In Focus
October 2005
This article reprinted by permission of the
National Association of Theatre Owners, © 2005.
by Anne Gilbert
Even critics who liked “The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl In 3-D” disliked its 3D.
“An innocent and delightful children’s tale that is spoiled by a disastrous decision to film most of it in lousy 3-D,” is how the Chicago Sun-Times’ Roger Ebert described the film. “Fully three quarters of [‘Shark Boy’] is in ‘3’-D, which looks more like 1-D to me, removing the brightness and life of the movie’s colors and replacing them with a drab, listless palette, which is about as exciting as looking at a 3-D bowl of oatmeal.”
“Unfortunately, [‘Shark Boy’] was shot in the relatively primitive anaglyphic process, which requires the audience to watch action through cardboard glasses outfitted with red and green filters,” noted Variety’s Joe Leydon. “The tinted filters seriously compromise, and in many cases dim, the bright colors of Planet Drool. While the plot pivots on the threat of encroaching darkness, some scenes are too murky by half.”
“The audience is still stuck with 50-year-old, red-and-blue tinted glasses that strain the eyes and cause headaches,” groused the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s Sean Axmaker. “(Note to [‘Shark Boy’ director Robert] Rodriguez: Please learn to pace your 3-D sequences and give our eyes a rest!)”
Rodriguez likely won’t feel obliged to heed Axmaker’s advice, as the filmmaker appears to have already embraced a newer, better type of 3D. “Shark Boy,” in fact, may turn out to be the last 3D entertainment mainstream moviegoers will ever have to watch through red-and-blue eyewear.
The age of digital cinema looks likely to usher in a new era of bright, full-color 3D that is already winning praise from the same critics who disdain the muddy images that dominate “Shark Boy” and the earlier Rodriguez effort “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over.”
And this new digital-cinema 3D (or DC-3D) is getting positive notices not only from critics, but from exhibitors, studio heads and filmmakers as well.
False Starts & New Players
DC-3D is designed to overcome shortcomings that doomed 3D experiments of earlier decades The anaglyph (or red/blue) process was introduced commercially in the early 1950s, era of “Bwana Devil,” “Creature From The Black Lagoon” and “House of Wax.” Recently revived for “Spy Kids 3-D” and “Shark Boy,” the process produces purplish, almost monochromatic images that seemed less out-of-place in an era when black-and-white movies were still the norm.
In the early 1980s, movies like “Friday The 13th Part 3: 3D,” “Jaws 3-D,” “Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone” and “Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn” were released with a process that traded the red-blue anaglyph glasses for clear “linear polarized” specs – and a revolutionary system that required only a single projector to create full-color 3D. The downside to the 1980s process? The 3D really didn’t work unless it was projected on specially designed, expensive “silver” (actually aluminum) screens. And if audience members tilted their heads (and audience members will almost always tilt their heads during the course of a feature), the on-screen images evaporated.
The new full-color DC-3D benefits from, among other things, glasses that do not require moviegoers to refrain from lolling their noggins.
Though James Cameron’s 2003 full-color 3D documentary short “Ghosts of the Abyss” was released on celluloid, Mark Collins, manager of projection services at Marcus Theatres, remembers it employed a 3D process that wasn’t particularly economical or convenient.
“The cost to have the ‘Ghosts of the Abyss’ movie was tremendous,” he explains. “At that time, the producers helped pay for the conversion. That means a silver screen, a special lens, a higher-wattage bulb to get it to work correctly.
“Now, with digital, it will be fairly slick to say, ‘OK, I want to run a 3D movie this week and a 2D movie next week.’ It’s not going to be as much of an undertaking to get that conversion done.”
DC-3D benefits from digital cinema’s ability to project significantly more frames per second than the 24fps utilized by conventional celluloid projectors. A DLP Cinema digital projector in 3D mode “accepts 48fps material (24fps per eye), and flashes it to each of our eyes at a 48fps rate, for a total of 96fps,” says NATO digital-cinema consultant Michael Karagosian. “The result is a much smoother appearance with motion, and a more believable 3D experience.”
So the question arises: Given the hurdles that appear to have been overcome, is big-screen 3D finally here to stay?
At this writing – mere weeks after the finalization of Hollywood-backed Digital Cinema Initiative’s 3-years-in-the-making technical standards – at least two separate companies are offering DC-3D processes.
active glasses (n.) battery-powered 3D eyeware which utilizes rapidly changing liquid-crystal displays
anaglyph (adj.) 3D, introduced to commercial cinemas in the 1950s, utilizing glasses with red and blue filters
big d (adj.) high-end digital projection equipment on which the major studios allow their features to be exhibited
circular polarized (adj.) “passive glasses” which facilitate full-color 3D without requiring viewers to keep their heads from listing from side to side.
DC-3D (adj.) 3D process utilizing digital-cinema projection
Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) (n.) consortium of seven major movie studios formed in March 2002 and charged with establishing technical standards for “big d” digital cinema
In-Three (n.) Agoura Hills-based company whose 3D process utilizes typical cinema screens and “active glasses”
linear polarized (adj.) “passive glasses,” introduced to commercial cinemas in the early 1980s, which facilitate full-color 3D as long as viewers do not let their heads list from side to side
passive glasses (n.) 3D eyeware which does not utilize rapidly changing liquid-crystal displays
Real D (n.) Beverly Hills-based company whose 3D process utilizes “silver screens” and “circular polarized” glasses
silver screens (n.) special movie screens, actually made with aluminum, designed to reflect polarized light.
Both companies say their systems are compatible with the specifications for 2K digital projection and are also able to make the leap to the 4K systems that have very recently begun rolling out into the marketplace.
In-Three made a splash at ShoWest last March with a demonstration that featured the participation of not only Rodriguez and Cameron but fellow blockbuster directors Robert Zemeckis (“The Polar Express”), and George Lucas (the “Star Wars” series), all expressing their excitement about and commitment to DC-3D. a
Additionally, In-Three offers equipment that enables digital projectors to exhibit DC-3D films. Upon installation, the In-Three attachment allows a projector to cast upon a standard cinema screen a layered image outputting at 48 frames per second (a standard capability of digital-cinema projectors).
The In-Three system allows audiences to view DC-3D images through a pair of specially designed “shutter glasses.” These battery-powered specs, synchronized to on-screen images via infrared signals, are lightweight and sturdy (but have no hinges, to help prevent patrons from folding them up and walking off with them after the show). They contain liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens in the lenses which alternate at a rate of 96 frames a second, twice as fast as the projected image. The LCD screens allow the right and left eye to view separate, discrete images at a rapid rate to create for the viewer the illusion of three dimensions.
At the end of each showing, these “active glasses” are collected by cinema employees, who take them to be cleaned for re-use (part of the In-Three package is a special washer – a sort of customized, free-standing dishwasher – that requires no plumbing hook up).
With the In-Three system, exhibitors purchase the projector bolt-on, the washer, and enough glasses to meet their needs. Though many specifics have not yet been worked out, there are plans in the works to institute an exchange program for the glasses, as they wear out from repeated use and their batteries need to be replaced.
Real D & ‘Passive Glasses’
The other new DC-3D company, Real D, is strictly in the business of providing and installing equipment for exhibitors.
The Real D system works with polarized “passive glasses” which do not have the built-in LCD or shuttering systems. These far simpler spectacles are designed – and priced – to be thrown out after each showing.
Real D’s passive glasses differ from the “linear polarization” glasses of the 1980s in that the
As with the polarized systems of the 1980s, however, Real D systems must still project their images onto a pricey, specially coated “silver” screen that Real D says works for both 2D and 3D projection. (Normal cinema screens tend to de-polarize projected light, obliterating the 3D effect.)
The special screen, the bolt-on projection equipment and the glasses are included in the package licensed by Real D. Exhibitors lease the Real D system rather than buy its equipment outright. Cinema owners pay a monthly fee or a percentage of profits on ticket sales for DC-3D shows, whichever is higher.
Troubleshooting
Exhibitors who have been privy to demonstrations by either In-Three or Real D tend to agree that the DC-3D is markedly superior to 20th century 3D. They laud, for example, DC-3D’s “rock-steady” image, which eliminates the headaches and eye fatigue that can accompany celluloid-based 3D.
This is not to say that DC-3D does not face its share of downsides and unknowns, as it is still an emerging – and therefore largely untested – technology.
• Active eyewear is not cheap. NuVision, the manufacturer of the active eyewear used by In-Three’s system, continues to refine the design of its glasses in an effort to reduce per-piece price points and elongate the lifespan of each pair, hopefully to about a year and a half.
• Though both companies report no evidence of eye fatigue or other harmful effects precipitated by their systems, neither company has yet conducted any formal long-term studies on test groups.
• Some question whether Real D’s silver screen is able to reflect standard 2D images with the same quality as a conventional screen can.
• Some express concern also about Real D’s current status as a DC-3D “gate-keeper.” Exhibitors currently lack the in-house capability to engineer the "pre-
• Until refinements are made, exhibitors may be uncertain as to which system they’ll want to implement. Millard Ochs, president of Warner Bros. International Cinemas, says it comes down to a glasses-or-screen decision: “If you use an active glass, then you don’t have to change the theatre screen, but the unit cost of the active glass is much higher than the passive glass.”
Prognostication & Application
Outlooks on the future role of DC-3D range from confident to cautious.
Dave Ballew, construction technician at Wallace Theatres, says he was “blown away” by the In-Three show at ShoWest, but still wonders about DC-3D’s drawing power. “If you get a movie that is genuinely good quality that people want to see, and add 3D to that, it could be a home run. But it will be a hard sell. Without having seen the demo, people will be skeptical, as I was.”
Ochs seems more optimistic. He mentions the potential for DC-3D “to create a ‘want-to-see’ to bring people back into theatres.” DC-3D is something, he says, that audiences “simply cannot get at home.”
At least a few major distributors are bullish. Warner Bros. distribution chief Dan Fellman touts DC-3D as something that “enhances and eventizes” projects. “I think it should have a very meaningful effect on what we do in the future,” he predicts.
Disney has announced plans to release a DC-3D version of its computer-animated “Chicken Little” in some markets this fall. Sony revealed a similar plan for its computer-animated “Monster House,” which hits cinemas next July. Both releases are expected to make use of Real D systems.
In-Three, meanwhile, is in the process of dimensionalizing the original three “Star Wars” films for special 30th anniversary re-releases in 2007.
Exhibitors are generally encouraged that the upcoming DC-3D features seem perhaps less gimmicky than recent 3D efforts like Rodriguez’s.
Bill Menke, director of facilities for Wehrenberg Theatres, notes that “many of the more recent 3D titles haveused 3D as a hook to try and get more attendance while the movie content was weak.”
“I would hate to see people make 3D movies for the sake of 3D only,” says Marcus’ Collins. “That’s usually a disaster. Is it a 3D movie that people would still watch in 2D? Then I would say it’s great, the 3D effect really helps the way this film is done.”
