Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: THIS is why the exhibition industry is fading...Part 2

This is topic THIS is why the exhibition industry is fading...Part 2 in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002429

Posted by Arnold Chase (Member # 7988) on 10-02-2015, 01:12 PM:

Last night my weekly film group went to a 10:00pm (MasterImage 3D) advance screening of "The Martian" at the same Bow-Tie cinema complex, but a different house, than part "1" took place in. The trailers started, and immediately things looked VERY weird. The first thing I noticed was a "snowfall" looking grain in the picture, accompanied by what seemed to be only two colors, green and magenta. At first I thought it was just a strange "Welcome to Bow-Tie" message, but then the film trailers started and every one of them was still green and magenta. One of the theater patrons got up and found a manager. A few minutes later the trailers stopped mid-presentation, and there is just a bright green screen.

Up until the continuous green screen I thought they had just selected the wrong color-space, but when the content stopped and there was still the same green screen (almost like a green open gate), I was perplexed. After a minute or two the trailer reel started again from the beginning with a normal color palate.
I thought everything was fine until the "Put your 3D glasses on now" message came on. As the 3D trailers came on, I thought the 3D was really crappy. When the feature started, the 3D still looked crappy to me, and I noticed that other patrons were complaining as well. Now that I knew the problem was universal and not just my glasses, etc., I thought to myself, "Could these fools be showing the film with the 3D polarity switch reversed"??? I took my 3D glasses off, and flipped them upside down and viola, proper 3D.

I told everyone in my group to flip their glasses upside down (which they did but with a WTF attitude at first). Other people nearby did the same. It was a bit amusing to see people wearing their glasses normally, and then flipping them upside down and back again several times out of disbelief.

I feel sorry for the rest of the theater-goers that sat through that entire film with a screwed-up picture, I imagine there were more than a few headaches after 2 1/2 hours of that. But once again the real pity is that once again theater-goers are treated to a true "amateur hour" unpleasant experience.

For the last 70 years the exhibition industry has been fighting off the challenge and lure of home entertainment by innovating and offering an experience that (at the time) couldn't be duplicated at home (color, wide-screen, multi-channel sound, etc.). The reality is that today the "experience differential" has never been closer, and instead of trying to widen the gap the theaters are increasingly presenting an experience that increasingly is WORSE than at home.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-02-2015, 01:19 PM:

But... but... digital is PERFECT! [Razz]

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 10-02-2015, 01:55 PM:

Did you inform the theater of their flub?

Posted by Arnold Chase (Member # 7988) on 10-02-2015, 02:19 PM:

quote: Mark Campbell was the last to post
Did you inform the theater of their flub?

No, with the technical delays we didn't leave the show until 12:30am or so. Even if I had found the manager at that time, I doubt he would even know what "polarity' meant anyway.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-02-2015, 08:48 PM:

I've seen grey snow screen happen dozens of times at different theaters.

I've seen green/purple screen happen dozens of times at different theaters.

I've seen "Active Desktop Recovery" happen dozens of times at different theaters.

I've seen a lack of polarization dozens of times at different theaters.

I've seen missed/late starts(yes, with auto scheduled digital). Playlist dumps. Server freezes. Automation freakouts.

Most of the time no one knows how to fix it. No one believes you. Managers don't know what to do. blah blah blah seriously digital sucks ass.

Again, I maintain, at least with film, you could see 99% of the problems. And PREVENT 99% of the problems with preventive maintenance. But with digital, there's no control. Crazy things just happen with no warning, no explanation, no quick resolution. It drives me crazy.

And that's all with just getting the picture properly on screen. That doesn't even TOUCH the QUALITY of the content.

Arnold you even touched on another reason "The industry is failing"- With skeleton crews paid peanuts, chances of finding ANY staff after the last show starts is slim to none.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-02-2015, 09:10 PM:

quote:
Last night my weekly film group went to a 10:00pm (MasterImage 3D) advance screening of "The Martian" at the same Bow-Tie cinema complex,

Nothing will change if people keep going back to the same crappy theaters. They got your money. Why should they do anything differently?

I normally drive past at four or five closer theaters to see movies at a better one.

If enough people stop going to crappy theaters, they will go away.

Geoff

P.S. This week I flew a thousand miles to Seattle to see The Martian at the Cinerama. [Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-03-2015, 02:51 PM:

Maybe if a few complaints got posted on Yelp about this location, do you think that this would get the noisy bearing in the wheel replaced?

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 10-03-2015, 04:00 PM:

The green screen and green and pink image is a colorspace issue. I know with Dolby servers using either DSP 100 or Cat 862 if the projector is set to 2D XYZ colorspace and the server is set to 3D that is what you get. Black comes out as green. That explains the continues green screen.

Also sounds as if the polarity was set wrong in the 3D settings. I have had the settings change on updates with NECs. It is possible they had a service call and the tech did not check things properly. As discussed here the local staff has no idea what to do.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-03-2015, 05:57 PM:

This was happening on a regular basis with 35mm. Probably it was even worse. Digital didn't make it any worse - in fact it made it better IMHO.
The industry has been fading for several years, digital is not relevant IMHO.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-03-2015, 06:20 PM:

Most likely there are several different issues here.

The color thing was most likely because the wrong color space was selected - the show was probably calling the 2D format rather than the 3D.

The "snow" issue was probably related to a dirty 3D disc. Those MasterImage discs collect a large amount of dust and need to be cleaned regularly. Normally the disc will get a haze of dust and oil built up which causes the 3D to flatten out and the image to look dim.

Having to turn your 3D glasses around probably means they have the L/R shutter set wrong. On NEC projectors there is a setting where you have to select "Inverse" or the 3D will look like it's going the wrong way. This was something that had to be changed after a firmware update in 2011. It is possible they have been running with an outdated firmware, and just recently did an update and did not change this setting.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-03-2015, 08:56 PM:

There's several ways to evaluate whether the industry is "fading" or not. The first is the number of theaters and screens. I don't have national stats, but in NYC, we're definitely losing theaters.

Since 2001, we've lost 32% of the theaters and almost 18% of the screens. And we may have just lost 1 more theater and 3 screens as I think the Cinema 1, 2, 3rd Avenue is gone unless they're going through another renovation (they went to lounge seating last year...maybe they're getting rid of it or maybe they're just switching out projectors). No films there this week, only one special showing in their calendar.

I don't think these losses are so much about losing patrons as they are about the high cost of NYC real-estate and the fact that if you sell the theater (or the lease) and let them put up a condo for the rich, you make more in one closing that you could make in the next 20 years operating the theater.

Another way is to look at it is tickets sold, but the numbers vary so much each year, since it's a hit-driven business, it's hard to see whether there's a trend or not. In 2014, in the U.S., there were 23.059 million weekly admissions. That's the lowest since 1995, when there was about the same number: 23.393m, but in 1995, there was much less in the way of streaming, downloading and home theaters, so was 2014 really a bad year? One could rationalize that it was actually pretty good considering all the other ways one can see a film these days. And Star Wars VII alone could make the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016 record years.

In 1964, when there was only one way to see a film (aside from regular TV), there were only 20 million weekly admissions, but the population was only 192 million, compared to today's 317 million. The peak year for movie attendance was 1946, when there was an incredible 86 million weekly admissions when the population was only 140 million. The interesting thing about that is that movie admissions fell off substantially in 1947 and 1948 even before TV really took hold.

But having said all that, the fastest way theaters can drive patrons to watch movies at home is to have crappy presentation. And in this digital age, there's absolutely no reason for bad presentation. It's easier with digital than it was with film. But theaters have to realize that they can't have the untrained popcorn kid set the projectors or programming up.

And if they continue to do bad presentation, I hope any given theatre does go out of business. It will be better for the industry as a whole.

Whenever I complain, I either get the "it's supposed to be that way" stupid comment from the manager or they ignore my comment and give me a pass. But if the theatre isn't going to fix the problem, I don't want to go back even for free. But this has been the case for decades, even in the film days. I remember seeing the Fillmore concert movie with a stereo channel missing at the Loews Kings (recently reopened as a concert hall), seeing "E.T." in 70mm, but with 60Hz hum throughout the movie (I think at the Victoria or Movieland on Broadway), having the lamp blow during "Jaws" at the Kingsway in Brooklyn when it was still a large single-screen theatre (almost causing a riot) and many other disasters I can no longer remember. I don't remember the film, but I remember a reel being skipped in one showing although I don't remember how I knew it was missing. I remember complaining and they played it out of order. So "film done wrong" is nothing new. And that's aside from seeing films in second-run theatres or in small towns where the prints were dirty, scratched and had frames missing.

Overall though, while I think theaters display far less showmanship today than in the past and some theaters are operated like slums, I think the overall projection and sound quality is better today, especially in the non-prime theaters.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-03-2015, 09:44 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
Since 2001, we've lost 32% of the theaters and almost 18% of the screens

I can't help wondering if these numbers are more about closing obsolete or under-used theatres, rather than a decline of the movie industry.

I was living near Chico, CA when Cinemark opened a new 14 screen stadium theatre around 2001. At the time they already had a 10 screen slope-floor. Plus there were 8 screens in 3 locations owned by UA/Regal. After the new 14 screen theatre opened, Cinemark closed their 10 screen and sold it to a church. UA/Regal closed their 3 screen and 4 screen locations - keeping just the single screen El Ray. The El Ray was an old style large capacity theatre (600 seats?).

Chico initially saw a net loss of 3 screen once the new theatre opened, but the new theatre was larger capacity.

The 4 screen theatre had originally been a single screen theatre with a balcony. At some point they had split the theatre down the middle and walled off the balcony on each side to create 4 auditoriums. My understanding is after it closed as a movie theatre they restored it to a single screen auditorium to use for live music. I don't know if it's still in operation in any sense.

The single screen El Ray theatre was maintained as a movie theatre until sometime after 2005. Now it operates more as a community theatre where they host live music, comedy shows, and similar events. I don't know what kind of work was done after it closed as a movie theatre.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2015, 02:05 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
This was happening on a regular basis with 35mm. Probably it was even worse. Digital didn't make it any worse - in fact it made it better IMHO.
The industry has been fading for several years, digital is not relevant IMHO.

I won't argue about 35mm sites with decreasing illumination. How people chose their light levels seems to be hocus pocus, in many locations.

However, a VERY disturbing trend in DCinema was the reintroduction of high-gain screens into the mainstream. It isn't that they weren't there before but they are so encouraged now. They are marketed as essentially free light. When, in fact, they normally reduce your light through misunderstanding their use.

That is, people fixate on that the center light level should be 14fL (which is correct) but they fail to consider that the sides and corners are to be 75-85% of that. Once you go above a 1.3 gain screen, you can't do it without curving your screen. Yet people put in these 1.5 and 1.8 screens (and there are now white screens over 2 in gain). They set the center for 14fL but what happens to the sides? In most cinemas they are WAY WAY down. The distribution of the light is like a gaussian curve (conical) about the center (presuming straight on projection). If you add up all of the light coming back from the screen using a high-gain it is MUCH less than the same center brightness of a matte-white screen with the same 14fL center brightness.

If you put in a 1.5 gain screen and lower your light output by 50% to keep the center at 14fL, it should come as a surprise that you lowered the light into the system by 50% and that you have effectively lowered you light by about 50% overall...what you did was concentrate your light in the middle without regard for everywhere else. Very little action of interest is in dead-center screen anyway. Actor's faces are in the upper 1/3 of the screen and if more than one of them are in the image they are approaching the upper-left/right corners. The spot where you took the light from. It is going to be a dark appearing image.

Also with DCinema was this re-fascination with 3D...which, the predominate system uses a silver screen...again, high gain (2.2 - 2.5, typically). So even 2D moves are now ruined on such screens. If 1.5 gain was bad, 2.5 is MUCH worse and will again, appear darker. If you only have 14fL on your silver screen for 2D...that image will appear VERY dark. If you project 2D on a silver screen at about 22fL, it will appear about as bright as a 1.2 - 1.3 gain screen running 14fL in the center. That is not to say it will be as even but it is to say that the overall feel of the image brightness will be similar. You'll still be down in the "5s" or so in the corners but overall it won't look as bad (dark).

But do people do this? No (unless they just happen to by accident by running their 3D lamp on 2D and their 3D target is 6fL instead of 4.5fL.

You can improve the situation on gain screens by curving them but that brings about other issues like geometric distortions that the industry went out of its way in trying to mitigate. Digital projectors CAN deal with "rectifying" images for keystone and curved fields...A/V projectors do it all of the time...but these tools were specifically excluded for DCinema. Probably a noble move in the 2K world but as technology allows for higher resolution images, a roadblock we need not keep. The extra resolving power of the projector could be used to mitigate the negative aspects of digital keystone while improving the image on keystoned and curved images. We're not there yet. Also, lenses can be designed for curved screens but at the moment, only some high-end Schneider's are for Premium Large Screen theatres.

The other factor in dark images is what to do with Flat versus Scope in constant height theatres? In film, the light needed between Flat and Scope was minimal such that if you were within 16fL on one format, you were probably in the ballpark on the other (Scope being the MORE efficient format). Not so for DCinema. The light needed for Scope is a LOT more than for Flat. Does that mean constant height theatres are the proper way for DCinema? No...that still means that your most panoramic movies (Scope ones) are now smaller and less panoramic. It defeats the purpose of making a move in scope.

With current technology, anamorphic lenses mitigate about half of the difference in light levels and should be used. Their $10,000 price tag has been a big deterrent as have the mis-information about them not being DCI compliant (they are compliant).

So if you have a constant height screen...how do you set the light levels? Some have used the SMPTE specification of 14fL +/3 fL for cinemas to its maximum and set flat to 17 and scope to 11. I can assure you that no movie is checked at 11fL to see if it looks good enough. It was an arbitrary number that was deemed achievable by the "typical" exhibitor. There was no big study, that I am aware, that verified 11fL was really good enough.

So, as a patron, it is crap shoot as to what you get now, even within the same cinema...it may be 17fL one day and 11fL the next if you happen to see a Flat movie the first time and 11fL the next time.

Projector manufacturers don't make it easy all of the time either. Barco allows one to set actual fL (or cd/m^2) on a format by format basis. Christie lets you create a SINGLE calibration (that really isn't a calibration it is an interpretation of a range between bright and dark). But if you apply a lamp file to scope, "fL" will not read right if it reads right for flat. When I set up a Christie, in the lamp file's name, I put the calibrated light level that file refers to so regardless of what the internal fL meter is reading, so long as its target number is reached, the light output should be right. I do similarly for NEC projectors.

Note jacking the levels wildly between flat and scope don't do the lamps any favors! Again, something that wasn't required in the film days because flat/scope were so similar (except in constant width theatres...where scope was uber-bright).

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-04-2015, 03:01 PM:

Silver screens/high gain screens should be banned. I hate them.
And I don't know anybody averaging the readings. As you say they'll dial 14.0fL in the middle and walk away.

I agree, 3D has definitely caused the average presentation to get worse. Unfortunately usually the biggest auditoria have 3D - a silver screen most of the time.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2015, 12:00 AM:

That's where Dolby seriously dropped the ball on 3-D. They should have:

- Come up with disposable glasses instead of the stupid washable ones

- Brought the price down out of the stratosphere, thereby cashing in by selling many more units

- Done whatever necessary to get the logo on movie posters and otherwise promoted to the masses

- Really promoted the fact that you can use a white screen and therefore you'll have a better picture with no hot-spots in BOTH 3-D AND 2-D.

That last one is the sole reason we went with Dolby...why would I want my picture to be compromised in 100% of my shows??

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-05-2015, 01:58 AM:

Mike...

Good luck on the disposable glasses. The way Dolby (Infitec) system works is having multilayer coatings...with current technology, you'll never get them that cheap. It isn't as simple as polarized glasses.

I would counter that if the studios can pay for the polarized glasses for Real-D AND Master Image, then they could, instead, credit the exhibitor the COST of those glasses on a per-ticket basis. Thus, you'd get closer to 40-50-cents per ticket for the glasses. In the case of the polarized people, they'd have their glasses covered...you with the Dolby 3D would actually profit on it all since it does NOT cost you 40-50 cents to clean them. Furthermore, it would substantially also cover the cost of "shrinkage".

Dolby's is pretty much the cheapest 3D to install aside from Real-D that ended up "giving" the cost of the equipment but takes 50-cents/ticket. Master Image is more expensive for just a polarizing disc on a motor. Similar electromechanics to Dolby but with a MUCH larger disc and external. XpanD is cheaper than Dolby for the hardware but the glasses are 2-5 times more expensive so depending on seat count (and you need more than double to allow for cleaning while showing plus shrinkage), it could be less for smaller screening rooms or more for large auditoria.

As for promotion...no argument. Real-D and IMAX get their names plastered on EVERYTHING...the rest really don't. You'd think the company that plastered their name on anything audio or movies would have learned that it is important for the public to think of them, and them alone, when it came to movies. But they let it slip on Dolby 3D.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-05-2015, 06:41 AM:

Am I the only one caring a little for the planet? Multiplex throw away boxes and boxes of glasses every day.

Yes, it's legal, yes they can. But it's wrong. Can we stop for a second and just think that because we can do it it's not necessarily something that we should do?

Also, you forgot to mention that Dolby 3D is a tad inefficient when it comes to 3D. You're lucky if you get 7.5% out of your system which means you'll have to burn a little sun in your lamphouse - and also you'll end up with about 40fL in 2D which is a tad too high.

Not to mention the unwanted reflections in the glasse - especially if you have glasses - and the limited angle of view.

It's not so easy unfortunately.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 10-05-2015, 07:25 AM:

I understand that for other continents it's probably different because of the shipping cost, but over here the Real-D glasses routinely get shipped back for "recycling". I don't know what Real-D actually does with them but hopefully they clean them, inspect them, and re-use the OK ones.
I don't know what the practice is with MI ones at all.
Multiplexes are usually hammering their bottom line lower. Paying staff to clean glasses is anathema to them.
Maybe paying the shipping charges is less than what they pay for trash removal so they have chosen to bin the used ones, I wouldn't be surprised by that.
Dolby 3D is the best digital 3D process out there (except Imax Laser 3D, and that's essentially Dolby 3D anyway).
XpanD and similar are very close but the heavy active glasses are uncomfortable (and expensive!).
The costs of the projector adapter and glasses are not the only added expense though, Steve. You need to roughly double the projector lamp power - triple is probably more accurate - to get decent Dolby 3D illumination. That means a more expensive projector and higher operating cost for power and lamps. Plus 2D will then be overbright on that screen in 99% of installations - with Barco you can have a second lamphouse but be sitting down when you ask what that costs.
Admittedly Dolby 3D or Xpand are the best looking systems I've seen with low light (tolerable well below 3ft-L at the eye) because there's no hotspot... but they look really good when properly lit.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-05-2015, 07:44 AM:

As odd as it may sound...over 90% of our Dolby 3D installations do indeed have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D. They don't switch them on a show by show but on a day by day...so if 3D runs that day, then all shows run with the 3D lamp.

Yes, the efficiency of Dolby 3D with Xenon sucks. But remember too...with the lower gain WHITE screen, even a lower center brightness than a silver screen 3D system, the Dolby 3D will APPEAR brighter because more light is actually reflected back to the audience rather than scattered across the walls. If Real-D is going for 4.5fL...Dolby can go for 3.5 and look brighter (yes, neither 3.5 or 4.5 should be used with "bright" in the same sentence but we are talking about 3D here...quality image isn't the important thing...its the gimmick that we care about).

Now as RGB laser technology develops...Dolby 3D stands to be THE efficient 3D process but it is going to have to develop quite a bit to be affordable (any one price out a 6P laser projection system? It will make the cost of a second lamp/lamphouse seem very trivial).

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-05-2015, 09:10 AM:

Thanks guys. I spent 40 years getting rid of gain screens and in 12 months we were right back there again.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2015, 09:10 AM:

Laser is going nowhere until projector manufacturers can do something to lower the very insane cost. A single 6P projector is very expensive. I expect the roll-out of "IMAX with Laser" and Dolby Cinema to go very very slowly. Meanwhile home theater is gearing up for 4K UHDTV, Dolby Vision, etc.

IMAX claimed they had over 75 cinemas in line for laser installation. They launched the new system in April. Now it's October and there's less than a handful of IMAX laser-based installations in North America and then only 3 or 4 other installations elsewhere in the world. Perhaps these dual 4K laser based systems need a lot of careful, fine tune adjustments and can't be rushed into service. I really suspect the IMAX company can't afford to install more than a couple or so of these systems per quarter. Right now only about 1% of the company's IMAX-branded digital screens are laser. It may take a long time for that ratio to get above 5%.

The least thing IMAX could do is de-couple that new 12-channel sound system from the laser thing. The current 5.0 system in the vast majority of their theaters needs to be replaced.

Dolby Cinema appears to be in the same cost situation. AMC says it will install 100 "Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime" systems. It could take the company 10 years to do that, if not longer. I'm actually kind of suspicious about AMC's take on Dolby Cinema. Is AMC changing the interior design of their "Prime" auditoriums? The original Dolby Cinema concept had all kinds of stealth fighter looking panels all over the walls to control sound reflection. I'm not sure if all of AMC's Prime houses have Dolby Atmos. The one in Dallas still doesn't show up on Dolby's Atmos installations map despite that house now boasting Dolby Cinema. The whole thing has me wondering if AMC is merely installing a pair of 4K laser projectors and remodeling the entrance to the auditorium.

I felt a little let down with a laser-based show I watched at the new Warren theater location in Broken Arrow. This is a single projector system. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation only had a 2K DCP, which didn't help matters any. The image didn't seem much brighter or more colorful than other Xenon-based d-cinema shows I've seen. The biggest problem was that deep curved screen. The picture just didn't line up with it very well.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2015, 11:54 AM:

Marco, what's worse for the planet, throwing away cartons of used polarized 3D glasses every day, or burning a larger lamp to run Dolby 3D?

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 10-05-2015, 11:54 AM:

quote: Dave Macaulay
I understand that for other continents it's probably different because of the shipping cost, but over here the Real-D glasses routinely get shipped back for "recycling". I don't know what Real-D actually does with them but hopefully they clean them, inspect them, and re-use the OK ones.

Real-D do reuse them in the UK. The packaging is different for the washed and checked ones (something like "recycled in the UK" vs "made in China).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2015, 03:24 PM:

I thought all Real D glasses were recycled, but not by cleaning... the plastic is supposed to be recycled, that's one of the big Real D selling points isn't it?

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-05-2015, 03:37 PM:

Brad,

I'm with you but the average company won't care of the rubbish as long as they can save a penny on lamps. Who cares of where those boxes of glasses go as long as they don't have to pay for that.

I was just saying that if Dolby 3D had, say, 15% efficiency, it would be THE 3D system hands down (WHEN laser is widely available we'll talk about that!)

Steve,
Fully agree that 2.5fL on a white screen looks much brighter than 4.5fL (measured on centre) with a polarised system.

But you don't want to explain this to me, talk to the cinema owners and companies! [Smile]

Finally:

quote: Steve Guttag
over 90% of our Dolby 3D installations do indeed have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D

100% of Dolby 3D installations do NOT have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D.

I shall come to America one day, guys! [Smile]

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-05-2015, 05:45 PM:

The Real D glasses frames seem to be reasonably substantial but the lenses are flimsy cut-out pieces of plastic sheet. In view of that, I've always kind of assumed that they must re-use the frames and replace the lenses which gets away from any issues of scratches and whatnot on the lenses.

But in common with everyone else, I really don't know for sure what they do with them. When I have a full box of used glasses I ship 'em out to Real D and what happens after that... who knows.

Some of the returned glasses are in really poor shape, though. Kids (and some adults) rip them apart into little pieces and twist them into interesting shapes.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-06-2015, 05:24 AM:

Frank,

I believe RealD glasses are a few cents worth, am I mistaken? Do we really believe that those glasses are manually inspected by a person, sanitised and then 'refurbished' and re-packed?

If we are lucky they go to a recycling facility rather than a landfill.

Personally, I feel that disposable glasses should be outlawed. It's another of those "we want it and we want it now" things of our society. Alternatively, if cinemas don't want to re-use the glasses, RealD sould offer a compulsory recycle solution, for a price, where glasses are actually refurbished.

It cannot always end up to "we don't want them, we stick them in a hole in the ground, it's legal and it's now someone else's problem".

Apologies for being a little OT!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-06-2015, 06:02 AM:

quote: Marco Giustini
If we are lucky they go to a recycling facility rather than a landfill.

Recycling plastic doesn't really make all that much sense. Probably the best place for them to go is a plant that burns them for electricity. Honestly, even if you just threw every pair of Real-D glasses into a landfill, it wouldn't cause any problems. The world is not going to run out of landfill space anytime in the next millennium or 5.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for recycling things that make sense like metal and maybe glass. Plastic and paper are really not great candidates for recycling. The former because you are limited on what you can recycle it into and the latter because the process to do it uses a lot of resources and chemicals and because recycling paper actually leads to less trees because less virgin pulp is needed so pulp tree farms shut down and end up developed into something else.

End of off topic rant...

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-06-2015, 08:15 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
The world is not going to run out of landfill space anytime in the next millennium or 5

The fact that we have physical space for landfills does not mean that if we keep generating so much rubbish the world will be a pleasant and healthy way to live on in the future.
We already see severe water contamination issues every now and then. If we keep doing what we do now it can only get worse.