Movie Theaters Aim for Live 3D Sports 150
teutonic_leech writes "ZDNet has an article claiming that movie theater operators plan to be screening live 3D sports events by 2007 in a bid to lure sports fans away from their home theater systems and bolster sagging mid-week ticket sales." From the article: "Other chains are looking to much-improved digital three-dimensional projection for an experience theatergoers can't get at home. But while the projection has greatly advanced from the early 3D days, special glasses must still be worn to achieve the full effect."
Stereoscopy? (Score:3, Funny)
It's severely lagging behind all the other technologies. Where are holograms?
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
I would have to say that the technology is moving forward though, it's the offerings of industry that are perhaps not where people would like them to be. Perhaps industry views it more as a potential fad item than anything with real staying power. It sure seems as though the money has been on HD-TV, which most people aren't using yet. Why would they skip an opportunity to pump you for a buck after you've bought your HD-TV?
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:1)
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
First, you had red/blue glasses.
Then there was passive linear polarized glasses.
Then active shutter glasses with linear polarized glasses.
Now, there are passive achromatic circularly polarized glasses.
Its brand new. Some info here: http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/getbykey5?KEY=98
Holograms exist, but they suck in color reproduction and you can't move your head too much.
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2)
(Yeah, I make holograms).
Check out one of the holograms that we sell:
http://site194.webhost4life.com/stevewilburn/power imaging/gallery-de [webhost4life.com]
Re:Stereoscopy? (Score:2, Funny)
Beer? (Score:4, Interesting)
The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer
Will the prices be the same as at the ball park?
If so, I would reckon that it won't be a big hit. The main reason I do not go to the movies is the price, and not just of the tickets. I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.
Re:Beer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Yes, consuming mass amounts of corn syrup is just as much an American thing as being judgemental and opinionated is other peoples' thing.
I've seen people regularly consume more than a gallon of beer in a day and lead moderately healthy lives, so don't knock it.
Besides, us Americans are so busy destroying the world that the low energy and stress requires a crutch of soda, food, and guns.
Children? (Score:2)
Maybe it's a regional thing? Perhaps the seats where you live are tiny?
Re:Beer? (Score:5, Funny)
No, they are going to be selling Bud.
Re:Beer? (Score:3, Funny)
They shouldn't have to charge stadium prices for the concessions, since no studios will be taking away the majority of the theater's ticket sales, which is why the theaters usually charge those horrendous prices for snacks. That is where their earnings mostly come from.
Hopefully, the NFL and other spo
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
This is a complete guess (since there is insufficient data for an actual analyzis), but it might be that the manager of the theater with 3 screens is fighting desperately for su
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
In other words, the manager of the smaller theater realizes that whether he charges $5 or $12 per ticket, the percentage of those ticket sales he gets to keep are so slim that it doesn't matter one way or the other. So, draw the customers in with a low admission price, and hope that enough people will go ahead and buy food and
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see it as a good thing that theaters charge so much for food and drinks. They need to make money. If they make it from people paying absurd amounts for popcorn that means that my cost is subsidized.
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Imagine a cinema packed full of fans, all drunk, a huge 3D screen that shows the whole field, surround sound relaying the noise of the stadium, it would be almost like being at the game. You wouldn't even need seats, let everyone stand up.
As long as there's no commentary, no angle changes, no half-time analysis, no replays/close-ups and all the other things that make televised sport so insufferable, I'd definit
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:1, Interesting)
Are you serious? Wow, your country is even more screwed up than I thought. Here in Australia there was public outrage when the major cinema chains tried to implement a similar policy last year, and it was quickly reversed. I'm surprised the same thing didn't happen over there.
Re:Beer? (Score:1)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
Re:Beer? (Score:2)
I went to a Cinemark in Utah - they wouldn't allow me to bring in my cup of water, even when I pointed out that I'd just get 6 curteousy cups of water from them instead.
Where's my holodeck? (Score:2)
Obligatory Futurama reference (Score:5, Funny)
Zapp: Damn! The last time that happened, I got slapped with three paternity suits!
Re:Where's my holodeck? (Score:2)
Re:Where's my holodeck? (Score:2)
Incidently, the first TNG episode was in the year 2363, according to one of those Google links. Holodecks were around sometime in the first season. So you were right, relatively speaking. It's still "a while to wait".
Re:Where's my holodeck? (Score:2)
Re:Where's my holodeck? (Score:2)
Advancement Rates (Score:1)
The REAL reasons why 3D is not popular now. (Score:3, Informative)
The problem nowadays is that 3D production suffers from several things:
Right now, 3D is relegated to crap movies or movies to kids. Look at the titles that have been produced in 3D in the past 20 years:
Friday the 13th, part 3 - Oh, yeah. Great family film.
Jaws 3 - A 3D turd.
Spy Kids - Cheesy kid flick
and a few other
pfft 3d... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pfft 3d... (Score:2)
Psh, this will never work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Psh, this will never work (Score:2)
Re:Psh, this will never work (Score:2)
Re:Psh, this will never work (Score:2)
Special Glasses?? (Score:2, Funny)
watching sports in groups (Score:4, Insightful)
how are you supposed to watch sport in a movie theatre? are you supposed to be loud? order drinks? heckle the other fans? get up to the bathroom, step on someone's toes and block their view? it seems very awkward, formal, and not very relaxing.
Re:watching sports in groups (Score:3, Informative)
Good idea but.... no. (Score:5, Insightful)
The appeal to watch sports in 3d is nonexistant.
When people get together to watch a game they are always cheering booing, having fun, being noisy.. This is what you would find at a sports bar where it is acceptable.
I can't imagine this going over very well inside a theater where you are confined to your small seat.. the atmosphere is a lot different and I can see a lot of people getting annoyed at other people for being loud.
Re:Good idea but.... no. (Score:2)
Re:Good idea but.... no. (Score:2)
The whole point in going to the stadium is that you look at what you want to look at, rather than what some MTV-reject director wants you to look at.
I saw the 1998 World Cup final... (Score:4, Interesting)
Trust me, a sports telecast in a cinema is very different from seeing a normal film, at which people are expected to be quiet (unless it's a 1950s b-grade, I suppose). It's a lot more like being at a stadium than watching a television.
If I could go to a cinema on a Sunday night and see a live Formula One race (no waiting around for a delayed telecast), I'd be there every race.
Re:I saw the 1998 World Cup final... (Score:2)
Someone has never been to see Rocky Horror! (Score:2)
Re:Someone has never been to see Rocky Horror! (Score:2)
If you want to make this work (Score:5, Funny)
PORN
It built the net
Re:If you want to make this work (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If you want to make this work (Score:1)
Re:If you want to make this work (Score:2)
Betterr wearr yourr thrreedee glasses... (Score:2)
Armchair button pushing is a sport? (Score:1)
Welcome to the Land of the Fat.
Where was this technology... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where was this technology... (Score:4, Funny)
Argh! The goggles! They do NOTHING!
Auto Racing (Score:1)
Re:Auto Racing (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmm... Katerina Witt or Michelle Kwan in 3D on the big screen... I'd be a regular theater patron for that.
Re:Auto Racing (Score:2)
3d video games (Score:4, Insightful)
video in stereo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:video in stereo (Score:2)
Re:video in stereo - I'm not so sure it's good. (Score:2)
That's all very nice, and very immersive. However, there was something a bit disquieting about it for my vision -- as if my retina had to be out of sync with my focus (which indeed is the case).
I'm not sure that's a bad thing -- maybe it would help my nearsightedness, or maybe not. But I can say it bothered me just slightly, and my 1.5-year-old
Re:video in stereo - I'm not so sure it's good. (Score:2)
Shouldnt it read.... (Score:2)
no (Score:2)
This Is True. (Score:5, Interesting)
(The experts I talked to were mostly Canadians themselves. L.A. seems to have more Canadians than Canada.)
At any rate, that's when I heard all about James Cameron's new manga-derived massively budgeted 3-D feature ("Battle Angel", if memory serves), George Lucas' plans to 3-D invigoroate all six of his Star Wars picturers, and learned that Fox has been recording Superbowls and other big, big sporting events in 3-D for a couple of years now, in order to create a library of games for 3-D viewing.
The company I consulted had even developed a high-definition 3-D Steadicam-like unit, and I got to see the test footage they'd shot at a recent football match. The cameraman could literally wander right into the field, with somebody tapping his shoulder whenever he needed to get out of the way of play.
To repeat a 3-D cliche, IT WAS LIKE YOU WERE ACTUALLY THERE, ON THE FIELD.
I have no interest in sports but it was obvious that someone who was into sports would definitely think it was the coolest thing they'd ever seen.
Re:This Is True. (Score:2)
The 3D I see at Disney doesn't do fast motion (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought they needed special theaters to show these movies but the family just saw Chicken Little in 3D at a regular theater. It is impressive. The glasses are just polarized lenses at 90 degree offset.
I don't know if this is the system they are talking about here, but Disney is typically on the cutting edge of this stuff and they have been doing 3D for years. Kodak sponsors the exhibits.
Visual overload (Score:3, Insightful)
2D screens also suffer from this problem, but to a lesser degree, because there is another layer of abstraction there. We aren't trying to trick ourselves into thinking it's real - we just go to watch a show. I'd prefer to spend more time looking at natural objects, anyway. Mmmmm. Boobies.
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
IE, reality or special glasses.
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
That is correct. It is very different. Physical objects are much easier for your brain to process than virtual images. That's not even taking into consideration resolution limits - or a big one for theaters - different viewpoints. A stereoscopic image only truly works from one vantage point. A theater, by necessity, has many differen
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
The two images from that come from real objects differ according to the real geometry of our eye spacing and our distance from the object. In a movie theater, our eyes are fed two images where the difference has been calculated beforehand by a technician who had to make a wild-ass guess at the average seating distance and eye spacing. It will always be slightly off
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
You mustn't have much experience with virtual 3D images, stereoscopy and similar technologies, then. I was actually a stereoscopy enthusiast, and have made them and seen many examples, over many years. Even the best photographic stereocopic images, with a viewer specifically adjusted for the individual, require some strain to coalesce the images. It can look fantastic, but it's never quite "real." Even with 2D computer and T
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
Which isnt braintstrain because like the poster said brainstrain doesnt exist. (Unless your doing that really annoying physics with a brick on a ramp and suvat... maybe thats just me.)
'Even if it did get nearly "real" - that's not what people want, either.'
There is a huge difference between 'real' and 'comfortable to view' you appear to be mixing them up. If you can provide 3D vision well enough the imagery can be as real or as unreal as you want itll still be a pleasant experie
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
But it does. Have you ever heard of a headache? Much of what we call eyestrain is a combination of physical and mental fatigue. 3D images are much more prone to the "brainstrain" or headaches. Photographic images are less prone to this than digital images, but even photographic 3D images give a lot of mental strain.
I really don't know what to say if you don't think that mental strain does not exist. Visual perception has as much
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
Your brain isnt hurting because its having a hard time with the quantity of information input its hurting because the information input is screwed up.
'But this is nearly impossible. It just is not a pleasant experience over extended times for most people, and would probably take decades of development before we reach that point.'
I could go to my IMAX right now and watch a 3D movie for 2 hours without it being unpleasant. It cl
Re:Visual overload (Score:2)
I highly doubt that. How do you know that no-one found it unpleasant?
So far all your posts have done is hurl around 'facts' and situations that you claim make this an unworkable technology.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it was unworkable. I like 3D technology, but I can recognize that it is not ready for the mainstream, especially with things like sports. A
Will it be like Walt Disney World? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Will it be like Walt Disney World? (Score:2)
Theater + Sports = Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
-Will they let you pause the DVR so you can take a phone call or take a piss? Definitely not
-Will you be allowed to scream obscenities at the top of your lungs when you team screws up? Most likely not
Sports viewing in public belongs in Bars. A movie theater seems like a lousy place to watch a game.
Re:Theater + Sports = Lame (Score:2, Informative)
-Will they let you pause the DVR so you can take a phone call or take a piss? Definitely not
-Will you be allowed to scream obscenities at the top of your lungs when you team screws up? Most likely not
From TFA:
The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer, sold team gear in the lobbies and encouraged fans to loosen up as they would in the ball park.
I don't know about wings, but they'll definitely let
Re:Theater + Sports = Lame (Score:2)
Feel free to stay home...
No beer no background noise (Score:2)
Paying to watch commercials? oh yeah.
Futile... (Score:2)
Fatal flaw in all two-image systems: distortion (Score:3, Interesting)
3D movies work for "fantasy" movies, where Cabinet-of-Dr-Caligari-like distortions don't affect (or even enhance) the viewing experience. They work for short novelty films and roller-coaster-like "This-Is-Cinerama"-type spectacles. But when you want a sustained, realistic impression of physical presence, the distortions much more serious.
Think of it this way. Can you enjoy sports in black-and-white? Yes. Can you enjoy sports in reasonably faithful color? Yes. Could you enjoy sports in psychedelic, distorted color? I doubt it, although such distortions might not matter in a comedy or a cartoon.
Why is this distortion inevitable? It's because in a live theatre every single eyeball gets a different view of the stage, one for every eyeball in the audience. Someone sitting front left sees a stereo pair, someone sitting rear right sees a stereo pair, but they are different stereo pairs. In a 3D movie, everyone sees the same pair of images. Put a 3D camera in a live theatre, then screen the results: the only person with an undistorted view is the person sitting in the same seat the camera was in when it shot the scene.
Another way to think of it. Suppose that in a 3D movie Ann Miller is twenty feet from the camera, and suppose she pitches a handkerchief directly toward the camera and it lands ten feet away. When the results are screened, whereever you are sitting you are going to see that handkerchief come straight toward you and land halfway between you and the screen. If you're sitting ten feet from the screen at the right, that handkerchief will come toward the right and land five feet away--and all the depth in the scene will be half as deep as it should be, and every cube in the scene will be a parallelopiped skrooged toward the right.
If you're sitting forty feet from the screen at the left, that handkerchief will come toward the left and land twenty feet away. And all the depth in the scene will be exaggerated, twice as deep as it should be. And everything that's square will turn into a rhombus, skrooged toward the left.
And it gets even worse if you add wide-angle and telephoto shots. Telephoto shots flatten depth; in a baseball game, the batter seems to be standing only ten feet from the pitcher. But it's not that obvious in a 2D image. In a 3D image, you will get the same effect and you won't be able to ignore it.
Do you think this sort of thing is likely to affect your enjoyment of a sports event, which consists (in part) of appreciating the precise geometry of the playing field and the skill of the players in judging distances? I do.
Re:Fatal flaw in all two-image systems: distortion (Score:2)
Theaters should deal with the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, these other things aren't revenue generators. Au Contraire, they are revenue burners because the theaters have to absorb the costs of this new presentation technology without any assurances that the public will be willing to pay more for film and video services that they already get from their 'home theaters'. In fact it is unlikely that the people who put up many thousands of dollars for 'home theaters' (which are just big screen televisions and loud stereos) can be brought back into the theaters by anything that the theaters offer because the people who bought the 'home theaters' don't have any money left.
So that just leaves the people who used to go to movies but don't anymore. And usually why they don't is because the films are either too expensive or too stupid. And the reason that the films are too expensive is because Hollywood has lost the ability to make high-quality reasonably priced entertainment products.
We are at the end of Hollywood cycle now; this one has been the 'BlockBuster' era that started in 1977 with the original Star Wars movie. So there is going to be a period of contraction in the industry and the same time that there will be bursts of huge amounts of money thrown at projects of truly dubious artistic and commercial merit. Huge projects with no realistic expectation generating any real profit [stuff like Peter Jackson's King Kong, Disney's Treasure Planet, and Oliver Stone's Alexander] will continue to pop out of Hollywood as the industry goes into its final crash-and-burn cycle.
This has all happened before. The most recent Hollywood down cycle started in the mid-1950s and lasted until the mid 1970s. The defining bomb movie of that era was Cleopatra(1964) staring Elizabeth Taylor, who was the Lindsay Lohan of the 1950's. Cleopatra cost about $500-$600 million in today's equivalent dollars and brought in about 1/10th of its cost in box office. Check it out on DVD or VHS if you want to get an idea of what kind of projects are being currently planned in Hollywood for the 2007-2009 season.
Anyway, the theaters are the only people who can stop the Hollywood descent in madness by demanding a much better return schedule on box office receipts and forcing Hollywood into developing higher quality, less-expensive product.
But the theaters are unlikely to take this opportunity because they are run by mediocre, narrow-minded, business and marketing majors who would be challenged should they ever have be called to operate anything as complex as a K-Mart Men's department. You know these guys; they're the ones with the white shirts, bad haircuts, and vaguely worried looks on their faces that you see when you stop at McDonald's for a MuffinBurger before going to work in the morning. These guys are not going to be generating solutions to Hollywood's basic problems.
Re:Video killed the radio star. (Score:2)
Re:Some of us can't see it... (Score:2)
'A variety of vision problems can cause the problem, including amblyopia ("lazy eye"), strabismus ("crossed eye") and convergence insufficiency, a condition that inhibits one's ability to keep both eyes focused correctly on a close target.'
You need to be specifically tested for this kind of stuff as you can have apparently perfect vision and still have those effects due
Re:Some of us can't see it... (Score:2)
Re:I can do this now. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:anyone actually tried 3D glasses lately? (Score:2)
Digital cinema projection used in the theaters has much higher screen resolution. The glasses you wear are lightweight "sunglasses".
Movies and then sports are obvious first choices for mass-media 3D. But I'm sure plenty of other more specialized applications (gaming, education, architecture to name a few) will find their way into