It doesn't matter to me if you believe what I say or not. Although some may never believe me, I'm really not trying to manipulate the stock. It seems to me that it's in sad enough shape all by itself. But I'm not so naive to believe that what I said might not have an impact on some of you. I really don't have a horse in this race. Nor I am trying to "save you from yourselves". You're all big boys and girls. I just wanted to point out a few technical facts that don't seem to be known by this group at large. Or if you do know about the technology, I hoped to place it in some sort of context for you. I believe I made it clear that my comments were directed at NVXE's movie technology only.
I didn't say that NVXE's motion picture technology is antiquated as in obsolete. Film technology and film standards are so stable that technologies have a very long commercial life (unlike electronics or digital technologies). However, the concept and technology have been around for a long time. This is not some magical new innovation. 3D has heretofore been a boom and bust technology. The booms have been short and far between. Should there be a renewed interest in 3D for theatrical markets, there are several deep-pocketed competitors capable of going after the market in a meaningful way. NVXE would have a very hard time in such a circumstance. Even if it succeeds in reopening the market, it would likely be an "also ran". The trends in the theatrical exhibition marketplace (a market which I follow with a microscope) may appear on the surface to support the NVXE concept, but closer inspection of the underlying technology causes me to doubt its specific relevance in this rapidly evolving market. Some key trends actually are in direct opposition to NVXE's technological base. My initial comments in this regard were in response to several previous posts which seemed to suggest that when the movie industry discovers NVXE, they'll be banging down the doors to get in. The movie business is really small and tight. There are virtually no secrets, particularly in the technology sector. Many people in the business are always looking for "the next big thing". 3D may be one of those things, but is NVXE's technology "it". I have serious reservations.
As for the use of NVXE's technology on Terminator 3D at Universal, the vast majority of that film was shot with dual Showscan CP65 (65mm) cameras (for 70mm 3D release). I've closely studied the technology used, and I've seen the film, have you? This 65/70mm 3D technology has approximately 6-8 times more film area than the 35mm over-and-under 3D system. That makes a huge difference to image resolution. Because of the unnatural way 3D movies work on our eyes, image sharpness and brightness are absolutely essential. Large film formats (such as 70mm) work in the favor of 3D. 35mm has to struggle to achieve an acceptable 3D image on small to medium size screens. When it gets into mainstream commercial movie theatres which are inconsistent to say the least, the inadequacies of the technology become apparent. The screen size being used for Terminator 3D is 50 feet wide. Disney theme parks have 3D film theatres with a similar 70mm 3D format which have 50-60 foot wide screens. 35mm over-and-under 3D produces a barely acceptable image on small cinema screens - forget about screen of this size. And forget about the idea of blowing up 35mm 3D to 70mm. The ultimate image quality is derived from the original film. It is misleading in the extreme to suggest that Chris Condon's 3D technology had a significant role in the Terminator 3D production.
As for the reference to "Miramax". I mentioned the giant screen company IMAX. Miramax is a film producer/distributor. If you're going to attack me, at least get the names straight.
If you need some perspective on the potential of 35mm 3D, you should study the last 3D mini-boom in the 1980s. Remember "Jaws 3D", "Comin' at Ya!", "Space Hunter" and other 3D classics? No? There are hundreds of 3D projection lenses kicking around from that era. What happened last time? Are the 35mm 3D technologies currently available and NVXE's in particular that much superior to those from the 1980s? In fact, the last 3D boom died so suddenly and completely that several technologies in development at that time never really saw the light of day (or a film set) in actual 3D production. I've seen some of them. Very elegant. Those technologies simply need to be "dusted off" and offered up against that which NVXE has to offer. However, I believe that any 35mm 3D technology by any manufacturer or supplier has similar fundamental problems which limit its market potential in the new reality of theatrical exhibition.
Someone went after me for ignoring NVXE's television potential. I pointed out that I didn't comment on this sector of NVXE's business because I don't know enough about it, even though I probably know more about it from a technical perspective than most of you. I didn't attempt to make any qualitative judgements about NVXE's potential in the tv market. I'm not interested in that market, so I don't follow it. Maybe NVXE will make a killing in that market. Who knows? I certainly don't. If you believe it will, you're probably guessing. My focus was on the area that I know something about.
Fifteen years ago HDTV was just around the corner. It's still just around the corner. HDTV represents a quantum improvement in quality, and consumers seem to want it, but it has been bogged down by a myriad of technological and economic factors. Good or even great technology is always just a base line. If fact, it's often the easy part of the equation. Penetrating markets is the hard part. Ignoring its technology, NVXE is ill equipped from a financial perspective to do that.
I posted because I became frustrated by some of the misinformation I was reading. Because of what I know, and from my perspective, I simply don't have confidence in the fundamental technological base of NVXE's technology. Because I don't believe in the technology, I don't believe in its market potential.
Ultimately, if it matters to you, I'd suggest that those who really want to know about what NVXE's is up against should do some more DD because the facts are all at your disposal if you do some digging. If you don't need to know more than you already do, then nothing I say matters. That's ok with me.
I really do hope that you all do well with the stock. Losing money is no fun. Making it is. If having a little more info or even a different perspective is offensive to some, that's unfortunate. As capable investors you should suspect anyone who posts negative info or opinions. Damn me if you will. I'll not be offended. I'm attempting to add a little balance to what I perceived to be (forgive me) somewhat unqualified assessments of NVXE's technology and market potential. Perhaps my post will even cause NVXE to attempt to refute my statements. Even if NVXE convinces you that I am dead wrong on every count, surely the info that would come out of NVXE in such circumstances would at least be enlightening to you as investors.
Believe it or not, my motives in writing the post were to get you thinking, not to trash NVXE. And I don't mean to imply that this is a scam of any kind. I suspect that they are well intended, ambitious, hardworking folks operating in extremely difficult conditions. And the addition of Chris Condon to the team is a good move. He is a brilliant, innovative technical guy. But he's not the only one out there in this field.
In my opinion (free of charge and worth every penny), NVXE is up against some stiff obstacles for success in the theatrical film market. Check it out yourself. Or not.
Sorry if this post is rambling. No time for editing tonight.
If anyone wants to ask specific questions, I'll attempt to answer them as best I can. You can be the judge as to my knowledge or sincerity.
Your pal (believe it or not),
Greg |
