3D Film and television numbers
Before
diving into the current world of 3DTV, let’s look at some numbers that are most
relevant to the question of a successful future for 3-D film in specific, 3-D
as a medium overall and 3DTV as part of this.
Feature film boxoffice sales are not 3DTV program sales numbers, but
they are an indicator of audience appetite for 90 minutes of 3-D entertainment
of the highest quality level.
Besides this, 3-D feature films are currently still the biggest schedule fillers on 3DTV channels. Quality-wise, 3DTV content will always be a lot worse and budget-wise it
will always be an awful lot cheaper.
Those two factors are bad news for watchable 3-D production as quality is an absolute requirement for 3-D enjoyment or even watch-ability.
The highest
grossing 3-D movies Internationally, inflation corrected:
1. Avatar $2,853.6 m B: $280 m (2009) (
1.) Live-Action & CGI
2. The Avengers $1,511.8
m B: $220 m (2012) (
3.) Converted Live-Action & CGI
3. Pirates OTC 4 $1,051.5
m B: $250 m (2011) (10.) Live-Action & CGI
4. Alice IW $1,033.3
m B: $200 m (2010) (12.)
Converted Live-Action & CGI
5. Up $ 786.1 m B:
$175 m (2009) (47.) CGI
6. Kung Fu Panda 2 $ 681.9 m B:
$150 m (2011) (57.) CGI
7. Tangled $ 592.0 m B:
$260 m (2010) (74.) CGI
8. Cars 2 $ 573.5 m B:
$200 m (2011) (82.) CGI
9. Puss in Boots $ 568.2 m B:
$130 m (2011) (83.) CGI
10. Despicable me $ 547.9 m B:
$ 69 m (2010) (89.)
CGI
11. Brave $ 528.7 m B:
$185 m (2012) (92.) CGI
Key points that can be extracted from these numbers:
- Of the
top 100 highest grossing movies internationally, only 11 (11%) are in 3-D.
- All top 11
3-D movies were released in the past 3 years, coinciding with the digital 3-D theater projector switch-over and with a global economic crisis.
- All released in 2-D and in 3-D, percentages unknown.
- 4 live-action titles, 7 animated.
- 5 franchises (2nd,3rd or 4th parts), 6 new
titles.
- 2 Sci-fi titles, 9 Fantasy. No other
genres represented.
- Of the
live-action releases 2 are converted, 2 shot in native 3-D.
- 2 movies have budgets between $ 70 m - $ 130 m, the rest is $150 m - $ 280m,
with $ 200 m being the average budget.
According to personal boxoffice research conducted by Dreamworks' stereoscopic supervisor Phil McNally, MegaMind was the last CGI feature from any studio to show parity between 3-D screen revenue and 2-D screen revenue. Brave was the first CGI feature where 3D screen revenue was half that of 2D screen revenue. For Brave this would still mean a 3-D profit of 139 m USD, considering a 3-D budget overhead of 20% - a guess but a reasonable one considering Pixar's production pipeline.
The real
noticeable factors are the continued dominance of fantasy and sci-fi generes
for 3-D releases, as per the 100 year historical trend of 3-D feature film
releases and the dominance of 2-D to 3-D conversion for live-action 3-D
releases. The last factor has, of
course, a lot to do with budget and top quality conversion costs versus native
3-D shooting price points (15 m versus 60m on a 200 m budget). And when talking about CGI-content-rich
movies, conversion costs are even more of a realistic practical and financial proposition
than native 3-D shooting. The CGI-richness is of course driven by the genres of
sci-fi and fantasy and this, in turn, has a lot to do with the family audience
factor (U, PG and 12) and the higher ROI this yields at the boxoffice. The release of CGI features in 3-D speaks for
itself, but the question of child-safety and suitability is not answered by high
boxoffice numbers. This is a different
subject altogether.
One has to
be careful to call the success of these films a result of 3-D ticket sales as
well, because all these titles were released in 2-D and in 3-D, making it
difficult to filter out the difference the 3-D markup made.
What is
heart-warming to see is that the 3-D film with the best 3-D layout in 3-D film
history is also one of the highest grossing 3-D films of all time (nr. 7) and
at the same time one of the most expensive film productions of all time (nr.
8): Disney’s ‘Tangled’ (Rapunzel). The
expense has gone towards better 3-D layout and animation quality, resulting in
higher boxoffice returns. Perfect score.
Who’s paying for 3DTV content?
Of course
the biggest part of the 3DTV equation and the question on everybody’s lips is:
who is buying 3-D television content and for how much? The answer is sobering but there is hope on
the horizon. There are 3DTV broadcasters
around the world, but they are very few and very wide apart. Sky3D, 3Net and CCTV3D are the most quoted
names as they are the most visible 3-D broadcasters, but there are big caveats
with each of these channels.
The UK’s Sky3D
has its preferred suppliers of 3-D content, which fits perfectly within its
vertical platform model. Hardware,
software, channel, content and everything else within the Sky
infrastructure. They buy very few
external 3-D programs and commission even fewer programs.
The big
American name is 3Net, who have a reputation of paying really quite badly or not
at all for 3-D content – exceptions aside of course. However, 3Net have just announced the news
they are following Sky3D’s suit and have now started producing and distributing
their own in-house 3-D productions. More
vertical integration then and the gates are once again closed to most independent
3-D producers.
Nobody
knows what to expect from the third biggest name is 3-D broadcasting:
CCTV3D. As a Chinese channel, its
content will need to be predominantly Chinese (produced for the largest part in
China, by Chinese) so don’t expect too many foreign purchases. Besides this, the issue of copyrights and IP
still troubles the Chinese market, with official state owned shops selling
pirated copies of programs before the legal release is out. Let’s hope this is more and more of a rare
happening because it makes for a very unprofitable situation for everybody –
but the Chinese state.
 |
| Childrens programming on 3DTV Broadcasters: next to no choice |
The biggest
issue with all 3-D channels is the lock-down of worldwide rights, both 2-D and
3-D. 3DTV broadcaster (pre-) sales would
make sense if one was just talking about the 3-D rights. But that’s not the way these broadcasters
roll and thus the independent 3-D producer is faced with a situation where
either 2-D rights are sold to many international broadcasters and the 3-D
rights are thrown in for free, or alternatively the 2-D and 3-D rights are sold
or given away to one 3-D broadcaster with a very small audience share. We have to make a fist together as 3-D
content producers and not accept this practice.
Only when 3-D rights can be sold separately is there a realistic
healthy, long term future possible for TV 3-D broadcasting.
There is alternative
hope in the form of online / IP and Smart TV delivery platforms. Netflix has reserved a 3-D section is does,
on occasion, commission 3-D content.
Youtube has 3-D functionality and does also, on rare occasion,
commission content. But are we talking
about the same numbers 2-D broadcasters pay for programs? Or even 3-D overhead cover? Well, that depends on how fantastic and
mind-blowing your content really is and how badly Netflix or Youtube wants to
get its hands on digital / IP or global rights.
IP rights can mean, however, that no more sales to television
broadcasters are possible because once it’s on the net, it’s of no value to TV
any more – unless this is a different version of the program of course.
Some
producers are lucky enough to also find inroads with platforms such as IMAX,
Nintendo, Samsung and other alternative 3-D presentation brands and
formats. This can prove nicely
profitable but again it’s anyone’s guess whether you’ll get in and if so, how
much will be paid for your 3-D IP’s rights – and how non-exclusive those rights
sales are.
Allow 3-D
Revolution Productions to guide you through the jungle of 3DTV production and
distribution. Give us a ring or drop usa line. Tel. +44 1179 441 449
3-D Post Conversion for television
The fact is
that by far not enough new programs are produced in 3-D to meet the demand of
even the few 3DTV broadcasters in existence.
3-D production takes more time and costs more money and as such does not
fit the current television program delivery expectation. More for less is the word, not less for more. Most filler content (with all due respect) on regular television
broadcasters consists of library content – reruns – and for 3-D television
content this is simply not an option.
The only library content available in 3-D are 3-D movies from the
1953-54 period, the 1983-84 3-D boom,
IMAX specials since 1995 and some 4-D ridefilm content, followed by 3-D film
content produced after 2003. So
realistically speaking 3DTV needs to do what HD did: convert. Problem is, there is no such thing as
watchable automatic 2D-3D conversion like there is SD-HD upscaling. The results are simply never watchable
because the human- and even artist eye are needed to guide the conversion to
the right end results. Watchable first,
decent second, good third, but with an increased price tag at every step
up the quality ladder. This is no different from other entertainment product or any other product or service generally speaking. You get what you pay for. Do not believe hardware salesmen
claiming their automatic 2D-3D conversion is good enough for broadcast or ever
single use viewing – it isn’t and it will never be.
 |
| Yikes! That's gonna hurt! |
So
considering the requirement of the human
element, are 2D-3D conversion costs up to a level realistic to television? For prime-time television, specials and
higher than run-off-the-mill budgets only just, but for soap operas, cooking
programs, travelogues and quiz shows – probably not. The
budget for a television series will need to lie well above 16 million USD for
26x22’ episodes for conversion costs to be lower than the added cost of
shooting / rendering in 3-D. That is a rare number so native 3-D is still the way to go for television unless of
course native 3-D production is not possible.
For back-catalogue conversion or for a full series deal conversion costs
can work out – get in touch with 3-D Revolution Productions to find out whether
and how conversion can work for your television series or special production.
 |
| 3-D Conversion tests for various productions - by 3-D Revolution Productions |
Child safety
Regular
readers of this Blog will know how passionate we are about child viewing safety
in relation to 3-D content. Never more
so than with televised 3-D content does this become a key point of discussion. Since there are no regulations regarding
child-safe 3-D parameters, 3-D television program producers are left to their
own judgment as to just how safe their 3-D programs will be for young viewing
eyes. We can certainly consult for you on
safe and enjoyable 3-D production values, so contact 3-D Revolution Productionsfor more information on 3-D television and film production consultancy for full
family enjoyment to niche market extreme 3-D production.
 |
| The issue with 3-D parallax (interaxial) values and children's eye distance (interocular) |
Familiar
entries in the 3-D kids television market are ‘Dream Defenders’ and ‘Bolts and
Blip’, both of which were produced with child enjoyment in mind. The opposite, however, is true for the more
recent arrivals in the 3-D kids TV arena of ‘Cloud Bread’ and ‘JunkVille Story’.
Both series were produced in stereoscopic
3-D CGI in South Korea – and this is no coincidence because the South Korean
government put up specific subsidies for 3-D stereoscopic animation production
to further the technological lead of the country’s animation producers and to
promote co-production with them as well - a situation that was very much the case with Dream Defenders and Bolts and Blip as well.
Because of the subsidies, these producers are able to throw in the 3-D
output for free and as another consequence, the 3-D is unmonitored and in fact
uncomfortable to view for even adult eyes.
Will the EBU care? The commercial
broadcasters picking up the shows in 3-D?
Perhaps Sky3D will be less than pleased since their 1% - 2% parallax
rule is broken by both shows, but beggars can’t be choosers so I doubt they
will say no to these shows on this ground.
From a perspective of child safety and enjoyment, the shows should fail
QC, but from a commercial perspective that is like throwing out the baby with
the bathwater. Quite literally in this
case.
 |
Cloud Bread introduced parallax values uncomfortable and impossible to watch
for its target audience of 3-5 year olds |
The public
broadcasters in Europe are aware of the potential issues with 3-D for children’s
television and will subsequently not touch 3-D overall just to be safe. By doing this, they are following the blanket
cover warning advice by Nintendo 3DS and Panasonic TVs that under 8s should
probably not be watching 3-D content or at least take as many breaks from
watching as possible. Without industry
standards this approach will remain a stumbling block for 3-D content
producers. But, as said, by working with
stereoscopic consultants such as 3-D Revolution’s, quality and safety
guarantees can be delivered. It is not a matter of 3-D being good or bad for children's eyes, it's a matter of applying proper child-safe 3-D image values.
Don’t undersell
There are
plenty of technical and creative factors that can go wrong with 3-D. Hiring a stereographer on your production can
help enormously towards eliminating these potential issues. One very true fact remains: 3-D sells itself
when done well and pisses people off when it is screwed up. And screwing up doesn’t just include
technical issues – the creative side is equally important. 3-D can do a lot of very interesting things
for your image, for your vision, but when appled in the wrong way it will work
against you. An important factor
producers and directors forget all too easily as well is that if and when 3-D
is underused, it will work against you equally badly.
Many a time
have directors told me out of screen 3-D (negative parallax) is ‘Gimmicky’. Instructed by James Cameron they are certain
of the fact that the use of theater space cheapens their artistic vision and
hurts the audience’s eyes, besides harking back to days of 3-D old. What types of artistic product are we talking
about here? Toilet paper commercials,
short animated clips about sheep, dogs and cats causing havock and films about pirates
swashbuckling with Queen Victoria over possession of a Dodo. The word ‘gimmicky’ seems somewhat odd in
this context.
 |
| Shaun the Sheep 3DS test setup |
What
matters most is that the result of leaving negative parallax out of the picture
is almost always grave disappointment to the audience. The viewer expects 3-D to come flying out of
the screen at many occasions and even considers it a reason for the 3-D
upcharge at the boxoffice and the reason for putting on glasses to watch TV in
3-D. Directors need to start listening
to their audiences (and their stereographers) and use an awful lot more out of
screen 3-D. The 3DTV commercials already
look ridiculously unrepresentative when they show a whole world coming out of
the TV screen, when nothing of the sort happens today due to slavish copying of
the idolized 3-D director that is James Cameron. A true creative shame, a fudging of great
potential and a real financial danger to the sustainability of 3-D. Why
produce in 3-D when you refuse to use 50% of the available space? Some 3-Dimensional soul-searching needs to be
done today to keep the dream of 3DTV alive tomorrow. If we don’t engage with the medium creatively
and in a financially sound way, the 3-D setting will disappear into a menu
setting nobody is aware of any more.
Broadcast 3DTV budgets & economic 3-D production reality
Posts
