Three Dee Cinema appears to be getting a major boost:
A consortium of the biggest US cinema chains is closing in on a $1bn deal that will pave the way for a new generation of money-spinning 3-D movies, after securing provisional backing from three key Hollywood studios.
Walt Disney and Paramount Pictures are on the verge of signing a contract with Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium made up of the AMC, Regal and Cinemark chains, according to people familiar with the situation.
... There are about 40,000 cinema screens in the US, but only 700 can show films in 3-D. There are hardly any digital-ready screens in the international marketplace, so the studios have set their sights on the US first. However, they are also betting that the format will eventually transform the global box office.
... Studios are producing more movies in 3-D, with 13 to be released in 2009. Fox has lined up James Cameron's Avatar and Ice Age 3 while Disney will release Bolt this year and plans to reissue Toy Story next year in 3-D.
The questions that pop into my mind are:
1) With all Three Dee, will the studios really be able to make their higher-priced theater admissions stick?
2) Will the Three Dee format mean that films go to 48-frames-per-second projection rate ... to minimize strobing on camera moves? (I'm guessing yes).
3) Will all Three Dee, all the time, make the production of hand-drawn animation even less appealing to studios than it is now?
4) How much will 48 fps impact animation production costs? Bigger render farms?
Just asking ...
Posts
4 comments:
"4) How much will 48 fps impact animation production costs? Bigger render farms?"
That't not the primary economic consideration. Rather, it's this:
Twice as much animator hours.
Unless some studios are fine with spliney in-betweens. I have no doubt that some studios will, and some won't.
Twice as much animator hours? Not if your talking CG.
Rendering 48FPS in Stereo (96 fps) is a pretty big deal. More computers, more software, more costs.
"money-spinning 3-D movies,"
Not yet. There isn't one 3=d movie that has turned a profit worth crowing about. This is all a big gamble, and has more to do with getting digital cinema into theaters than 3D.
They'll soon realize that any savings in digital distribution (vs. film) will disappear as studios flounder to produce 3D films.
What a shame studios don't care enough about the audience to cut theaters a better deal so they can improve the theater going experience. Sigh.
>>Not yet. There isn't one 3=d movie that has turned a profit worth crowing about.<<
I disagree. Especially if you take into consideration profit per screen.
Post a Comment