Some industry professionals will look back at September 27, 2011 as the day motion picture studios took their first step on what may be a long road to end the practice of subsidizing 3D glasses for their movies. Others will remember it as the day the inevitable finally happened.

For those who still aren’t aware of the events of the past week, I’d like to be the first to officially welcome you to the planet earth and invite you to join us as we read between-the-lines of this latest industry scuffle. On Tuesday of this week The Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Sony Pictures Entertainment had sent a letter to North American theatre owners stating as of May 1, 2012 they would no longer pay for 3D glasses. What makes this major industry news is that Twentieth Century Fox tried a similar move back in 2009 with the release of “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” but retreated when exhibitors revolted en masse. They now fear Sony might succeed this time around causing other studios to follow suit. Talking to the Reporter, Sony’s president of worldwide distribution. Rory Bruer said:

“This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy.”

As one might expect, it didn’t take long for the National Association of Theatre Owners, the trade organization which represents exhibitors, to respond to Sony’s move. Their press release dated September 28, 2011 stated:

NATO believes Sony’s suggestion is insensitive to our patrons, particularly in the midst of continuing economic distress. Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well established as part of the 3D experience… we are concerned that Sony’s attempt to change this business model would unilaterally upend long-standing industry practices… Sony would be well advised to revisit its decision.

There were some grumblings from theatre owners and the media that NATO’s statement had no bite, though making sweeping threats is not necessarily their responsibility. This is not true of the organization’s members, like Amy Miles, chief executive officer of Regal Entertainment, who said if Sony stuck with their announced plan to stop paying for 3D glasses, then her circuit might show 2D version’s of Sony’s films in the future.

The inevitable “war through media statements” continued later that same day with Sony spokesperson Steve Elzer telling the Reporter:

“There are constructive ways to deal with the cost of 3D glasses that will not adversely impact consumers, and can also help the environment… We invite theater owners to engage in a collegial dialogue with us about this issue….”

Realistically however, adversely impacting customers through higher ticket prices may be unavoidable. More than a few news stories on the subject highlighted the cost studios bear to pay for 3D glasses; roughly between USD $5 million and USD $10 million for tentpole releases, with smaller films costing as much as USD $2 million. It works out to an average of USD $0.50 a pair. There are 35 3D releases scheduled for next year and if all studios were to stop paying for glasses that would raise operating costs for exhibitors by USD $150 million to USD $300 million.

Studios are tired of having their own costs inflated by 3D glasses and are thus passing the bill along to their customers – theatre owners. It would seem natural that exhibitors would do the same thing and raise ticket prices to cover the new expense. The problem, of course, is that exhibitors already charge more for 3D films than their 2D counterparts and patrons have begun to gripe openly about the practice. Raising ticket prices even higher would definitely antagonize moviegoers.

Elzer’s point about the environment is Sony’s thought that customers could purchase their own pair of designer 3D glasses to bring to the theater with them. This may be a boon designer 3D eye ware companies such as Look3D and may even provide exhibitors with an additional product to sell, but as Los Angeles Times entertainment columnist Patrick Goldstein wrote on Wednesday:

“There are still too many different 3-D systems, each requiring a different pair of glasses. In the future, there could be one industry standard, but I’m skeptical that most moviegoers — who only see a handful of 3-D movies each year — will want to keep a separate pair of glasses lying around the house, just for use at the movie theater.”

An opinion rarely attributed to any specific industry representative in the media’s stories about the news is that studios are tired of footing the bill for digital cinema. This excerpt from a Los Angeles Times article is a typical example:

Another reason left unsaid by Sony but cited privately by several Hollywood executives is that studios have already spent tens of millions of dollars to subsidize the installation of 3-D projection equipment in theaters.

I can understand why the public, the media and even some distribution executives might think the studios are footing the bill for 3D technology in movie theatres, though that is not entirely true. As NATO’s press release pointed out:

Since the onset of the digital 3D revolution in 2005 it has been understood that exhibitors would bear the weight of technological and facility modification costs related to 3D, while distribution took on the cost of 3D glasses.

More precisely, virtual print fees, which are paid by studios to theatre owners to subsidize the cost of digital cinema equipment, only cover the cost of a projector and a server (player). The cost of 3D technology, such as those licensed and sold by Dolby, RealD and MasterImage, are specifically not included in such payments. Studio executives’ public complaints about paying VPFs often manage to leave out one of the reasons they pushed for digital cinema in the first place; it lowered the cost of distribution, a savings which does not benefit and comes at the expense of the theatre owner who must pay for the digital equipment.

This doesn’t mean however that business models and practices can not be changed over time. After all, North American exhibitors have been enjoying subsidized 3D glasses while theatre owners in the rest of the world pay full freight. In Europe, 3D glasses are sold to patrons as a separate item at concession stands. In China they are loaned out for a refundable deposit. It hasn’t exactly been a state secret that studios have been itching to end their financial support of 3D glasses. Just ask Elzer:

“NATO’s statement that it has been ‘understood’ that distributors would always bear the cost of 3D glasses is incorrect, because there never has been any such agreement. In fact, we have been speaking with people in the industry for a long time about the need to move to a new model, so this certainly comes as a surprise to no one in the business.”

Sony’s May 2011 end-date for 3D glasses subsidization will come just before two of the their biggest 3D tentpole releases; “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “Men In Black III”. The studio no doubt felt these releases gave them some leverage with exhibitors. Time will tell whether their predictions were correct. Lazard Capital Markets analyst Barton Crockett is doubtful since all the exhibitors are united in opposition and none of the other studios are publicly backing Sony’s move. Distributor’s silence may have more to do with an aversion to anti-trust lawsuits than a lack of support for Sony.

Make no mistake, should Sony prevail and no longer have to pay for 3D glasses, that other studios will follow their lead is a foregone conclusion. Proof positive is that Twentieth Century Fox domestic distribution president Bruce Snyder told the Los Angeles Times he was “revisiting” the issue of paying for the glasses. In the same article Warner Bros. domestic distribution president Dan Fellman said:

“Right now, I’m comfortable with where we are. If the marketplace were to change, obviously we would turn on a dime.”

While stakes are high for both exhibitors and distributors in this dispute, a collateral casualty has been 3D technology companies. Apparently when both sides of an industry argue over who has more of a right not to pay you, it’s not good for your stock price. The day after Sony’s decision was made public RealD’s stock price shed 15% dropping from USD $12.22 to USD $10.42. By the end of the week the company’s stock was down a total of 18.7% to USD $9.35. Since May of this year RealD’s stock has slid a total of 71.6% from a high of USD $35.60.

Joining RealD in the stock slide was Imax, which was off 6% to close at USD $15.19. In an attempt to gain control of the PR storm that was suppressing their valuation, Imax released a statement explaining the Sony news wouldn’t affect their bottom line:

“Imax’s exhibition partners are not dependent on the studios to subsidize Imax 3D glasses. Each Imax system comes with Imax 3D glasses and a glasses cleaning machine. If the exhibitor needs additional glasses, they are either purchased from Imax or a third party vendor who has met our specifications and quality standards.”

There have been suggestions that if theatre owners have to pay for glasses they could negotiate better film rental terms on 3D titles, e.g. instead of paying 50% of the box office take, they would pay 45%. If that kind of solution worked, it could have been used to finance digital cinema in the first place, in lieu of VPFs. Studios don’t want exhibitors getting used to paying lower film rental and will cling to as high a percentage as they can. As well, taking a smaller percentage of ticket sales means a lower net gross, a figure that affects profit participation for many creatives such as directors and actors. At a time when more and more studios are asking big name talent to take their paycheck on the backend of big budget movies, doing anything to lower the net gross would be construed as sacrilegious.

Since every stock analyst, industry pundit and member of the media has weighed in with their thoughts on solving the dispute, I figured why not add yet another unsolicited opinion. If theatre owners wind up footing the bill for 3D specs, then why not let them keep the entire “up charge” without having to split it with distributors. The premium price of a 3D movie ticket was supposed to pay for the technology needed to show such films. One could assume that includes 3D glasses. This way, the studios would cease paying for the glasses, exhibitors could negate the cost through their current premium charge for 3D titles and it would all be transparent to patrons who would not see yet another price increase.

We’d love the hear your thoughts on who should pay for 3D glasses in the comments below.

Jeffrey Katzenberg

There has been no greater champion of 3D than Dreamworks Animation head Jeffrey Katzenberg. Except maybe filmmaker James Cameron, there have been few, if any, industry cheerleaders as vocal about 3D than Katzenberg. As far back as 2007, Katzenberg could be heard at trade shows and in the press hailing digital 3D as “the single most revolutionary change since color pictures”.

To paraphrase an old cliché, Katzenberg should be careful what he wishes for, he just might get it. Four years after he began touting the new motion picture format digital 3D films have flooded the market in search of incremental box office from ticket surcharges. Though as a string of movies featuring poor 3D conversions hit theaters during a global economic downturn, a majority of moviegoers are choosing the 2D version of recent releases such as Dreamworks’ “Kung Fu Panda 2″.

Now Katzenberg is lamenting the “decline of 3D”, calling it “heartbreaking” in an interview published earlier today by The Hollywood Reporter. Katzenberg stated:

“I think 3D is right smack in the middle of its terrible twos. We have disappointed our audience multiple times now, and because of that I think there is genuine distrust — whereas a year and a half ago, there was genuine excitement, enthusiasm and reward for the first group of 3D films that actually delivered a quality experience. Now that’s been seriously undermined. It’s not in any fashion, shape or form the demise of 3D, but until there are 3D experiences that exceed people’s expectations, it’s going to stay challenged. It’s really heartbreaking to see what has been the single greatest opportunity that has happened to the film business in over a decade being harmed. The audience has spoken, and they have spoken really loudly.”

According to Katzenberg, the higher cost of 3D movie tickets is not the reason audiences are opting for 2D versions:

“We are giving our audience a choice. We didn’t take a plane and convert it to all first class. To people who say there is price pressure, or price sensitivity, even in the family market, I say, ‘OK, that’s why we have continued to support a 2D format and made sure that the 2D movie we’re delivering today is better than the movie we delivered two years or three years ago.’ Quite frankly, there’s no industry in the world that doesn’t attempt to move up the customer to a premium experience. I don’t care whether you make shoes or wine or iced tea or cars, everybody tries to create multiple price points. So why shouldn’t we be in the same business of offering our customers a premium experience at a premium price — as long as we deliver them a premium value? If we cheat them, which is what has happened now too many times, then they’ll walk away from it.”

Katzenberg had a lot more to say on the subject of 3D and the complete interview over at THR is definitely worth a read. I’m not so sure I agree with him though that higher ticket prices aren’t a factor when moviegoers are opting out of 3D, specifically those who are bringing the entire family to one of Dreamworks Animation’s latest features.

What do you think of what Katzenberg had to say on the state of 3D? Let us know in the comments section below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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

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

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

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

Update [January 31, 2011]: I originally held back on posting this video as I thought it had to be a joke.  Particularly, I questioned whether the human eye could blink so quickly without causing flickering for the viewer.  So, I waited a few days and searched all over to find anything that would debunk the video as a hoax.  I couldn’t find anything other than posts about the video on reputable tech websites.

Even after publishing the post I was still skeptical.  So I decided to figure out whether it would be physically possible to blink fast enough for Francois Vogel’s “technology” to work; 60 blinks per second per eye.  All of my research revealed that the average human eye blink takes between 300 to 400 milliseconds.  There are 1,000 milliseconds in a second.  So let’s do some math:

1000 milliseconds / 60 blinks = 16.67 milliseconds

Some of the fastest body movements, like saccades which help the eye focus, can be as short as 20 milliseconds, which is still slower than 16.67 milliseconds.  With the human eye taking 300 milliseconds to blink at it’s fastest, it is more than likely that it could never ramp up to blink in 16.67 milliseconds.  The math doesn’t pencil.

So, while Jonathan Post and Vogel haven’t come out to admit their video is a hoax (at least not that I have seen), I think it’s safe to say that it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oakley's Limited Edition Tron 3D Gascan Glasses

Sometime last month I tagged a couple of blog posts about designer 3D glasses intending to write about them in the near future. After a Los Angeles Times story covered the subject yesterday, I figured it was about time to aggregate all the information into a post here.

More than a year after RealD announced that they would be teaming up with manufacturers to certify 3D glasses from name brand designers, the first models began hitting the market in October. Making waves first was Oakley, which announced they had created a pair of 3D specs with a proprietary technology named HDO-3D. The company claims their “premium glasses are engineered for unrivaled 3D performance, superior visual clarity and signature Oakley comfort”.

In a smart marketing move, Oakley is teaming up with Disney on the studio upcoming “Tron: Legacy” release by offering a special collectible limited edition “Tron” version of their Gascan 3D glasses which look as if they were take straight out of the sci-fi flick. A regular pair of Oakley 3D glasses will set you back USD $120, while the “Tron: Legacy” model goes for USD $150.

Gucci also began selling a pair of upscale 3D glasses last month for $225 and Marchon Eyewear has licensed their glasses to both Calvin Klein and Nautica who will sell pairs for between USD $95 and USD $150. Meanwhile, Australian based Look3D has been offering stylish RealD certified glasses since late last year.

All of these trendy glasses are significantly more expensive than the USD $1 disposable pairs theatre owners currently offer patrons. Though, at least in North America cinemas won’t be waiving the 3D up-charge for moviegoers bringing their own 3D specs, no matter how good they look or how expensive they may be. (This is not the case in Europe, Australia and parts of Asia).

So who exactly is the market for such high end 3D glasses? David Johnson, the head of Marchon Eyewear’s Marchon3D, told the L.A. Times that the glasses will become a natural part of living in the modern-day:

“You’ve got your smart phone, you’ve got your iPad and now you have another piece of equipment. This is a specialty technology device.”

All of the designer 3D glasses do come with a couple of catches. The Gucci and Oakley models can not double up as sunglasses for everyday use. As well, all the new glasses are meant for systems that require circular polarization, such as RealD, MasterImage and Technicolor. This means none of them will work at theatres showing films using Dolby or Panavision 3D technology which relies on spectral comb filtering. Same goes for Imax.

At a time when the consumer electronics industry is pushing 3D in the home, it would be nice if the new specs could be used with 3D capable televisions. However, a majority of 3D televisions require active shutter glasses like those used by XpanD.

One interesting factoid to come out of the story in the Times had to do with the number of 3D glasses presently sitting in landfills:

At least 300 million pairs of glasses have been used worldwide since the debut of Disney’s “Chicken Little” film in 3-D in 2005. That’s almost one pair for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

After being heavily criticized for the poor 3D conversion on “Clash of the Titans” earlier this year, it seems Warner Bros. is being more cautious about making the same mistake on future blockbusters.  The Los Angeles Times reported on Friday that the studio has scrapped plans to convert the next “Harry Potter” film into 3D.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” will still be released on November 19th, but will not have a 3D version as previously planned.  The studio released the following statement explaining the decision:

“Despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality.  We do not want to disappoint fans who have long-anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey.”

After the success of James Cameron’s 3D opus “Avatar” Warner Bros. raced to convert “Clash of the Titans” in under eight weeks.  Maybe the studio has learned its lesson when it comes to performing such work under tight time constraints.  I’m not certain when or if the “Harry Potter” conversion began, but the film opens in just over a month.

Anne Thompson of IndieWire applauded Warner Bros. for what she called a smart decision not to release “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1″ in 3D:

Warners doesn’t need to do it, and after looking at some of the converted footage, they realize that 3-D could actually hurt the film’s quality. They’re not even putting the film out with a few 3-D scenes, as they did on the last one. The ‘Harry Potter’ films are among the most expensive and lavishly produced in Hollywood. Why muck them up with 3-D, especially if they weren’t shot that way?

Surely, one thing that could kill the recent 3D boom is for studios to release movies with bad 3D, as many industry insiders have already warned. As well, the decision not to go ahead with a 3D release for the “Potter” will allow Dreamworks Animation’s Megamind to stay on some 3D screens at least a week longer until Disney’s “Tangled” opens on November 24th.

Warner Bros. still intends on releasing the second part of the “Deathly Hollows” on July 15, 2011 in both 2D and 3D.

Panavision continues to modify its 3D glasses

Earlier this week Panavision took their first public steps into the 3D motion picture exhibition market by announcing a new system that will work with all projectors, film or digital, and all screens, white or silver. While we had already reported that Panavision was working on such a solution, this was their first official statement about the product. The company, primarily known for high end motion picture camera systems, will demonstrate the system next week at Cine Expo in Amsterdam on a screen 56 feet wide (17 meters).

Last Tuesday Panavision invited the press to their offices in Woodland Hills to see the 3D system in action. We were greeted by John Galt, Panavision’s Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging, Eric Rodli, Senior Vice President of Panavision and Bill Bevins, President and CEO of Panavision. They explained all the technical specifications about the system as well as some of the business details pertaining to its marketing.

First let’s quickly review some of tech bullets all of which are the same as they were back in March when we first saw a demo:

• The system uses spectral comb filtering, not polarization, to separate the visible light spectrum into ten band of even and odd wavelengths of light. One set of bands is presented to the left eye, the other set to the right eye.

• Dichroic passive glasses allow the viewer to view distinct images in each eye. Though the image reaching each eye is actually different, the viewer’s brain puts the images together providing the sensation of seeing a full color spectrum.

• No ghost busting, color correction or image processing is required.

• Film-based 3D uses an over/under method. Each frame of film contains two images, stacked on top of one another, two perforations high. The system will use the same film prints made for Technicolor’s 3D system.  A specially designed split lens mounted on the front of the projector combines the images on screen.

• Digital 3D being shown on a DLP projector employs a split filter wheel placed before the integrator and in front of the lamp house that rotates at 4320 RPM to provide 144 flashes per second. For Sony’s SXRD projectors a specially designed split lens will be used to separate two stacked images from the 4K chip.

• The system will work with any digital projector on the market today.

• Panavision worked with Omega Optical to develop the product.

Unlike systems that use polarization, the glasses are not reusable. Despite the less expensive material required to make glasses for polarization 3D systems, Galt explained, “The problem with polarization is that you have to maintain the polarization from the projector, to the screen back to the eyeball so it requires a metallic screen.” Because there is no polarization a white screen can be used, Panavision’s system is more comparable to Dolby’s 3D system.

The glasses for Panavision’s system has special lenses and will cost between USD $5 to $7 a pair. The company will provide a washer for the glasses which can clean 1,200 pairs per hour. Panavision feels that in territories such as Europe, the reusable glasses will be readily accepted, especially at low prices, since they cut down on ecological waist such as plastic wrappers, cardboard boxes and even freight.

Another competitive advantage Panavision sees is that the same system can be used with both film and digital, thus providing a “migration path” for exhibitors who might want to start out with film-based 3D. “You can start with film and migrate to digital without changing your operating procedures,” said Rodli. “The same glasses will work fine. It will make it seamless to the audience and we’re going to make it very attractive to the exhibitor to make that migration. It’s a fairly trivial and low cost transition.”

Speaking of cost, Panavision said they were still finalizing on the business model and are working with exhibitors and studios to discuss the best way, and best price, to bring the system to market. “We realize there is a competitive marketplace there so as good as the technology is, we have to find an economic model that will work for everyone,” Rodli stated. “We think we can.”

Whatever model Panavision adopts, whether it’s outright sale of the system or a lease agreement, it will definitely include an ongoing royalty payment. On the other hand, it may cost nothing to initially install the system.

Panavision uses a special split lens for film-based 3D

“There are a lot of things that go into the negotation – the size of the screen, the number of screens involved, the term of the contract – so there is no one size fits all for this,” said Bevins when talking about pricing. “Leasing is in our DNA. We are not yet at a point where we’re absolutely clear what the business model is. Whether we will pay the upfront installation cost, pass it through, bill it up front. In fact that’s a negotiation we’ll have with everybody and that up front installation cost will be handled differently in each instance.”

While the idea of leasing 3D motion picture technology may seem like an odd model, it’s not such a foreign concept to Panavision. Keep in mind this is the same company that manufacturers multi-million dollar 35mm film cameras and rents them to individual productions. Indeed, Bevins reports that Panavision will continue to broaden their offerings in the industry.

“We think of ourselves as a very high end supplier of equipment for the motion picture industry,” he said. “As far as Panavision is concerned we will continue to be very opportunistic if we see a place anywhere in our base business to be of service.”

Panavision’s 3D system will be available to theatre owners worldwide sometime this fall.

“Release the Kraken,” Liam Neeson’s Zeus commands in the WB’s “Clash of the Titans” re-make, but Hollywood should be more concerned that the film itself might release a backlash against the 3D format. There are several indicators that point to a perfect storm brewing against what has come to be regarded as the cinema industry’s digital savior.

Amongst Hollywood filmmakers there has been unusually vociferous attacks against Warner Bros.’ decision to go for a rushed eight-week conversion of “Clash of the Titans” to 3D.  The conversion is a true test for Prime Focus whose technology is unproven on such large scale projects.  Fresh off the global success of “Avatar” James Cameron weighed in against “slapdash conversion” in a recent BBC article that re-hashed Mike Fleming’s more in-depth Deadline article, where Cameron said that after the success of his award-winning epic:

“Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”

Micheal Bay threw more fuel on the fire in a Deadline post and even appeared to take a direct swipe at Prime Focus, an Indian based post-production company that has been doing the bulk of the work on “Clash of the Titans’” conversion from 2D-to-3D :

“I’m used to having the A-team working on my films, and I’m going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not.  “Avatar” took four years. You can’t just sh*t out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”

Ouch! Interestingly neither Cameron nor Bay have directly disputed the quality of the most recent film converted from 2D-to-3D, Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland”, though the film’s director Tim Burton has taken pains to stress that there is a difference between how to use Dimensionalization.   In the same BBC article which quoted Cameron, Burton observed, “With all these tools, you can see good 3D, bad 3D, good conversion and bad conversions.”  Reading between the lines, the filmmaker was saying “Alice” falls into the camp of ‘good conversion’ while “Clash” does not.  (If you’re wondering why Dimensionalization is capitalized in this paragraph it’s because the word is a trade mark of the company In-Three which did the majority of the work on “Alice”.)

Others who have come out vocally against “slapdash conversion” are Jeffrey Katzenberg, angered that “Clash” is threatening to take away screens from DreamWorks Animation’s 3D “How To Train Your Dragon” in its second week.  Meanwhile, Jerry Bruckheimer, at ShoWest last month, said there had been some pressure to go for a fast conversion of “Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time”, but he felt the the quality wasn’t good enough.

As the media began to get an advance look at “Clash” over the past week they seem hard pressed to say anything kind about the 3D aspect of the film, at best saying that it was “okay”. But it was Kirk Honeycutt in his Hollywood Reporter review of “Clash” who put his finger on what Hollywood should find most worrisome:

The major drawback, especially now, when 3D is all the rage, is its feeble effort in that department. Added as an afterthought in post-production, the 3D barely registers. Few moviegoers will think it’s worth the extra bucks. It’s a pity the idea didn’t occur in preproduction, as the opportunities for real 3D excitement exist in virtually every frame.

Honeycutt was not the last to have a few choice words regarding “Clash’s” 3D conversion.  Besides influential film critics such as Roger Ebert weighing in on the topic by calling it a ‘juvenile abomination’, so too are popular bloggers like Anne Thomnpson of indieWIRE, who in a recent post weighed in with her thoughts:

When designed in advance and shot in 3-D, a movie can work really well. But turning movies into 3-D after the fact looks awful…”Clash of the Titans” throws you out of reality, blurs and muddies the action, makes the movie look even worse than it probably is. That good old-fashioned feeling of getting lost inside a fantasy space is GONE.”

Added to this is what appears to be a festering resentment amongst the general public about the higher ticket prices that have been imposed by theatre owners for 3D titles.

Take this provocatively titled post on TechDirt “Hollywood Seeks To Kill Off 3D Golden Goose With Much Higher Prices “.  It’s not so interesting for what the post says (there’s nothing new to the argument that nobody likes higher prices for anything, whether food, fuel, cinema tickets or e-books), but it attracted far more comments than any other recent item on TechDirt; 119 at the time of writing.  These following comments are representative missives:

by Anonymous Coward

Another dumb, greedy move on Hollywood’s part. The last time I sat in a movie theater the ticket price was $7.50, and that WILL forever be the last time.

by sehlat

3D is the industry’s “highest quality product”?

That line really needed a spewage warning. Movie prices are already high enough that it’s about $30 for me, my wife, and my pact brother to go for one showing. When we went to see UP in 3D, they tacked on $3 per ticket for the glasses and asked us to return them after the show. That’s one hell of a price for an hour-and-a-half rental.

Should audiences feel the 2D-to-3D conversion of “Clash” is not on par with previous 3D titles, it could serve as a troubling precedent and trigger a public backlash against being overcharged for what is perceived as an inferior cinematic experience.  In fact, we have a recent industry example of a similar scenario.

Less than a year ago television actor Aziz Ansari went to see the “Star Trek” reboot on an Imax screen, only to come out fuming that he had been ripped off by paying for a big screen experience which was only marginally bigger than a regular multiplex screen. His blog post was quickly picked up by online publications such as Slashdot (Why You Probably Shouldn’t Waste $5 More For Digital IMAX) as well as Celluloid Junkie and put Imax’s executives on the defensive over the big screen screen experience offered by multiplex Imax screens.  While Imax screens have performed nicely with titles such as “Avatar”, an increasing number of major exhibitors have set up their own brand of big screen experiences, which could serve to undermine Imax’s long-term business.

Audiences growing skeptical of 3D titles is a serious threat which some in Hollywood have taken notice of.  Cameron spoke about it directly in a USA Today interview stating, “If people put bad 3-D in the marketplace they’re going to hold back or even threaten the emerging of 3D. People will be confused by differences in quality.”  Cameron himself is considering converting his blockbuster “Titanic” to 3D, though he has major reservations about the process and technology under which “Clash of the Titans” was converted.  “It’s never going to be as good as if you shot it in 3D, but think of it as sort of 2.8D.”

Celluloid Junkie contributors have been labeling converted titles 2.3D when speaking with one another.  No matter what you call it, if after this Friday’s opening of “Clash of the Titans” audiences revolt against “slapdash” 3D at an inflated price, Hollywood might rue that it released the monster of 2.3D.

When one thinks of Panavision, what immediately comes to mind is all of the motion picture camera systems they have manufactured since the mid-1950s, ubiquitous on the sets of countless hit movies and television shows. The thought of 3D, be it digital or on 35mm, is probably the last thing any industry professional would ever associate with Panavision. Well, that’s all about to change and I’ll explain why.

On Friday of last week, the European Digital Cinema Forum (EDCF) was kind enough to let me tag along on their annual pre-ShoWest industry tour through Los Angeles. When we arrived at Panavision I was a little baffled why a group of exhibitors and digital cinema manufacturers would want to visit a company better known for what happens on a movie set rather than a movie theatre. After a quick tour of their Woodland Hills, California facility, the group was ushered into a screening room and it became immediately obvious why were there.

We were greeted by John Galt, Panavision’s Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging, who gave us a very brief PowerPoint presentation on a project he’d been working on since the middle of 2008. Turns out while the media was busy hounding Panavision with stories about how labor strikes and production slowdowns had adversely affected the company, they have quietly been working on a 3D system for both film and digital projection. That would explain the reusable 3D glasses we were handed.

The 3D solution uses a patent pending spectral comb filtering process that creates two spectral bands of light; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each band contains all of the spectral content necessary to generate the sensation of color to the human eye. What is sure to bring some attention to the system is that it can be used with a white screen.

The solution was developed over the course of two-and-a-half-years, in a joint venture between Panavision, Omega Optical, a company based in Brattleboro, Vermont that specializes in high-end optical filters, and Deluxe, the motion picture lab. Panavision and Omega have a longstanding relationship having worked on some of the filters for Panavision’s camera’s and lenses. Of course, Deluxe, brings both technology experience and a deep understanding of movie distribution and exhibition.

We were told that we were one of the first groups to receive a demonstration of the technology. A few studios saw the system earlier in the week.

The 3D system works by placing a special filter in between the light source and the lens. Viewers wear a pair of glasses with special lenses that interpret the spectral content in each of the two bands reaching the eye. With no need for a silver screen the system might be compared to Dolby’s digital 3D solution both operationally and technologically. But actually there are some huge differences. For instance, unlike Dolby’s offering, Panavision’s solution also works with 35mm film using an over/under method.

For film-based 3D each frame of film contains two images stacked on top of one another; one for the right eye and one for the left eye. Each image is two perforations high and is combined on the screen with a special split lens.

We were first shown digital footage which included a clip from “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” along with the trailer for “Avatar”. The same exact footage was then screened on film. Keeping in mind that some of the film-based systems I’ve seen were demonstrated in less than desirable conditions, Panavision’s produced the most pleasing results. It was almost impossible to tell that it was film and not digital.

To show how bright the 7.5 foot lamberts reaching each eye are a 30 foot white screen was lowered over the top half of a silver screen of the same size to provide a side-by-side comparison while watching some of the film footage. On the sides of the auditorium the white screen appeared to be brighter than the silver one. In the center of each row the silver screen, as expected, was noticeably brighter, though not overly so.

Afterwards some who had seen the demonstration said that the colors were off – a little too yellow. However, this could have been due to color timing or the fact that the content was mastered for 4.5 foot lamberts of light.

For the purposes of the demonstration a Sony 4K digital cinema projector was used, although it was said that they are working to integrate the system with Barco, Christie and NEC projectors as well. As for the glasses, they are reusable, as I mentioned, and it was estimated that they would cost in the $5 to $7 range.

Although Panavision’s first technological innovations in the 1950’s were projector optics for anamorphic wide screen theatrical exhibition, the company is well aware that these days nobody thinks of them as a manufacturer for exhibition products, which is why they have reached out to a former sister company, Deluxe, for help with development as well as marketing and promotion.

Panavision will probably be able to benefit from studying the business models used by some of the pioneers in recent 3D technology as they enter the market. There are no set plans for how to commercialize the solution, but Panavision indicated they are turning to potential customers for guidance.

New York City based Bow Tie Cinemas will be one of the first theatre chains to deploy Technicolor’s film-based 3D system. Technicolor 3D will be deployed at each of Bow Ties 18 theatre locations in Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Virginia and on 25 of Bow Ties 150 screens.

Rather than install digital cinema equipment which can run upwards of $80,000 (not counting any 3D technology), Bow Tie is choosing the less expensive option of equipping their existing 35mm film projectors with a specially designed lens which splits the projected images for the right and left eyes.

The system requires a special 35mm film print in which each frame has two images, one on top of the other. This over/under technique was first introduced by Technicolor in 1963 as Technicscope. According to Technicolor, advancements in film stock and digital intermediates improve the image quality delivered by their new system. Technicolor uses a special patent-pending digital process to enhance the image on the special film prints. We first reported on the system when it was announced by Technicolor back in September of 2009.

Bow Tie will need to install silver screens to increase the brightness of the images delivered by Technicolor’s 3D system, however those screens can also be used for digital 3D. Technicolor will be supplying the circular polarized glasses required to view the content in 3D. The first film Bow Tie will show using the system will be Dreamworks’ “How To Train Your Dragon”. Ben Moss, CEO of Bow Tie Cinemas was quoted in the press release Technicolor distributed earlier today: 

“Our customers have resoundingly expressed their desire to see 3D films and we have responded by making sure that top quality 3D presentations will be a part of the movie-going experience at every Bow Tie Cinema. Technicolor 3D delivers the high-quality presentation that our customers expect, and allows us to utilize our existing equipment to accommodate the crowded upcoming 3D release schedule.”

Technicolor’s solution may be less costly than a digital cinema conversion, though some exhibitors have opposed the licensing agreement under which the technology is being offered.  Rather than purchase the system outright, exhibitors must lease it from Technicolor.  Some of the exhibitors I’ve spoken to have balked at the per film fee Technicolor’s arrangement would require and would prefer to own the system after a lump sum payment.  The details of Bow Tie’s deal with Technicolor were not disclosed.