okay....BIG ISSUE>>> going to see alice in wonderland today in disney digital 3D. Completely forgot to order my husband a new pair of contact lenses so he has one eye without one.....Are we facing a Major Issue? We are excited about going tonight but it just dawned on me the potential problems we could face. It has yet to cross his mind...so is it going to be a big deal or can we make it fly without the whole 3d effect being ruined?

my local theater show Avatar in Digital 3D. The next closest theatre shows it in RealD 3D. Neither is IMAX. What's the difference?

I've seen Avatar in IMAX 3D, LieMax 3D, Real D as well as dolby 3D. Here are my comments:

1. First of all, the IMAX 3D ratio is 1.78:1, so most LieMax screens are almost fully filled, while classic IMAX screens will have letterbox at the top and bottom of the screen. But most classic IMAX screens are still larger because they are essentially wider. However, if you get a reasonably large LieMax screen, the result is almost as good as classic IMAX because this movie is not shot in 70mm. But make sure that your LieMax screen is large. Otherwise it is a rip off. Only IMAX and LieMax screens show the film's original 1.78:1 ratio, so this is a big plus.

2. I don't notice a significance between IMAX 3D and Real D in terms of color or depth. They are both very good. However, the 2.35:1 ratio of the Real D really eliminates some 3D effects especially at the bottom of the screen because they are cut off.

3. I never heard of Dolby 3D before but saw good reviews online so I went to their website and found one theater nearby with Dolby 3D. After seeing the movie, I was so disappointed. Yes it felt a little bit more stable but the colors are completely washed out. An important attraction of Avatar is the bright colors in my opinion, so this is not acceptable to me. The glasses look filthy and I can't distinguish whether it is really filthy or because there are some substances intentionally put into the glasses, which is really disturbing. In an IMAX 3D or Real D theater, if I sit still, I wouldn't get any ghosts either, and for a movie like Avatar, believe me, you will sit still because you are so focused on the movie. The Dolby 3D, with its loss of the colors, is really not worth it for the stable effect. Dolby's 2D digital screens are awsome but for 3D, it really sucks and I will never see another movie in Dolby 3D again.

Note: washing glasses in an industrial washer does nothing for the damn scratches across the lenses, especially after being used for multiple viewings, which made for an unpleasant Avatar viewing experience. The fact that the movie's so-called story sucked didn't help either.

I heard in an interview between Jackson and Cameron that they were assisting in an iPhone with 3D tech without glasses?? Anyway, 3D will only survive if they drop the glasses.

We have the Dolby glasses at the theater that I work. And yes, we do wash them after every show. We have an industrial dishwasher which holds about 20 glasses. Our 3D theater holds about 400 people, so washing and drying them after a nearly sold out show (which Avatar usually is) takes forever. It takes three of us more than one hour to wash and dry about 200 glasses.

The dishwasher sure wasn't made for washing 3D-glasses. IDK if there are any washing machines especially designed for Dolby glasses but it sure would be nice to have a machine that dries them after the washing cycle. I personally haven't seen any of the other glasses besides the ones that are used at the IMAX but I really don't like the way the Dolby ones are constructed. Sometimes the glass ... well, or plastic... just falls out of the frame. And after you wash them all the water gets caught on the edges of the glass.

You can't leave them to dry on they own because there would be to many water stains left on the glass... so we actually use hair dryers. I heard that this wasn't recommended because it might damage the coating on the glass. But it turned out to be "easiest" and cheapest way that is practiced in most theaters in our region.

For those of you reading this, there are differences between the various 3D systems that can be quite noticable. For one, Dolby is a sort of anaglyph although the problems associated with the old way of doing it and Dolby are quite different. The problem I have had with this (at a screening in Dolby Digital of HONDO last year) is that, first of all, the Dolby glasses do not have a very wide field of view and can cause vignetting if you sit too close to the screen. Another problem is that due to the unique filtering system of the Dolby glasses, they can sometimes reflect unwanted light and furthermore, if you tilt your head up and down you may very see color shifting which I find unacceptable.

With XPand, the glasses are a little heavier than passive glasses, but otherwise may be better on color.

Both of these systems do not require exhibitors to use silver screens and therefore installation costs for theatres are less expensive.

With both Imax Digital and Imax film, the glasses are polarized, although the tech specs on the polarizers for each system may be somewhat different. Also, the resolution is obviously higher with Imax film - but with the Digital version of the format, there is no physical film movement, which makes up for some of the lost resolution. Presently, Imax digital is on smaller screens but advances in digital projection technology (including laser light) may change all of that during 2010, at least on the larger and currently film based Imax screens. In any event, when the lights go down, the experience is similar because it takes up more of one's field of view. Both versions of Imax 3D are also discreet, which eliminates some minor artifacts associated with Real-D, XPand and Dolby. The glasses for Imax digital have thick frames which definately could be improved upon.

The current champion of 3D systems for multiplexes is Real-D, which allows for circular polarized presentations, which means you can move your head anyway you want and not lose the 3D image (which also holds true for the other digital systems). The glasses are disposable or can be kept as souveniers and possibly used in the future for some of the upcoming HD3D Tv's coming up - but not all.

Either way, the difficulties associated with 1950's and even 1980's 3D formats are mostly gone - its mostly a matter of exhibitors putting enough light through those projectors - which is where Imax currently is the leader.
However, higher rez projectors (such as Sony 4K combined with Real-D technologhy and glasses will most likely eliminate that problem as well.

As far as AVATAR goes, its really a blessing to the expansion of 3D in both movies and on television - and it really deserves the accolades that it is getting from critics and audiences alike

The whole 3D phenomenon honestly surprises me. It's a gimmick. Sure, it's fun to watch but I don't want to see all of my movies that way. Not even all of my action or special effect spectacles that way. I certainly wouldn't want it to be my initial viewing experience. It's distracting. In many ways it takes away from the movie. That's just one reason I have zero desire to see Avatar. It's being pushed on virtually nothing other than its 3D.

Cinemas in France seem to have all converted to the Real D technology, and from my previous experiences with 3D in Dolby (Coraline) and Imax ("Beowulf" at Disneyland Paris, the ONLY cinema left in the country still playing Imax movies), well, Real D seems really like the obvious choice : not only is the picture much brighter, but the strain on the eyes is absolutely negligible : we left this 3-hours long movie without the slightest trace of a headache (Nobel-prize winning stuff, in my opinion). Also, they make you buy your own glasses, so you can only blame yourself if there's dirt all over them !

France has only 32 RealD theaters. And about 300 3D prints for Avatar. So almost half is going in Dolby3D. And other half in Xpand.

No, it has much more.
RealD site is not updated.
Gaumont started to convert a lot of theaters into RealD.
They are ditching Xpand, at last.

If that's true in could explain enormous grosses in France so far. But still I think you have many Dolby and Xpand theaters.

Guys, in IMAX 3D Avatar going in 1:78:1, while in others 3D formats only 2.35:1.

So what the RealD or Dolby3D better Imax you are talking about??

Saw it in film classic Imax - it was stunning, unbelievable experience, I've never saw nothing like this before (and I saw almost every 3D movie + Imax short movies).

I'll try next week Imax Digital. But don't want waste my time and money with Dolby3D (the worse system for A), Xpand or even RealD (although it seems in Moscow we has only RealD 2k DLP).

I'm not sure if everybody knows this, but there are actually two projector technologies RealD is using: 1. Texas Instruments' 2k DLP (Digital Light Processing), and 2. Sony's 4k SXRD (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display) that allows to project the image for the right and the left eye at the same time. I saw "Avatar" twice in two different cinemas using each one of those technologies. Well, Sony rocks. The contrast is better, the colours are as bright as those seen without the glasses using DLP projector, and most importantly no ghosting.

The theatre I work at has one RealD theatre, and one recently converted IMAX theatre. Unfortunately, I work too often to watch movies, but from what I have watched of Avatar in IMAX, it's beautiful. I haven't caught any of our RealD version yet, but from what my co-workers have said there is a significant difference between the two. The IMAX, from what I'm told, pops more and is just much more vibrant and immersive.

The only issue I have with the IMAX is those fucking glasses. We sell out practically every IMAX show we have, and cleaning 470 glasses every 3 hours is a nightmare. We use the industrial washer, which is easy to use and can clean fifty glasses in 2 minutes, but drying them is a bitch. We were originally given an air compressor to dry them, and that worked fine when times were slow. But once the holidays hit and we were cleaning glasses like mad, we had to buy a leaf blower just so we can push those glasses out as fast as possible.

And to top it all off, we lose about 10-30 pairs of glasses every show because these jerks think their ticket entitles them to a "free" pair of $50 glasses to take home. The glasses are useless outside of the theatre, but dammit those kids just gotta have their glasses. With how many we lose in a week, it's damn near impossible to keep enough on hand. Pisses me right the fuck off.

Saw it on release in RealD and was impressed at the clarity and depth, took glasses off and image on screen looked like the 3D but with slight haze around objects but otherwise very viewable. Watched it again yesterday in Dolby Digital 3D and the 3D effect was more pronounced but the lenses distorted the colors, when off the screen looked much like the old 3D films, 2 discernible overlapping images. Saw the Avatar Day footage in IMax, and of the three I would have to say it was the most impressive/immersive.

Only have the option of RealD in my area (two local theaters both use RealD), so I can't compare the full release. I did watch the Avatar Day footage in the summer in an IMAX 3D theater though, but it was one of the Digital IMAX theaters. In terms of the 3D, I didn't notice any difference between the two formats.

Anyways, the Avatar RealD presentation I watched was fantastic. Very immersive, colors were bright, no ghosting and only minor eye strain. Also the projection was nice and bright. The other local theater seems to have a dimmer projection.

RealD 3D is going to win the war because it's the best

I don't know which glasses are which but the ones I wore for The Final Destination and Toy Story 1 + 2 3D were much more comfortable (over top of my normal glasses) than the IMAX glasses were at Avatar. Next time there's a 3D movie I think I'll avoid seeing it IMAX, just to avoid those glasses.

I work at a multiplex that uses the RealD system. We don't wash the glasses at the theater ourselves, they get boxed up and sent back to Technicolor for "recycling." The glasses we use are all sealed in plastic and so the lenses can't be touched before the customer uses them. There's no other 3D theaters in my area, so I thought it was like that everywhere. If I paid $11.25 for a ticket and got some smudged up used glasses I would be pissed!

I felt that IMAX was more brilliant but less consistent. The 3D "popped" more but around the edges it was kinda crappy double vision. RealD was super consistent all the way through. I never saw double with RealD but it didn't seem to pop as much as IMAX. I prefer RealD over Imax a bunch though.

The IMAX glasses were nearly impossible to wear over regular glasses and the lenses were spotty. The RealD glasses were a little more comfortable but still sucked having to wear them over glasses.

The people here saying 3D is a gimmick, that 2D is better, and so on really don't have any idea what's going on. I admit I was skeptical to 3D before it began to catch on, but man, after seeing a movie in 3D, especially Avatar, I can see why it's going to be the future of movies. The impression that I get from most non-buffs is that they agree, though the price is slightly off-putting.
And for the record, I've only seen 3D films in RealD and I was quite fine with it. The image seemed fine and you can keep the glasses.

There were moments in Avatar (watched in RealD) and the 3D was so well done that I forgot the 3D was 'happening'. The technology took a big step forward with Avatar, but it still has a long way to go.

I've seen a few movies in real 3D and have been impressed by them all with no complaints. I saw Avatar on opening night in IMAX 3D and it was the worst 3D I've ever experienced. The film didn't look clear or as colorful and many of the characters had outlines the entire movie (like I was seeing doubles). Also, if I didn't look straight ahead the film would be blurry. After the film I was incredibly dizzy and so were many others in the theater. Just awful. I'm not sure if this is an IMAX thing or just the theater I saw it in. I've since seen Avatar in regular real 3D and it's been flawless.

Avoid Xpand and Dolby 3D, they suck big time. They are bulky, non comfortable and gives strain to the eyes.
The best thing is polarized glasses, like RealD and some Imax 3D (not all has it).
They don't give you any headache and the glasses are much more comfortable

I saw Avatar in Imax3D, and it was good. My problem though is I had to sit on the side of the theater in the 2 seat row. If I saw from a better angle though it would be better. My theater also uses Real3D and I've seen a few movies in it. The only difference I think has to do not with the glasses, but that one was Imax and the other was regular.I haven't seen any in Dolby3D.

My main problem with RealD is how severely affects the vibrancy of the colors. After seeing the Toy Story double feature and then A Christmas Carol, if you flip the glasses on and off you can see an extreme difference. Toy Story should not look that drab.

Also, I used to work at an IMAX theatre here in Noblesville, IN, and we did have an industrial dishwasher for the IMAX glasses. We would clean the glasses at the beginning of each day. When I worked there, we didn't have any huge audiences for IMAX 3D movies (probably a max of 50 people per day for the 40-minute documentaries), so we had plenty of glasses for a whole day.

There's something kind of sad about the photo attached to this article. It's a bunch of old men staring blankly at a movie screen. None of them look engaged, none of them look entertained. with 3D, there's no whiz-bang excitement or storytelling to be had. Only dollar signs.

I work at a theater in San Diego that uses the Dolby 3D glasses and you are correct, we do have to use an industrial washer to clean them. But no matter how hot the water gets they never dry by themselves they still require hand cleaning. Usually we end up washing them by hand to skip the tedious process of loading and unloading the washer.

My real gripe is with the glasses themselves. The glasses don't contour to your face well enough to ensure that you are looking clearly through the glass. It either will reflect your eye right back at you or you will spend the movie with the corners of the glasses appearing as if they have dirt on them. It's one of our biggest problems. It looks as if the glasses are dirty but really the material the glass is made out of has a weird smudge-looking tint to it, that if it isn't right in front of your eye is very distracting. For 27 bucks a glass it really is a rip off.

I have seen movies in RealD and while the 3D was fine, I felt that the glasses made the screen a little too dim. I would find myself getting tired during the movies. The theater next door to me has Dolby 3D which I find to be a more enjoyable experience. Yes the glasses are a little bulky and and re-used, but I find the 3D to be better and the screen is not as dim as it is with RealD.

Seen the movie Avatar in 3D first in XpanD and then in RealD.

XpanD
- Glasses are small and re-used. So they are dirty and have accumulated scratches all over.
- Glasses are narrow/small and heavy/uncomfortable.
- Most importantly - because of thickness and/or green hue the colors of the movie are washed out and darker (compared to RealD).

RealD
- Comfortable and new glasses!
- Brighter colors
- It seemed to be to have a better 3D effect, but might because of the 2 reasons stated above...

I've seen both the RealD and IMAX3D incarnations and really couldn't tell the difference. With RealD, I was sitting towards the front of the theater, so my experience was a little skewed. Some subtitles were cut off because of the angle I was viewing it from. However, both were pretty similar, didn't notice any difference.

I saw Avatar again last night. For what it is worth, I saw it at the 20th Century Fox lot at the Zanuck theater (the largest theater on the lot) in Real 3D. That the studio that made Avatar uses Real 3D in their own theater must say something about the relative quality of the various technologies. My only issue was some ghosting as characters approached he edges of frame. Also, 3D works best when you look where the director wants you to be looking--meaning the part of the image in focus. When your brain tries to fuse images that are out of focus it is working much harder, and you are more likely to end up with a headache for the effort. Since this was my 3rd viewing, I was looking around the frame much more, and definitely felt more eye-strain.

Finally, the reason that Avatar doesn't feel extremely "3D" is because pushing 3D towards the audience requires the viewer to do much more work to resolve the two images (the farther the image appears to float off screen, the more you must cross your eyes to fuse the left and right pictures). This leads to eye-strain, and over a 3 hour movie you would not be happy. Rather, Avatar chose to let the depth largely take place behind the plane of the screen. It gives you a richer experience than 2D, but does not lead to nearly as much eye-strain.

I have seen it in IMAX3D and RealD and I would say it isnt fair to compare the two. The IMAX experience (and I do the mean the big screens not the
"IMAX-light" ones) is more immersive. Where as with the RealD you need to be closer to the screen. I wasn't, so the 3-D was a bit unnecessary since there was a black border and peoples heads framing the movie. So the 3-D didn't play all that well. Also I found the RealD glasses to be odd since there was reflective glass on the inside of the lens which made some of the day scenes look muddy (i'm guessing its because there was a reflection of my face on the inside of the lens).

IMO: IMAX-3D (big screen) wins.

I would need to see a couple of movies in the various formats of 3d one after the other to notice a difference I think. We only have RealD where I live anyways. Also, 3d is sort of lame and it's so "immersive" that after 2 minutes you dont even notice that its 3d anyways sp who cares.

Thanks for the civil, straightforward reactions, everyone. I'm still no fan of 3D, but I love seeing how a variety of other people react to it, and this helps us understand a lot more about how 3D works in the wild, without any studio spin.

I live in France. 3D is really knew here. Except for Paris, a lot of theaters just recently got equipped with 3D for Avatar. There is only one Imax screen showing Avatar in the whole country and it's dodgy one ( I don't think I got the full Imax experience)
I saw Avatar in RealD 3 times. The first time was underwhelming, it fely blury. I inquired and was told I shouldn't sit on the sides of the theater but in the center with my head upright. Did that and the second and the third time it helped a lot, loved the visuals etc.
Yesterday, I tried Xpand with a friend, it was his second viewing of Avatar. First thing that bugged us was the amount of light the green lenses absorded. Very annoying in the dark forest bits. Also the 3D doesn't pop as much as RealD. The computer screens that blew my mind in RealD felt a lot flatter for example.
RealD is the way to go for me I'm kind of a sucker for gimmicky effects, even if it does get blurry sometimes. Xpand apart from the brightness problem delivers a less extravagant experience, you get the sense of depth but no bling. I can understand why people prefer the later.

I saw it in Dolby 3D and was hugely disappointed..my eyes hurt and the 3D wasn't impressive. few days later I saw Avatar again with Xpand..and it was mind blowing..I really felt like I was on Pandora. and the glasses are more comfortable and the field of vision is bigger..the Dolby glasses are small and very dark. XPAND FTW.

@ Kevin

Yeah, I wondered the same thing too

I saw the RealD version of Avatar before the IMAX 3d version, it was awesome, then I went to the IMAX screen and saw it in 3d, and it WAS even BETTER! The colors seemed more vibrant, dont know if it was the huge ass screen that made the difference, or if the IMAX experience offers better coloring.. but that was my experience anyway. I also just watched it in 2D, and.....while still great, doesnt compare....the 3d wasnt so much in your face like other films try to be but, it compliments the film and the effect is amazing..... IMAX 3d is the way to go..as far as the other technologies go....its all the same to me

why dont they just put the 3d material thats in the glasses in front of the screen so nobody has to wear glasses??/

lol, please don't be serious

Then you don't get seperation between the eyes. The system works because each eye is seeing a different thing. Can't work without glasses covering each one.

It doesn't really work that way. As everyone in the audience is in a different place, the material has to be directly in front of your eyes to work.

I saw it in realD and absolutely loved it. I didn't get to see Coraline in 3D but heard it was excellent and I loved Up in 2D and heard the 3D was nice, but unnecessary. I can't imagine watching Avatar any other way after seeing it though.The 3D was used perfectly. Not over the top or in your face, but subtly. It drew me into it all. I was on the fence about 3D, but if more movies take the Avatar approach, I'm game. I really want to see it in IMAX 3D because I have to imagine that on a screen that size with 3D it's like a completely different experience. Having to use glasses used by someone else isn't terrible, but also isn't ideal. I'd hope that would be remedied somehow in the future if 3D really does catch on.

i saw it in 3D at the hayden orpheum in sydney here. and i think what will make the real difference is digital projection. as soon as this becomes more widespread and people see the difference it will put more buts in seats.

This is called the "Placebo Effect". Unless you are talking about stereoscopic digital projection, which I have yet to experience.

If you are trying to say that digital projectors are superior to film projectors then you're mistaken. Theaters are switching to digital projectors because it saves distributors money (no need to truck film reels) and that benefits the exhibitors. If you want to try to disagree, go ahead.

I'm no expert, but I'm studying cinematography and have taken classes that get into the fine details. Modern 35mm film emulsion is at least about 4-6k resolution (if we're talking strictly in pixels, or silver halide crystals... if you will). As far as I know most of the digital projectors being installed right now are 2k (yes, there are some 4k). And this is without going into an argument about color space of film vs. digital projection.

ok: i disagree now.

the 4-6k resolution is just theoretical - you do not get the 4-6 on the screen and here are the 2 reasons why:

1. the film get copied a few times during the mastering process. The theoretical minimum is one time (from negative to positive) - normal when its in the movietheatere its a 3rd or 4th gen. copy. You loose a good part of resolution and quality here (and double, tripple... the filmgrain too.)

2. when a 35mm movie is showed on a big screen, it is not steady. It moves, "vibrates" up and down. This is normal with every 35mm projector because of its mechanics (only analog IMAX is different because it uses complete different mechanics.) You dont notice it from a normal viewing distance, but here you lose resolution big time! (If you want to see the effect clearly, go during movie credits right to the screen and you will think "WTF?"

And thats why you have 4-6k in the camera, but not more then 2k on the screen.

Yes - i give you the color space. But i even that out with the complete absence of dust and scratches....

Greets Alex (yes, my name too)

Wait, are these competing 3D techs under the umbrella category of stereoscopic digital projection or do they work with a single projector?