Progress of 3D Format is Remarkable in Any Dimension

In the nearly four years since I first wrote about 3D films the progress the format has made is nothing short of remarkable. In 2006, there were fewer 3D titles and fewer digitally equipped theaters on which to show them. This year all the major Hollywood studios will release at least one 3D film, and in the case of DreamWorks Animation in Glendale all three feature animated films are in the format. True, there remains a lack of screens showing 3D as the replacement of conventional 35mm projectors with digital equipment got stalled when funding sources disappeared at the start of the recession. Less expensive options have appeared that will let small chains and independent theaters jump on the bandwagon while still using existing projectors. Twice now the 3D Entertainment Summit has taken place in Los Angeles, with a third event scheduled for September. The newly formed International 3D Society had its first award ceremony in February in Hollywood. The San Fernando Valley can rightfully claim the title of “3D Valley” for the high concentration of companies in the production, post-production or exhibition of not just 3D films but television and theatrical special events as well. Here’s just a short list: Pace, maker of 3D cameras; testing lab Testronics; 3ality Digital; TrioScopics and Lowry Digital; Technicolor; Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp.; In-Three; Oculus 3D; Stereoscope LLC; Stereo Vision Entertainment; Paradise FX Corp.; MasterImage; Fotokem; and Stereomedia 3D. With the box office success of “Avatar” the entertainment industry at last cleared the hurdle in the public mind that 3D means wearing paper glasses with one red lens and one green lens for a movie-watching experience more headache inducing than entertaining. It is also no longer fair to call 3D a gimmick, as it was in the 1950s as a way for theaters to draw in audiences as more and more televisions began to appear in the living room. Jed Harmsen, director of product development in the creative services business with Technicolor in Burbank, dismissed the gimmick label because the studios are investing in the films; big name directors were making them; and consumer electronic manufacturers like Samsung, Panasonic and Sony were committed to bringing 3D into the home. If any of that had been said four years ago it would have raised more eyebrows than seeing a member of the Young Eagles at a Los Angeles topless club. Different scenario In that first story, I wrote about the dilemma facing the entertainment industry: theater owners didn’t want the expense of installing expensive digital equipment capable of showing 3D films because there were so few titles released. The studios, on the other hand, didn’t want to make the 3D films if there were only a small number of theaters available to show them. In a post-“Avatar” environment the theaters cannot get movies out quick enough. If what the trades reported is true, Warner Bros. upset DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg by doing a conversion job on its 2D “Clash of the Titans” and putting it into theaters just a week after the new DWA film, “How to Train Your Dragon.” That sets up a clash of another type as the films compete for the limited number of screens The manufacturers of the digital equipment and the silver screens needed to show digital films are behind on orders. In the meantime two companies are working in the 3D on film space, developing lenses that fit over existing 35mm projectors. Technicolor promotes its process as being an interim step until digital equipment is more affordable. Oculus 3D, on the other hand, sees 3D on film as being permanent because, as co-founder Lenny Lipton believes, the viewer really doesn’t care if a film is digital or not. One Friday in March I visited Technicolor in Burbank to see a demonstration of its 3D on film process on three trailers. I couldn’t tell the difference from digital. A week later I sat in a screening room in another part of Burbank to see an Oculus demonstration and once again there was no difference from a digital print. More eye opening than the Oculus demo was the discussion afterward by the audience, including an independent theater owner who said Technicolor’s system didn’t interest him because The Walt Disney Co. and 20th Century Fox were not among the participating studios. The lively conversation centered on the meaning of 3D to the industry and the cost to the producers and exhibitors. There was no bigger booster in that screening room then Lipton, a pioneer in 3D technology. Traditional 2D films, Lipton declared, are finished. A misstep That statement may be an exaggeration but future summer and Christmas blockbusters will likely get the 3D treatment whether it’s needed or not. Those movies cost more to make and the studio can bring in additional money from the 3D premium price. A case in point is “Titans,” which in my opinion didn’t need the additional dimension. Warner Bros. should have stuck with a 2D version and not bothered with an atrocious conversion to 3D that resulted in out of focus characters and objects. This misstep won’t result in audiences rejecting 3D films or the conversion process itself. In-Three based its business model around conversion, originally for film libraries but has gotten into newer releases with “G Force” and Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland.” Unlike “Titans” the Burton film was planned to be converted into 3D. In-Three hasn’t turned away from the legacy films and is still asked about converting older films into 3D for a theatrical re-release or the home market, said Damian Wader, vice president of business development. As these are still the early days of the 3D resurgence, the industry has time to make mistakes. Storytelling through films will evolve because of this technology and there still remains to be made a truly superb 3D film. I just hope I don’t have to wait until another four years to see it. Staff Reporter Mark Madler can be reached at (818) 316-3126 or at [email protected].