8mm Forum: The Return To Two Projectors

This is topic The Return To Two Projectors in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003230

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 21, 2014, 02:34 AM:

I have just been watching the BBC programme "Click" on the new colour separation process for 3D showing in cinemas. It appears that the audiences for 3D films have dropped by a third, possibly mainly due to the fact that 3D films are less bright than 2D images.

The new process reverts to days of the 50s with "House Of Wax", i.e. two projectors, each showing the left and the right image. Also the silver screen can be done away with, this often gave poor images in some parts of the auditorium.

The programme made no mention of the high cost of installing a second projector for each cinema screen.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 21, 2014, 04:25 AM:

About cost, I readed an article talking about digital professionnal cameras in which they say that renting digital material is almost not viable for companies as digital has a much less longer life than classical one.

[ September 21, 2014, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Dominique De Bast ]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on September 21, 2014, 10:40 AM:

I would say the reverse for cameras. 35mm long term digital's always changing.

I have never seen a digital 3D video, only film. It was OK it seemed just as bright as normal film. My local videma only does 2D.

It also seems to be dropping off on TV's. Went into local Currys and don't recall any on display, plenty of super dupa ultra 4k tv.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 21, 2014, 12:42 PM:

The word is out in the A/V world that 3D is yesterday, and today all the push is on for 4K tv's and videos.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 21, 2014, 12:57 PM:

David, of course, you're right. I made a mistake in my message (now edited). I ment that digital has a SHORTER live than classical material.

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on September 29, 2014, 01:10 AM:

I've seen HOUSE OF WAX in a theater at least 3 times since 1980, but last Winter I saw a theatrical 4K digital projection, and it literally was like night and day from how I'd seen it before.

The image was so much brighter, and the "ghosting" was nonexistent. The same held true of when I saw the 3D conversion of WIZARD OF OZ (sacrilege I know). So, I don't know what the complaint is? If people think the current technology is too dark, I'm guessing they never saw how really dark it was before digital 3D processes.

IMO 3D is burning out again because filmakers aren't utilizing it well. It also still requires glasses, and especially expensive ones for home set-ups making it rather impractical for anything but theaters.

I've always been a 3D nerd, but I'll be the first to admit, that after a while I take it for granted unless the film really does impressive things with it. By that I don't mean tossing something in my face, but making the depth key part of an image.

It's also been argued that films are now edited with such fast cutting that our minds don't have enough time to actually perceive the addition of 3D in action sequences.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on October 02, 2014, 01:23 PM:

What goes around comes around! I have seen about 5 3D revivals since my first experience at the "Festival of Britain" in 1951 and none have lasted very long for various reasons!! Ken Finch.

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on October 05, 2014, 12:26 AM:

I think until they eliminate glasses from the process, it will always be a pleasure to some and nuisance to others.

My guess is eventually ever-increasing definition that goes beyond what 35mm was capable of will eventually present depth that makes 3D seem almost unnecessary. I never saw a Todd-AO 70mm projection, but it was my understanding that the increased frame-rate and format gave an astounding sharpness and feeling of depth.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on October 05, 2014, 01:20 AM:

I would say that what I have watched on Digital 3D is far better than anything I have ever seen on film 3D. However I do admit, some of the older films that were never made for 3D and have been converted can look terrible

Movies such as "Hugo" "Gravity" and "Life of PI" eg are outstanding to watch in Digital 3D. Those movies were made for that format.

This is where digital projection comes alive and its greatest asset....Digital 3D is here to stay, and do hope that future titles are of a similar high standard as those mentioned.

Graham.

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on October 06, 2014, 12:56 AM:

I've only seen one converted 3D film, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and I was floored.

Believe me I just entered the theater with curiosity that was only slightly greater than my skepticism.

At least in this case they did a brilliantly convincing job of it. The tornado cutting across the fields, the pan through Munchkin Land, even the good witche's sphere drifting through the air, were given a totally natural looking dimension.

Oddly enough, the thing that impressed me the most was that which I expected the least. They actually gave true depth to the glass-shots and matte paintings, that had always looked lovely, but now literally trailed off in the distance. For the first time when Dorothy daces off on the yellow brick road for the first time, you don't have that awareness that if they didn't cut when they did, she would smack right into that matte painting. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2