Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

Yesterday (Jan 27), my daughter and I flew down to Newberg, OR, to attend a demonstration of Technicolor's new (reinvented) 3D-On-Film.

In attendance were around 30 theatre owners from across the region, as well as reps from Technicolor, American Cinema and the owner of the theatre.

After a short presentation, a 20 minute demo reel was shown.

Having seen plenty of digital 3D, as well as dual-strip Imax, my opinion was that the film presentation was easily equal to digital, if not somewhat better, as more light is available with film.

Technicolor is offering a flat $2,000 per print/lens deal, with a yearly cap of $12,000 per lens. This is based totally on the number of 3D films booked. You pay the fee after you run the film. You also have to have a silvered screen, which would be required for all but the Dolby system.

There are 10 films scheduled for release in 2010... possibly more. IIRC, the first will be out in March.

If any of you would like to consider 3D, but aren't ready for the cost of digital, this might be an alternative worth checking into.

So technicolor provides a custom remastered version of the celluloid itself or just a new lens/bulb combo to create the effect?

their website: www.technicolor.com/GlobalEnglish/Delive...r-3D/Pages/home.aspx

Since many people are pleased with the quality and the cost structure seems to be reasonable, I plan on thoroughly lookin into this.

I have copies of the agreement if anyone wants to see one.

BWT wrote:
Yes, a completely separate print is provided. It's much the same as the over/under concept you might remember from "Jaws 3D". However, in this case the lens has been totally redone and is manufactured by Schneider. the polarizers are also different, both in their location, manufacture and type. Polarizer burnout was a problem with the old over/under lens adapters, as was exact convergence of the two images.

Technicolor has provided clear markings on the film, making splicing easier. There isn't much of a frame line, because almost all of the film is used for the two images per frame. They're also working on luminance balance across the frame, which is said to reduce the center hotspot. I'm not sure if that was in use for the demo, but it sure looked good as it was.

You don't change your bulb, assuming you have decent lighting at present.

Lens changes are pretty much like going from flat to scope... the lens and aperture are all you do.

has anyone actually done this? My technician is concerned that their underlying requirements for certification are more restrictive than normal standards and more than what is disclosed.

Initially, the Technicolor 3D process was not being supported by Disney and Fox. I had also heard that Sony was not supporting it. Does anyone know if there has been an update on this? What would be the point of adapting the technology if product was limited?

Oculus has developed a 3D lens for film which utilizes a side-by-side technology as opposed to Tech's over-under. They claim that it is better and more light-efficient and were confident that it would be supported by all the studios. Any updates?

7 of 9 studios are on board. Fox is not but they have no new 3d movies for 2010. Disney is waiting to see how many locations sign up. I was told 100 locations have signed upso far. What I hear is that if 500 locations sign up, then Disney should be eager to come on board. Maybe in time for Toy Story 3?????

rufusjack wrote:

I heard nothing about a fixed set of signed-up screens before a studio would get onboard... until this post... so I'd be suspicious it might just be rumour.

I've heard that there are movements within both companies to seriously consider this. Disney has pushed their "Disney Digital 3D" process very aggressively, requiring a new thought process in order to wrap their heads around Technicolor's film-based offering. Fox used to have an ownership position in Deluxe/DFS, which, being a competitor of Technicolor, might have created some relationship issues.

Still, a lot of this is either conjecture or 3rd+ hand info.

Personally, I'd be surprised to see any studio leave money on the table. If Tech's proces results in a decent showing in the next few months, I'd bet the rest of the studios will get onboard.

500 was the number they said at showeast ...

500 would be approx. 12-15% of locations that would typically play first-run movies. The thought it that is too many locations for a studio to ignore.

Supposively, this costs the studio nothing to do (or very close to nothing).

rufusjack wrote:
There is an enormous cost to the studios, if this version of 3D is inferior to digital 3D, and in the process it damages the public's perception of presentation quality for the modern 3D process. The short-term desire for more 3D screens should not override the importance of promoting the public image of modern digital 3D.

The studios have invested heavily in digital 3D, and the presentation quality which goes with it. By introducing an inferior 35mm 3D to the public, they risk tarnishing the reputation for modern digital 3D. This is why any 35mm 3D process will take a big push from manufacturers, film processors, and exhibitors in order to gain the acceptance of the studios.

Also, any technology which slows down the industry-wide conversion to digital projection is not going to be in any studio's best interest, since the sooner more screens are converted to d-cinema, the more money the studios will save in print costs.

Rick

Rick,

The consensus from people who have seen it, is this system is NOT inferior to digital 3d. Who do you know says it is not besides Warner president Fellman (but they have signed on though)?

7 or 9 studios (with one not signed up having no product in 2010) seems to be pretty good acceptance so far.

I hate to say it but in my opinion it is very inferior to digital 3d. I have seen both. The film version is better than it has ever been but not close to the digital 3d experience..

I do not have digital ... I might still consider the 35mm 3d version.... but there is no allusion that it is the same as digital.

rufusjack wrote:
First, I would just like to make myself perfectly clear that I am neither for or against 35mm 3D, or digital 3D for that matter.

Without naming names, I have spoken with several "neutral" parties on the issue of 35mm 3D, and the unanimous opinion from those people has been that 35mm 3D does not come close to equaling the presentation quality of digital 3D, to varying degrees.

By "neutral" parties, I mean people who do not have a hat on for selling the lenses or for keeping 35mm around for as long as possible, as well as the people who have an interest in digital 3D. Mainly, other theatre owners who own both regular 35mm and digital 3D projection systems, and a few people involved with the technology side of the equipment business, but who are not cheerleaders for either format. People who I trust and respect, who are not trying to sell anyone anything when they give their opinion on something.

There are a lot of people out there who would like to find an affordable 35mm solution to the 3D screen count problem. Warner Bros. might be more willing to compromise on 35mm 3D, with CLASH OF THE TITANS coming out immediately after HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, with not enough digital 3D to make both Paramount and Warner Bros. happy. That problem should be solved in the not too distant future, as more digital 3D screens are coming online every month.

The question the industry should be asking itself is, whether or not 35mm 3D is worth the short-term benefit for more 3D screens, if in the process it causes confusion and damage to the public's perception of modern digital 3D presentation quality.

Rick

Technicolor has a full-page ad for their 3D process in the February issue of Boxoffice.