Tuesday, January 26, 2010

XDC Appoints David Pope As Director of Operations for United Kingdom & Ireland

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1662

 

Liege, Belgium—Jan 25, 2010

 

From January 2010, David Pope joins XDC, the n°1 digital cinema company in Europe, to lead the operations in United Kingdom and Ireland.

 

David Pope’s background is in audio and electronics, with an HND in electronics and control engineering from Cambridge College of Technology and the Association of Professional Recording Studios (APRS) diploma in sound engineering from the University of Surrey. He is a member of the Audio Engineering Society as well as BKSTS, SMPTE and the IOD (Institute of Directors).

 

David spent the early part of his career with Neve Electronics and Sony Broadcast & Communications. In the late nineties David returned to Sony to develop a new business, Sony Cinema Products Europe, which first fired his enthusiasm for cinema surround sound. Building on his Cinema sound experience, he joined DTS Europe in 2001 as Director of Business Development for DTS’s new electronic subtitling system. David played a key role in the DWG (Disability Working Group) in establishing a subtitling and audio description service to UK cinemas.

 

David Pope, Director of Operations – UK & IE of XDC, said: “I’m proud to have been hired by XDC. It’s for me a challenge to initiate and develop the activities of XDC out of continental Europe. I will be responsible for the sales & business development activities for exhibition and distribution, as well as setting up the local activities linked to the first XDC VPF contracts.”

 

Fabrice Testa, Vice President Sales & Business Development of XDC, added: “I am very happy to get in my team an experienced person like David Pope. He knows very well the cinema industry, and particularly the digital cinema business. David will mainly focus on meeting UK exhibitors and distributors and explaining why the XDC’s VPF business proposal has been so successful so far in continental Europe, and why this is also an unique opportunity in UK. David will also support the business relationships that XDC has developed with Irish key players.”

 

Serge Plasch, CEO of XDC, concluded: “UK is one of the most advanced country in Europe with respect to digital cinema. XDC wants to take a significant market share on this territory, not only by providing to exhibition digital equipment transition though VPF scheme, but also by offering to distributors the XDC Content Lab services as well as our efficient innovative extranet solutions to third-party labs. Last but not least, XDC has a highly skilled English-speaking professional helpdesk and NOC able to support any digital server connected to XDC Network.”

 

XDC Moves Forward in Digital Cinema

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/node/1497

Submitted by Nick Dager on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 13:46.

·         Home Page

XDC says it has taken a major step forward by reaching virtual print fee digital cinema deployment agreements with all six major US film studios for a total of 8,000 digital screens in 22 European countries. As only five percent of the European movie screens have already been digitalized, digital cinema is expected to grow tremendously in the coming years, thanks to the VPF system and a strong market demand for 3D movies and alternative content. XDC intends to deploy its 8,000 screens by 2015.

The new EUR 15.3 million funding by Gimv, SRIW and selected existing investors, provides the company with the funds to finance its growth in the coming years. Founding partner EVS remains the most important investor with a 30.2 percent fully diluted stake (41.3 percent not diluted) while SRIW and Gimv become cornerstone investors with a 20.7 percent and 20.2 percent stake (fully diluted) respectively.

Serge Plasch, CEO of XDC, says, "Securing new funding in this challenging financial climate shows the market potential of XDC's technology and services. We are very proud that a new investor such as Gimv shares the vision with SRIW and our founding shareholders. With this funding, the company will be able to accelerate its network deployment and to expand its digital content services to the European cinema industry and beyond."

Alain Keppens, head buyouts and growth - Belgium at Gimv, says, "Gimv is very pleased to further strengthen XDC's capital and become co-investor together with EVS. Our buyouts and growth and technology teams were able to tap on our knowledge from current and past investments in the entertainment and media sectors, such as Barco, Alfacam and Kinepolis Group. We believe that the combination of XDC's strong capital base, its financing agreements with banks and its strong support and service offering should enable the company to capture a major part of this high-growth market. Moreover, we are convinced that the company is well-positioned to reinforce its leadership in Europe."

Olivier Vanderijst, chairman of the executive committee of SRIW, says, "XDC is today the European leader in its sector. Following our first investment in 2008, our additional commitment in this major financing reflects our mission to support Walloon companies in their international expansion. It is also another evidence of the SRIW involvement in new technologies."

Eric Bauche, executive committee advisor at SRIW, says, "Last but not least, XDC shall create new vacancies in Liege (Belgium) and across Europe for highly skilled people in the coming years."

 

Monday, January 25, 2010

SMPTE Report: Digital Cinema in 2009

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/d-cinema/reports/June2009_report.php

by Michael Karagosian
©2009 MKPE Consulting LLC, all rights reserved worldwide
published in SMPTE 2009 Progress Report, September 2009

Despite the economic downturn and credit freeze, box office has been up for 2009, giving motion pictures a glow that the entertainment industry sorely needs. The exhibition industry's good health, however, has not translated to the massive capital expenditures for D-Cinema equipment hoped for by so many manufacturers. The credit freeze has either dried up funding sources or made the cost of capital too expensive for those who hope for an accelerated rollout. In spite of the obstacles, the growth of D-Cinema screens has not been stagnant. The good news is that more U.S. installations took place by mid-2009 than during the entire 2008, led by the installation of digital 3-D systems. Remarkably, the growth rate outside of the U.S. has been even higher, with the number of digital screens worldwide having passed the 10,000 mark as of mid-year. The bad news, for distributors, is that the growing digital footprint is scattered with only a few new digital (mostly 3-D) screens per complex. Distributors need 100% digital conversion of sites to fully benefit from the efficiencies that digital distribution promises.

Figure 1 shows the growth of screens in the U.S. over nearly a four-year period (yellow curve). The lower (green) curve shows the growth of 3-D screens, clearly showing that 3-D installations are leading growth. One should remember that the cinema industry is driven by content, not technology, and these installations are spurred by the tremendous slate of 3-D movies coming from Hollywood. To name just a few of the 3-D releases in 2009, movies such as Dream Works Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens, Disney Pixar's Up, and Fox's Avatar have been credited with driving system sales.

Despite the popularity of 3-D, the industry has not lost focus on total conversion. This year, the top three circuits in the U.S. announced their intent to install 4K projection technology throughout. This is a major switch because two of these circuits were committed to 2K technology only a year ago. One might ask if the change is due to a concern for presenting higher quality images to those who sit close to the screen or to the marketing power of the 4K number. Interestingly, the announcements for 4K are somewhat incongruous with the 3-D trend because there is no such thing as 4K 3-D in D-Cinema. SMPTE D-Cinema standards and the DCI specification permit only 2K 3-D. Still, the fact that sights are set on 4K flags the desire for total conversion of screens, not just a partial conversion to digital 3-D.

The 4K trend will cause a shift in the way D-Cinema technology is packaged and sold. Although Sony Electronics has always been on the 4K projection path, competitor Texas Instruments only this year announced its intent to produce a 4K DLP light engine that will install in its forthcoming Series 2 projector. Logistics come into play. It would require eight HD-SDI cables (4x dual-link) to carry 12-bit 4:4:4 color to the projector if an external 4K server were used. The sheer expense and clumsiness of such an interconnect guarantees that 4K media blocks will always be internal to 4K projectors. However, internal media blocks must still be accompanied by off-the-shelf storage and a screen management system (SMS). As internal media blocks and the servers that drive them become commodities, the 4K transition will spotlight those companies that successfully navigate the migration from hardware producers to software entities.

This year, the SMPTE 21DC Technology Committee completed its work on the digital cinema package (DCP). The development work for this began in late 2001, producing 16 standards, including affiliated documents. The SMPTE DCP, as it is often called, incorporates 2-D, 3-D, 24 frames/sec, 48 frames/sec, and 2K and 4K images, as well as up to 16 channels of audio in labeled formats. (The exception, as mentioned earlier, is that 4K content cannot include 48 frames/sec and 3-D images.) The flexibility of the format well exceeds that of 35mm film.

SMPTE DCP also breaks ground in the cinema industry by identifying at the standards level how hearing impaired (HI) and visually impaired narration (VI-N) audio tracks are to be carried by the several multichannel audio formats. The standards also break ground by describing how cinematic closed captions (captions that can be presented to only one member of the audience) are distributed. Similar capabilities in film systems are possible, but require proprietary systems that are not standardized. D-Cinema not only standardizes how to provide such features, but it does so on a royalty-free basis.

Additional work on standardizing the communications between server and third-party closed caption system has also made great progress. At the time of this writing, two documents are in ballot to define the Content Synchronization Protocol and Resource Presentation List (CSP/RPL). It is hoped that these documents will be published as standards by year-end. It is equally important that the new protocol be quickly implemented in D-Cinema systems to meet the high demand by the U.S. exhibition industry for closed caption support.

The popularity of 3-D movies led to the unexpected discovery that 2-D on-screen subtitles are uncomfortable to watch when the focal point of the 3-D scene is not at screen plane. As a result, a change to the SMPTE DCP is now in discussion to allow distribution of 3-D subtitles. Solutions for 3-D closed captions are also being explored by the manufacturing community.

Cinema advertising has received no attention to-date, within SMPTE. This is largely due to the fact that the aggregating entities in electronic cinema advertising are still using customized projection equipment that does not meet D-Cinema standards. However, as D-Cinema rolls out, it is unlikely that the duplication of electronic advertising hardware will continue, and the need to run advertising on D-Cinema equipment will emerge. To this end, the D-Cinema industry might look over the shoulder of the SMPTE 30MR Metadata and Registers Technology Committee and consider efforts such as SMPTE RDD17 from Ad-ID for tagging MXF files.

Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) compliance testing began this year, but not without wrinkles. After manufacturers targeted their designs to DCI's Compliance Test Plan v1.0, DCI introduced additional tests in its 2009 v1.1 release. Although the changes were within the bounds of its Digital Cinema Systems Specification v1.2, several manufacturers were forced to re-evaluate their designs. The achievement of DCI compliance in the field will likely take place in stages. April 2010 is the target for introducing SMPTE DCP, which could take up to a year to achieve worldwide conversion. Firmware upgrades to full DCI-compliant security will follow as closely as possible. Full compliance, however, could be elusive, as the 500-page CTP is presented as a pass/fail test. Several manufacturers have expressed concern that no product will pass 100%, leading to the approval of exceptions on a studio-by-studio basis. The elusiveness of compliance is of particular concern to funding sources, as the requirement for equipment to be DCI compliant is written into all financing agreements.

In summary, although more D-Cinema installations have already taken place in 2009 than in 2008, the massive, concentrated, long-promised U.S. rollout is unlikely to start this year, if ever. Given the shape of financial markets, it is more likely that funding for such rollouts will come in bursts, as investor priorities change, confidence improves, and the cost of capital becomes more advantageous. Most certainly, funding efforts will first focus on expanding the digital 3-D footprint before increasing the breadth of D-Cinema projection. The new demand for 4K systems will inevitably change the nature of the equipment market as media blocks move into projectors. Furthermore, the introduction of SMPTE DCP and its capability to support accessibility features for cinema will eventually allow exhibitors to offer these new capabilities to patrons.

Digital cinema growth in US, breaking out 3-D growth, up through June 2009

THE DIGITAL RELIGION

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/the-digital-religion/#more-275

 

By lennylipton

The announcement by Technicolor of a film-based 3D system, which would cost exhibitors comparatively little money to install, was provocative to say the least. According to what’s in print, it would cost about $5000 to $7000 for a lens.  In addition a so-called “silver screen” – say 40 by 20 feet – would be another $8000.  If you compare that to the cost of a digital system, it is approximately one-tenth of what such a system would cost over a five-year period.  That’s my calculation, and I’m sure that there are other ways to do the calculations that may or may not agree with mine.

I did see the Technicolor projection, which was at an unannounced one-week four-wall at the AMC 16 in Burbank, in theater number 4.  I thought what I saw might be good enough to sell tickets with a major reservation or two.  It was not as good as stereoscopic digital projection when up to spec. 

By spec I mean a 5.4-foot-lambert projection, which requires a great deal of care and effort on the part of the exhibitor.  For one thing, they have to use a fairly new lamp.  They can’t use a lamp that’s a thousand hours old, or past its rated life.  

What I did see on the screen at the AMC was an image that I thought would be acceptable to a lot of attendees, but did not have the same crispness, bounce, sharpness and brilliance of good digital 3-D projection.  Technicolor has identified a problem, and it’s a problem of not having enough screens for the stereoscopic feature releases, as has been noted in the Hollywood trades and in studio head tirades.  

When I came to Hollywood over four years ago and sat in meetings with people from the studios, digital projection had not gained traction.  In fact, many technical people from the studios were dead set against it.  In the ensuing four years there has been a sea change.  Digital projection has become accepted as part of the digital religion.  And as with any belief system it’s hard to have a straight up conversation with the believers, because questioning faith is a losing game.

As many of you know, the cinema has been going digital (or electronic, or whatever you want to call it) for the last decade or so.  Although most movies are shot on film, most use a digital intermediate mastering technique, which is a fine improvement over the old optical post technique.  It does produce what I consider to be very much better-looking release prints, generally speaking. 

However, the argument that is made for the financing of digital projection and its assumed proliferation are curious.  That’s because digital projectors are expensive, in the range of $40,000 to $80,000.  That means that when a new theater is built, a projector can be neatly financed as part of the installation, but  for retrofitting an existing cinema there has to be a way to finance the new projector that makes sense to the exhibitor.  

The digital cinema imperative is its stereoscopic capability.  It’s true that you can show live special events, but that’s a drop in the economic bucket compared to the return on investment offered by the stereoscopic cinema.  The public doesn’t care whether or not a show is digital or on film, but they do care whether it’s 3-D or 2-D, as the attendance and box office revenue numbers prove.  

With only a small fraction of the 130,000 theatrical screens converted to digital, and with a few 3-D movies coming out every month, there’s a log jam.  Movies can’t play long enough before they are bumped out. Everybody except the audience is leaving money on the table because many of these films are holding.  

Thus the studios have banded together in an attempt to create an initiative to help pay off the price of a projector; but that payoff takes between five and ten years, and it’s the theater-owner who pays it off slowly with something called a “digital print fee,” which is about $800 every time a new film is shown on his projector.  

The studios want to be able to distribute digitally because it’s allegedly less costly. But by the time they finish paying for the projector it may need to be replaced.  It’s the damn strangest financial strategy but hardly unique.  

Smart people recently brought our economy to the brink so I wouldn’t take this scheme for granted.  Just when the “old digital” projector is paid off you’d have to start the financing scheme all over again.  Maybe by that time a digital projector will be less expensive.  Maybe the exhibitor will buy a 35mm projector.  Maybe by that time we’ll see flat panel theater sized screens making projection obsolete. 

The roll-out of digital projectors has slowed because of the recession so a means for projecting 3-D using 35mm sounds even more interesting. As you may know, this studio financing initiative is, as of this moment, unfunded. Just like the Emperor’s new clothes the flaw will be found out sooner or later, but the executives who made the digital decision may very well be gone by the time that happens.  

Digital projection can be quite good. Whether or not digital projection is better than film projection depends on the theater.  Film projection can very good too. But you cannot assume that either is good in all cinemas across the country.  I’ve been in a lot of theaters and screening rooms in this town where somebody set the projector menu incorrectly and we had the wrong color space, the wrong this, the wrong that.  That doesn’t mean that this is a K.O. punch for the digital cinema, because digital projection can be quite beautiful – rock-solid steady and the prints don’t wear.  No scratches, no dirt. And film has its issues too, but it has done quite well for over a hundred years. 

A digital projector is hard to operate compared to a film projector.  There are too many choices, too many resolutions that are possible, too many color spaces.  When you load film on a film projector there’s no ambiguity.  You just thread it up, and away you go.  It’s a much simpler device to use.  

The marriage of 3-D with digital is accepted as a given today but it ain’t necessarily so.  Film projection, as Technicolor has hinted, could be extremely interesting if it’s done right.   

Technicolor in my opinion has got it wrong.  

I was the chairman of the SMPTE working group that recommended the standards for the system Technicolor is using – the over and under system.  The major problem with this technology is that improper threading of the film in the gate or splicing the reels together at the sub-frame line rather than the frame line causes the image (created by two Techniscope frames above and below each other) to go out of phase and also to become pseudostereoscopic (inside out). 

This is an unbearable experience for the audience (an impractical and partial cure is to turn the eyewear upside down) and it will happen frequently because it is such an easy mistake to make. When that happens in the field (and it will again and again) it’s going to be a turn off for film as a vehicle for the 3-D cinema. 

Technicolor has stated that their intention is for a system that is a stop gap or an interim system, because, as the conventional wisdom has it, film will eventually be replaced by digital technology.  The only trouble is, gee whiz, this is a self fulfilling prophecy since their system has a built in time bomb with a short fuse, the tragic pseudo flaw described above. (Inglourious Technicolor?)  

There is a need for a film based 3-D system.  For one thing there are lots of places in the world that might never convert to digital because of the low ticket prices they collect and because of the high cost of the projectors. 

Or there are places like some countries in South America where the import duty is so high there’s no way they can afford one. And if good quality 3-D movies could be projected with a 35mm film projector, the digital religion notwithstanding, the studios will go for it.  That’s because they are part of publically traded companies and report profits quarterly (film grosses are reported almost instantly) and the need for short-term profits will trump the strategic investment in those digital projectors. 

(Full disclosure – My kids easily beat me at chess and I am working on a new system for 3-D theatrical projection.)

 

THE SILVER SCREEN

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/the-silver-screen-part-1/#more-297

http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/the-silver-screen-part-2/

 

By lennylipton

Ah the silver screen: searchlights scanning the Hollywood sky, glamorous premiers, gorgeous actresses….  The silver screen is a term that has denoted the glamour and excitement of Hollywood since Chaplin twirled his cane. While to some it is the most visible sign of hope for the cinema for others it is a dreaded surface upon which to project those old standby 2D movies.  But there’s so much more to it than glamour – there’s dreadful science.  It’s a technology that ought to command the industry’s keenest minds, because, after all, that’s where a hundred and fifty million bucks wind up as a vibrating veneer of a hundred billion photons reflected into the eyes of tens of millions of photon consumers. That’s one big point in favor of the film industry – they have not dehumanized the customer to the point where he or she is called a consumer.  The customers are still the audience, people with feelings rather than human maws born to consume piles of chazarai made in China. 

In Hollywood, as elsewhere, technology decision are made based on incomplete information and herd instinct rather than on common sense, and science and engineering are basically common sense. It’s the scientific method that is the hope of mankind, not emotion and prejudice. There are many in the industry who reject projecting on a silver screen, and they have good reasons.  But how substantive are these reasons? 

The silver screen, actually an aluminum surfaced screen, is not only an enabler for the best method of projecting 3D images but it is the weakest link in the optical system for that method: polarized-light-image-selection.  While the Dolby system produces good images and does not require a silver screen it is not bright enough for the biggest screens (unless two projectors are used) and it uses dauntingly expensive eyewear that must be cleaned in the theater.  (Ditto XPand.) Most theaters projecting 3D use the polarization selection method whether of the circular variety (RealD and Master Image) or the linear variety (IMAX and most theme parks). 

In the past four years or so silver projection screens have improved.  When the first screens were installed for Chicken Little, the studio and exhibitor complaints centered on two issues: visibility of seams and mottling and a textured appearance on the surface of the screen.  People in the industry were also greatly concerned about how well these screens performed for 2D projection, not just because of the defects mentioned, but because their colorimetric characteristics are different from matte screens. And in this town technical and creative people will go bonkers if the images they have so painstakingly created aren’t accurately reproduced.  They can go as bonkers as they want but outside of LA the projection of movies is sometimes a smack in the face to every DP, art director, and colorist who cares about the movies.  (And let’s not get started on what happened to that image quality on LCD TVs.) 

Which stumps me becasue the Dobly system to my eyeballs does not meet spec.  One image is more highly saturated than the other, and you can see that oh so clearly with the violet-blue laden Avatar.

Silver screens are designed to conserve polarized light and have gain.  When polarized light is projected onto a nonmetallic surface, a matte screen, it is depolarized.  The reflected rays no longer have the orderly orientation of the electric vector (a component of the electro-magnetic wave construct that describes the physics of light) that defines polarized light.  When polarized light is reflected by a nonmetallic (a dielectric surface) it is depolarized and no longer useful for image selection.  A dielectric is a material that has closely-bound electrons.  It is a poor conductor of heat and electricity. It’s an insulator. So the same kind of material that has difficulty conducting electricity and heat will not preserve the characteristics of polarized light. Matte screens, usually made of vinyl, are dielectrics. 

Dielectrics, which do not preserve polarization characteristics, have reflection characteristics explained by Brewster’s Law that says that light rays that are at glancing angle to the surface undergo some degree of polarization. But the material that is most interesting for making silver screens is a metal (or a conductor).  Silver screens are manufactured by painting or coating matte screens with an aluminum pigment mixed into some kind of a binder or medium to be coated or sprayed onto the screen surface.  Motion picture screens are usually made of vinyl plastic 54 inches wide.  These sheets are welded together in vertical sections.   The vinyl is welded together and then painted with aluminum pigment. The weld is accomplished in a different ways but however it is done the weld has to be invisible because nobody wants to look at them.  They are easily as distracting as the guy sitting in front of you wearing a Dodgers baseball cap.

Before we dig deeper into the characteristics of the silver screen a word or two about matte screens: Matte screens are perfectly fine for 2D if the projector has a bright enough source of illumination, and they have a more or less “Lambertian surface” so that the incoming light is reflected or distributed evenly in space with pretty much the same brightness for any seat in the house. 

In addition they have very little shading.  As you look across the surface of the screen from your seat you will see very brightness change from corner to corner.  Much of the shading you will see is a result of the projector optical system and that’s called vignetting, but you can’t see it unless you are looking for it and the movie happens to be shots of the sky or a close up of a sheet.  So when you’re off in the corner in the worst seats in the house –in the front row, way over on the left or the right side – illumination holds up pretty well across the screen.  The closest part of the screen and the furthest part of the screen are pretty equal in brightness. Of course you are looking at a distorted image, but that’s another problem.  Some people seem to like sitting in the front row and some people like pickle parfait pie or chicken mint ice-cream.  Do you really subscribe to the seemingly enlightened old saw that says there’s no accounting for the other guy’s taste?  In your heart of hearts you know that if other guy doesn’t agree with you he’s warped. 

Burt we are interested in the silver screen. With the surface of the screen coated with metal it now has the ability to conserve polarization.  If polarized light is projected on it polarized light will be reflected because the metallic atoms of the surface have free electrons, and when light shines on its surface those electrons are able to vibrate in any which way to reflect polarized light.  

These screens ought to get pretty good conservation of polarization even at steep angles for the worst seats in the house but the ability to conserve polarization falls off with at the side seats.  Why does it happen?  I think it probably has to do with the binder which may be a dielectric or even (heaven forbid) birefingent.  I have heard it described in terms of diffusion, but I don’t think that’s right because a diffused metallic surface is still a metallic surface that has free electrons.  

Motion picture screens are a tradeoff between reflection and diffusion. If you were to look into a mirror that’s being used as a projection screen you will see a bright glob of light where the projection lens is.  If you add some diffusion to the surface you are able to form an image on the surface of the screen and you get rid of the so-called hot spot.  A silver screens has to be the right balance between reflection and diffusion and just like a mirror it can also have a hot spot.  But if the screen is curved the hot spot can be spread out over its surface so it cease to be visible.  Silver screens are typically curved into a section of a cylinder and this tends to mitigate the hot spot.  

Hot-spotting depends on the geometry.  For a long narrow auditorium with a long throw – in other words, the distance from the lens to the screen is great – when sitting in the middle of the auditorium, you will see very little hot-spotting.  But that’s not the way modern auditoria are designed.  They are designed to be more square-ish and have large screens.  A theater in a modern multiplex is the toughest geometry for a silver screen.

Silver screens, if they are well made and installed, can have minimal hot-spotting, but they still have what I call shading.  I make a distinction between hot-spotting and shading.  Although they may come about from the same reflective characteristics of the screen, shading has to do with an asymmetrical change in brightness across the screen and is typically dependent upon where you are sitting.  Shading happens quite noticeably when sitting in the worst seat in the house, say in the front row way on the extreme left or the right. In fact, the worst seats in the house for viewing a 2-D movie on a matte screen become even worse when viewing a polarized light stereoscopic movie on a silver screen from a bad seat. 

I haven’t gone to every theater that has a silver screen, and I can’t tell you for sure that they are all good screens.  But I do know that in the years since Chicken Little was released the manufacturers have learned how to make better screens so when you are looking at a 2-D or a 3-D movie you will not see the seam; and I do know that the manufacturers now know how to make screens that don’t have any splotches or texturing.  I have been in a number of theaters where there are good silver screens that work very well for 3-D and as well for 2-D projection.  The screen’s performance for 2-D is important so it’s reasonable for studios and theater owners to demand that it function well in both modes.  

A lot of work has been done on high-gain metallic-surface screens, not because of their polarization characteristics but because they are bright. The matte screen that I talked about earlier with the Lambertian surface has a gain of 1, let’s say, with light reflected more or less equally in all directions.  But in a theater that’s not what is needed because there’s nobody watching the movie up on the ceiling or down on the floor or way off on the sides.  A lot of the information about how to make a good high-gain screen can be found in patents that are assigned to Eastman Kodak.  The idea behind a high-gain screen is to take the unwanted light that goes off to the ceiling and floor and wherever, and to send it where it is needed – to the audience. 

Probably the finest example of a screen of that kind –the one I’ve used and I know about – is the Ektalite screen.  The Ektalite screen, which was offered in the 1970s and into the 1980s by Kodak, is possibly the finest stereoscopic projection screen ever offered.  It wasn’t designed to be a stereoscopic projection screen; it was designed to be a high-gain screen used in classrooms or conference rooms that was bright and rejected unwanted spill light from windows and overhead lights.  I’ve used several of them in different sizes, and I can verify what I’ve said because I measured the performance of one of them.  The Ektalite screen – on-axis, which is typically the way high-gain screens are measured – had about a 10:1 to 14:1 gain. (That’s 14 times brighter than a matte screen.)  Remember, we’re talking about an era in which people didn’t have flat panel displays and they were projecting using slide projectors or 16mm or 8mm projectors; so set up in a classroom the Ektalite screen was super, because over a 60-degree angle of view, properly placed, everybody in the classroom could see a bright image.  

It worked great for its intended purpose, and it achieved this by interesting technology.  The surface was aluminum foil, and it was textured by placing the two pieces of aluminum foil under high pressure through rollers, with oil introduced between the two surfaces.  The result was a micro-fine bark-like texture that served as the diffusing surface.  The Ektalite screen combined reflection and diffusion perfectly, but it would still have had a fierce hot spot if the aluminum foil had not applied to a compound-curve screen which was shaped like the inside section of a sphere.  It was made on dense foam core or some such plastic, and the foil was bonded to the surface.  It had a delicate surface and you had to be careful cleaning it.  But wow! what a screen. 

Modern screens – and I haven’t tested one in a few years so my observations may be out of date – although they conserve polarization, are not nearly as good.  An experiment I did in my days at StereoGraphics measured a standard aluminum painted vinyl screen’s polarization efficiency starting with linear polarizers that had a 5000:1 extinction ratio. That means that only 1/5000th of the unwanted image passes through crossed polarizers when measured on an optical bench.  But when measuring the dynamic range reflected from the surface of the silver screen on-axis, using the same polarizer over the lens and for eyewear, the dynamic range was reduced to 200:1.  Still good for stereoscopic applications, but this told me that improvement was possible because this painted vinyl screen was not as good as the Ektalite for polarization conservation. As I mentioned, Kodak wasn’t particularly interested in making polarization-conserving screens, but it turns out that they did with the Ektalite. The Ektalite screen had, on-axis, 1000:1 dynamic range using good 5000:1 linear polarizers.  The polarization loss on-axis was much less than vinyl painted screens, and off at the edges of the field (admittedly narrow) the dynamic range was about 200:1. 

When using circular polarizers on a bench I got numbers that were a few hundred to one for dynamic range.  And the same protection measurements will show a dynamic range of maybe 20:1 dynamic range on a vinyl painted screen – which is not too good. Hence, Real D adds ghostbuster to the ZScreen system to improve the effective dynamic range.  

I’ve recently seen both Real D (circular) projection and IMAX (linear) projection, and they are both good.  Do I prefer one?  IMAX projection with linear polarization used two gigantic pieces of 70mm film running horizontally through the projector, the size of small picture postcards, and the image looked fantastically good.  If it didn’t see this image quality improvement there would be no excuse for what I paid for the family to see Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs.  I had sticker shock at the box office. With regard to the characteristics of circular versus linear and circular’s head tipping advantage, booth were fine.  You can only tip your head so much before the misalignment of homologous points causes a breakdown of fusion so the circular advantage isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, especially when starting off with linear’s much higher dynamic range. 

To me the Ektalite says more work can be done to improve silver screens.  They may be better than ever but the Ektalite performance tells me that more is possible.  True, the Ektalite had a narrow viewing angle and required a compound curve to get a super gain, but its performance points to possibilities. High-gain silver screens on-axis – which is the way they are rated – can have a 2.4:1 gain, but off-axis the gain is going to be very much less.  So these screens might work out to be an average of 1.5 gain or something like that, if you make some kind of a weighted average according to some reasonable formula for the various seats in the auditorium.  Same story for polarization conservation as a function of viewing angle. 

If we can have a screen that has a true 2 or even 3 gain over a board viewing angle, that would be an improvement for the stereoscopic cinema.  The present illumination for 3-D movies is a niggardly 4 to 5 foot-lamberts. That’s true across the boards for all DLP-based digital systems with the exception of the RealD XL system which is a twice as bright. As for the rest that’s pretty dim when you consider that the SMPTE recommendation for 2-D projection is 14 foot-lamberts.  I’m of the opinion that there is really no excuse for stereoscopic images being projected any less bright than 2-D images. I don’t think something special is going on that makes it okay to have low light levels for 3-D projection.  There is nothing additive going on between the two eyes in terms of illumination.  There may be something going on in terms of perception of image quality, possibly a reduction in granular noise and maybe improvements in sharpness.   

We really have two issues now with the silver screens, and they are (l) get the gain up, and keep it even across the seats so that wherever you are sitting you have a fairly high gain, and (2) make sure that polarization is conserved consistently for every seat so one can see a good stereoscopic image anywhere in the auditorium. 

Having said this I know that there are many people, and experts counted amongst their numbers, who simply dislike silver screens and find them to be unacceptable for 2-D projection.  I’ve watched many 2-D films on good silver screens and I think they look better that way, but to each his own. The way this issue is going to be resolved may be as follows:  Matte screens will someday become the minority with the ubiquity of the stereoscopic cinema.

 

Who Do You Trust?

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/node/1486

Submitted by Nick Dager on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:30.

·         Feature Stories

By Michael Karagosian

Who do you trust is the most fundamental issue of security. Digital cinema was originally devised so that studios could conduct business with exhibitors without concern for theft of content in its pristine, digital form.  As the number of digital cinema installations grows, the management of security keys becomes increasingly difficult to perform and the entities that supply security keys struggle to keep up with new installations.  

The topic of security key management has been a point of significant discussion within the Inter-Society Digital Cinema Forum.  But the most important discussion, that of understanding how trust works in digital cinema, has been elusive.  The purpose of this article is to provide a clear understanding of how trust is managed in digital cinema.  With that knowledge comes an understanding of how digital cinema should evolve to address security key management.

When discussing trust, it’s useful to understand the concept of the “trusted device list,” or TDL.  Depending on whom one talks to, the TDL can have more than one purpose.  To some, it’s the collection of credentials from equipment installed in the field.  This information is needed to create security keys that allow movies to play.  To others, it’s the list that tells a studio which digital cinema devices are naughty, and which are nice.  The second definition creates unrest.  It’s the kind of thing that spells g-a-t-e-k-e-e-p-e-r, and gets politicians excited.  

There are a few things everyone should know about the trusted device lists.  The first is that such lists do not exist in a centralized, one-list-says-it-all form. Who would you trust to put it together and maintain such a list?

Trust is the most fundamental concept in security.  Content owners want to trust that their content is played on valid, secure equipment.  To do so, the security credentials of equipment in the field must be learned and kept up-to-date to enable the creation of the right Key Delivery Messages.  Security keys for playing a movie are encrypted and contained in a KDM. Content owners also need to check the validity of the devices for which KDMs are to be made.  Content owners need to trust that the equipment credentials they possess are for real equipment, and not hacked devices designed to steal the movie.  They hire companies to keep equipment credentials private and to digitally package movies and to create and assemble KDMs.  

There are many KDM creators, each maintaining their own TDLs.  The dominant players in the KDM creator space are Deluxe and Technicolor.  But there isn’t a single, master TDL somewhere.  Instead, there are many TDLs, privately owned and maintained.

The second thing one should know is that, just as there isn’t a master trusted device list; revocation lists also do not exist.  

If a revocation list were to exist, it would contain the credentials of devices, which are not trusted.  This is an area where there is valid concern for gatekeepers.  The difficulty in allowing revocation lists is that security keys for digital cinema enable the operation of a business.  If the cancellation or withholding of a KDM were to occur due to a revocation list, the screen would go dark and revenue would be lost.  Compare this scenario to the original concept of the revocation list, which is to ensure that electronic financial transactions take place using trusted equipment.  If the financial equipment isn’t trusted, then the financial transaction can still take place; but it takes place on different equipment. No one loses money. In digital cinema, improper use of a revocation list can lead to financial loss.  Good reason for not having revocation lists in digital cinema.

The third thing one should know is that we don’t have an explicitly defined structure for trust in digital cinema.  We do not have a universal infrastructure for providing the right equipment credentials to those who create KDMs.  Nor can KDM creators easily learn if equipment credentials are valid.

To learn how to improve this, it is necessary to understand how trust takes place.  When someone talks about security, one often hears about encryption, keys, certificates, and validation.  But we tend to forget that the ultimate authority of trust is a human being.  A good security system will minimize the number of people that must be trusted, but it cannot eliminate trust in people.  

In current practice, trust is in the hands of multiple parties.  The exhibitor, the equipment manufacturer, and the KDM creator (the entity that creates a Key Delivery Message) all must be trusted.  If there is a third party in between as a handler of security processes, then that entity must be trusted, too.  As digital cinema expands globally, the studios would like to minimize the number of entities they have to trust to ensure that their content is secure.

Today, trust begins with the manufacturer of the equipment, which maintains a list of equipment serial numbers and associated equipment credentials, such as digital certificates and forensic mark identifiers.  The exhibitor provides a list of serial numbers of active equipment, and a third party marries the exhibitor’s serial number with the manufacturer’s information.  The third party could be the system integrator, a separate service provider, a KDM creator, or a combination of these.  This is how equipment credentials are learned and validated.

The most sensitive role in the digital cinema security chain is that of the KDM creator.  Once a KDM is created, the movie can be decrypted on the device to which the KDM is targeted.  Without the appropriate KDM, the movie cannot be played.  Should a KDM be created for a device that is not intended to play the movie, or for a device that is no longer trusted, then a breach of trust has occurred.  The KDM creator is hired by the content owner, which creates a trusted relationship between the two entities. In worst-case scenarios it also provides a path for recourse.

In order for a KDM to be created, the target device’s digital cinema certificate must be known.  This requires that the KDM creator possess trusted equipment credentials obtained from both exhibitor and equipment manufacturer.  The KDM creator also has a degree of responsibility in making trusted decisions.  If the movie does not play because of an incorrect KDM, it is the KDM creator that must respond appropriately.

The challenge is that the greater the number of entities that must be trusted, the weaker the security chain.  Ideally, among manufacturer, exhibitor, and KDM creator, only the KDM creator need be trusted.  However, it is not possible to eliminate the manufacturer as a trusted party, as it is the trusted source of digital equipment credentials.  But it is possible to reduce the exhibitor’s role as a trusted party by automating the communication of equipment credentials from the cinema to the KDM creator.  Not only does this reduce the exhibitor’s role as a trusted party, but it also reduces the labor involved in maintaining TDLs.

Tools have already been created to enable this important step.  It is the purpose of the standardized Facility List Message, or FLM, to carry digital equipment credentials back to KDM creators as part of an automated process.  Notably, the FLM is specified in NATO’s Digital Cinema System Requirements.

But even with the FLM in place, the trust chain is not perfect.  The KDM creator must know when a particular device is removed from service or no longer valid.  It is assumed that the manufacturer will remain responsible for tracking this information and appropriately updating its database.  This can be a tall order to fill.

The question of how third parties play in the trust chain is often raised.  As long as the content owner has a path of recourse to the third party, the trust chain is retained.  Only when the third party is completely neutral, such as a government funded-entity, does the trust chain break down.  Ironically, several governments have expressed interest in operating such entities with the illusion that it will add value to the industry.

This long walk through the digital cinema trust chain is hopefully instructive in a number of ways.  It educates the steps required to maintain trust.  It demonstrates where responsibilities lie.  And it shows why automating the handling of equipment credentials in the cinema will improve the trust chain for global expansion.  

NATO’s Digital Cinema Requirements identifies the Data and Key Management System, or DKMS, as the component providing the automated management of equipment credentials in the cinema. SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) standardized the FLM for open exchange of equipment credentials. Unfortunately, none of this has been put to work as yet. The DKMS and the FLM will be one of the next areas of evolution in the digital cinema.  

Michael Karagosian is founder and president of MKPE Consulting LLC, a Los Angeles-based consultancy in the entertainment industry.  Visit his company at http://mkpe.com.

 

Friday, January 22, 2010

Startup retrofits 35mm projectors for 3-D

 
Oculus3D aims to lower cost of stereo 3-D movies

EE Times


SAN JOSE, Calif. — Stereo 3-D movies could be shown on many more screens at lower costs if a new startup gets its way. Oculus3D is selling a lens and print format to retrofit for stereo 3-D the existing 2-D 35mm projectors used in today's theaters.

The startup claims that its approach does not require the expensive projectors and per-seat royalties of companies that currently supply stereo 3-D technology to theaters such as RealD (Beverly Hills, Calif.). Interestingly, one of the executives of Oculus3D is Lenny Lipton, the former chief technology officer of RealD.

RealD claims it has installed its systems in 4,500 theaters in 48 countries. It says it has another 4,500 theaters under contract for future installations.

The Oculus3D system consists of the OculR lens for the theater's 35mm projector, a new movie screen and plastic frame linear polarizer glasses. The lens provides a minimum brightness of six foot lamberts, which equals or exceeds the brightness of most digital and single-projector film systems.

In addition, the startup's approach does not use the over/under technique of packing left and right frames—one on top of the other—into a single movie frame. At the Consumer Electronics Show, cable TV and satellite broadcasters said they will adopt the over/under or a side-by-side format to reduce the bandwidth needed to send stereo 3-D content.

"The team at Oculus3D has created a cost-competitive and projectionist-friendly 3-D film-based delivery system that bypasses the problems of the resurrected, discredited, and obsolete over/under film-based approach of the 80's that plays inside-out images much of the time," said Lenny Lipton, president and chief science officer of Oculus3D in a press statement.

Wall Street analyst firm Piper Jaffray & Co estimates the Oculus3D system could save theaters as much as $150,000 in costs required for stereo 3-D projection systems. It could also slash the time required to set up new 3-D theaters. Oculus3D estimates its costs to theaters at $25,000 or less per screen.

"Exhibitors who have been concerned about the cost of switching over to a digital cinema system now have an interesting new option to consider," said James Marsh an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co.

The OculR print format is created by applying an algorithm to the final digital intermediate file to produce a master negative. Release prints are then made using standard lab techniques. Costs are identical to making a standard print, the startup claims.

It is unclear if the startup has buy in from major movie studios for making such prints. To date Hollywood studios have been driving the trend to 3-D movies and TVs to create new high profit products.

However, Oculus3D claims its approach opens up a new alternative for aging analog theaters.

"Our product stops the forced marriage between digital and 3-D as many exhibitors are being pushed into replacing workhorse film projectors to take advantage of the boom in 3-D movie releases," said Marty Shindler, founder and chief executive of Oculus3D.

 

Oculus3D Announces 3D Projection Solution for Existing 35 Millimeter Film Projectors

http://www.2-pop.com/DigitalCinematography/article/91386
January 20, 2010

OculR lens and prints turn 35mm projectors into 3D at a fraction of digital projection and 3D add-on costs. 

Los Angeles -- Oculus3D, a company focused on film-based 3D projection technology, announced its first product, the
OculR system, a low-cost 3D lens and print format for the installed base of 35mm movie projectors.

The OculR system eliminates the need for exhibitors to purchase a new digital system to play 3D films. The OculR system also does not require exhibitors to pay per-seat or per-show royalty fees.  The OculR lens provides exhibitors with a 3D solution that works with all standard 35mm projectors, delivering superb quality film-based 3D presentations that are
equal to or better than more costly digital options.  The OculR3D system consists of the OculR lens for the theater's 35mm projector, a "silver" movie screen and low-cost plastic frame linear polarizer eyewear, delivering the finest 3D image at an affordable price.  The OculR lens can be installed rapidly, eliminating theater downtime and providing a minimum brightness of 6 foot lamberts, which equals or exceeds the brightness of most digital and single-projector film systems to ensure flawless 3D performance for exhibitors.  

"The team at Oculus3D has created a cost-competitive and projectionist-friendly 3D film-based delivery system that bypasses the problems of the resurrected, discredited, and obsolete 'over/under' film-based approach of the 80's that plays inside-out images much of the time," said Lenny Lipton, president and chief science officer, Oculus3D.

Economic Benefits to Theater Owners and Studios
Exhibitors and studios will benefit equally from the OculR system because the industry is unable to meet current audience demands for 3D presentations as the number of 3D feature releases will continue to grow in 2010.  The motion picture industry is missing out on millions of dollars of revenue because of a shortage of 3D screens.

"We see a substantial worldwide market for the OculR 3D system and estimate some exhibitors could save $150K per screen in equipment, 3D software conversion and installation costs while the studios could add a meaningful number of new 3D screens in 2010," said James Marsh, analyst, Piper Jaffray & Co. "Exhibitors who have been concerned about the cost of switching over to a digital cinema system now have an interesting new option to consider." Oculus3D estimates that it can get theater owners up and running with the OculR system (the lens and upgraded movie screen) for approximately $20,000 - $25,000 per screen.  This is 85 – 90% less than investing in a digital projector approach.

The OculR print format is created by applying an algorithm to the final digital intermediate file to produce a master negative.  Release prints are then made using standard lab techniques and costs are identical to making a standard print, making conversion from 2D to 3D a seamless process for the labs, exhibitors, and studios.

"Our product stops the forced marriage between digital and 3D as many exhibitors are being pushed into replacing workhorse film projectors to take advantage of the boom in 3D movie releases," said Marty Shindler, founder and CEO, Oculus3D.  "OculR will help meet movie patron demands for 3D while saving an estimated $150,000 to $175,000 in per screen set up costs and eliminate hardware and software ongoing maintenance expenses."

"There is a pressing need for 3D film systems on a global basis for two key reasons including a higher volume of 3D theatrical releases as well as the high import duty costs associated with digital projectors in many parts of the world," said Albert Mayer Jr.,  executive vice president and chief technology officer, Oculus3D.  "With OculR, exhibitors can help meet movie patron demand for 3D."

About Oculus3D Corporation
The mission of Oculus3D is to offer quality 3D projection at lower cost with higher profits for exhibitors and studios.  The principals, Lenny Lipton, Al Mayer, Jr. and Marty Shindler have a combined 100 years of experience in the movie business.  For more information please visit
www.oculus3d.com.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

'Avatar' boosting Imax shares

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id183d5e80b48e57ce85c15e0bc4004d9

 Analysts worry stock will suffer if film's success is unique

By Etan Vlessing

Jan 18, 2010, 08:37 PM ET

 

TORONTO -- Experts are divided over whether record boxoffice from "Avatar 3D" is pushing up shares in Imax too far and too fast.

The company's stock has hit all-time highs this month, so Wall Street is discussing its outlook, with most analysts still seeing more upside thanks to a changed business model and more 3D crowd-pullers on more screens this year.

"It's not simply 'Avatar'; Imax is very well positioned to benefit from a number of blockbusters to be released in the next 12 months," said Piper Jaffray analyst James Marsh, who has an "overweight" rating and $16 price target on the stock.

He emphasized that "Avatar" still has another six weeks in Imax theaters to make more money for the company.

Imax last week crossed the $100 million global boxoffice mark for James Cameron's 3D epic. But Imax shares declined 3.6% on Friday, having hit an all-time high of $14.60 on Jan. 6.

Gabelli & Co. analyst Brett Harris, who has a "buy" on Imax shares and thinks it will be worth $18 next year, pointed out that "Avatar" has continued to hold up better in Imax than in regular theaters since its launch and that Imax's share of boxoffice is well ahead of its share of screens showing the film.

"This once again proves Imax is the premium movie experience," he said.

Harris believes the stock is trading higher not only on the success of a single movie but the company's business plan and ability to pick good movies.

Looking beyond "Avatar," Marsh also sees Imax launching more screens worldwide this year, which should mean more premium 3D movie ticket prices and profits.

"Imax is well positioned to grow its cash flow in excess of 30% over the next three years," he said.

"Avatar" also spotlights the firm's joint venture theater business model to spread film risks and costs, which has made more investors comfortable with the firm's outlook. Plus, "Avatar" could be whetting 3D movie appetites in international markets, especially China and India, where the venture model could entice smaller chains to acquire Imax screens.

"As the number of screens increases for Imax with better margins and more sustainable growth, people will realize this is not a one-shot movie kind of story," Janco analyst Martin Pyykkonen said. "This is a change-the-business story from the way they've done things in the past." He has a "buy" rating and $18 price target on Imax shares.

But some skeptics see "Avatar 3D" as a one-off -- an outlier that dominates boxoffice but leaves the broader exhibition industry unchanged, at least for now.

"While 'Avatar' is likely a watershed for digital and 3-D technology, it does not tell us that the underlying economics of the film business have changed," Barclays Capital analysts Anthony DiClemente and George Hawkey wrote in a recent report.

There's also concern that the Imax brand might suffer if moviegoers who were dazzled by "Avatar 3D" and its immersive effects are disappointed viewing future 3D titles on its giant screens.

Merriman Curhan Ford analyst Eric Wold has a "neutral" rating on Imax, partly "given the planned accelerated rollout for Cinemark XD," a large-format digital initiative that competes with Imax.

But he is bullish on the likely Imax hauls for Summit Entertainment's "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" and other upcoming titles. The 3D pipeline at Imax this year also includes DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Shrek Forever After" and Disney's "Tron Legacy 3" and "Toy Story 3."

A big test for Imax will be how audiences greet Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland," which launches March 5; the Disney title will be Imax's first post-"Avatar" 3D offering.

Imax CEO Rich Gelfond insists his business model is not dependent on "Avatar" -- or, for that matter, any other single $500 million boxoffice performer that might land on his screens.

"I don't think every film has to be as good as 'Avatar' for Imax to perform well," he said. "That's a bar that doesn't have to be met, nor will it be met."

Gelfond sees the recent run-up in Imax stock as less a short-term rally than the result of a long and hard slog to anchor the Toronto-based exhibitor in commercial entertainment, reduce overall debt and restore profitability.

"The Imax story is just beginning to unfold," he said. "Imax has just come through a transition, and the brightest part of our future is still to come."

Georg Szalai in New York contributed to this report.

Sky will launch Europe's first 3D channel - possibly in time for May's Champions League final.

http://today3d.blogspot.com/2010/01/sky-will-launch-europes-first-3d.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

You're walking past a pub and a mighty roar erupts. A crucial goal has obviously gone in, so you pop your head inside to catch the replay on television.

But it's not the sporting action that catches your eye. You suddenly wonder if you have wandered into a bad dream. The entire pub appears to be full of sun-worshippers and Bono clones.

Just like the Irish singer, everyone is wearing clunky, dark-tinted glasses, even though it's night-time and we are indoors.

3D TV sets will be available to buy this year

Without the glasses, however, no one would be able to see the screen. It would be a blur. Stick on your magic Bono shades and everything changes in an instant.

You are suddenly transported to a virtual reality pitchside seat. Along with the entire pub, you duck instinctively as the ball comes flying out of the screen. You scoff at the stupidity of the referee for failing to spot a flagrant breach of the offside rule, which is crystal clear through these all-seeing lenses.

After a while, you may feel slightly queasy. Or you may be bowled over. Either way, we are told, this is the future of television. So get used to it.

We do not have to wait long before this bizarre apparition is a reality. In fact, it's due to start within a matter of months. And shortly after it takes off in our pubs, it will start happening in our homes.

But is Britain ready for three-dimensional television? Are entire families going to sit down together in goggles? And what happens to the 7 per cent of the population - including our one-eyed Prime Minister - for whom 3D simply doesn't work?

Much as it may irk all those people who have just spent a small fortune buying a swanky new high-definition television screen in the January sales, they are already behind the times.

The big electrical brands are about to unveil a new generation of 3D televisions starting at around £1,000 (including spectacles). And the world's broadcasters are gearing up to supply these new screens with wondrous, eye-popping footage quite unlike anything you've seen before.

Last week, it was announced that next month's England v Wales Six Nations rugby union international at Twickenham will be the first live 3D sporting event in Europe. It will be broadcast to cinemas all over the country, where thousands of fans will follow the action through special 3D glasses.

But this is just a taster. Within the next few months, Sky will launch Europe's first 3D channel - possibly in time for May's Champions League final.

To begin with, the channel will be available only in pubs and clubs, which will be the first to take delivery of these expensive new screens. Soon after that, however, manufacturers such as Panasonic and JVC will start unveiling a new generation of 3D-ready televisions for the home.

Robert Hardman got a sneak preview of a 3D TV set

A few years from now, perhaps, people will wonder how on earth we spent all those years glued to our quaint little two-dimensional screens, much as today's younger generations find it extraordinary that whole families would once dress up and gather round the wireless.

Broadcasters are calling 3D the biggest revolution in television since the advent of colour. So, for the millions who spend their lives glued to the small screen, this is, therefore, very big news indeed. But does it live up to the hype? Is it really that different from watching an HD image on the latest plasma screen?

After all, the film industry was making 3D movies 50 years ago and they never really took off. Maybe it was the sheer naffness of having to wear red-and-green eyeshades.

Maybe it was the fact that some people were left with headaches or nausea. When Jaws 3 appeared in 3D in 1983, people were more appalled by the dismal plot and tacky special effects than the sight of a great white shark biting chunks out of the cast. The 3D genre seemed to be over.

Now, a new generation of scientists have developed an entirely different sort of 3D image for the digital era. The basic principle is the same as ever - you film the same thing from two angles and then merge the two images to create depth - but it is an entirely different experience.

Down at Sky's West London headquarters, I view some of the work in progress. The boffins have been experimenting with everything from boxing to ballet via a new breed of 3D camera with two lenses and one operator.

Without special 3D glasses, I can see only a fuzzy picture on the screen. Put them on and the result is a bewildering sense of depth. It's like watching a computer game featuring real people.

I watch a clip of a Champions League game at Liverpool where a few experimental 3D cameras had been scattered around the ground. More impressive than the play in the foreground is the action in the background.

When the camera pans into the crowd, you really do feel as if there is a stadium full of people receding into the distance. The clarity is astonishing. In future, it will be a seriously moronic hooligan who attempts to cause any trouble when 3D cameras are in the stadium. You can almost smell the pie being scoffed by the fat bloke in Row Z.

When I watch Usain Bolt breaking yet another running record in Manchester, the striking thing is not so much Bolt's speed, but the ticker tape which seems to be about to land on my head.

And when the ball starts bouncing towards the camera during footage from November's Saracens v South Africa game, I instinctively want to reach out and stop it hitting me in the face. There could be chaotic scenes in the cinemas next month when over- excited England fans start leaping out of their seats to join in the line-outs.

Needless to say, none of this comes cheap. Darren Long, Sky Sports' director of operations, explains that 3D coverage of a typical Premier League football match will require an entire extra set of cameras, cameramen and even commentators in addition to the full team needed for regular two-dimensional coverage.

Every cameraman will have to learn a new, gentler technique when following the ball. 'You actually need fewer cameras in 3D, but they need to be closer to the action, and the picture will be so different that you will have to have a different set of commentators talking about it.'

While sport will drive this new technology in the early days, the idea is that 3D will eventually extend to everything.

'I'm not sure there'd be much point filming traffic reports in 3D, but, in the end, anything visual is going to be improved,' says Sky's director of product design, the aptly-named Brian Lenz.

He admits that some events do not lend themselves to 3D just yet, particularly if they involve the cameraman running around or getting wet.

The new 'stereo' cameras are much heavier than the existing kit. And if a drop of rain lands on one lens but not the other, the result is a hideously distorted image. On the other hand, all those wildlife documentaries might just be about to get even better.

As someone who has yet to buy a plasma screen and still watches a big fat box in the corner of the room, I feel positively Stone Age looking at all this. But isn't it a bit hard on everyone who has just swallowed the hype and bought a new HD television?

'That's the way technology goes. The first iPhone was obsolete as soon as you bought it,' says Brian Lenz. He points out that every existing HD set-top box is ready to receive 3D images. It's just the television itself which cannot.

And a new 3D model is going to cost a four-figure sum - which means that the only buyers are likely to be footballers who want to watch their own fancy footwork in three dimensions, and outgoing MPs on a farewell spending spree.

As with all new technology, the prices will tumble in due course. Viewers will have a choice between two types of 3D system known as 'active' and 'passive', which show images in different ways.

An 'active' television will cost less, but will require special 'shutter' glasses. The basic idea is that the TV displays the programme in a series of rapidly alternating frames - left eye, right eye, left eye, right eye - changing at such speed that the viewer cannot even detect it is happening.

To watch in 3D, the viewer wears a pair of shutter glasses, powered by a small battery, which block out one eye or the other on alternate frames at the same high speed, synchronising with the image being displayed on TV via a wireless connection to the set. The brain is thus fooled into creating a 3D image in the mind's eye.

The technology works well. But the trouble is, the glasses cost around £50 a pair. So if you sit on them or the dog chews them or you invite lots of friends round to watch a game, it is going to be very expensive. And how often will those batteries need replacing?

The passive technology works differently. This relies on a special polarising filter on the TV set to split the image into its left eye/right eye components. The split picture is then viewed using a simple pair of polarising glasses - similar to the ones handed out in modern 3D cinemas - to create the 3D image.

Though these glasses cost as little as 65p a pair, the 'passive TVs' are expected to be up to 15 per cent more expensive than the active versions - and there are reports that the quality of the picture is not so good.

Both systems are much kinder on the eye than the old red-and-green eyeshades of yesteryear, which means that viewers are less likely to get headaches or feel nauseous.

As for the 7 per cent of Britons who are unable to appreciate depth of vision (usually those who have sustained an injury or illness which has damaged one or both of their eyes), they can save themselves the whole bother of putting on these silly glasses and cheerfully continue watching in good old 2D for a fraction of the price.

So is this all a gimmick? Will the public buy it? The glasses will put some people off, no doubt. Over time, I suspect that it will become an occasional pleasure rather than a routine.

But Brian Lenz has no doubt that technology will eventually iron out any difficulties: 'In ten years' time, I dare say we will be watching 3D without any glasses at all,' he says. 'The science is improving all the time.'

Indeed, the boffins are already perfecting new techniques so that old two-dimensional material can be reconfigured in the new 3D format. In time, we may all be able to see the Coronation, the 1966 World Cup final, or The Sound Of Music through our new Bono glasses.

Some things, however, are beyond all help. Whatever they do to Jaws 3, a turkey will always be a turkey.