Posts
In the last Report I described what is known to date about Technicolor's announcement about its new over-under 3D process and lens for film projectors. Following that Report I asked people on several industry-related groups on various social media sites what they thought of the development. Their responses were decidedly mixed. Here's a sample.
Neil Feldman
CEO
In-Three and Video Post & Transfer
My company has a lot to gain by seeing as many 3D equipped theatres (be they analog or digital) as soon as possible. Regardless, I think this is a total non-starter. It reminds me of the company that used to market a totally vacuum tube based flip-flop. Where are they now? The industry wants and needs Digital Cinema for a whole host of important reasons unrelated to stereo 3D. It's just that the 3D aspect makes money for the exhibitor and everyone else. It is the enabler in the financial equation. However, going completely digital is the future. Silly tactics that delay its proliferation will be (and should be) dismissed in hindsight.
Doug Darrow
Worldwide Brand and Marketing Manager
DLP Products
I think it is a terrible idea. If the industry isn't careful they will wake up one day and find they have the same technology they had from the 1800's and the manufacturing base they need for the next century will be gone. Soon after that I think their customer may follow...
Harry Mathias
CEO
DCMP Consulting
This is film but for all of film's virtues, it will never project a rock-steady image. At least an over-under system, because both eye images are on one frame, avoids vertical parallax errors and the resulting headaches.
One issue with this system is that it violates Panavision's OptiMax patents (assuming they were renewed).
The other issue is that if this system uses older 1960s lenses it will be low performance. If it uses modern lenses they were rushed to market and will also be performance-challenged. If they are 35mm still camera lenses and use a relay and prism system they will be challenged to handle the heat without yellowing.
Clyde DeSouza
Creative Technology Provider
This is from the Technicolor website: "The exceptional image quality will leave you awestruck. For those who love the richness and saturation that film provides, the Technicolor 3D system can surpass current expectations. Look closely at the gradients, the brightness, and the flesh tones of the human form. For a film-loving society that is hungry for an escape from the everyday, there's no question that this technology is the start of something really engaging."
I just wanted to know, which 3D film is really being or going to be shot with a film camera these days? So isn't it that the movie will be shot digital (possibly soon in 4K res), then it will be "halved" for above below format, then it will be "printed" from digital to film stock... So actually source will be a digital sensor, and final out will be on film stock at half the resolution when accommodating for above/below format. How then will the above paragraph by Technicolor hold true?
Robert Margouleff
Entertainment Entrepreneur
I think Deluxe is not far behind with the same approach. 3D on film is not new but a first class way to solve the current logjam with digital screens.
There are not enough digital screens to profitably accommodate the 3D product in the pipeline, not mention all the foreign territories. What's wrong with a $15,000- $30,000 dollar solution? I have seen it and with new film stock and projection the results were very satisfactory. It keeps the projector and projectionists working till there is a big enough base for digital at $150,000 or so a pop. This way filmmakers concentrate on making 3D movies now and know that they will get their work to the public. Digital saturation is five years away. There are also many other issues outstanding in acquisition, post and exhibition. In the end it's about story telling and making great movies.
Thomas Polson
Founder
Sabre Digital
The 3D film solution requires a silver screen and does have many benefits as well as drawbacks. Technicolor is not the first to propose this to the studios. They are actually behind the curve. A modern stereo film solution (not referring to Technicolor's) for color and stereo effect are for the most part equal to digital. The noticeable difference is in perceived sharpness. This is partly due to film's characteristics and partly to the fact that each eye is only seeing half of a frame. The general audience wouldn't know the difference. Print degradation is probably the major issue.
I for one would like to see an alternative to the current RealD solution. My experience at theatres has been very disappointing [with] 16:9, no scope, very low light off of the screen; ghosting that kills the contrast of the original image, triple shutter artifacts on motion sequences. I saw Up at AMC in Santa Monica and thought I was watching a movie through a small window. No immersive feeling whatsoever. Black is gray. I hope there are better solutions down the road.
David Thomas
Chief Creative Officer
BJX Entertainment
This does seem to be a workable interim solution until it's an all-digital theatrical world. 3D original on modern film stocks should surpass digital in a half frame over/under. Presumably Technicolor wants to generate work in their chemical development systems, but last time I priced a film (2D) there, they presumed a digital inter-negative. And it was at Tech prices, not CFI, the lab they absorbed. And they are the most expensive lab in the world: really, the entire world. But with digital projector conversion lagging behind the vision, this may be a workable interim solution. As for the costs of going digital, that's a different issue, but really, why does it cost 150,000 per screen? Theoretically it should be much, much cheaper, like 25,000, Ten times the cost of a consumer DLP [projector]. Most multiplexes aren't much larger than a McMansion great room so what's going on here? But I'm already on record advocating producing everything in 3D as a forward-looking technological business decision.
Neil Feldman
CEO
In-Three and Video Post & Transfer
My company has a lot to gain by seeing as many 3D equipped theatres (be they analog or digital) as soon as possible. Regardless, I think this is a total non-starter. It reminds me of the company that used to market a totally vacuum tube based flip-flop. Where are they now? The industry wants and needs Digital Cinema for a whole host of important reasons unrelated to stereo 3D. It's just that the 3D aspect makes money for the exhibitor and everyone else. It is the enabler in the financial equation. However, going completely digital is the future. Silly tactics that delay its proliferation will be (and should be) dismissed in hindsight.
Doug Darrow
Worldwide Brand and Marketing Manager
DLP Products
I think it is a terrible idea. If the industry isn't careful they will wake up one day and find they have the same technology they had from the 1800's and the manufacturing base they need for the next century will be gone. Soon after that I think their customer may follow...
Harry Mathias
CEO
DCMP Consulting
This is film but for all of film's virtues, it will never project a rock-steady image. At least an over-under system, because both eye images are on one frame, avoids vertical parallax errors and the resulting headaches.
One issue with this system is that it violates Panavision's OptiMax patents (assuming they were renewed).
The other issue is that if this system uses older 1960s lenses it will be low performance. If it uses modern lenses they were rushed to market and will also be performance-challenged. If they are 35mm still camera lenses and use a relay and prism system they will be challenged to handle the heat without yellowing.
Clyde DeSouza
Creative Technology Provider
This is from the Technicolor website: "The exceptional image quality will leave you awestruck. For those who love the richness and saturation that film provides, the Technicolor 3D system can surpass current expectations. Look closely at the gradients, the brightness, and the flesh tones of the human form. For a film-loving society that is hungry for an escape from the everyday, there's no question that this technology is the start of something really engaging."
I just wanted to know, which 3D film is really being or going to be shot with a film camera these days? So isn't it that the movie will be shot digital (possibly soon in 4K res), then it will be "halved" for above below format, then it will be "printed" from digital to film stock... So actually source will be a digital sensor, and final out will be on film stock at half the resolution when accommodating for above/below format. How then will the above paragraph by Technicolor hold true?
Robert Margouleff
Entertainment Entrepreneur
I think Deluxe is not far behind with the same approach. 3D on film is not new but a first class way to solve the current logjam with digital screens.
There are not enough digital screens to profitably accommodate the 3D product in the pipeline, not mention all the foreign territories. What's wrong with a $15,000- $30,000 dollar solution? I have seen it and with new film stock and projection the results were very satisfactory. It keeps the projector and projectionists working till there is a big enough base for digital at $150,000 or so a pop. This way filmmakers concentrate on making 3D movies now and know that they will get their work to the public. Digital saturation is five years away. There are also many other issues outstanding in acquisition, post and exhibition. In the end it's about story telling and making great movies.
Thomas Polson
Founder
Sabre Digital
The 3D film solution requires a silver screen and does have many benefits as well as drawbacks. Technicolor is not the first to propose this to the studios. They are actually behind the curve. A modern stereo film solution (not referring to Technicolor's) for color and stereo effect are for the most part equal to digital. The noticeable difference is in perceived sharpness. This is partly due to film's characteristics and partly to the fact that each eye is only seeing half of a frame. The general audience wouldn't know the difference. Print degradation is probably the major issue.
I for one would like to see an alternative to the current RealD solution. My experience at theatres has been very disappointing [with] 16:9, no scope, very low light off of the screen; ghosting that kills the contrast of the original image, triple shutter artifacts on motion sequences. I saw Up at AMC in Santa Monica and thought I was watching a movie through a small window. No immersive feeling whatsoever. Black is gray. I hope there are better solutions down the road.
David Thomas
Chief Creative Officer
BJX Entertainment
This does seem to be a workable interim solution until it's an all-digital theatrical world. 3D original on modern film stocks should surpass digital in a half frame over/under. Presumably Technicolor wants to generate work in their chemical development systems, but last time I priced a film (2D) there, they presumed a digital inter-negative. And it was at Tech prices, not CFI, the lab they absorbed. And they are the most expensive lab in the world: really, the entire world. But with digital projector conversion lagging behind the vision, this may be a workable interim solution. As for the costs of going digital, that's a different issue, but really, why does it cost 150,000 per screen? Theoretically it should be much, much cheaper, like 25,000, Ten times the cost of a consumer DLP [projector]. Most multiplexes aren't much larger than a McMansion great room so what's going on here? But I'm already on record advocating producing everything in 3D as a forward-looking technological business decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment as you wish.