Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3D Glasses

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » 3D Glasses (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: 3D Glasses

Jon P. Inghram
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 124
From: Wichita, KS USA
Registered: Jan 2007

posted 07-14-2008 03:40 PM

Expanding on Tristans description of Dolby 3D, the filter wheel has two different narrowband RGB dichroic filters which match the same filters in the glasses.

The left and right 3D filters each block all colors except a different set of three narrow frequencies and are chosen so that the filter on one eye can completely block the light from the other eye while still having adequate color reproduction.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007

posted 07-14-2008 03:43 PM

Regarding selling the glasses... you could get a pair of glasses as normal when you buy a ticket to your first 3D show. You then get to keep the glasses.
How about bringing the glasses back to subsequent 3D showings, and they give you a discount on the ticket price? At least then you'd have your own pair and know exactly who has been wearing them for future viewings [Smile]

When the Leeds Light cinema ran Spy Kids 3D and Sharkboy & Lavagirl (both anaglyph), they only let patrons borrow the glasses for the duration of the show. Like with IMAX, you had to return the glasses at the end - even though they were very cheap cardboard glasses! Most other UK cinemas would just give out the glasses when you bought tickets, and you could keep them after the show.

I'm not sure how best to demonstrate sanitization of the glasses. Perhaps photos in the lobby showing the process? A video running on the lobby monitors in between trailers? A video as part of the pre-show before the movie?

In Bradford IMAX, I'm almost certain that after collecting the glasses at the end of a show, they're just taken straight back to the entrance to be given out again for the next 3D showing - no sanitization at all. In fact, I'm not sure the glasses have EVER been cleaned, given how smeared they were when I saw Cyberworld 3D recently!

| IP: Logged

Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler

Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-14-2008 10:50 PM

In our theater, the dishwasher used for sanitizing the glasses is located in the Bar so all restaurant/theater customers see us running racks of glasses through the washer. I guess with a theater equipped with a restaurant, it's easier to believe that we have the equipment to properly sanitize the glasses.

I don't know if many customers would opt to pay the steep price of glasses to keep as their own, nor would there be an easy way of telling which customers paid for their glasses and which ones wouldn't. Keep in mind, the glasses cost almost as much as a tank of gas in the states. For many people, it just wouldn't seem like a worthwhile investment.

quote: Jon P. Inghram
narrowband RGB dichroic filters

That's the term!

| IP: Logged

Poon Limpapun
Film Handler

Posts: 40
From: Pathumwhan Bangkok Thailand
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 07-19-2008 04:40 PM

Well, so far we have managed to loose around six pairs of glasses plus around two more which is damaged in the glasses sanitizer machine.

Anyway, we actually did great at advanced sales for this movie so I think we are in quite a good shape. The Sensormatic gate doesnt really work at all as the sensors in the 3D glasses gets rusted when we wash them in the sanitization machine.

Any ideas on this? or shouldn't we wash the glasses in water?

| IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 07-19-2008 07:19 PM

How many times can the glasses go thru the dishwasher and still still be in acceptable condition? The glasses I've used at theme parks were all in pretty rough shape and it took trying several at the pick up point to get something usable, even then what was OK for a few minute ride would have totally unacceptable for an hour and a half + movie.

Theatres can't afford to toss pricey glasses because they have a few scratches and the frames are wobbly.

[ 07-21-2008, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Bill Enos ]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-19-2008 08:06 PM

I believe Dolby claims that they are good for about 500 cycles...which sounds like a lot at first...until you realize that with a 5-show schedule...that you get about 1000 shows (each pair only has to be issued, at most, 1/2 of the shows....so with a 5-show/day schedule...if running continious 3-D as the folks would want you to think they are going to do...that amounts to about 200-days of continious use or LESS than 1-year.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-20-2008 03:21 AM

At $100 a pop, that STILL sounds like a theatre would be playing very close to the edge of profitability, especially if you ante up the cost of breakage, stealage or the price of oil which might the cost of manufacturing them jump pretty drastically. Dolby better hope that in a few months they don't cost $200 to make.

Did I tell you that petroleum based tuner cleaner -- the stuff we've used for years that was so cheap you never even thought of the cost or conserving it. I used to buy for between $5 and $6 a 22oz can -- it now costs $23. I kept telling the salesman at Newark Electronics that they had to have made a mistake in their on-line catalog. Nope.

Same thing that happened to all plastics during the oil shortage in the 70s. Remember how the price of record albums jumped because the vinyl became so expensive to manufacture?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-20-2008 09:15 AM

One of our customers did the math and this is how he looks at the 3-D thing... He certainly makes sense!!

"Real D is promising that the cost of their glasses will not exceed 75 cents.
Real D prohibits reuse of the glasses. Let's say they are 50 cents and
Dolby is $39 currently, then 500 cycles on the Dolby glasses would be 7.8
cents each. I think the 500 cycles per pair is optimistic.

Lets assume it costs 20 cents per pair in labor, energy and material to
collect and wash the Dolby glasses, then the Dolby cost pretty much equals
the Real D cost at 130 cycles."

"Real D offers either a flat annual license or a per ticket royalty. Each
chain negotiates their own deal, but lets say it is 50 cents per ticket.
Once you have paid for the Dolby color wheel and software, then you are home
free without any additional royalties due. So your total cost per patron is
now $1 each for Real D, and 50 cents (glasses and cleaning over 130 cycles)
on Dolby. If you beat the 130 uses, then the Dolby costs goes down."

"Dual projector has light advantages and no licensing expenses. However
polarized glasses and silver screen are still required. Guess who owns
the polarized glasses company? Real D.

Anybody using Real D or dual projectors better be prepared to FREQUENTLY
replace the silver screen ($10 per foot plus labor). In the real world they
do get attacked and even the smallest scratch or stain is very noticeable.
No matter how much you curve the silver screen or flatten the hot spot, you
are going to lose seating in a wide auditorium. At the Real D screening of
JOURNEY at Showeast, they blocked off the left and right side front seating
in the Paris showroom (wide theatre). Silver is just evil.

Best case solution is for 3-D to go away.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-20-2008 01:30 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Best case solution is for 3-D to go away.

You got that right. With today's costs in life going up I don't know how long people are going to take having to pay extra for 3-D. Something that we never had to do in the previous rounds of the format. After the batch of 3-D product that will be coming out over the next year and a half it will be interesting to see how fed up people will be with the process and the extra costs to see it. If anyone out there is using the "the extra cost is going for the glasses" line better watch out because people are going to be bringing there glasses back with them to their next 3-D shoving and demanding that they not have to pay the extra cost because they already have their glasses. Box people should be telling people if asked that the extra cost is for the 3-D experience not the glasses.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 07-20-2008 02:30 PM

Prices were ALWAYS raised for 3-D whenever it was used, but it was solely for the glasses and nothing else.

The problem with RealD doesn't even start with their glasses policy or the silver screen even. If you're running a number of screens, you're better off putting the RealD installation in one of your narrower, longer theaters with a smaller screen if you have a choice in the matter. Big does not equal better in 3-D.

RealD's biggest problem is a) the resolution on their screens, which are less than HD, b) the amount of light, or lack thereof, that they're getting and c) the problem with both RealD and Dolby is that going into it, you're out of phase, simply because it's a sequential system.

Most everyone won't know or care about these, but if you even have an iota of professionalism, you'll realize that for all of their faults, the days of dual strip and over/under were MUCH better presentations when done right.

Regarding cleaning Polarized glasses (I realize the question was in regards to the Dolby glasses)-- if you are recycling glasses, do not run water on them. If you have to clean them, breath on them and wipe them gently down with a Kleenex (specifically this brand). Because Polaroid material depends on what are essentially scratches on the surface of the glass, any alternating scratches from a rough material can be disastrous.

The cure for the problem is prevention. You have to tell people before the show not to touch the lenses otherwise they won't see 3-D. This is technically a lie, but in a way it's a truth, too, because otherwise they'll be seeing a smudged show. The fear of this consequence I find often gets people not to touch the lenses.

3-D is a viable art-form in the future (as anyone who has seen a proper presentation knows), but there's a lot that Hollywood has to learn about it before they can apply it to films. Unfortunately, the people running these companies are a perfect example of "a little knowledge can be harmful."

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-20-2008 02:47 PM

quote: Jack Theakston
Prices were ALWAYS raised for 3-D whenever it was used, but it was solely for the glasses and nothing else.

Not at the locations I worked for back in the 80's when 3-D was being used. The prices were the same as any other movie.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 07-20-2008 02:51 PM

That is interesting, then. I would suppose those locations were part of the overhead. During the 1950s, it was not uncommon for you to see an extra 10 cents added for glasses.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-20-2008 07:44 PM

quote: Jack Theakston
RealD's biggest problem is a) the resolution on their screens, which are less than HD, b) the amount of light, or lack thereof, that they're getting

The resolution problem will be delt with by the new breed of 1.2" DMD's that can operate at triple flash AND full frame. Look for them in projectors starting in September/October. The studios also want to raise light levels and so on. The colors can be mixed for any 3-D operating light level. Indeed DLP technology goes forword in spite of one Film-Techers very wrong prediction that it'll be going away. A major lens manufacturer is at present scurrying to get an entire line of 1.2" based lenses to market... The glass factory that Konica/Minolta uses is in Shengdu(SP?) China and although not destroyed by the earthquake the power plant that ran it lies in rubble. It'll be down for years. Not to worry though as at least Christie has literally gobs of each lens in stock.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-21-2008 02:48 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The resolution problem will be delt with by the new breed of 1.2" DMD's that can operate at triple flash AND full frame. Look for them in projectors starting in September/October.

So what do the guys who already purchased the projectors that have smaller namo mirror modules? How much will it cost them to retrofit to the larger DMDs, if they are even backward compatible? How happy can anyone who already has invested in the RealD system be about this next generation of improvements? Aren't those who shouted the praises RealD's low rez DMDs with lower light output in serious danger of getting dragged into dark alleys and pummled roundly?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Indeed DLP technology goes forword

Indeed it does and at the cost of leaving those who were eager to jump on that much hyped earlier roll out, pretty much holding their privates. An exageration? Perhaps (but not by much).... but you get my point.

So with all this forward moving technology -- seemingly going so fast that before one can even plunk down their money on the counter, the box being handed to them contains equipment that is already obsolete or needs upgraded out of the box -- how can one have any confidence in the longevity of digital, and more importantly, in the viability of their investment?

And Mark, let me ask you this; you seem to be downplaying the obvious next move in digital, and that is to go to higher rez -- you are pretty uncharacteristically blaze about 4K projectors (even as there is talk of 8K on the horizon). You seem to be quite content with the 2K generation, even to the point were you sound like those of us who felt that DLP wouldn't become viable for a long time and that film would/will hold on in spite of the digital rollout(s). I get the impression that you feel the same about 2K, that it will hold on inspite of 4K roll-outs, even though at least Sony, Barco and IMAX seem to think 4K is the future. Just wondering about your take on 4K when advances seem to be constantly moving forward, as you point out.

| IP: Logged

Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler

Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-23-2008 01:03 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The resolution problem will be delt with by the new breed of 1.2" DMD's that can operate at triple flash AND full frame. Look for them in projectors starting in September/October.

Mark, all of the .98 chipped machines can already run 6:2 at full resolution.

I've always wondered if TI will come out with an improved EFIB to allow the current 1.2 machines to run full res 6:2.

quote: Frank Angel
Aren't those who shouted the praises RealD's low rez DMDs with lower light output in serious danger of getting dragged into dark alleys and pummled roundly?

Frank, you're such a New-Yorker. [Wink]

quote: Frank Angel
the box being handed to them contains equipment that is already obsolete or needs upgraded out of the box -- how can one have any confidence in the longevity of digital, and more importantly, in the viability of their investment?

The same words were spoken by many when that new-fangled "Personal Computer" started hitting the stores.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.