Katzenberg: Digital Cinema a Must

[David Mullen ASC]

It must have been a fun movie to do. How many days principal photography did you have?
How did you divide up the work between you and your BC&D camera teams?

37 principal days and 3 pick-up days later.

Michael Polish directed; his brother Mark went out with 2nd Unit DP Phil Pfeiffer to pick-up a number of shots and some small scenes, especially during montage sequences. They also shot the scene where Pepe is pulled over in the mountains (Ghost Ranch, NM) by the FBI -- the location was too far away to send the 1st Unit for a half-day.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

I was sort of hoping by 2036 we could just put on a pair of glasses and everybody would be in the first 2 rows. There would be a microphone in every set of glasses so that it would process the level of cheering and create a 3D proxy of yourself somewhere else in the stadium so the 'crowd' would be live.

Yes except you could choose if you wanted to be in the first row, or on the field, or one of the soccer stars (or the ball). Or you could be making out under the stands with seven soccer fan hotties. Oh, yeah, that's 2046.

 

[Proteus]

I was sort of hoping by 2036 we could just put on a pair of glasses and everybody would be in the first 2 rows. There would be a microphone in every set of glasses so that it would process the level of cheering and create a 3D proxy of yourself somewhere else in the stadium so the 'crowd' would be live.

Yes except you could choose if you wanted to be in the first row, or on the field, or one of the soccer stars (or the ball). Or you could be making out under the stands with seven soccer fan hotties. Oh, yeah, that's 2046.

By then, everything will be projected in true 3D in the air in your living room (also in clubs, in malls etc) and you will be able to interact, no need for strange glasses. 3D will be the film killer...

 

[Ken Corben]

3D will be the film killer...

Maybe not a film killer over the next few decades but a lot of folks are betting the farm on 3D today in Hollywood. IMO, RED is the digital solution for a 3D tapeless workflow for 3D production now and well into the future in narrative (horror films), non-fiction, CGI and live action stories that lend themselves to the genre.

Time will tell...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

 

[Proteus]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

That doesn't prevent you from going to the theatre, does it?
Now imagine the theatre with all impossible special effects of cinema -like combining the pros (possibilities) from both forms of entertainment and artistic expression.
That could give you a 3D experience beyond reality...

 

[PaulClements]

The sheer logistics of making every cinema in the world 3D capable is mind boggling. The cost would be horrendous, who pays for it?

I can understand their desire to shoot 3D but this isn't the first time it's been touted as the next big thing. Most consumers think... 3D... is that where you have to wear those funny specs?

For 3D to become a reality it needs a complete shift driven by one or a few companies (Perhaps even Red in the future) to deliver a shooting standard, a digital delivery to the cinema, the screens, the projectors and so on, and to do so at a revolutionary price that any cinema would be stupid not to go for it. OR have a company that installs their digital delivery system, screens and projectors for free and works as a distributor and takes a cut from all seat profits, in this way the cinemas would be more willing to adopt the hardware more readily because there would be no significant outlay. If you make the cinemas pay then you don't need a massive amount of money to begin with but you won't be able to rely on lots of theatres adopting it as a standard, if you take a cut of seat profits you are more likely to create the standard and see cinemas adopting it worldwide, but you would require billions in order to do it. It's something of a catch 22 I guess.

 

[Fix]

I don't know... whenever I hear that every movie is going to be in 3D, I'm reminded of that line in "The Science of Sleep": "Isn't the world already in 3D?"

People (dont kill me gibby) talk so much about 3D that it will happen anyways no matter what we think IMHO. It’s a typical technology paradox for our future. Talk enough about it and it will eventually happen. There will be many if not all 3D movies (what ever 3D means in a future perspective).

I really hope good directors and DOP’s keep a reasonable tone to it though. What I mean is, we have seen a lot of “great” movies getting shred to pieces by overkill computer graphics in the past IMO. The mayor movie business (Hollywood…) used many years to mature in that (and still are). I’m for one is afraid that this (3D cinema) technology may also crush “good movies” by its immature technology. Never the less I believe it will become great after a while if we use it enough.

And when the dizziness drop off after using those terrible glasses.

 

[Joel Kaye]

And when the dizziness drop off after using those terrible glasses.

I've never seen a 3D movie that I enjoyed watching. Would the Mona Lisa be better in 3D? I don't think a lot of movies call for it either. I haven't seen this latest technology though.

I just have a hard time believing it's actually going to replace what we've got now anytime soon. The studios hope so because they have an interest in vertically controlling the market.

I can see digital projection and boutique theaters (coffeehouse theaters?) making some inroads.

Do you actually like the big theater experience? I'd prefer to see a special screening of a movie at a smaller venue that had a video conference with the director/cast after the show (nothing stopping AMC from doing that also though - they should). But I think watching with fewer moviefans that I could actually chat with after would be a much better experience than the "all alone in a crowd down at the Cineplex" feeling. Even if it's in 3D.

 

[Steve Gibby]

2D data can be readily extracted from a 3D workflow, thus enabling vertical distribution from large format 3D all the way down through 2D distribution channels for the same production. The industry won't change easily - it never does. Availability of cost effective digital projection, and specifically 3D capable digital projection, will be the crucial turning point in any adoption of 3D. RealD 3D and others are out to make that a reality. I think others will follow. When influential motion media veterans like Katzenberg, and others, voice their opinion that everything is eventually headed to 3D, I think we need to take that seriously. For home viewing of 3D, there have already been demonstrated large panels that are 3D capable for viewers - without them having to wear glasses. Obviously it always takes time for tech like that to become affordable to the average consumer.

Film has been around for well over a century - and it's still alive. I love film, but I think digital is making steady inroads and that 3D digital is right on the heels of 2D digital - for certain applications, and an increasing number of applications as the technology proliferates.

Interesting times we live in...

 

[Stephen Webb]

I'm not convinced about the viability of 3D. I think for the public to take to it that getting rid of those glasses is the first necessity.

But it's not just that. "3D" is really still a gimmic - it's a forced illusion that still exists in a 2D plane. If you move your head side to side, you get no perspective change, you can't see things from an alternative angle.

Until it's a fully immersive experience, I don't reckon 3D will take off the way some folks are thinking.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

 

[Fix]

This conversation is actually quite typical minding the time we're inn. We have, pretty soon, a camera that hopefully rock the world for all of us film enthusiasts. It's mature enough to go head on advanced FX shoots and compete with 35mm cinema camera.

Now 3D capturing technology seem to become the hoot thing. Quite typical, its always something better that we “should” have. Its waaaay out there.

Well, if you used the time right you could have been famous making a good movie with a DV'cam.

3D for an uncertain future. Red for an expected future.

 

[Shawn Bannon]

3D movies are fun but there are still a lot of people who cannot see 3d movies and plenty of people who get headaches. those imax helmets that are in sync with the shutter are pretty cool, but its hard to find imax theatres that even have those.

 

[Ken Corben]

I'm not convinced about the viability of 3D. I think for the public to take to it that getting rid of those glasses is the first necessity.

I understand your skepticism since the RealD digital 3D theater roll out in the UK is in its infancy. Have you seen Disney's Meet the Robinsons in a RealD theater? WOW - the per screen average of the 3D screens blew away the 2D screens in box office with tickets at a premium. In the US all the major chains are installing the brilliant RealD 3D system. Easy to operate and switch between 2D and 3D in a matter of minutes. Instead of getting rid of the polarized glasses distributors are making high quality Oakley style glasses with sponsors emblazened on them. The glassless technology is still way down the road.

But it's not just that. "3D" is really still a gimmic - it's a forced illusion that still exists in a 2D plane. If you move your head side to side, you get no perspective change, you can't see things from an alternative angle.

Until it's a fully immersive experience, I don't reckon 3D will take off the way some folks are thinking.

An interesting point indeed but does one do this in a 2D screening? I can tell you now that Cameron's sci-fi film Avatar will be the nay sayers nail in the coffin when released in 3D based on box office gross and the immersive experience everyone will be talking about.

Until then here's a few quotes from key industry players:

"In the past, 3D was a gimmick used to enhance films that had run their course," says Jim Gianopulos, chairman and chief executive of Fox Filmed Entertainment, the News Corporation-owned studio making Avatar. "3D today is the exact opposite. The image is completely immersive and the audience experiences a truly lifelike environment." (March 25, 2007 Financial Times)

"Ignoring the nattering nabobs of negativity ... who are afraid of change," Cameron said to audience laughter, "3D digital cinema is not a fad that is going to bloom and die. I don't want that grand, visionary, transforming event of movie-watching to become a thing of the past. Digital cinema can prevent that."- James Cameron 3D KEYNOTE NAB 2006

 

[Ken Corben]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

Exactly, I mean imagine Michael Moore or Bourne Identity in 3D - snooooze.

Now imagine Shrek 4 or the next Pixar film in 3D - very cool.

 

[Stephen Webb]

I haven't seen RealD yet, and it will be interesting to get a look. However, if Jim Cameron sticks to his guns on the "3D only" release demand for Avatar, I'm afraid it's already failed - and he could damage the progress of 3D 'cause if a film that expensive and that high profile is a major box office flop, backers of the technology will start to walk away.

 

[Ken Corben]

Steve,

I agree with you on the 3D only release biz plan risk. I believe that the Mark Cuban vertical distribution model is superior. Release it in all venues and let the consumer decide.

 

[Proteus]

I can see 3D for comic book actions films and whatnot, but it's hard to see why dramas like "La Vie En Rose" or thrillers like "Fracture", or even a small indie movie like "The Squid and the Whale" or "Black Snake Moan" are really going to benefit from 3D.

Exactly, I mean imagine Michael Moore or Bourne Identity in 3D - snooooze.

Now imagine Shrek 4 or the next Pixar film in 3D - very cool.

I think that when we go from a simple form to a more complex, the limits we see are just the limits of our imagination. The 2d to 3d transition -or evolution, requires an analogous evolution of the filmic art, with new universal techniques of how to tell a story in 3D -whatever story. Of course in the beginning, we'll have just the technology -not the art, so yes, the first succesfull films will be just fun to watch. But I think that filmmakers should see that difficulty, as a nice new challenge!

 

[Marcus Irvin]

The elephant in the room?

The elephant in the room?

I've posted on 3D filmmaking before because it is definitely headed our way and RED appears to be ideally suited for the transition.

All of the points about problems and issues have validity, but there is one overwhelming factor more important than all of those and Katzenberg gets it.

As consumers buy the huge 1080i flat screens with 7:1 sound, we mostly stop going to the movie theaters. For the average film, I'd rather watch it at home on my beautiful big screen. I can't believe discount matinees are now $7 per ticket. Counting popcorn and cokes we save about $25 per movie, so we get to watch a lot more movies at home. We can't forget non-sticky floors, comfortable clothes (or not) and no driving. Plus Netflix delivers 1080P HD now.

Here is the elephant. Does anyone remember when Hollywood films were 4:3 format and usually black and white. That was before my time, but Hollywood studios spent a great deal of money changing to the wider formats and more full color shooting to head off the encroachment by TV broadcasting.

Now that big screens and great sound are becoming the norm, Hollywood again feels they must offer something we can't get in a home viewing experience. 3D is a long way from perfect, but we cannot watch it at home. Hollywood will adopt 3D for every appropriate movie and more. It's just self defense from an industry with few options. Will it stick long term this time? I don't know because I haven't seen the new 3D tech yet and the older versions were strictly a novelty experience.

The obvious defense would be epic movies that are more exciting on the biggest screens, but those tend to be the most expensive productions and changing economic trends don't favor blockbuster budgets in the near future.