story, not visual tricks, in movies:

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It's all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can't get at home. But they're betting on the wrong experience.

He also posts a letter from famed film editor and sound designer Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now, The English Patient, Cold Mountain), who explains why 3D technically doesn't work. It's a convergence and focus issue, he explains:

But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

As a counterpoint, Slate's Daniel Engber argues that it's about time for Ebert to quit griping about 3D. If our eyes are already used to seeing in 3D, then what's the difference if we see a movie in 3D? He says it adds a different experience - the bonus of binocular disparity - which can bring us in to the movie and add to the suspense:

It's just as silly to presume that viewing a film in 3-D is any less natural—from an evolutionary perspective or otherwise—than watching it flat. For starters, the human eye did not evolve to see elephants stomping across the Serengeti at 24 frames per second. Nor are we biologically attuned to jump cuts, or focus pulls, or the world seen through a rectangular box the sides of which happen to form a ratio of 1.85 to 1. Nor indeed was man designed to gaze at any image while having no control over which objects are in focus and which are blurry. If all those distinctly unnatural aspects of standard, two-dimensional cinema seem unobtrusive, it's only because we've had 125 years to get used to them.

Personally some movies like Avatar I don't think I would would watch any other way because 3D makes the movie an experience and really helps you enter the world of Pandora. I do like to have my options though, and it does get annoying when I can't watch a regular movie in 2D because there are only 3D versions out there. I don't think adding another dimension to classics like The Godfather or A Clockwork Orange will make a difference because people are drawn to these movies because of the high level of storytelling skill it took to make them. What do you think?

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/01/28/does-3d-work/#ixzz1CnUm8APC

 

Two Thumbs, Two Dimensions

http://www.slate.com/id/2282376/pagenum/all/#p2

 

Roger Ebert is done talking about 3-D movies. Thank goodness.

 

By Daniel EngberPosted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 12:00 PM ET

 

Is 3-D as bad as Roger Ebert says?As far as Roger Ebert is concerned, the discussion about 3-D is over. "The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous," he wrote in his blog Sunday. "The case is closed."

 

If that means Ebert will stop complaining about the medium, so much the better. For years now, the venerable critic has been griping that 3-D cinema is dim, distracting, and useless. And I mean for years: Even at the age of 10, young Ebert turned up his nose at Arch Oboler's stereo jungle adventure, Bwana Devil. (Deeply unmoved, was he, by the hails of spears.) That was back in 1952; more than a half-century later, he's still shaking his fist at the silver screen—I hate 3-D and you should, too! Professional obligations notwithstanding, Ebert doesn't want to see another movie in three dimensions. Ever.

I've had enough of this persnickety crusade, marching, as it does, under the banner of pseudoscience. "Our ancestors on the prehistoric savannah developed an acute alertness to motion," Ebert writes, in an attempt to explain why movies like Clash of the Titans totally suck.

 

But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie.

 

OK, let's not quibble with the idea that human beings might have evolved to jump away from oncoming automobiles on the prehistoric savannah. I'm more interested in the two notions that follow from this dubious logic. First, that we ought not consume any form of entertainment that doesn't derive from a selected biological trait; and, second, that standard flat-screen cinema is somehow better suited to our genetic makeup—more natural, I guess—than 3-D.

 

I wonder if Ebert really believes that the arts should cater to our Darwinian design, or that we're incapable of enjoying anything for which our brain wasn't delicately prewired. But in the event that he does, I'd only point out that such gimmicky and distracting art forms as, say, music, may very well be fiddling with our cortex in ways that have nothing to do with the fight-or-flight demands of a saber-toothed tiger attack.

 

It's just as silly to presume that viewing a film in 3-D is any less natural—from an evolutionary perspective or otherwise—than watching it flat. For starters, the human eye did not evolve to see elephants stomping across the Serengeti at 24 frames per second. Nor are we biologically attuned to jump cuts, or focus pulls, or the world seen through a rectangular box the sides of which happen to form a ratio of 1.85 to 1. Nor indeed was man designed to gaze at any image while having no control over which objects are in focus and which are blurry. If all those distinctly unnatural aspects of standard, two-dimensional cinema seem unobtrusive, it's only because we've had 125 years to get used to them.

 

According to Ebert, the 3-D effect brings in an "artificial" third dimension, which doesn't serve to make a movie any more realistic. In fact, he says, it makes an image seem less real, since under normal circumstances "we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us." Here he appears to be confusing cheesy, pop-out effects (which are used judiciously in the better—and more recent—films) with the medium as a whole. Yes, some 3-D movies do contain these gimmicks, but others do not.

 

In any case, it's not clear to me why one depth cue might be deemed artificial and unnecessary, while others are just fine. After all, a regular old 2-D movie carries its own set of visual guidelines for understanding spatial relationships. Objects in the foreground block our vision of what's behind them. Shading and texture tell us about the three-dimensional shape of an object on the screen. Ebert would certainly agree that you don't need to watch the famous sequence from Dial M for Murder in its original 3-D to understand that Anthony Dawson is creeping up behind Grace Kelly, and that he's going to lift a stocking over her head to strangle her. Yet he's apoplectic over the thought of adding one more depth cue into the mix.

 

With 3-D cinema, we still have occlusion and shading and texture—and we're still missing motion parallax—but now we get the added benefit of binocular disparity. We don't need that extra information to see that Grace Kelly's killer is lurking behind her, but it adds, at the very least, clarity and precision to the scene. Exactly what part of that is "artificial"? As it happens, the 3-D version of Dial M also gives us something more: When Kelly falls across the desk, her hand reaches through the stereo window, as if imploring the audience for help. It doesn't make us jump out of the way like Ebert's Homo habilis. It draws us into the action.

 

Which brings me to Ebert's latest post, the one described as his final word on "why 3-D doesn't work and never will." To support this claim, he prints a letter from Walter Murch, a decorated film editor and sound designer most notable in this context for sharing Ebert's curmudgeonly disregard for stereo cinema. Like Ebert, Murch complains that 3-D is too dark, and then adds that it's too "small" on the screen. (I think he's referring to the medium's "puppet-theater effect," which tends to make everything and everyone appear shrunken down to the size of dolls.) These problems could be solved, he concedes, but "the biggest problem with 3-D … is the 'convergence/focus issue.' " A stereo film forces the viewers to hold their focus at one plane of depth, even while their eyeballs rotate inwards and outwards to follow the action. "It is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time," he goes on. "And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before." (Again with the cavemen …)

This is a reasonable point, and it may represent a real challenge for 3-D filmmakers. I've given my own accounting in Slate: In "The Problem With 3-D," I wondered if the unnatural eye movements provoked by stereo cinema might be the source of the bleary eyes, headache, and nausea that sometimes affect 3-D viewers. This wasn't an original idea, of course—the same concern had been laid out in the Atlantic (to pick just one instance) in 1953, not long after Ebert's dad took him to see Bwana Devil. All these years later, we still don't know whether the "convergence/focus issue" causes 3-D headaches, or if they arise from some other aspect of the experience. Either way, I proposed, the problem of visual discomfort would doom the new batch of digital 3-D films to the same fate as their analog forebears: The bubble will pop.

 

Thing is, I've changed my mind since I wrote that piece nearly two years ago. Or maybe 3-D movies changed my brain: After watching 10 or 20 of these films since then, I've grown accustomed to the ocular aerobics, and the same format that gave me splitting headaches back in 2009 hardly bothers me now. Meanwhile, certain technical innovations, especially in animated 3-D, have begun to eliminate some of the medium's most egregious visual quirks. And while, like Murch, I'm still distracted by the puppet-theater effect in live-action 3-D, that "problem," too, may diminish as we all get used to it.

 

If I'm right that it takes multiple viewings to understand and appreciate three-dimensional cinema, you might think Roger Ebert would eventually come around. But even before he'd decided the case was closed, Ebert seems to have sworn off any real engagement with the medium. Armed with his evolutionary theory of film, he's content to sit back and hurl the occasional spear of his own. A recent review of The Green Hornet contained only this note at the very bottom: "Yes, it was in 3-D. The more I see of the process, the more I think of it as a way to charge extra for a dim picture." And while he does commend the effect from time to time—it's "useful" in Tron: Legacy and "quite acceptable" in Megamind—he's rarely willing to acknowledge that 3-D might have anything substantive to offer on its own terms, that maybe it's not only a marketing gimmick (it is that, to be sure), but a new kind of filmmaking that brings along both limitations and opportunities.

 

Take Toy Story 3: I've gone on record with my admiration for the scene at Daisy's window, where Lotso finds he's been replaced by another toy. There's no sight gag there, no objects hurtling off the screen; instead, the image contorts visual space into a crisscrossing, emotional depth. If the scene were flat, Lotso and Daisy would be right next to each other on the screen; in 3-D, they're spread across a lonely chasm, separated by rain-streaked glass. Is this a fluke, or a sign of what three-dimensional cinema could be? Ebert's not interested. He sums up Pixar's innovative use of stereo with a one-line postscript to his review: "Just don't get me started about the 3-D." Don't get him started; the case is closed. Maybe that's for the best.

 

James Cameron To Improve 3D For Avatar 2

http://www.today3d.com/2011/02/james-cameron-to-improve-3d-for-avatar.html

 

Feb 1, 2011

 

James Cameron has revealed that he wants to improve 3D for the Avatar sequel.

 

Avatar set the standard for 3D cinema when it was released in 2009 - going on to become the biggest grossing movie of all time.

 

And Cameron is planning to set the bar even higher when he begins to work on a much awaited sequel.

 

Talking to SpeakEasy the filmmaker said: "For Avatar 2, what I'm most interested in is getting theatres to up their light level," Cameron said.

 

"And we want to shoot the movie at 48 or maybe even 60 frames a second, and display it at that speed, which will eliminate a lot of the motion artifacts that I think are causing some people problems.

 

"People talk about feeling sick or something like that, and I think it's because the image is strobing," That's a function of the 24-frame frame rate, which has actually got nothing to do with 3D.

 

"It's just made more apparent because the 3D is otherwise such an enhanced, realistic image, that all of a sudden you're aware of this funky strobing which you weren't aware of."

 

Cameron is back on the big screen this week; in a producing capacity at least, with the release of new 3D adventure Sanctum.

 

As well as Avatar 2 and 3 in the pipeline Cameron is also set to direct Battle Angel, which is based on the Yukito Kishiro graphic novels.

 

3D market is going to explode: James Cameron

http://www.today3d.com/2011/02/3d-market-is-going-to-explode-james.html

 

Feb 1, 2011

 

He waited for about 15 years to develop the right technology to shoot Avatar, the highest grossing movie in cinema history, but James Cameron feels that the market for 3D is going to get bigger in the near future and transcend filmmaking.

 

The Oscar-winning director, who is bringing Sanctum in 3D after the mega success of Avatar, releasing in India on February 4, is known for his fetish for the underground world and new technology.

Cameron, who pioneered 3D, is averse to bad conversions but feels that a few bad films won't affect its market.

"When the consumer electronics manufacturers bring to market sets that don't require glasses, at that point, it's going to explode like crazy. The market is growing. The number of networks and terrestrial broadcast companies, cable companies and satellite companies that are investing, either tentatively or aggressively, in 3D is increasing all the time," Cameron said in an email interview.

The 56-year-old director feels that apart from feature films, 3D is going to expand to sports, TV programmes and live broadcast, which he says is right around the corner.

Cameron is not bothered about naysayers and is preparing for the increase by expanding the production of the Fusion cameras in his company but he is still concerned with bad 3D.

"We're having to expand much more rapidly than we thought we were going to. We'll be building hundreds of camera systems in the next year to service the demand. There have been a lot of naysayers but it never stopped growing.

"I'm excited about the possibilities of new technology but I'm also concerned about the possibilities of bad 3D. These fast conversions done during post-production are still a problem but most people have started to veer toward native 3D production," he adds.

Talking about his latest production Sanctum, which has been directed by Alister Grierson on a screenplay by John Garvin and Wight, Cameron says he wanted to make the audience a part of the anxiety that the characters go through.

"Five years ago, Andrew brought me the idea and I loved it. Andrew and I had previously been on some great adventures together. We dove deep into the ocean to uncharted depths to explore and discover never-before-seen parts of the ocean floor and marine life for Aliens of the Deep. We dove theTitanic (for Ghosts of the Abyss) and the Bismarck," he says.

The film follows a team of underwater cave divers on a treacherous expedition to the largest, most beautiful and least accessible cave system on Earth and how they get trapped inside after a tropical storm.

"We want audiences to be left with a certain experience where they feel involved with the perils faced by the characters. Action is a way of externalizing an emotional state. You might be in a situation where you're absolutely petrified and you might be seconds away from death, but not a lot might be happening," says Cameron.

 

RealD Gets Bigger With XLW and Regal

http://celluloidjunkie.com/2011/01/27/reald-gets-bigger-with-xlw-and-regal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+celluloidjunkie+%28celluloidjunkie.com%29

 

Posted by J. Sperling Reich | January 27, 2011 5:16 pm

RealD is showing signs that they have no intention of slowing the pace of their growth in the cinema marketplace. Already the leading worldwide provider of 3D technology for motion picture exhibitors, the company made two big announcements over the past week which will help push its share of the market even higher.

The first bit of news was about the XLW Cinema System, a new RealD product capable of projecting a 3D image on a screen up to 82 feet (25 meters) wide. Given that the XL Cinema System could already throw an image onto an 80 foot (24.4 meters) the big news here seems to be that the 1.0 throw ratio of the XLW.

Most throw ratios fall between 1.8 and 2.0, meaning if the screen is 40 feet wide, the distance between the projector and the screen has to be 72 to 80 feet. With a throw ratio of 1.0 and a maximum screen width of 82 feet, the XLW can project large images in a smaller space. It’s not hard to see why RealD developed the technology. With the popularity (not to mention increased revenue) of Imax screenings, many major theatre chains have begun to retrofit traditional auditoriums into branded “large screen” venues. Regal has RPX, AMC has ETX and Marcus Theatres has UltraScreen, to name just a few.

The XLW system will allow exhibitors to install much wider screens in stadium seat auditoriums which generally have shorter throws.

The second RealD announcement may be the more important of the two. Regal Entertainment Group has agreed to double down on their investment in RealD technology by installing the company’s 3D technology on an additional 1,500 screens throughout their circuit. This alters the May 2008 contract between RealD and Regal which called for the deployment of 1,500 3D screens.

Despite what some industry pundits might have you believe, Regal CEO Amy Miles claims moviegoers have not grown tired of viewing stereoscopic content:

“We continue to see high demand from moviegoers for RealD’s premium 3D viewing experience and to meet that demand Regal expects to 3D-enable approximately 40% of its screens as part of its ongoing nationwide digital rollout.”

If Regal, which is the largest theatre chain in the world, were to install 3,000 3D-capable screens out of their current 6,698, then that 40% would actually be more around 45%.

 

3D Without Glasses Is Possible In the Blink Of An Eye

http://celluloidjunkie.com/2011/01/29/3d-without-glasses-is-possible-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+celluloidjunkie+%28celluloidjunkie.com%29

 

Posted by J. Sperling Reich | January 29, 2011 12:23 am

Over the past several years as Hollywood began churning out an increasing number of 3D films a single question has been on the minds of both exhibitors and moviegoers. When will it be possible to watch 3D movies without the need to wear glasses?

Whether they use polarized lenses, spectral filters or active shutters, theatre owners would like to do away with the glasses that have become an operational burden and overhead expense. Theatre patrons have mixed feelings about the spectacles, complaining about comfort and low light levels.

But 3D glasses may be a thing of the past according to Francois Vogel. His video demonstration of a new technology that enables 3D content to be viewed without glasses has been a huge hit on YouTube, generating over 4.4 million views since it appeared on the site January 14th. Jonathan Post has developed two diodes that, when placed on one’s temples, stimulates the eyes to blink 120 times per second, alternating between the left and right eye. This mimics the method used by 3D active shutter glasses.

Currently, the system works with 120Hz monitors and Post hopes to commercialize the product over the next year. The topic of 3D glasses is a hot topic among consumers as witnessed by the countless blog posts about the video, including one on Engadget which has received over 700 reader comments. However, if moviegoers think 3D glasses are uncomfortable, I find it hard to believe they will find fluttering eyelids to be a more soothing alternative.

What do you think of Post’s technology and this technique for viewing 3D without glasses? Does it have a future? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Palace Cinemas | www.palacecinemas.net | 22 Sites, 185 Screens in Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary

 

Hollywood 3D and local hits fuel record Japan box office

Jan 27, 2011

 

http://www.today3d.com/2011/01/hollywood-3d-and-local-hits-fuel-record.html

 

Japanese movie theaters rang up record ticket sales in 2010, powered by Hollywood 3D blockbusters such as "Avatar" and strong performances by local franchise films, industry data showed on Thursday.

But despite the Hollywood-driven 3D boom, imported films lagged Japanese fare in overall market share for the third straight year, the Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan data also showed.

The Japanese box office rose 7.1 percent in 2010 to a record 220.7 billion yen ($2.7 billion), topping the previous peak set in 2004, the association said.

Box office figures were inflated by the premiums charged for 3D viewing, which generally tack on about 300 yen per ticket, but the number of admissions also rose 3 percent.

By contrast, the North American box office was mostly steady from the previous year at about $10.6 billion in 2010 but attendance fell 5.2 percent, according to Hollywood.com Box Office.

Twentieth Century Fox's sci-fi juggernaut "Avatar" was the year's top grossing film with 15.6 billion yen ($190 million). Fellow 3D titles "Alice in Wonderland" and "Toy Story 3," both distributed by Walt Disney Co, also smashed the 10 billion yen mega-hit mark. That is a level no film had managed to crack the previous year.

The top Japanese film and no. 4 overall was the animated film "The Borrowers," based on a children's fantasy novel by British author Mary Norton. The latest offering from cartoon maestro Hayao Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli, and which was distributed by Toho, raked in 9.25 billion yen.

Close behind were 3D rescue diver flick "Umizaru 3: The Last Message" (8 billion yen) and cop action thriller "Bayside Shakedown 3" (7.3 billion yen). Both films were also distributed by Toho.

Such homegrown series have in recent years helped local films outsell once-dominant Hollywood movies, as audiences shun U.S. superhero and other franchises that carry lower name recognition in Japan.

Imported films accounted for about 46 percent of last year's box office receipts, lagging Japanese fare for a third consecutive year and far off a peak of 73 percent marked in 2002, the data showed.

But audiences still went for "Resident Evil: Afterlife," the fourth outing in a zombie franchise based on a videogame series by Japan's Capcom, due to familiarity with the game.

The Sony Pictures Entertainment release scared up 4.7 billion yen ($57 million), nearly equaling its North American haul of $60 million and making Japan "Afterlife's" top international market.

Twentieth Century Fox is a division of News Corp and Sony Pictures Entertainment is a unit of Sony Corp.

 

I love TV innovations - so why am I a 3D refusenik?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/jan/19/3d-tv-sky-refusenik

3D home-viewing is a wonderful experience but unfortunately content is limited and expensive

As the Consumer Electronics Show took place in Las Vegas earlier this month I sat down with relatives to watch their new 3D-enabled 50-inch TV set. The Las Vegas show revealed an uncomfortable truth. While handheld tablets are booming off the back of the iPad, sales of 3D TV sets are slow, despite hefty marketing. There is considerable consumer resistance to the heavily engineered and expensively adapted (for TV) glasses.

As a media correspondent, I was an early adopter of the satellite dish – installed on February 4, 1989, the day before Sky Television launched – digital TV in 1998, and Sky+ in 2002. My family were also in the first wave of converts to Sky HD: insisted upon by my sports-mad son and husband.

But now I've been overtaken. We are not a 3D household. So why not? Well, there is the cost of yet another new TV set, I did not see Avatar or Alice in Wonderland, and I simply don't feel tempted.

Six of us sat down in a large drawing room, on a dark gloomy evening to watch the new 3D Sky channel on the new TV, which left little change from £2,000.

And here the problems began. Until going 3D, the household had subscribed to the basic Sky entertainment package, costing £19.50 a month, plus HD – another £10.

Having bought their new set they only belatedly realised that in order to have Sky 3D they had to double their subscription to the top-rate package, including movies and sports, which costs £62 a month. It's in the small print, but it came as a shock to them.

A BSkyB spokesman said the company added 3D to this, its top-tier Sky World package, which also includes HD, at no extra cost. The problem is that you can subscribe to HD with any of the other cheaper packages, but not 3D.

Consumer resistance to the heavy 3D TV spectacles was acknowledged at Las Vegas, and the hope is that a new range of sets will remove the need for specs. Extra pairs cost £80 each. There is also another problem. To benefit from 3D you have to sit directly in front of the TV set.

Yet the truth is that the 3D home-viewing experience was wonderful. We were entranced – until we got bored with golf. 3D content is so limited at the moment. Sky said that is why it is only offered as part of a top-tier movies and sports package, where 3D programming is concentrated. One million people have already watched a 3D broadcast in British pubs, via Sky Sports.

But the number of 3D domestic subscribers to Sky's service currently runs at tens of thousands, a drop in the ocean compared with its overall subscriber base of more than 10 million. So 3D is currently a far cry from the spread of HD, where every production is converting to the new technology.

Recently I luxuriated in a sumptuous Sky Arts HD broadcast of Swan Lake from the Royal Opera House. That's enough for the moment. I will remain a 3D refusenik, until convinced I am really missing out.

 

3D, Year Two: A Clash of Technologies

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2011/01/3d_year_2_a_clash_of_technolog.php

 

Thursday January 13, 2011

 

Last year's big CES story was the emergence of 3D TVs. While they didn't sell as many as some thought, most of the sets we saw last year had one thing in common: they required active glasses in which a shutter would open and close over each eye very quickly. This year, that technology was still out in full-force, but models that used passive glasses and those that work without special glasses at all were widespread as well. The result is a broader range of technologies that may help make 3D more palatable for a larger audience.

 

To me, the passive-glasses models were the most interesting. A lot of these were made possible by a new panel LG Display introduced last month using what it calls film-type patterned retarder (FPR) technology. This uses circular polarized glasses--essentially the kind most 3D presentations in North America use. There were a few polarized displays last year, but they were mostly based on a glass substrate instead of a film and aimed at the professional market.

 

LG Electronics, of course, displayed its new passive glasses technology, which it calls "Cinema 3D" in its Infinia series of LCD TVs, in sizes ranging from 47 inches to 65 inches, as well as in a prototype 84 inch LCD set.

 

Vizio called its entry "Theater 3D," introducing sets from 22 to 71 inches. In most cases, prices are yet to be set, but a 65-inch model just went on sale with a suggested price of about $3,700, which is quite competitive with other LCD models at the same size. Vizio also showed an 84-inch 4K display.

 

Makers of passive glasses solutions point to a number of advantages of the technology, including the fact that the glasses are lighter, much less expensive, don't need charging, and are "flicker free." I have to say they looked pretty good.

 

On the other hand, makers of active glasses solutions, such as Samsung, point out that with passive glasses, because of the polarization, each eye is only getting half the resolution of the screen, while with active glasses both eyes gets full 1080p resolution. And they say active-glasses solutions have a broader viewing angle and that higher resolution reduces flicker and eye strain. My guess is different people will have different experiences, but in the show environment (which is admittedly far from perfect), the passive glasses versions looked better to me.

 

But I can definitely say that the active glasses models look better this year than last. Samsung in particular has reduced the size and weight of the glasses, and lots of vendors are now showing custom glasses for people who are harder to fit. Indeed, Samsung had a huge number of big 3D TVs, all with active glasses including a 75-inch demo model of an LED backlit unit.

 

Other companies continued to push the active-glasses market, including Sharp and Sony with their LCD lines; Panasonic with its Plasma line; and Mitsubishi with its DLP projection line, including an impressive new 92-inch model.

 

Glasses-Free 3D

Of course, many people object to wearing any glasses at all, whether passive or active, and there were a number of demos of "glasses-free" or "autostereoscopic" displays. Most of the larger models use "parallax barrier" technology (in which there is a barrier blocking certain pixels so each eye gets a slightly different view), although some use "lenticular" technology (like the "3D postcards" you sometimes see).

 

This works pretty well on small screens--it's already shipping on Fujifilm's 3D camera and some Japanese phones; Sony showed it on a variety of 3D camcorders; and of course Nintendo is set to use it on the upcoming 3DS. But on larger screens, it's more difficult because you need to be standing in the right place in the room to get the correct impact.

 

Toshiba probably made the biggest splash with this showing its 65-inch set, which was set so you could see the 3D effect from 3 specific locations. Toshiba said this would ship by the end of its next fiscal year (meaning by Spring 2012).

 

Toshiba also showed a different 3D technology on a laptop, using eye-tracking technology.

 

Lots of other companies had demos of glasses-free TVs as well.

 

LG as well had a large display with three good viewing angles.

 

Sony showed a 56-inch model based on a 4K LCD panel; a 46-inch model with a 2K LCD panel ; and a 24.5 inch 2K OLED panel.

 

The idea here is great: no one wants to put on special glasses to watch 3D. But in practice, the technology still has a ways to go. In some cases at the show, it looked ok if you stood in the exact right place, but looked fuzzy if you moved your head. That's ok on a mobile device--you can move the camera, phone, or portable gaming console to where you want, and they are designed to be viewed by a single person at a time. But in the TV market, I have difficulty imagining people happy with technology that forces them to sit in designated places and not move around.

 

So for the year ahead, my guess is that glasses-free 3D will be mostly aimed at smaller displays. On the other hand, I expect we'll see both active-glasses and passive-glasses models in large numbers, as the vendors try to push their technologies, looking for differences in the market. Just as with LCD, plasma, and projection, there will probably be room for a variety of choices.

 

I'm not sure how mainstream 3DTV is going to be, but I still think it has potential to be much larger than it is--as a feature on high-end sets, not as a separate kind of TV. But the biggest issue to me is still the paucity of compelling content. There are some great 3D movies, but many of them are locked up in exclusive deals between the studios and a specific TV vendor. And there are some live shows, but there needs to be much more--specifically really popular sports. (We won't get the SuperBowl in 3D this year, but maybe in 2012....?) All of this will happen over time, but the pace needs to improve if 3D is going to turn out to really matter this year.

 

 

Passive 3D vs. active 3D: Hands-on TV comparison

January 20, 2011 2:57 PM PST

 

by David Katzmaier

We compare a pair of 65-inch TVs, one with active and one with passive 3D TV technology.

(Credit: David Katzmaier/Joseph Kaminsky)

In late 2010, Vizio quietly released the 65-inch XVT3D650SV ($3,700), the first mainstream TV equipped with so-called "passive" 3D technology for the U.S. market. Earlier this week our review sample arrived, so in advance of the full review I'd like to present some initial impressions.

This is the first time we've had a chance to really sit down and watch a passive 3D TV, so of course our first order of business was to set it up in the lab next the other 65-inch 3D TV we had on hand: the 2010 Editors' Choice-winning Panasonic TC-P65VT25 ($4,300). Like nearly all other TV makers, Panasonic has embraced "active" technology for its 3D TVs, and for 2011, it didn't announce any passive 3D TVs.

For this initial look, I chose not to include comparisons with other TVs, for the simple reason that the Panasonic is the best comparison model to the Vizio I have available. It's the only 65-incher in our lab at the moment, its 3D performance is excellent, and its overall picture quality was the best of 2010. The Vizio, as the only shipping passive TV, is by default the "best" of its kind available.

I'm also not going to get into the technical differences between active and passive 3D, except to remind new readers that active requires expensive liquid crystal shutter glasses (at least $100 per pair in Panasonic's case; the VT25 ships with one pair free) that are relatively heavy and bulky; passive calls for cheap circular polarized glasses (Vizio's TV ships with four pairs) that feel like light sunglasses. Most U.S. theaters use passive technology, and in fact many theater 3D glasses will work with the Vizio.

So, seriously, which one is better?
Between the two, I definitely preferred active 3D in our side-by-side comparison, and my colleague and fellow video-quality evaluator Matthew Moskovciak agreed.

Between us we watched a few hours of various 3D materials with the TVs set up side-by-side in our darkened lab, switching between each set of eyewear and rewinding as needed to review certain segments. I used the Cinema picture setting on the Panasonic, and since the Vizio lacks picture presets for 3D, I simply reduced its backlight all the way to zero and chose the "Normal" color temperature mode to come as close as possible to a quick-and-dirty level playing field between the two.

The most obvious difference between the two TVs to us was, as expected, their apparent resolutions. Watching the 3D Blu-ray "IMAX: Under the Sea," the Vizio's picture looked softer, with less detail, a difference particularly visible in areas like the coral reefs and sandy sea bottoms. Compared with the Panasonic, the Vizio seemed almost standard-def, especially from our relatively close seating distance (8 feet, which is the minimum recommended by Panasonic for 3D viewing on their 65-incher). Even from a farther seating distance of 12 feet, the softness difference was apparent.

We expected this difference because, as Vizio, LG, and other purveyors of 2011 passive 3D TVs admit, the system they use halves the effective 1080p resolution, delivering only 540 lines to each eye. We just didn't expect it to be so obvious. As Matt said, it makes you appreciate how good "1080p to each eye" looks.

In this close-up photo of a paused 3D image on the Vizio, you can clearly see the separation between the lines with passive 3D. Of course the effect is more subtle from normal seating distances, but it still contributes to some visible artifacts.

(Credit: David Katzmaier)

As a result, in addition to the softness, you can actually see individual horizontal lines on the Vizio's big 65-inch screen, and in bright, flat fields they were visible from as far as 12 feet. For me these "scan lines" did blend together and become less noticeable over time, but nothing of the sort was visible on the Panasonic.

One other major flaw in the Vizio's image, and the worst in my opinion, took the form of "jaggies" that reminded us of nothing so much as the interlace artifacts seen on low-resolution, interlaced (480i) TVs. The small bodies of white fish in schools provided a good example, breaking into jagged edges on the Vizio and looking smooth and natural on the Panasonic.

Graphics like the Imax 3D logo also had jagged edges along the curves, and we saw the effects of the jaggies in numerous other areas that included any semistraight moving lines. A tennis match from the U.S. Open provided an even more glaring example: the lines of the court were jagged and the jaggies moved distractingly as the camera tracked player movement.

Both of the above issues with passive 3D in its current, half-resolution iteration, e.g. softness and visible artifacts, will be less noticeable at smaller screen sizes than 65 inches. The actual pixels and lines on smaller TVs shrink in size, and so it will be interesting to see how much less bothersome they become on, say, a 47- or 55-inch passive 3D TV (thanks to commenter HowardRourke for reminding me about this).

A few other differences should be screen size/seating distance independent. In a scene showing a field of wriggling worms receding into the distance, Matt also noticed that the apparent depth of field seemed shallower on the Vizio. Perhaps this difference has more to do with the TVs' different implementation than anything inherent to passive or active technology, but it was noticeable nonetheless.

The Imax disc has some areas of extreme crosstalk, or a ghostly double-image around objects. One of the worst was another field of worm-shaped things against a black background. In these scenes and others both displays showed crosstalk, and between the two we agreed it was worse on the Vizio. Its crosstalk was tinted blue, whereas the Panasonic's was amber, so that may have affected our impressions, but in the material we watched, passive 3D definitely didn't provide an advantage in crosstalk reduction. Interestingly, we also tried a pair of RealD passive 3D glasses and they reduced the Vizio's crosstalk quite a bit, although it was still worse than on the Panasonic.

When we moved off-angle, the active system also preserved the 3D effect better. We noticed no major drop-off in 3D fidelity when we moved to extreme angles on the Panasonic. On the Vizio, the 3D effect deteriorated and the formerly fused 3D image separated into its two parts (which looked similar to crosstalk, but was visible everywhere in the image) when we watched from extreme angles. Within a "normal" viewing angle, however, like anywhere on our three-seat couch perched at a close 8-foot distance, the Vizio's 3D image remained intact, so we don't think this difference will have a big impact on most people's enjoyment. You'll have to move pretty far off-angle for the passive 3D effect to start failing, and even then it's a gradual process.

In its favor, the passive image on the Vizio was quite a bit brighter than the Panasonic's active one, but in our view, the Panasonic's 3D was plenty bright for most dim and darker rooms. For bright rooms, however, the extra light output allowed by passive is a distinct advantage.

We also noted numerous other differences between the two that had little to do with 3D technology, including uniformity issues with the Vizio's edge-lit backlight, less accurate color on the Vizio--namely purplish blues, maybe fixable via calibration but I doubt it--and more. We'll wait for the full review to get into that, as well as any effect passive 3D has on 2D picture quality (although I haven't noticed anything obvious so far).

A question of comfort
Even with all of these flaws, passive 3D has a lot going for it beyond cheap glasses. Wearing a pair of today's active 3D specs, which generally feel more like heavy safety goggles than light prescription eyeglasses, for example, is definitely less comfortable over long periods of time (although companies like Samsung have announced lighter active glasses for 2011, and Panasonic has also lightened its new glasses design). Vizio's passive glasses fit easily over my eyeglasses, and I simply forgot they were there while I watched.

Vizio and LG used the term "flicker-free" to describe passive 3D at CES, a marketing-heavy reference to the fact that active glasses strobe on and off very rapidly (60 times each second per eye). In my experience the "flicker" of active glasses is impossible to discern directly when watching a 3D TV. It does cause some weird effects when you look through active glasses at certain light sources--like your laptop screen or some fluorescent lights--but that's not a big deal for critical, theaterlike viewing. The only obvious effect passive glasses have is a subtle dimming, like a cheap pair of sunglasses, so they're much more suitable for casual 3D viewing.

Advocates of passive say it's more comfortable over a 2-hour movie. In my experience active is comfortable enough, aside from the heavier glasses, although my judgment is still out on this one--I need more extended viewing sessions with both 3D technologies (nobody ever said reviewing TVs was easy) to say one way or the other for sure.

At least one CNET staffer to whom I showed the two TVs, however, did find passive more comfortable to watch beyond merely the weight of the glasses. He complained of a slight flickery effect with active, especially during fast motion, and said he would, based on the 15 minutes comparing between the two, buy the passive TV if 3D performance was his only consideration. As I've said before, 3D perception varies from viewer to viewer more widely than 2D.

Can passive be the MP3 of 3D?
Despite all of the picture quality issues I note above, the real question for TV buyers will be whether half-resolution passive 3D is still "good enough." When MP3 first came along, many of the audio-centric tech geeks I knew derided it as too low-quality to catch on. Now it's the de facto standard for digital audio, despite having lower audio quality than CD.

Vizio placed all of its 3D eggs in the passive basket in 2011, and given the cheapness of the eyewear, the fact that the technology "just works" without having to rely on syncing or powering up the glasses, and the improved comfort level imparted by lighter specs, it may not be a bad bet. For the next year at least, however, active and passive will battle it out for your 3D TV dollar, and if you're in the market, you owe it to yourself to audition both.

And just to complicate the 3D TV technology picture further, I'll note that full-resolution 3D using passive glasses is not only possible, it was demonstrated at CES. Real-D and Samsung's RDZ system promises full-rez 3D that's compatible with the same passive glasses Real-D uses in theaters. My guess is that it will be quite expensive at first, however.

I'll have more when the full review of the Vizio XVT3D650SV posts next week.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20028916-1.html#ixzz1CF03fLf8

 

"Schindler's List 3-D," Anyone? The Problem With Hollywood's 3-D Addiction

http://www.fastcompany.com/1715929/hollywood-is-addicted-to-3d-technology

 

BY Austin Carr Tue Jan 11, 2011

Movie industry execs are beaming over 3-D technology, which has helped bring about a box-office boom. Roughly 33% of earnings are now generated from 3-D films, and in 2010, six of the top 10 highest-grossing movies were shot in 3-D, with the top two, Toy Story 3 and Alice in Wonderland, banking more than a billion dollars each.

But it's not all digitally enhanced sunshine and roses in Tinseltown--or, at least, it shouldn't be. The industry's addiction to profits is creating a serious dependence on the third dimension, and it's manifesting itself in some very odd ways.

At last week's CES, for instance, we heard about how director Baz Luhrmann might shoot his Leonardo DiCaprio-topped version of The Great Gatsby in 3-D--as if we couldn't live without Nick Carraway's West Egg adventures in eye-popping visuals. Michael Mann also chimed in at the showcase with a nod toward the technology, saying he wants to shoot a "pure dialogue drama" in 3-D--cause nothing says "pure dialogue drama" like enhanced imagery. If only Eric Rohmer were still around.

This trend is especially apparent in post-production conversions. The technique, which enables filmmakers to transform movies from 2-D to 3-D after they've wrapped production, has been used time and again on a slew of movies in order to increase their bottom lines. This year, we saw conversions from such box-offices flops as Gulliver's Travels and Andrei Konchalovsky's The Nutcracker, the latter of which appears to have been a last-ditch effort to prop up the film, which grossed just $234,000 on a reported budget of $90 million. When the studios converted Clash of the Titans to 3-D, even James Cameron said "this was a point at which people had gone too far."

For graphically intense blockbusters like Cameron's Avatar and Tron: Legacy, 3-D technology makes sense, but the more cash these films pull in, the more likely we are to see 3-D become ubiquitious, overused and employed whether or not the technique is even relevant for the content. To wit: Even though the film grossed closed to $2 billion the first time around, studios are planning to re-release Titanic in 3-D. We'll also see 3-D re-releases for all six Star Wars films beginning in 2012, and even a 3-D CGI remake of The Beatles' Yellow Submarine. Thank heavens--I've been waiting more than 40 years to see John, Paul, George and Ringo play Pepperland as psychedelic holograms.

What other films will be made or converted into 3-D once the technology officially becomes the bankable technique? Wouldn't True Grit and The Social Network have been SO MUCH better if filmed in 3-D? And shouldn't Michael Moore and Steven Spielberg re-release Fahrenheit 9/11 and Schindler's List--in 3-D?

Or perhaps there are some films and genres that were never meant for the third-dimension, even if industry fatcats disagree. Mumblecore, for example, will likely remain untouched. 

 

Showcase Cinemas Go 'Fully Digital' with New Projection System from Sony

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/sonyprofessional_01_21_11.php

January 21, 2011

Source: Sony Digital Cinema

Showcase Cinemas has begun the process of going ‘fully digital’, with the installation of Sony Professional digital cinema 4k projection systems.

Beginning at the Cinema de Lux Leicester and then rolling out at the 21 Showcase and Showcase Cinema de Lux locations across the UK, the new systems feature more than four times the resolution of traditional Full-HD systems and offer incredible levels of detail and clarity in both 2D and 3D films. By the year end, all 276 Showcase screens will be fully digital - positioning the brand at the very pinnacle of innovative digital cinema.

Karen Fox, General Manager of UK Theatres for Showcase says: “The introduction of Sony Professional digital cinema 4k screens will allow us to offer the ultimate digital cinema experience to all of our audiences. These systems provide outstanding image and sound quality and will extend throughout our offering, including 3D and alternative content, to deliver the most advanced and exciting entertainment experiences to our existing and future customers.

“Most other digital cinema projectors are only 2k, but Sony 4k is dramatically different, with four times the pixel count, delivering better picture clarity, resolution and quality for a more compelling and entertaining cinema experience. This means cinema goers get a level of detail that they’ve never experienced before, greatly enhancing their enjoyment of a fast action-packed film or a big scale epic adventure.”

The Sony 4k system also enables viewers to sit closer to the screen and watch a seamless and continuous detailed picture, using an easy-on-the-eye technology, which maximises viewing comfort. The advanced 3D dual-lens adaptor system shows two images to both eyes simultaneously for more natural viewing, and gives a depth of field so lifelike that viewers can feel like they are part of the action.

Venue: Showcase Cinema de Lux Leicester
Address: 7 Highcross Lane, Leicester. LE1 4SD

For more information about Showcase Cinema de Lux Leicester and Sony Digital Cinema 4k, Studio One Restaurant & Bar and Insider membership, please visit www.cinemadelux.co.uk

 

RealD Introduces XLW Cinema System for 3D Projection in Premium Large Screen Venues

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/reald_01_20_11.php

January 20, 2011

Source: RealD

1.0 Throw Ratio Designed for Large Stadium Seating Auditoriums With Screens up to 82 Feet Wide

RealD Inc. announced that it has developed and begun deploying to motion picture exhibition venues the XLW Cinema System. An extension of the XL Cinema System, the XLW Cinema System can accommodate a throw ratio as wide as 1.0 (projection distance divided by screen width), and is designed for use in premium large screen motion picture auditoriums, theme parks and specialty theatres with stadium seating.

The XLW Cinema System is capable of delivering crisp, clear 3D images on screens up to 82 feet (25 meters) wide and maintains the industry-leading performance of the XL Cinema System by delivering to a screen twice the light of competing 3D projection technologies while utilizing a single DLP digital cinema projector.

“Many exhibitors are rolling out their own premium large screen auditoriums equipped with RealD 3D so they can give moviegoers a big screen experience across the full slate of 3D movie releases,” said Joseph Peixoto, President of Worldwide Cinema at RealD.

“The XLW Cinema System, with its 1.0 throw ratio and industry-leading light levels, is designed for these premium auditoriums’ stadium seating configuration. The XLW will assure that exhibitors have optimal 3D projection so moviegoers experience crisp, clear images for a fully immersive RealD 3D experience.”

RealD 3D technology is currently deployed in premium large screen auditoriums with a number of motion picture exhibitors including Regal (RPX), AMC (ETX), Cinemark (XD), Carmike (BigD), Marcus (UltraScreen), Cineplex (UltraAVX) and Essex Cinemas (T-Rex).

The XLW Cinema System utilizes light efficiency technology introduced with the XL Cinema System, which captures light lost by other 3D projection technologies and recycles it back onto the screen for a brighter and more immersive 3D experience. By utilizing a single digital cinema projector, XLW Cinema Systems do not suffer from the imbalance and misalignment issues of dual projector systems and offer exhibitors cost savings on power usage and equipment such as projectors and lamps.

RealD plans to demonstrate the XLW Cinema System at the Digital Cinema Symposium January 24-25, 2011, at Moody Gardens in Galveston, TX.

 

New 3D Entertainment Report: 450% increase in 3D Screens in 18 months

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/digdia_01_21_11.php

January 21, 2011

Source: DIGDIA

A new report by DIGDIA explains the 3D Entertainment ecosystem, from movie production to consumer products.

3D made a big splash a year ago, and it is still going strong. In mid-2009 there were about 5,000 3D movie screens worldwide. Now there are over 22,300 3D screens worldwide. This is an increase of nearly 450% in 18 months.

There continues to be growth in 3D movie titles, too. The first digital 3D movie was Disney’s Chicken Little in 2005. The number of digital 3D movie titles has nearly doubled every year since. In 2010 the number of 3D titles was just over 30. The number of announced 3D titles for 2011 is now approaching 60.

There is an explosion of 3D consumer electronics products, too. A year ago the market got excited with the introduction of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players. With a couple of small exceptions, 3D products from major brands were limited to just these two product categories. This year at the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show the market saw the introduction of products in at least 17 product categories. New 3D products ranged from camcorders to picture frames to notebooks and tablets.

And, while more is needed, there is going to be a lot more 3D to watch. In addition to all the personal 3D video people will take, in 2011 we will see ESPN’s 3D channel go 24/7; and Discovery’s 3D Channel, also 24/7, will finally turn on. There will even be a 3D channel from Penthouse.

Despite the writings of some people that say 3D was last year’s disappointment, the industry is pushing ahead. The 3D industry is still very young, so if it is not as big as some predicted, keep in mind that many things really only got started half a year ago. 2010 saw a lot of progress. That said, there is still a lot the industry needs to do.

A new 266 page report from DIGDIA details the complete 3D Entertainment ecosystem, pointing out the practical realities the industry is facing and the opportunities companies have for growth.

Download an excerpt at http://www.digdia.com/3d/dc3d11_main.htm

There is also a complementary white paper that you are welcome to download.

 

Arqiva Transmits 'Believe: the Eddie Izzard Story' to UK Cinemas

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/arqiva_01_21_11.php

January 21, 2011

Source: Arqiva

Satellite and production facilities for live event at Cineworld’s digitally enabled cinemas around the UK

Arqiva, on behalf of Cineworld, has provided complete transmission services for the launch of Believe: The Eddie Izzard Story in their UK Cinemas. Arqiva’s SNG/Production-facilities truck was deployed to the Cineworld Cinema on Haymarket where it played out and uplinked the film to satellites including Arqiva’s Digital Cinema Platform on IS905.

The truck then provided HD filming and uplinking of the live Q&A session with Eddie Izzard, hosted by Phil Jupitus in front of a celebrity audience. The complete event was downlinked and screened by nearly fifty Cineworld cinemas around the UK on 18 November.

George Eyles, Head of Digital Media Networks at Arqiva Broadcast & Media, said: “Arqiva has already successfully provided satellite services for live event Q&As into Cineworld’s digitally enabled cinemas. The additional transmission of recorded content by the onsite SNG reinforces the range of services offered by Arqiva and how these can be used by rights holders and broadcasters to create unique and exciting live events for digitally enabled cinemas all around the world. We look forward to working with Cineworld on future events.”

Arqiva provides robust satellite and IP networks for the managed delivery of entertainment, information and advertising worldwide. It works with leading media distributors to provide electronic delivery services for feature films and live events into digital cinemas across Europe.

 

Ballantyne Strong Expands Asia Footprint with Orders for 250 NEC Digital Cinema Projection Systems from New Customers - Beijing Yida Jiuzhou Film and The Jinyi Group

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/ballantyne_01_17_11.php

January 17, 2011

Source: Ballantyne

Ballantyne Strong, Inc., a provider of digital cinema projection equipment and services, cinema screens and other cinema products, announced that it has been selected to provide 150 NEC digital cinema projection systems to Beijing Yida Jiuzhou Film, a newly launched exhibition company, and 100 projection systems to The Jinyi Group. Both are first-time Ballantyne customers. Approximately 50 of the systems were shipped in Q4 2010, and the balance is expected to ship principally in Q1 2011.

Gary L. Cavey, President and CEO of Ballantyne, commented, “Our Asian digital cinema business continues to thrive as Chinese theatre exhibitors move aggressively to both convert existing theaters to digital as well as to expand cinema penetration across the country. We are delighted to forge new relationships with both Beijing Yida Jiuzhou Film and The Jinyi Group. Ballantyne remains well positioned to participate in Asian growth opportunities in coming years.”

With over 16 years of experience operating in Asia, Ballantyne has significantly expanded its presence in region over the past two years. The Company has full-service facilities in Beijing and Hong Kong and a recently opened satellite sales office in Shanghai.

About Beijing Yida Jiuzhou Film & TV Culture Co Ltd

Established in early 2010, Beijing Yida Jiuzhou is led by experienced industry professionals focused on digital cinema equipment and related marketing and promotion programs. The Company also is involved in new theatre construction and digital cinema equipment upgrades.

About The Jinyi Group

Since 2004, Jinyi Group has been one of the fastest growing and most successful Chinese exhibition companies, with ownership of approximately 30 modern cinema complexes located throughout the country.