quote:

---

Effective only through July 15th, XpanD will offer the second 3D system in each participating complex at half-price based on prices in effect preceding this announcement. With nearly 800 installations globally, XpanD utilizes active 3D glasses, which are sold separately. XpanD recently launched their newest model, the X101 Series, which it believes offers the most superior stereoscopic viewing in the market, along with an array of special features, including replacement batteries and security tags. The ecology-minded reusable glasses have a sleek and durable design that movie patrons are sure to favor.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

XpanD system, very popular outside the USA, doesn't require any special screens like Dolby

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Main dissadvantage is the cost of glasses and thus the risk of lost/damage, etc.

---

quote:

---

With nearly 800 installations globally,

---

In the USA there are about 1200 3-D installations combining RealD/Dolby/XpanD/MasterImage. At least that's the number quoted in the last conference about 3D I attended last month. Perhaps 1400(+Imax) or so by now.

So I'd say if it is true, and I have no strong reason to believe otherwise, I'd say XpanD is a fairly popular 3D system outside the USA.

It certainly has a much larger market share than Master Image

EDIT: Seems the count for all 3D equipped screens in the USA, including Imax, is 2,080 currently. As we know, there was a huge rush for the Monsters Vs Aliens movie recently. Still, recent 3D movies like Disney's Jonas Bros only opened in 1276 screens and Battle for Terra in 1159 (including 2D engagements).

PS: In Spain (population 46 million) there are about 90 3-D Dcinemas, including 4 Imax, out of about 4200 cinema screens total. At least 23 are XpanD, about 20 Dolby, and the rest mostly RealD.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-19-2009, 07:35 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I don't think it was a demo using the electronic glasses however...

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

MasterImage, is just not implemented well and is the lowest of all % of light on screen.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

RealD is the only choice for high seating cinemas.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

MasterImage, is just not implemented well and is the lowest of all % of light on screen.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Unfortunately, Dolby 3D has no real plus apart from the Name. And Dolby is being pushed out of cinema in many ways.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

So. I don;t know where you get your data from but i strongly disagree.

---

quote:

---

If by any chance 3D ends up being another fad that, once again, virtually dissapears 5 years from now (i.e. only a handful of 3D movies are made a year anymore), at least with a dual projection system you can use the second projector for something, or even sell it. With a 3D add-on device, you are stuck with it sitting there doing "nothing".

I completely agree. You do have the second lamp expense but with stacked you can be running smallish regular cinema lamps in alot of applications.

---

Well, Some of you may not know that there is an exec at Disney with alot of stock ownership in Real-D and it was one of the chains Sam mentioned(possibly Kirkorian) that filed a class action lawsuit against Disney. So to settle it Disney agreed to grandfather in all dual projector 3-D systems installed before a certain date which I believe was some time late last year... while after that date they had to be certified.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-25-2009, 05:20 PM:
 
Mark.

Please chill out here. You cannot be making claims of collusion or conflict of interest on the part of studio exec's in a forum like this without something solid to back you up.

I'm sorry I chimed about this whole topic.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2009, 05:44 PM:
 
I would agree but I posted no name. This is was common knowledge late last year/early this year.

Mark
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 05-26-2009, 06:22 AM:
 
Julio is very right Mark.

The cinema owners I have spoken to who utilise Xpand or Dolby have mentioned to me that the extra costs of loss of glasses and extra staff to catch and clean the glasses is costing them much more then disposable polarizing glasses would have.
Only in smaller cinemas does it appear to work, in that you can keep this all under control.

This is REAL LIFE results not theoretical results painted by Xpand and Dolby who obviously have a vested interest.

I just call it as I see it. I have no vested interest.

If you like Dolby, go for it.

James
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-26-2009, 08:43 AM:
 
I have had Dolby 3D since January. I am in a small town and have a small theatre (4 screens).

I have sold about 5000 3D tickets. If I Real D, I would have paid them 2500 dollars or more.

I have lost six pairs of glasses. At 27.50 a pair, thats about 180 bucks.

Dolby was a no brainer for me.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-26-2009, 09:01 AM:
 
Absolutely, plenty of situations where Dolby makes perfect, even the most, financial sense.

Also, it can play technical advantages on wide auditoriums (great viewing angles, virtually no ghosting).

Only drawbacks are the light loss (worse of all systems) and the cost of glasses (second worse to XpanD). Also the limited choice so far of compatible Dcinema players, but this will probably improve.

If those issues could be improved a bit, I say Dolby could have an even brighter future in Dcinema 3D. They already did something about it by offering their glasses at 50% as a promotion to new theatres. Let's hope it catches on.

I even dare to say that in some markets with potential high loss rate (glasses theft) it could still be a good choice, but it would be hard to convince theatre owners in areas where the patrons are mostly "brat kids" to hand out $28 glasses over a $6.50 ticket to each one ....

They just won't do it even if theoretically still makes financial sense, and I think that Dolby is making a mistake by pricing the glasses so high that scares theatre owners away from them, leaving more opportunities for their main rival RealD.

Taking your rate of loss, Matt, it's a bit more than 1 per each 1000 uses (sold 5000 tickets, lost 6 glasses). Say in some slightly worse situations, like bigger cities with more vandalism etc, it would easily be 10 glasses over the same 5000 tickets, or 1 pair of glasses every 500 tickets.

If you keep $1 clean for you from a 3D surchage after taxes, studio cut, etc, you would've made $500. Now you have to pay for 1 pair of lost glasses, say $28 (S&H), water/chemicals/dishwasher depreciation/labor spent to clean another 499 glasses (lol), and help pay for the Dolby wheel, theft-security door installation, high gain screen, high wattage lamp and extra electricity, DCI convertion/upgrades/maintenance, interest on initial cost of glasses stock ...

Still ahead of the game, but not for THAT much. But pbbly better than RealD, that's for sure

If you sell around 5000 3D tickets in 6 months, it will be a while until the 3D surcharge covers the cost of the convertion to 3D by itself. If you get say $10,000 of pure extra profit from 3D surcharges a year (10,000 3D tickets/year, pure $1 profit to you after paying for repairs/glasses lost/cleaning/etc), and assuming a convertion to Dolby 3D costs a conservative +$80k (including the digital projector-server gear/screen/inital glasses cost), it would still be +8 years (not counting interest) before it pays off out of the 3D alone.

Different thing is if you are also getting VPF or your theatre was already digital to begin with ...
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-26-2009, 01:14 PM:
 
I have no VPF's.

I am expecting to sell more 3D tickets per month in the future with Up, Ice Age, A Christmas Carol, Toy Story 3, and Shrek all coming out within the next year or so. So far I have played My Bloody Valentine, Coraline, Jonas Bros, and Monsters vs. Aliens. All of which did excellent except Jonas.

My upcharge is 2.00 so I get to keep a little less then a dollar per show after paying the studio.

I have seen an increase in business because of the 3D. We are one of only two theatres in our area who have 3D and I am getting customers who would normally go to other non 3D theatres. As time passes, this advantage will decrease, but for right now the extra attendance (and concession sales) have to be figured in to the equation when computing if the investment was worth it.

So far, for me at least, it has been a good move.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-26-2009, 01:35 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I would agree but I posted no name. This is was common knowledge late last year/early this year.

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

I have seen an increase in business because of the 3D. We are one of only two theatres in our area who have 3D and I am getting customers who would normally go to other non 3D theatres. As time passes, this advantage will decrease, but for right now the extra attendance (and concession sales) have to be figured in to the equation when computing if the investment was worth it.

So far, for me at least, it has been a good move.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

And is it really common knowledge or just something someone said to a bunch of people?

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

That's a ridiculous suggestion.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

I just call it as I see it. I have no vested interest.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

You think gaining knowledge about your work is a rediclous suggestion? Oooooookay...

---

Where did I say I don't want information/knowledge? From the beginning I said that you should provide said information and until you do so I have to take what you said with a grain of salt.

I didn't say "gaining knowledge is ridiculous." I thought I was pretty damn explicit that the ridiculousness is that you made a claim and have shown absolutely nothing to back it up. Plus, if it truly was "common knowledge" that the collusion happened would you expect someone in the industry like Sam to have told you "Hey you can't do that here and not back it up"?

And if you have proof of it, then why was it that you immediately said that it didn't matter because you didn't drop a name? If you have proof of the collusion then dropping the name of the guy is ok, because you have proof.

Could you at least provide the case information (like who the parties were and where it was filed, etc). That way I don't use up paper and can find the info online. Searching through google I didn't find anything. Plus, I really don't know if my fax machine works anymore. Haven't needed to use it for a long time.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-27-2009, 02:26 AM:
 
Now a question for Matt: With the other competition in your area having 3D also, what format are they using-maybe "Real D"?

If so and you have Dolby 3D, any rebuttal from your patrons in NOT being able to keep the glasses as with the other theatre (if they are using "RD") since you have the basic upcharge as the other place do.

Thus the patron feel like that they "paid" for their glasses and should keep them, yet finding out they have to be returned at your place.

Just wondering on this one... - Monte
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-27-2009, 05:23 AM:
 
Monte-

They have Real D, but have only had it for a couple of months so it hasn't been a huge issue yet. When people complain we tell people our system uses higher quality glasses and the other systems use cheap throw away glasses. Luckily, the Dolby glasses do look expensive.

Every now and then people (mostly kids) are disappointed they can't keep the glasses, and a few have made a big fuss and really bitched. Same thing with the upcharge.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-27-2009, 08:56 AM:
 
Matt: ask your distributor to supply the 3D glasses like they do to RealD installations.

I heard of cases where they contractually had to provide 3D glasses, so people with Dolby systems where receiving their free glasses (RealD, of course) from the distributors. And selling them on ebay, I guess.

Then you can give those kids complaining their own pair of 3D glasses (RealD, of course). Tell them Dolby glasses are bad for the vision if used outside the theater (which they are) but this other transparent, Real-3D glasses, are soooo muchhhhh coooooler .... (also not good for normal use, but, oh, well)



Distributors are so penny-wise. Whatever savings they get from a customer (i.e. digital=not having to supply a 35mm print, or Dolby 3D=no need to give them glasses, or Dolby SR=no DTS discs), compared to other customers, and they still don't give any kickbacks, discounts or anything. They just pocket the difference.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-27-2009, 11:06 AM:
 
My two projector Master Image passive system was officially "blessed" so we're good to go.

It looks spectacular and had way more than enough light. We had to defocus the bulbs to get down to spec.
 

---