John west 3D Cinema and Other Formats
My local cinema has Sony Real 3D HD equipment and the sound and picture quality is excellent. “Avatar” looked superb. I must admit to enjoying large-screen cinema experiences. I feel that TODD AO was better than IMAX, as the aspect ratio is more sensible, as the eye sees a wide image so the extra height of IMAX does nothing to improve the viewing experience. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” shown in IMAX, looked better with its 2.1:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, the image was duller and noticeably grainier than the 35mm 2.39:1 prints seen elsewhere and there was noticeable “ghosting” between the right and left images, which spoilt the 3D effect. Digital 3D images have no perceptible “ghosting” and caused (me) no headaches.
A Rank projectionist said that what killed the 70mm “road shows” was that after the first few minutes, if the film was good, you were immersed in the action and you forgot about the film format and if the film was poor, the better picture quality would not save it. Had the 70mm films been better than their 35mm counter-parts they might have survived longer, but the extra cost of the prints and equipment made exhibitors and production companies reluctant to continue with them. He went on to say that when the 70mm print of one epic got damaged in Cardiff, he was told to send the print he had, over to Cardiff and Norwich audiences were shown a ‘scope print for the rest of its run. No-one noticed the difference… (There is enough height on a 35mm 2.39:1 “squeezed” print to allow it to be shown on a screen with a ratio of 2.1:1; the 70mm-equipped Odeon Norwich, always showed their ‘scope prints in this aspect ratio. It saved having to move their 49’curved screen’s top masking, which was liable to jam…)
As digital copies are cheaper than 35mm prints and 3D films currently get bigger audiences than “flat” versions, 3D cinema is likely to continue and more films are likely be made in this format for as long as it makes more money. What really matters is the quality of the content of the film. (For instance, today TV pictures and sound have never been better, but the content of the programmes is often much lower than in TV’s “Golden Years” when TV companies did not mind spending money on excellence, which is why I spend more time in the cinema than watching TV.)