Three-Dimensional
Thinking
As the digital-cinema
era looms, so perhaps does a new era of 3D.
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
glossary
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.
|
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.
The two Southern California firms – In-Three, based
in Agoura Hills, and Real D, headquartered in Beverly Hills – each
offer variations on how they create, install and project
DC-3D images. Both operate strictly on “big-d” (or
Hollywood-compliant) digital platforms, as bolt-on systems
for auditoria that have already made the move to digital
projection.
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 &
‘Active Glasses’
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
In-Three’s primary business is post-production; it
takes the digital files of a completed film and “dimensionalizes” them,
transforming conventional 2D images into 3D ones.
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 new
glasses do not filter light at a 45-degree angle. The Real
D glasses utilize “circular polarization” that
filters light in spiral patterns – clockwise for the
right eye; counterclockwise for the left. When wearing circular-polarization
glasses, moviegoers do not lose the 3D effect when they cock
their heads.
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.
•
In-Three’s process of rendering 2D movies into 3D is
time-consuming. In order to allow for the availability of
a steady stream of product, In-Three is currently working
to reduce the length of time it takes to dimensionalize a
feature, with a target goal to eventually achieve “a
turnaround time of four months for a two-and-a-half hour
feature,” says In-Three CEO Michael Kaye. “We
are not at that point yet,” he adds.
•
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.
• Troubling to many exhibition executives is the fact that
Real D proposes to be a long-term partner of theatre companies,
instead of an equipment vendor.
•
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-process” necessary
to exhibit product created for the Real D system. “It
will take substantial [research and development] to develop
the in-theatre solution,” says Karagosian. “The
pre-processing can only be performed by Real D, which requires
them to re-master every 3D movie to be shown on their system.”
•
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 have
used 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.”
Retro & Pre-Show, Ballplayers & Pirates
One great promise of the DC-3D era is its
potential to transform any old movie into something new,
and the “Star Wars” movies
aren’t the only 2D films being eyed for 3D conversion.
Ochs was impressed with Warner Bros.’ recent experiment
with scenes from “Singing in the Rain.” “Think,” he
says, “of the library of stuff that could be done and
brought back in a 3D platform.”
Ballew says it was In-Three’s presentation of a scene
from “Casablanca” that stuck with him. Seeing
it in DC-3D, he says, “made it seem new again.”
Real D, meanwhile, is keen on the idea of
DC-3D pre-shows, and plans to license its systems to pre-show
companies such
as Screenvision and National CineMedia.
The Real D principals say DC-3D pre-show ads
could be created with a very short turnaround time – eventually
as little as 24 hours. A Real D reel demonstrates how an
ad for a local
car dealer could feature three-dimensional cars, graphics
and text. Creating such an ad is reportedly a simple process
that incurs little additional cost.
Real D is also looking ahead to advancements
in digital cameras that will allow the instantaneous creation
of DC-3D. Live
DC-3D transmissions of sporting events and concerts, say
Real D’s execs, could potentially be piped into cinemas.
Both Real D and In-Three also stand firm on
the assertion that DC-3D films are significantly harder to
pirate, noting
that any onscreen image camcorded from a 3D screening would
be difficult to transform into a watchable bootleg.
An End To 2D?
If DC-3D does catch on in a big way, could it herald the
extinction of 2D?
It certainly couldn’t happen before significantly more
auditoria are equipped with digital-cinema projectors, most
agree. Fewer than 100 public U.S. auditoria currently utilize
big-d equipment and, though that number is expected to increase
significantly in the coming months and years now that DCI
has completed its technical specifications, few are yet willing
to predict that 2D’s days are numbered.
“There are some projects that don’t actually work well
in 3D,” says Warner Bros.’ Fellman, “so
there will be plenty of room for everybody.”
Ochs says the relationship between 2D and
DC-3D could be defined by release windows. There is much
speculation as
to how – or whether – the release of a film in
DC-3D devalues the same film in 2D.
“Maybe the thing to do,” Ochs speculates, “is
release in 2D and then, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks
later, release the same film again in 3D, giving it more
hype. And then, a month after 3D, it goes to DVD, so you’re
talking about a whole new window set-up: 2D, 3D, DVD. Or
do you go 3D and then 2D? That’s what will have all
the business guys scratching their heads to figure out.”
Most imagine that DC-3D screenings will remain
fairly rare in the early going, with perhaps one or two DC-3D
screens
per market.
While interested in pursuing DC-3D, Wehrenberg’s Menke
says he would initially look to install DC-3D in one auditorium,
for “test market/special venue application, eventually
moving up to a site feature for each complex.” Wallace’s
Ballew, too, foresees DC-3D as “more of a special occasion
exhibition.”
In-Three’s Kaye acknowledges that a DC-3D rollout might
start slowly, but says a major DC-3D blockbuster would likely
lead to “a major push.” He imagines a day when
90 percent of the nation’s auditoria could be equipped
for DC-3D.
Ochs, who spearheaded the outfitting of Grauman’s Chinese
Theatre in Hollywood with a Real D system, admits to even
higher hopes. “Five years from now,” he says, “I
would love to see every theatre showing 3D, or capable of
showing 3D.”
He likens the potential move to DC-3D to the
exhibition industry’s
years-ago switchover to Dolby sound. “When Dolby first
came out, we put two Dolby auditoriums in a complex, if it
was, say, a 10-screen complex. We put two in originally,
and then as more films came out in the Dolby process, we
put in two more, and then two more, and eventually the entire
complex is Dolby. If you’re going to roll out a 2K
system digital platform anyway, you might as well bolt on
the 3D application.” This form of rollout, Ochs says,
has the potential to create a “strong and viable industry
showing 3D films. It’s an industry that says, ‘We’ve
got something unique and different, and you can’t see
it at home.’” 
