Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : NVEI (Was NVXE) - New Visual Entertainment Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim B who wrote (382)	3/31/1998 7:48:00 PM
From: Greg Lowry	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 2211

I've been lurking here for a month or so, and I've read all of the posts. I'm not an NVXE investor, and don't intend to be. I follow the company because I'm in the motion picture business and I have a specific interest in 3D technology. I really don't want to be overly critical, but under the circumstances it's hard not to be. As investors with limited exposure to the field of film technology, I would like to tell you that the NVXE technology, at least for theatrical movies (I don't know about the tv technology) is based on a system that has been around for several decades. The idea of splitting the standard 35mm frame in half and stacking the left and right images on top of each other is old news, as is the lens technology. The last wave of commercial 3D movies in the early 1980s used this basic format. At least four different technology suppliers using the same basic format where involved at that time. Yes, Chris Condon is recognized as a pioneer in this field, but as far as I know NVXE has no motion picture technologies which cannot be equaled or surpassed by any number of other technology developers, most of which have much deeper pockets (that wouldn't take much. Sorry, couldn't resist). One of the problems with this over-and-under 35mm 3D format is that it is really only useful for smallish cinema screens. Consider that each left and right eye image (stereo pair) uses half of the standard 35mm film frame. These two images are essentially superimposed over each other with a slight offset. The size of the original image is for all intents and purposes half of a standard 35mm frame. This is a relatively small image which doesn't hold up well on big screens. Therefore, the bigger the screen, the less sharp the image. This is exacerbated by the polarizing filters used on the projector and for the glasses which reduce the amount of light reaching the screen by as much as 75%. The result is eye-strain which gets in the way of the entertainment experience. (The electronic 3D glasses are not practical for the mainstream cinema market.) The NVXE system might be ok for screens in the 20-25 foot wide range, but cinema screens are getting bigger, and small screens are being replaced quite quickly. I am also aware of at least two new 3D systems in development which have the potential to make NVXE extinct. The idea that NVXE is a potential competitor to IMAX is ridiculous. Everyone in the industry knows about the the 35mm over-and-under 3D format. It's not as if NVXE only has to get the word out and Hollywood will come running. The whole subject is much more complex. I think NVXE has bet on a technology which isn't really positioned for the future. If 3D makes a new appearance on cinema screens, there are several other technologies waiting in the wings to kick NVXE's undercapitalized ass. This is marginal technology and a weak company. I don't know where it's future lies, but I doubt that it will be a significant player in the theatrical film sector. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but you don't have to believe me. The truth is out there if you really go looking for it. Due diligence shouldn't be limited to talking to NVXE management and looking at its technology. Competition and other market factors are of equal importance.