IMAX 3D to Dwindle in North America - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 492Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 07:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark View Post
3D will return when the Avatar sequels come in.

I hate 3D unless its done RIGHT.

...

3. Greater than 48fps. The Hobbit films were the best 3D yet, when viewed in HFR, but unfortunately they didn't go far enough. 48fps is better, but its in a sort of no mans land where its better but still not good enough. 3D absolutely needs 120fps, its the only successful way forward. And don't tell me people don't like HFR, that's bologna, what they don't like is 48fps. Filmmakers can still add in a 24fps look within a 120fps package if they want (just like Skyfall filmed in 4k, but they added in grain in post and it looked gorgeous).
I'd query your claim "3D absolutely needs 120fps". Have you had the opportunity to evaluate 3D at 60fps (with say a 50% exposure time)?

I've read that the three Hobbit films were not shot with a 50% exposure time (180 degree shutter) but a 75% exposure time (270 degree shutter). This would likely have assisted compatibility with 24fps screenings, but would have blurred the 48fps 3D somewhat compared with using a 180 degree (or less) shutter.
MLXXX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 08:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox1966 View Post
I think that 3D is being killed, rather than dying. Do you notice how every time there is something negative about 3D, writers on A/V websites jump on the news quickly and spread it quickly with big strong headlines, such as this one (no offense, Scott). However, when there is something positive about 3D or a 3D movie, you don’t hear about it unless you stumble on it by accident.
Well the media do seem to like to bash 3D. I recall the hysteria over high frame rate with the first Hobbit movie. Claims about headaches and a soap opera look but when I was exiting a 3D HFR showing at a cinema in Australia all I could see on the faces of other patrons as they were filing out were smiles and an upbeat look! Reports in the media about people liking or preferring the HFR were few and far between. [I myself liked it very much.]

Even the article by @Scott Wilkinson that spawned this thread includes words that can be read negatively: "Aside from some diehard fans, 3D is essentially dead in the home. Manufacturers have dropped it from their TVs, and it’s not even an option on UHD Blu-ray."

I note that although it's not an option on UHD Blu-ray discs, it is a standard option on UHD Blu-ray players for playing "legacy" Full HD discs. And Panasonic have released a range of 3D LCD TVs in 2017 (the EX700 range, EX750 in Europe, EX780A in Australia). Edit: but as Tomtastic has pointed out to me below, Panasonic no longer sell TVs in the US...

So in Europe and Australia, the 3D Full HD Blu-ray discs that consumers bought in the past, or the 3D Full HD discs they can buy now, can be played on their 3D TV sets bought in the past, or with a 2017 model Panasonic 3D TV, connected to a UHD player, possibly using a latest model AVR (which also will be compatible with Full HD Blu-ray discs).

Not exactly dead! Though admittedly, not thriving either! And with poorer prospects in the US than certain other parts of the world.

As I've stated on this forum before, I believe an important reason 3D has not been offered for most 2017 model TVs is that flat screen TV technology has great difficulty offering high dynamic range without noticeable crosstalk (or in the case of active glasses, flickering). It is in the too hard basket at the moment for many manufacturers.

Last edited by MLXXX; 07-31-2017 at 11:11 AM. Reason: To clarify different Panasonic TV 2017 3D model lines for different regions
MLXXX is offline  
post #153 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
You seem to be under the impression it is more costly to create 3D in post rather than when shooting.
If you're going to do it right, yes. Titanic, Phantom Menace, Jurassic Park...their 3D converstions costs double digit millions. As it is, post converting 3D for current films costs quite a bit when it's not rushed.
Did you ever watch the credits and see the armies of "stereo" technicians on current films? It takes a LOT more people to convert to 3D than to shoot 3D. Most VFX for converted films are rendered native 3D anyway - but that is part of post production.
Quote:
You also seem to be under the impression that post converted 3D looks better than native 3D.
You're putting words in my mouth here. I know it can look very, very good: the aformentioned Titanic and Jurassic Park are an excellent experience in 3D IMO.
Quote:
Shooting natively in 3D is a painstaking process requiring care in setting up and adjusting the specialised camera rigs. It can slow down shooting and thus indirectly add to expense. (Also it may call for a certain extent of tweaking in post anyway.) It may very well turn out to be more expensive to shoot 3D natively than to leave everything to post conversion. And it demands patience and perseverance during the shooting. Not all directors are sufficiently committed to 3D to be prepared to go through the hassle of shooting stereoscopically.
When I saw drek like Drive Angry, Resident Evil: xxxxx, Step Up, Piranha 3DD, etc. I was not able to see the painstaking patience of the filmmakers involved.

For every Avatar or The Martian there's a My Bloody Valentine or The Darkest Hour.

For Star Trek Into Darkness every shot was conceived for 3D. After they did the "live action" pass of the actors doing their lines, they shot an additional pass of the backgrounds for 3D. They haven't been the only production to do this.
Quote:
At the current state of the art, 3D conversions are not as effective as native 3D for close-ups of human beings, or nature, or for rapid random motion such as swirling water. I noticed that even the painstaking conversion done for Titanic renders the swirling water in the sinking vessel as a blur a lot of the time. It's an extremely very well done conversion but has its limits. In the conversion for Jurassic Park the action at a medium distance is nicely done in 3D but in my opinion the close ups of human faces are rather flat and uninteresting.
I'd have to agree to disagree on these examples.
Quote:
David Attenborough has narrated a series of 3D nature documentaries. These were shot with stereo cameras. The alternative of shooting in 2D and post converting to 3D would have given a decidedly second-rate result, and would have been extremely difficult to do, as there were many close-ups of exotic creatures moving randomly, and of exotic plants with intricate structures. Some scenes simply have to be shot stereoscopically for good 3D results.
Unfortunately stuff like that is the exception rather than the rule - extremely rare. It's no coincidence a large component of native 3D photography has been confined to documentaries - you also realize nobody's going to bother to post convert those to 3D anyway.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 08:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1296 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
or with a 2017 model Panasonic 3D TV, connected to a UHD player, possibly using a latest model AVR (which also will be compatible with Full HD Blu-ray discs).

Not exactly dead! Though admittedly, not thriving either!

As I've stated on this forum before, I believe an important reason 3D has not been offered for most 2017 model TVs is that flat screen TV technology has great difficulty offering high dynamic range without noticeable crosstalk (or in the case of active glasses, flickering). It is in the too hard basket at the moment for many manufacturers.
They don't appear to be for sale here in the US, just in Europe (EX750 line).

Yes, could also be HDR requires more brightness and the FPR layer reduces brightness so the two technologies work against each other. It's something they need to work on.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #155 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
As I've stated on this forum before, I believe an important reason 3D has not been offered for most 2017 model TVs is that flat screen TV technology has great difficulty offering high dynamic range without noticeable crosstalk (or in the case of active glasses, flickering). It is in the too hard basket at the moment for many manufacturers.
They're looking to save money (processing, glasses, etc).
There's no HDR 3D material anyway.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #156 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 09:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1296 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

When I saw drek like Drive Angry, Resident Evil: xxxxx, Step Up, Piranha 3DD, etc. I was not able to see the painstaking patience of the filmmakers involved.

For every Avatar or The Martian there's a My Bloody Valentine or The Darkest Hour.

For Star Trek Into Darkness every shot was conceived for 3D. After they did the "live action" pass of the actors doing their lines, they shot an additional pass of the backgrounds for 3D. They haven't been the only production to do this.

I'd have to agree to disagree on these examples.

Unfortunately stuff like that is the exception rather than the rule - extremely rare. It's no coincidence a large component of native 3D photography has been confined to documentaries - you also realize nobody's going to bother to post convert those to 3D anyway.
I know you're not comparing Avatar or The Martian to My Bloody Valentine because that would be ridiculous. Two completely different levels of quality in the filmmaking. Try comparing Avatar to Godzilla or Captain America something with a closer budget, at least.

Conversion is a Hollywood thing, you won't see it in documentaries because it isn't needed. Usually it comes down to the studio wanting to push 3D and most of these directors don't want to shoot natively, there's only a handful that do. They can get the VFX and 3D rendered together in post and see it as a cost benefit to tack it on so they can get the up-charged ticket sales.

The only movie coming out this year with native 3D is Transformers and it was nearly 100 percent IMAX shot and now this news about IMAX 3D scaling back it's 3D showings is disappointing but I can't say I blame them. You can't expect customers to shell out extra for 3D when they're showing something that looks just as good in 2D which is what most of the 3D movies are now. People expect Avatar and they're given Clash of the Titans.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #157 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 09:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
They don't appear to be for sale here in the US, just in Europe (EX750 line).
And in Australia they are the EX780A range. Sorry, I'll edit my post.

Quote:
Yes, could also be HDR requires more brightness and the FPR layer reduces brightness so the two technologies work against each other. It's something they need to work on.
And of course the FPR layer in conjunction with passive glasses tends to let through visible crosstalk even with pre-HDR screens.

Last edited by MLXXX; 07-31-2017 at 11:01 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
post #158 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 09:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
Did you ever watch the credits and see the armies of "stereo" technicians on current films?
Yes, and I've read articles about what's involved.

Quote:
It takes a LOT more people to convert to 3D than to shoot 3D.
Of course, but the issue for the director is not the number of staff in post production. It is the time and effort needed to shoot within the constraints of 3D for the positioning (e.g. using a real-life viewing distance rather than lens zoom) and adjustment [interaxial distance, toe-in] of the specialised 3D rigs.

Quote:
You're putting words in my mouth here.
I extrapolated from your statement:"Directors that have shot native 3D go to converted once they realize they can control the exact depth of an object in the frame. Why else do so many go through the expense of post conversion now?".

Your statement did not appear to acknowledge the inherent superiority of native 3D for real-life scenes.

Quote:
When I saw drek like Drive Angry, Resident Evil: xxxxx, Step Up, Piranha 3DD, etc. I was not able to see the painstaking patience of the filmmakers involved.
The only one of those films I saw was Step Up. The first Step Up movie, set in the UK, (I think there were several Step Up movies in the end) had extremely memorable good quality 3D for me. There were so many closeups of the dancers. And I recall a scene with rain drops in the foreground. Rain drops are pretty much impossible to do as a post conversion unless they are kept at a distance. I would expect that the camera set up would have been painstaking for that movie. The sterescopic effect was not overdone - very close to real life. A tour de force for 3D quality in my opinion. A far better result than post-production 3D would have achieved.

Quote:
For Star Trek Into Darkness every shot was conceived for 3D. After they did the "live action" pass of the actors doing their lines, they shot an additional pass of the backgrounds for 3D. They haven't been the only production to do this.
Regrettably, for me, the 3D result was merely passable. It was competent. But I felt no palpable 3D reality in close-ups of the actors.

Quote:
I'd have to agree to disagree on these examples.
Well if you ever find yourself watching Titanic 3D again, I suggest you take particular note of the appearance of any swirling water below deck that is in the foreground of the scene. By the way I thought the closeups of Kate Winslet's face in simulated 3D in Titanic extremely well done. I felt I could sense the curvature of her eyeballs!
MLXXX is offline  
post #159 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1296 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Ok, I forgot, Panasonic pulled out of the US market a couple years ago so you can't get them here. Same with Sharp which are sold as Hisense here. Other brands that are gone: Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Toshiba, Magnovox and Phillips some of which are manufactured by other brands.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #160 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wesley Hester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Selma, Alabama, USA
Posts: 2,445
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 150
I personally like 3D and think the bigger the screen equates to better 3D. IMAX 3D, with the biggest screen of them all, produced the very best 3D to my eyes with the quality only limited by the source material of course. However, I understand it's not for everyone and the market has spoken.
King Richard likes this.

Display: Optoma UHD51A Projector > Elite Screens R135WH1 ezFrame | 7.2.4 Audio: Onkyo TX-RZ920 9.2ch Network A/V Receiver, M-5010 2ch Amplifier; Definitive Technology ProCenter 2000, ProMonitor 1000(x10), SuperCube I & 4000 | Sources: PC, DirecTV, Apple 4K, Fire Stick 4K, Oppo UDP-203, Chromecast & Roku Ultras, Xbox One X, PlayStation 4 Pro & Nintendo Switch | Remote: Harmony Elite | HDMI: 40' Monoprice DynamicView+4x1 Switch
Wesley Hester is offline  
post #161 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 10:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
They're looking to save money (processing, glasses, etc).
Well they may be looking to save money by avoiding any continuation of sets being returned by customers as not up to scratch as regards 3D performance.

I was very close to returning my own 2015 model 4K Sony passive 3D TV for refund, because the ghosting was very noticeable for my eyes. (Manually reducing the contrast helped reduce the visibility of the crosstalk.)

The brighter the screen setting, the greater the challenge becomes to avoid visible crosstalk and/or flicker.


Quote:
There's no HDR 3D material anyway.
Well it's a chicken and egg situation. If it is too hard to manufacture domestic projectors and flat panel displays at reasonable prices for HDR 3D, there is no point in developing a UHD HDR 3D standard for UHD discs.

Eventually, when technology and cost of manufacture hurdles are overcome, we could expect that Billy Lynn's Long Half Time Walk will be released to home consumers in an HFR HDR 3D format.

At this stage we can't even view the Hobbit movies at home at 48fps, be that in 2D or 3D!

Last edited by MLXXX; 07-31-2017 at 11:20 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
post #162 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 11:44 AM
Senior Member
 
wiyosaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Personally, I have never been a fan of 3D.

That said, I have heard that there are some theaters out there where the projectionists know that 3D needs to have the projector light levels turned up. I do not know whether there is a theater in my area that has the equipment that is capable of this. If there are such theaters in my area, I have not seen a 3D movie in one. Since I have never seen 3D where it was projected correctly, I cannot say whether I would like it or not. It might still come across as a gimmick to me.

That said, I thought 3D added nothing to Avatar, and little to the last of the Harry Potter movies. The other movies I have seen in 3D were disappointing to me. 3D really added nothing, and probably took away from the experience since the usual "light levels are too low" complaint came into play.

At this point, I have to say that I will not miss 3D in IMAX or elsewhere, for that matter. I am leaning more towards waiting for disc releases of movies rather than seeing them in the theater. It is a much better experience, IMO, seeing movies in my home.

My HT and the thrill of getting new equipment.
wiyosaya is offline  
post #163 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 11:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Ok, I forgot, Panasonic pulled out of the US market a couple years ago so you can't get them here. Same with Sharp which are sold as Hisense here. Other brands that are gone: Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Toshiba, Magnovox and Phillips some of which are manufactured by other brands.
Well I do hope for your sakes in the US that there is a return to offering 3D at least in the flagship models of manufacturers. As I say, I think there are currently technology/cost hurdles to be overcome connected with using HDR displays to display 3D material.

I see the decision by Imax for North America as to the mix of 3D and 2D showings as a kind of fine-tuning and not as spelling the collapse of 3D commercial cinema in your part of the world. For one thing, kids seem to enjoy going to the movies to see 3D animations!

It will be interesting to follow what box office Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3D achieves in North America, after it is released in late August.
King Richard likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #164 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 5,537
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1007 Post(s)
Liked: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiyosaya View Post
Personally, I have never been a fan of 3D.

That said, I have heard that there are some theaters out there where the projectionists know that 3D needs to have the projector light levels turned up. I do not know whether there is a theater in my area that has the equipment that is capable of this. If there are such theaters in my area, I have not seen a 3D movie in one. Since I have never seen 3D where it was projected correctly, I cannot say whether I would like it or not. It might still come across as a gimmick to me.

That said, I thought 3D added nothing to Avatar, and little to the last of the Harry Potter movies. The other movies I have seen in 3D were disappointing to me. 3D really added nothing, and probably took away from the experience since the usual "light levels are too low" complaint came into play.

At this point, I have to say that I will not miss 3D in IMAX or elsewhere, for that matter. I am leaning more towards waiting for disc releases of movies rather than seeing them in the theater. It is a much better experience, IMO, seeing movies in my home.
There are two big problems with 3D!

1) Without the proper equipment to display 3D it is usually a miss -- 2D probably looks better since the 3D is dull and greyed out (sometimes 2D looks just a bad due to improper setup).

I have a number of 3D projectors and on a 2.8 gain HP screen 3D can look very good; however, on one of my 65" OLED passive displays (move your seating to about 6 or 7 feet from the TV) 3D looks about as good as it can right now at home or pretty much anywhere else with maybe the exception of a speciality theatre. It's bright and 99.9% ghost-free and beats out 2D 4K HDR every time for me -- no contest.

2) Human depth perception varies individually. Those that don't particularly like 3D may have poor depth perception and these people may not see much improvement, if any, over 2D. Apparently I have extremely good depth perception and this probably explains why I've always found 3D to be a much better experience than 2D and so I can understand why 3D is not such a big deal for many others. I do think when really good glassless 3D is ready for prime time things will change and 3D will once again be hyped as the latest, greatest and a must have -- within the next 5 years? Maybe.
King Richard likes this.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #165 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 02:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1296 Post(s)
Liked: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
Well I do hope for your sakes in the US that there is a return to offering 3D at least in the flagship models of manufacturers. As I say, I think there are currently technology/cost hurdles to be overcome connected with using HDR displays to display 3D material.

I see the decision by Imax for North America as to the mix of 3D and 2D showings as a kind of fine-tuning and not as spelling the collapse of 3D commercial cinema in your part of the world. For one thing, kids seem to enjoy going to the movies to see 3D animations!

It will be interesting to follow what box office Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3D achieves in North America, after it is released in late August.
Since virtually no 3D movies are filmed in IMAX resolution, Transformers being the lone exception this year, I can see scaling back 3D showings in IMAX theaters. Really, they should only show IMAX resolution films to begin with, whether they're 2D or 3D.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #166 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 02:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Lazarus Dark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 621
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark View Post
3D will return when the Avatar sequels come in.

I hate 3D unless its done RIGHT.

...

3. Greater than 48fps. The Hobbit films were the best 3D yet, when viewed in HFR, but unfortunately they didn't go far enough. 48fps is better, but its in a sort of no mans land where its better but still not good enough. 3D absolutely needs 120fps, its the only successful way forward. And don't tell me people don't like HFR, that's bologna, what they don't like is 48fps. Filmmakers can still add in a 24fps look within a 120fps package if they want (just like Skyfall filmed in 4k, but they added in grain in post and it looked gorgeous).
I'd query your claim "3D absolutely needs 120fps". Have you had the opportunity to evaluate 3D at 60fps (with say a 50% exposure time)?

I've read that the three Hobbit films were not shot with a 50% exposure time (180 degree shutter) but a 75% exposure time (270 degree shutter). This would likely have assisted compatibility with 24fps screenings, but would have blurred the 48fps 3D somewhat compared with using a 180 degree (or less) shutter.
part of the reason we need 120fps is the same reason they used 48fps for the Hobbit films: 24fps downconversion. While TVs and UHD bluray can handle 60p, many digital theater projectors cannot. And after being forced to convert once for digital, and again for 3d, it will be an even harder sell to get a majority of theaters to convert to 60fps 3d capable projectors (hardly any could handle the 48fps of the hobbit, and then only in 2k, though that might have been a DCI package limitation, I'm not sure).
Shooting in 60fps would make for some ugly 24fps downconversion, while I believe down converting from 120fps to 24 would be better.
Additionally, I think 60fps would be okay for viewing, but from experience I do prefer 75hz monitors vs 60, so I think going over 60 is still the better, future-proof method. No sense in taking a half step to 60, only to go to 120 later, when we can just go straight to 120 and be done with it. I already think using 48 for the Hobbits was a mistake as no display can, or likely will, accept such an odd framerate.
Lazarus Dark is offline  
post #167 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 364 Post(s)
Liked: 238
IMAX started this policy 3 or 4 months ago, although they had a different excuse back then. (It was to help families bringing their kids, they claimed). Well, now their 2nd qtr financials have dropped since they started this and it's showing net losses. Way to go IMAX! Oh, and those losses "excludes charges and impairments associated with the Company's cost-reduction initiative."

As for glasses-free, if the Ultra-D demo I saw last year was any indication...ummm, no thanks. Far more effective with glasses, ESPECIALLY for pop-outs/extensions. If they do come out with no-glasses 3D sets, I hope they'd still have an option to use glasses, if a consumer prefers. Because if there is ANY WAY the home video industry can screw over consumers, they'll jump on it like ex-cons at a bordello.

Last edited by film113; 07-31-2017 at 03:18 PM.
film113 is offline  
post #168 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 03:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1296 Post(s)
Liked: 545

Cameron discusses the T2 3D remaster and a little about the state of 3D, glasses free, I skipped to the important bits, but you can back it up if you want. The audio cuts out a little on this video.
LDizzle likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #169 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 04:04 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5118
Sad to see this sort of report but this wasn't consumers fault that 3D "died" as if...

Pfft... you guys can go on and on and on about your experiences with 3D and how you feel about things filmed or converted into 3D but it's all irrelevant to the reason why 3D is now "dying".

The problem is that Hollywood saw 3D as a way to make more revenue off their products and treated it as such. Theater chains doing a poor job at presenting 3D is the next weak link in the chain....

The CE's pulling it from consumer hardware is the death nail.... that is, until it comes back and it will.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #170 of 313 Old 07-31-2017, 04:28 PM
Member
 
benji888578's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 47
This is a disappointment, prefer IMAX 3D experience

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnoonie View Post
I look for movies in non-3D theaters. It just doesn't do anything for me, the disadvantages outweigh the benefit. The main disadvantage I see as reduced color saturation, followed by being dimmer. Although I can see the 3D effect it just doesn't add to the experience and is mostly an annoying distraction that takes away more from the story than it adds. 3D on an LG OLED is another story, it looks great.

3D movie tech is improving, the last iteration just didn't work at all for me. This current tech works for me but isn't compelling enough to seek out in the theater. Maybe the next iteration will finely be meaningful to me.

I think HDR and WCG in the theater is more important than 3D at this point.

Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes View Post
I saw Gravity in the theater in 3D, and Avatar at home on my TV in 3D, and both were neat (Gravity in the theater being the better experience) but not so special that I've been tempted to repeat the experience or seek out other 3D films.

For home viewing 4K UHD discs with HDR and WCG are more appealing to me than 3D. For movie theaters from what I understand 3D mutes the colors and contrast, so I'd rather have those at full-blast than 3D.
see my note below next quote. (…I agree about HDR & WCG, but, also prefer 3D IMAX (see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrolds View Post
Outside of Avatar, Gravity, Pacific Rim and some Pixar movies - 3D has been pretty garbage imo
  • Lower contrast
  • Glare/Internal Refelection
  • Sucks for people who wear glassses
  • Uncomfortable
  • Inflated ticket prices
  • Gimmicky uses
  • Ghosting, trailing
You obviously have never been to IMAX 3D...(except for price) none of these are issues...IMAX 3D uses two brighter projectors, (one for each eye), and the glasses are bigger, more accommodating for glasses wearers. I've rarely had these issues in a properly calibrated IMAX theater. In fact, I recall my first 3D movie experiences around 2009, The first was IMAX 3D, which was great, got me hooked on 3D, then I saw something in RealD 3D and it was disappointing, had all those issues. After this, I always preferred IMAX 3D, and, if a film was in 3D but not IMAX 3D, I would not always bother seeing it in 3D. I really think the RealD 3D experience has brought 3D down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
I've brought it up to IMAX and the theaters directly multiple times: IMAX and theaters in general, need to replay more movies. During the middle of the week, or if a movie is performing poorly, they need to rotate in another title from that same studio. Could you imagine if every week they had a "Throwback Thursday" or something where they replayed great movies from the last decade or so?

Last year, AMC & IMAX had 'space week' where they played the IMAX space documentaries during the day (like Hubble 3D & Space Station 3D) then every night they played a different movie: Gravity, Interstellar, Star Trek 09, Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Beyond, The Martian, etc. I bought the unlimited pass and was there every single day that week.
I am totally with you on this^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by beast69 View Post
I love 3D and alway choose it over 2D. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is the glasses. Especially in theaters. They give you those little glasses that you can barely see out of. If they had bigger lenses, they wouldn't limit your field of view. Which is one of the reasons it will be better when they perfect glasses-less technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithian View Post
I actually really like 3D at the movies. The problem in many of the theaters is the glasses. They are a royal pain in the ass. Even here in Los Angeles which has some of the best theaters, those same theaters are being very lazy about providing glasses that aren't heavy or impossible to clean..thus causing smearing while watching. They are using glasses from like years ago (The Grove, Arclight, etc). I'd rather use the disposable glasses that are so common in New Jersey when I visit my family. The only exception to this was when I went to the Hollywood IMAX this past weekend to see Valarian. The glasses were perfect and the 3D effect was great. The problem was the uncomfortable seats lol.
So really you’re talking about the difference between RealD 3D glasses and IMAX 3D glasses. Yeah, they should all be big like the IMAX 3D glasses, but, again, the IMAX 3D experience is superior, mostly due to the dual projectors, (with computer correction), and larger screen. (Yeah, some older IMAX theaters have sucky seats. The closest one to where I’m currently at has decent, (but not luxury), leather seats.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by krismate View Post
I don't think it was. I believe it's mostly shot on film even.
(Star Wars: The Last Jedi) Without going to some kind of Star Wars forums, I can’t find more specifics, but, yeah, I think it’s all shot on film.

“In 3D. Originally 2D, converted during post-production. Select sequences filmed with IMAX cameras. IMAX 2D 70mm DMR version to be released on select screens in the US and abroad.*” see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
Yeah but IMAX has more light output @ 12 to 18 while most commercial cinemas cap out @ 8. IMAX in 3D looks crazy good, isn't dim at all. I would never see a movie in 3D in any other theater unless it's AMC Prime.
Again, to all I quoted above, ^^this^^ (Not near an AMC Prime theater, but, would like to see a movie in Dolby Atmos.)

____
My all-time favorite IMAX 3D movie experiences are tied for first place:

Tron: Legacy
Doctor Strange

While Tron: Legacy may not have had the best story, having used the same tech as Avatar, it had the best combination of visual and auditory experience for any movie, solely based on the IMAX 3D version. Even though it’s a conversion, Doctor Strange ties for #1 , but, more for the immersive visuals than the visual/auditory combination of T.L., again, based solely on the IMAX 3D experience, (which I wish was available on the home version :P.)

______________________
To add: As far as Home 3D goes, active glasses are what killed it. I think it would have taken off with passive glasses, same as in theaters, no matter how much more expensive the TVs/Projectors would be at first, having to pay so much extra for heavy, cumbersome active glasses makes it just way too unmanageable…batteries or wires…yank on the wire, drop it too many times it’ll break, lose one and it’s an expensive replacement, there’s just too much of a mess and expense with active 3D glasses. It was a stupid idea to use that tech. to determine if people would go for it.

However, I have been waiting since the 1970s for Holographic movie theaters.

In any case a glasses-free 3D experience, holographic or not, would be ideal, and is possible as pointed out, (missed the quote). I don’t see why this can’t be done with lasers. (Finally, after seeing a demo in 1983 of future tech…a laser movie (done in rough vector resolution with only 3 colors, (RGB))…we have IMAX laser projectors starting to be installed, some 34 years later).

At least several years ago Apple put in for a patent on glasses-free 3D tech that used that Israeli company’s tech, (they bought sometime before this), that senses where people’s eyes are, so, I’m sure they are not the only ones trying to develop the tech.

So, since UHD has no 3D standard at the moment, let’s hope 3D gets a reboot in a couple years with passive glasses or glasses-free, w/HDR & WCG.
Aras_Volodka and King Richard like this.
benji888578 is offline  
post #171 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 12:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 2,447
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1444 Post(s)
Liked: 923
While I'd like to see an example of "good" 3D, I can't hardly bring myself to watch Avatar (Blue people in a jungle? Who cares???) Besides, I keep reading it has like zero out of screen effects. The first modern 3D movie I saw at the theater was Alice in Wonderland and I was shocked to find nothing came out of the screen. WTF is the point of 3D if nothing comes out of the screen??? NO WONDER people don't care about 3D anymore! The whole "wow" factor for seeing something like Magic Journeys or Captain EO at Disney World (since 3D had long disappeared from the theater; I saw Jaws 3D and Metalstorm, the latter which was a total cheese B-movie an then it was gone again) was the 3D pop-out stuff. Depth? Meh. It's OK, but is it worth the glasses, etc.? To me, probably not. But pop-out? Hell yeah! THAT is 3D! But directors seem to HATE pop-out as they're afraid of movie critics claiming it's all just hokey effects for effects sake. Ridiculous. Yeah, scene after scene, maybe, but saying they shouldn't set up ANY pop-outs? Someone should be fired for spreading that line of thinking. The moment the hand sticks out of the screen in Creature From The Black Lagoon is awesome. Get rid of it? You might as well get rid of 3D then.

Meanwhile, I'm having trouble getting rid of cross-talk issues with my Epson 3100. I was watching RIPD last night (UK import; I like Jeff Bridges, but this movie was seriously goofy and was more like MiB than anything else) and I discovered if I set my "screen size" to 60 inches (lowest possible setting; my actual screen size is 93 inches), the cross-talk was reduced by about 85% to only slight issues in pop-outs so it seems like something is just set wrong internally in that screen size setting control (although I need to try more movies to see if it's movie dependent with that setting as some movies are far worse than others with cross-talk issues and this projector or even some scenes more than others so I have to wonder how much the source material plays into it as well. I only wish I could turn that dial down more. I know my PS4 has its own screen size setting for 3D that is much more precise, but it doesn't seem to do anything (I don't know if that interacts with movies played through it or that was for 3D gaming). There is a "depth" setting on the projector and that can correct the crosstalk at a given depth, but in turn makes it worse at the opposite depth (i.e. fixes crosstalk in background, but makes it worse in foreground and vice versa). I've tried 3 brands of 3D glasses and I see no difference between them in that regard.

All I know is cross-talk sucks and pulls you out of the immersion 3D provides. You would think manufacturers would have done all they could to minimize it. You can't expect 3D to succeed if it's handicapped by the hardware. Instead, they just decide to get rid of it period (at least in the US). I can't believe sales are so poor it's worth ditching it entirely. Putting it only on the top models limits your market. It should have been a standard feature. I think some people in the industry hate it and wish it would disappear entirely and have been pushing in that direction as hard as they think they can get away with.
MagnumX is offline  
post #172 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 12:40 PM
Newbie
 
johnmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Question Love 3D

Most movies these days are NOT worth going to. So, 3D was one of the few things that brought me to the theater. 70mm film showings are another, and I thank Christopher Nolan for pushing to both revive and keep the format going.

I attended Opening Day when "Star Wars" expanded to 35 cities on Friday, May 27, 1977. So, I have been to both recent "Star Wars" releases. But, since both of those movies didn't do much for me, 3D is essential to getting me in the theater and getting me to come back. I made the pilgrimage to Virginia to see "Force Awakens" in IMAX 3D and Laser Projection. I definitely would not have done that without the 3D.

One other issue: Why is sound so muddy? I don't think theater owners EQ their sound, unless they are in major filmmaking cities like Los Angeles or New York City. I am guessing that studio heads could come in at any moment, and they need to be ready! But, here in the middle of the country, it's all that mid-level "boom" stuff. Just making sure that your subwoofers work isn't enough. Do you remember THX? That was easily the best time for cinema sound. I am guessing that the requirements for THX kept theater owners tight on making sure the sound was good. Ever since then, it's been not the same. Dolby Atmos gives the impression that it is this great sound system. But, it still suffers from the "muddy middle" problem. I have heard a number of films in Atmos, but they are still not EQ'ed. You even go to a movie theater situated in a mall in L.A., and the sound excellent. Maybe not as good as at a famous cinema like the CineramaDome in Hollywood, but still very good.
King Richard likes this.
johnmiller is offline  
post #173 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 12:48 PM
Newbie
 
johnmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
While I'd like to see an example of "good" 3D, I can't hardly bring myself to watch Avatar (Blue people in a jungle? Who cares???) Besides, I keep reading it has like zero out of screen effects. The first modern 3D movie I saw at the theater was Alice in Wonderland and I was shocked to find nothing came out of the screen. WTF is the point of 3D if nothing comes out of the screen??? NO WONDER people don't care about 3D anymore! The whole "wow" factor for seeing something like Magic Journeys or Captain EO at Disney World (since 3D had long disappeared from the theater; I saw Jaws 3D and Metalstorm, the latter which was a total cheese B-movie an then it was gone again) was the 3D pop-out stuff. Depth? Meh. It's OK, but is it worth the glasses, etc.? To me, probably not. But pop-out? Hell yeah! THAT is 3D! But directors seem to HATE pop-out as they're afraid of movie critics claiming it's all just hokey effects for effects sake. Ridiculous. Yeah, scene after scene, maybe, but saying they shouldn't set up ANY pop-outs? Someone should be fired for spreading that line of thinking. The moment the hand sticks out of the screen in Creature From The Black Lagoon is awesome. Get rid of it? You might as well get rid of 3D then.

Meanwhile, I'm having trouble getting rid of cross-talk issues with my Epson 3100. I was watching RIPD last night (UK import; I like Jeff Bridges, but this movie was seriously goofy and was more like MiB than anything else) and I discovered if I set my "screen size" to 60 inches (lowest possible setting; my actual screen size is 93 inches), the cross-talk was reduced by about 85% to only slight issues in pop-outs so it seems like something is just set wrong internally in that screen size setting control (although I need to try more movies to see if it's movie dependent with that setting as some movies are far worse than others with cross-talk issues and this projector or even some scenes more than others so I have to wonder how much the source material plays into it as well. I only wish I could turn that dial down more. I know my PS4 has its own screen size setting for 3D that is much more precise, but it doesn't seem to do anything (I don't know if that interacts with movies played through it or that was for 3D gaming). There is a "depth" setting on the projector and that can correct the crosstalk at a given depth, but in turn makes it worse at the opposite depth (i.e. fixes crosstalk in background, but makes it worse in foreground and vice versa). I've tried 3 brands of 3D glasses and I see no difference between them in that regard.

All I know is cross-talk sucks and pulls you out of the immersion 3D provides. You would think manufacturers would have done all they could to minimize it. You can't expect 3D to succeed if it's handicapped by the hardware. Instead, they just decide to get rid of it period (at least in the US). I can't believe sales are so poor it's worth ditching it entirely. Putting it only on the top models limits your market. It should have been a standard feature. I think some people in the industry hate it and wish it would disappear entirely and have been pushing in that direction as hard as they think they can get away with.
IMAX 3D that uses Laser Projection is truly stunning. Try it out, and you'll see what I mean.
King Richard likes this.
johnmiller is offline  
post #174 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 01:12 PM
Member
 
GrizzledGeezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 23
a 3D lover

I'm 70, old enough to remember the flush of 3D movies in the early '50s. (I remember seeing The Maze.) 3D is not, per se, a gimmick. With the appropriate subject material and good 3D photography, it can greatly enhance story telling. (Inferno is probably the best example.)

I bought a Sony 3D set several months ago and have no regrets. I continue to find interesting 3D films, some of which I'd never heard of (Upside Down).I've yet to experiment with the 3D "synthesizer" on my oppo UDP-205. (Rumor has it that Peter Jackson's Ring films "translate" well.)

The price of the glasses is off-putting. I've saved several pairs and re-use them.
GrizzledGeezer is offline  
post #175 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 02:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
dcbii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji888578 View Post

You obviously have never been to IMAX 3D...(except for price) none of these are issues...IMAX 3D uses two brighter projectors, (one for each eye), and the glasses are bigger, more accommodating for glasses wearers. I've rarely had these issues in a properly calibrated IMAX theater. In fact, I recall my first 3D movie experiences around 2009, The first was IMAX 3D, which was great, got me hooked on 3D, then I saw something in RealD 3D and it was disappointing, had all those issues. After this, I always preferred IMAX 3D, and, if a film was in 3D but not IMAX 3D, I would not always bother seeing it in 3D. I really think the RealD 3D experience has brought 3D down.
That was my experience too. I had a chance to compare the technologies with the release of Avatar. The first time I saw it was in RealD 3D, and I enjoyed it. However, when I went again to an Imax 3D theater with a different group of people, the difference was astounding. I had already seen many Imax-specific 3D films (like the typical documentaries, etc.) in places like the Smithsonian and others, and I knew it was great for such material. But Avatar allowed me to directly compare the two 3D technologies, and for me Imax 3D was a revelation. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most RealD theaters are nothing special above and beyond the average movie theater. A good Imax theater is altogether different.

As to glasses, as I and others have already mentioned, for those who wear glasses, it's easy to buy your own clip-ons, that you can take care of and keep clean and scratch-free -- there are different types for use in Imax and RealD theatres, but I own both. The RealD clip-ons have the added benefit of working at home for LG passive 3D. Since my wife and I did this, we always just take our own clip-ons with us when we go to the theater, and it's a much better experience.

I don't refuse to see RealD 3D. I enjoy 3D too much for that, but for me at least, Imax 3D beats it easily.
benji888578 and King Richard like this.

Dave Barnhart

Oppo UDP-203, Oppo BDP-83, Denon X4200W, Denon X8500H, LG 55EF9500, NVidia Shield TV, Apple TV 4K, Roku Ultra, RSL speakers, all Monoprice Premium Certified HDMI cables
dcbii is offline  
post #176 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 09:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
They're looking to save money (processing, glasses, etc).
There's no HDR 3D material anyway.
Do what?

Did you see Michael's TF: The Last Knight in IMAX or other HDR theater in 3D? If you did you saw Stereoscopic High Dynamic Range (SHDR) 3D.

The only one out this year.

Better yet watch this,
King Richard likes this.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Some servers can do non-encrypted playback to an A/V projector, but it's just a ridiculously expensive media player if you don't have a cinema projector.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #177 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 10:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmiller View Post
Most movies these days are NOT worth going to. So, 3D was one of the few things that brought me to the theater. 70mm film showings are another, and I thank Christopher Nolan for pushing to both revive and keep the format going.

I attended Opening Day when "Star Wars" expanded to 35 cities on Friday, May 27, 1977. So, I have been to both recent "Star Wars" releases. But, since both of those movies didn't do much for me, 3D is essential to getting me in the theater and getting me to come back. I made the pilgrimage to Virginia to see "Force Awakens" in IMAX 3D and Laser Projection. I definitely would not have done that without the 3D.

One other issue: Why is sound so muddy? I don't think theater owners EQ their sound, unless they are in major filmmaking cities like Los Angeles or New York City. I am guessing that studio heads could come in at any moment, and they need to be ready! But, here in the middle of the country, it's all that mid-level "boom" stuff. Just making sure that your subwoofers work isn't enough. Do you remember THX? That was easily the best time for cinema sound. I am guessing that the requirements for THX kept theater owners tight on making sure the sound was good. Ever since then, it's been not the same. Dolby Atmos gives the impression that it is this great sound system. But, it still suffers from the "muddy middle" problem. I have heard a number of films in Atmos, but they are still not EQ'ed. You even go to a movie theater situated in a mall in L.A., and the sound excellent. Maybe not as good as at a famous cinema like the CineramaDome in Hollywood, but still very good.
THX was a reference setting on the volume. Regular movies 4.5, THX 7. They can say what they want about THX, I have made many posts on here about THX, it is not a "special" format it is a common sense format. All THX did and still does is take into account background noise and play it a little bit louder to drown the background noise out. That simple.

The biggest problem with theatre sound quality is simple. It is the people sitting in the auditorium. What sounds good to person A, sounds like crap to person B. Even if they are sitting side by side.

Both chains and independents invest hundreds of thousands of dollars every year keeping their theater up per screen. Upgrading to the latest Laser projection ATMOS system can coast up of $2.2 million per screen for a small size theatre. Like everything else, there has to be a return on investment for the capital spent, or they go out of business, like the early days of the digital switch in which smaller theatres were being "strong-armed" by studios to convert, and where are they now? Out of business because the return was not there for the capital invested.

I have spent over 30 years on both the production and presentation side of Hollywood. There is no one answer for every question. For the most part, owners follow the recommendations the studio asks of them. It is not an iron clad contract forcing them to do anything. The nightly BoxOffice count tells them if they are doing it right or wrong. For the first run of a feature film that they are selling tickets to, the owners get to keep $0.45 of every $10.00 ticket sold. The rest of that goes 70% studio, 30% broker/agent for his/her getting the release into that theatre. Somewhere after 6 weeks showing, the theatre gets more per ticket as the obligation to the studio and agent/booker is paid off. If the movie tanks, the studio, the owner takes the hit, the broker/agent is still paid there agreed upon price for delivering the film.
King Richard likes this.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Some servers can do non-encrypted playback to an A/V projector, but it's just a ridiculously expensive media player if you don't have a cinema projector.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #178 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 11:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,537
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Do what?

Did you see Michael's TF: The Last Knight in IMAX or other HDR theater in 3D? If you did you saw Stereoscopic High Dynamic Range (SHDR) 3D.

The only one out this year.
I was talking about on TV (in home).

Yes, there are multiple HDR 3D films. I saw Rogue One in Dolby Cinema 3D (of which there have been multiple releases like Captain America: Civil War, The Jungle Book, etc).
IMAX Laser 3D with Doctor Strange and others...

But nothing available on video in HDR & 3D that would cause TV makers to reconsider.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #179 of 313 Old 08-01-2017, 11:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
While I'd like to see an example of "good" 3D, I can't hardly bring myself to watch Avatar (Blue people in a jungle? Who cares???) Besides, I keep reading it has like zero out of screen effects. The first modern 3D movie I saw at the theater was Alice in Wonderland and I was shocked to find nothing came out of the screen. WTF is the point of 3D if nothing comes out of the screen??? NO WONDER people don't care about 3D anymore! The whole "wow" factor for seeing something like Magic Journeys or Captain EO at Disney World (since 3D had long disappeared from the theater; I saw Jaws 3D and Metalstorm, the latter which was a total cheese B-movie an then it was gone again) was the 3D pop-out stuff. Depth? Meh. It's OK, but is it worth the glasses, etc.? To me, probably not. But pop-out? Hell yeah! THAT is 3D! But directors seem to HATE pop-out as they're afraid of movie critics claiming it's all just hokey effects for effects sake. Ridiculous. Yeah, scene after scene, maybe, but saying they shouldn't set up ANY pop-outs? Someone should be fired for spreading that line of thinking. The moment the hand sticks out of the screen in Creature From The Black Lagoon is awesome. Get rid of it? You might as well get rid of 3D then.
Well done 3D gives you the sense of being there and it doesn't require things to pop out of the screen unless they're intended to look extremely close to your face. Well done 3D gives you a continual sense of realism.

Alice in Wonderland (2010) used simulation but was an early less sophisticated type of simulation than is used today. It was reported [and I agree with the reports] to have a cardboard cutout look, i.e. objects duly appearing to be located at different depths but the individual objects lacking depth detail of a real life object and looking instead like painted cardboard.

Avatar (2009) used actual stereo cameras for native 3D of real life content, and sophisticated 3D animation for cgi content. If you can get over the extensive use of animation, it is a movie well worth seeing in terms of the quality of the 3D.

Quote:
Meanwhile, ...

...

All I know is cross-talk sucks and pulls you out of the immersion 3D provides. You would think manufacturers would have done all they could to minimize it. You can't expect 3D to succeed if it's handicapped by the hardware. Instead, they just decide to get rid of it period (at least in the US).
I think manufacturers have tried very hard. Passive circularly polarized glasses have the problem that the vertical viewing angle is very tight to minimise crosstalk from a flat panel display and even then some crosstalk will be visible in high contrast scenes. The better the black levels and the brighter the average and/or peak whites the more problematic crosstalk becomes.

With active glasses you introduce a timing mismatch between left and right and the potential for flicker. I am hoping that OLED screens with their capacity for very fast and clean switch-off may be able to be pushed to higher alternation rates than have been the norm for LCD screens (and, when they were manufactured, plasma screens). That should improve smoothness and may be the best compromise with current flat panel technology.

Quote:
I can't believe sales are so poor it's worth ditching it entirely. Putting it only on the top models limits your market. It should have been a standard feature. I think some people in the industry hate it and wish it would disappear entirely and have been pushing in that direction as hard as they think they can get away with.
I do find it a bit surprising myself. Perhaps some OLED high 3D performance panels will burst on the market in a year or two.
King Richard likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #180 of 313 Old 08-02-2017, 12:17 AM
Newbie
 
johnmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
THX was a reference setting on the volume. Regular movies 4.5, THX 7. They can say what they want about THX, I have made many posts on here about THX, it is not a "special" format it is a common sense format. All THX did and still does is take into account background noise and play it a little bit louder to drown the background noise out. That simple.

The biggest problem with theatre sound quality is simple. It is the people sitting in the auditorium. What sounds good to person A, sounds like crap to person B. Even if they are sitting side by side.

Both chains and independents invest hundreds of thousands of dollars every year keeping their theater up per screen. Upgrading to the latest Laser projection ATMOS system can coast up of $2.2 million per screen for a small size theatre. Like everything else, there has to be a return on investment for the capital spent, or they go out of business, like the early days of the digital switch in which smaller theatres were being "strong-armed" by studios to convert, and where are they now? Out of business because the return was not there for the capital invested.

I have spent over 30 years on both the production and presentation side of Hollywood. There is no one answer for every question. For the most part, owners follow the recommendations the studio asks of them. It is not an iron clad contract forcing them to do anything. The nightly BoxOffice count tells them if they are doing it right or wrong. For the first run of a feature film that they are selling tickets to, the owners get to keep $0.45 of every $10.00 ticket sold. The rest of that goes 70% studio, 30% broker/agent for his/her getting the release into that theatre. Somewhere after 6 weeks showing, the theatre gets more per ticket as the obligation to the studio and agent/booker is paid off. If the movie tanks, the studio, the owner takes the hit, the broker/agent is still paid there agreed upon price for delivering the film.
That might be true about differing opinions regarding sound in a theater. But, I studied, was certificated, and worked in sound recording for quite some time. I have a good ear. It isn't too difficult to tell when high frequencies aren't brought up, or low frequencies are too brought up.
johnmiller is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Content

Tags
imax , imax 3d

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off