At the Hollywood Reporter, Sheigh Crabtree writes a fairly straightforward breakdown of some of the significant issues . . . plenty of work to do before 3-D saves day . . . while I would suggest some of the issues being debated are moot, others are pretty much fair play . . .

Cost and quality issues associated with 3-D — whether it be stereoscopic live-action production, the cost of re-mastering 2-D films to 3-D in postproduction or sustained 3-D projector brightness — were among topics discussed Thursday during a panel at the Entertainment Technology Center’s Digital Cinema Lab in Hollywood. Whether 3-D projection will be a key driver in the conversion to digital cinema remains to be seen. But in the meantime, 3-D is being looked at as a man of the hour for a lagging boxoffice. In an opening presentation, moderator Marty Shindler cited collapsing DVD windows, lame movies, pricey tickets, incessant in-theater ads and competing forms of media as reasons for theatrical exhibition’s downturn. In the face of the decline, however, 3-D has shown real promise, panelists said. One of the bright spots on the exhibition landscape in recent months was the boxoffice performance of “The Polar Express” in Imax 3-D. Combine public interest with recent advances in digital cinema and 3-D technologies, add filmmaker and studio interest, and you’ve got fertile ground for 3-D exhibition, panelists said. Exhibition was not represented at the event, so such ongoing behind-the-scenes issues as heated negotiations over costly and long-term contracts between theater owners and equipment vendors, pricey and time-consuming projection booth rebuilds, silver screen installation and the accessories needed for 3-D viewing went largely unaddressed. However, a few other interesting wrinkles in the conversion to 3-D were raised. In-Three president and CEO Michael Kaye, Real D co-founder and CEO Joshua Greer and Cobalt Entertainment founder Steve Schklair discussed the rapid evolution of auto-stereoscopic televisions for the home that do not require 3-D glasses. Attendees at IBC in Amsterdam last month witnessed the first live broadcast of auto-stereoscopic content. 3-D systems for the home could be in stores as soon as Christmas 2006, but, as with HD displays, there might not be much original 3-D content available for the screens. Peter Anderson, an Academy governor and expert in specialized cinematography, had photographed much of the material displayed at the lab Thursday. He argued that the material being shown was not even close to what he had originally shot, saying the severe color loss, overcompression of files and dimly lit material raise all kinds of questions about the sustainability of quality 3-D in theaters. He wondered what will happen when 3-D material ends up on screens not as well nursed by tech experts at the d-cinema lab. Panelists had varied explanations for the degraded 3-D images. Texas Instruments’ Glenn Kennel explained that the ETC screen was too big at 50-plus feet and that 3-D ideally should be presented on screens ranging from 35-40 feet — a fact that the Walt Disney Co. is well aware of with the rollout of “Chicken Little” on 85 screens next month. “No matter how you do 3-D, you lose light,” said Real D’s Greer, noting that ideally 3-D would be projected with 14-foot lamberts, though at the lab people were only seeing three lamberts worth of brightness. Because of 3-D projection lenses and polarization, which darken the image, in addition to the long throw to the screen, many 3-D projections are too dark and show severe color space distortions. As distributors and exhibitors prepare for wider 3-D releasing, these are issues that need to be recognized and dealt with if the format is to live up to its promise as the savior of theatrical exhibition.

Box office is down and 3D could help turn it around. However, there are still obstacles to that . . . the 3D content has to be more than flashy gimmickry and must mature.

The notion that 3D must be profitable because IMAX’s Polar Express was profitable by exponential amounts may not hold with the new system or with new films. PE was hugely successful in IMAX and it is clear that it was the 3D that was selling through rather than merely the size of the screen. However, once you get more theatres the novelty runs out. Chicken Little doesn’t have a wide enough install base to really judge yet so it should not be looked upon as the make or break film. Of course, if King Kong is put out there in 3D it will be a bigger draw (it is being converted to 3D even as we speak, or as I write this but it is not certain yet even if it will be put out into venues in that format either initially or later, fingers crossed).

The loss of light due to polarization or anaglyph is a big deal. To compensate the projectors need to be brighter – a clear possibility – or an alternative light boosting process for 3D needs to be developed (the film-based projection system at Anachrome is evidently designed to maximize light and image size and keep costs down for theatres to convert more readily (albeit the large studios usually mentioned in articles of late don’t wish to go with film as they want to tie the 3D system into getting more theatres to convert to digital). Alternative viewing systems are also possible . . . large screen autostereoscopic systems are really unlikely anytime soon so don’t count on that for theatres. Even home autostereoscopic displays have issues with sweet spots and blurring of images (here in Taipei, there are demonstration autostereoscopic displays at Warner Village that are used for advertising vids and the sweet spots – while multiple – suck much with a quite a bit of ghosting if you move an inch or two while even the sweet spot is very blurry with quite a bit of compression artification or color loss . . . not anything you would want to watch for more than a few minutes as a gimmick and certainly not a viable option for home or theatrical entertainment or work display.

Of course a lot of folks are working their butts off in a race to be the first with a breakthrough product that sets the standard from which everyone else must then work. Just as most film cameras adopted a Realist format in the 1940s-1950s, someone wants to put their name on the format for 3D digital film entertainment.

I am optimistic about the future, albeit just as cautious as the next guy in regard to the short term . . . actually, that’s not true, I’m very optimistic about the short term but also both extremely skeptical of pie-in-the-sky forcasts and uberimpatient for more folks to see the light and get the damned products flooding the marketplace. I am sick of hearing about the coming 3D wave, I am ready for the 3D avalanche that floods the market and buries us all in total stereoscopic joy . . . but then, that’s me.