Dolby 3-D glasses

[Steve Guttag]

Dolby Cinema with 3D uses two projectors.

[Ed Gordon]

...
Selling them on fleabay probably isn't worth it, considering the low price they'd get and the hassles of packing and shipping them individually or in smaller quantities. That depends on how much they have already cost you, the time it would take to sell and ship them, and the cost of shipping and fleaybays stupid fees.
...

Yes, Ebay can a hassle, but you will get more views for your item than you will get anywhere else. I have sold used items using the auction option with a reserve price (basically highest bidder wins the auction as long as their offer exceeds a base asking price. After running an Ad for a month on Craigslist with no offers, I placed an auction Ad on Ebay, and my used item sold for more than I paid for it new.

I would also sell items in bulk (i.e., minimum order of two dozen) to avoid all that packaging and shipping.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Do you know if they have a 3D solution for the new Dolby Cinema system? It’s only a single projector install, so I’m not sure how one would be possible with Dolby 3D.

Like Steve indicated, Dolby Cinema uses two projectors, actually, they even use two projectors in 2D for the Dolby Vision graded content. Standard content like trailers or pre-show material uses a single projector.

In the first generation installs, non-Dolby Vision material was actually handled by a "fallback projector", which used to be a Christie Xenon machine...

[Marco Giustini]

Standard content like trailers or pre-show material uses a single projector.

Any content, 2D or 3D, SDR or HDR, is always shown using two projectors in a DC room using the previous dual-projector setup. Single projector was only used as a backup in case of a failure. A single projector shuld be able to run 2D SDR at proper brightness and colours but it's going to be 3P laser so metamerism error becomes an issue.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Any content, 2D or 3D, SDR or HDR, is always shown using two projectors in a DC room using the previous dual-projector setup. Single projector was only used as a backup in case of a failure. A single projector shuld be able to run 2D SDR at proper brightness and colours but it's going to be 3P laser so metamerism error becomes an issue.

I guess mode of operation differs between some installs, maybe it depends on screen size.

First installs back in 2014, without Dolby Vision was essentially a Christie Duo installation, where both projectors were always on.

Upgraded rooms that have the new "Generation 3" based projectors seem to eliminate the backup projector, still, non-Dolby Vision content seems to come from just a single projector. Also, the dual CP850 is replaced by an IMS-based solution. Interestingly, the power-amp installation was unchanged. The first generation Dolby Cinema rooms use Christie Vive speakers and amps (those are actually Peavy Amps...)...

[James Gardiner]

Let’s not beat around the bush. After reading this thread, my takeaway is simple: 3D’s digital-era fad is largely over. Outside of a handful of premium formats, the industry has broadly abandoned it.

Those premium 3D offerings also come with real caveats. To work at large screen sizes they rely on colour-differential laser systems, which in turn require proprietary glasses matched to specific laser primaries and specific projector models. When a projector is end-of-lifed—and the glasses inevitably follow—you’re left in a very awkward position operationally and financially.

I don’t see 3D disappearing entirely, but I do see it vanishing from smaller cinemas. The bigger question is whether studios eventually stop producing 3D versions altogether if demand erodes much further.

Take Avatar 3 as an example. While it will make strong money, that’s largely because it has no real competition—an entirely separate and serious problem for the industry. Creatively, though, it felt like more of the same as the second film. Perfectly fine, but no longer spectacular. I just don’t see the sense of scale or novelty anymore. And if that’s the case, why bother with 3D at all?

Watching James Cameron talk about the franchise, his demeanour suggested he doesn’t expect to make many more films. He’s even indicated the remainder of the story may be released as books instead—which, frankly, is a sensible move. The underlying narrative is solid, and the Spider arc in particular was quite strong.

[Mike Blakesley]

Here are some Avatar 3 stats from the web: (as of 12/30/2025)

• Format Breakdown:
  • Traditional 3D: 23%.
  • IMAX 3D: 15% ($13 million of the domestic total).
  • PLF (Premium Large Format) 3D: 14%.
  • Motion 3D (e.g., 4DX): 4%.
• Standard 2D: Only 34% of the total gross came from standard 2D presentations.

Thing is...lots of people want to see it on the "biggest screen possible," and in some cases those big screens are only showing it in 3-D. I know if I went to the movie at the AMC in Billings, where it's on 3 screens, I would pick the 3-D because the 2-D is in a small, relatively-shitty "digital" auditorium. There are probably a lot of places where it's ONLY showing in 3-D. That was our situation on the last Avatar.

So the statistics are likely kinda skewed. If you had two identical auditoriums in each plex where one was 3-D and the other was 2-D, you'd have a lot more meaningful stats. Some of that 56% undoubtedly would have preferred 2-D.

I keep waiting for the first person to come out saying "man, I wish you'd had it in 3-D" but it hasn't happened yet.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I took the liberty to have a look at a rather large multiplex over here. I'm not sure if they qualify for the most versions in a single complex awards, but they're trying...

It's a glimpse in the situation over here, a comparison with a similar sized cinema in an urban area in the U.S. might be interesting, to see if the 3D thing is something more prevalent here.

I choose tomorrow, the 1st of January as reference, since today is somewhat of a special day and might have fewer shows than a "regular" operating day.

The movie has been running for a while now, so they've had time to shuffle around things a bit. I've added room capacity and screen size as a reference, with the help of AI, so if the math isn't right, blame me for using AI, not for the math.

screenshot_antw_avatar3.png

Not preferring one showtime above another and counting ScreenX as "2D", seats available that day for:
3D: 3,295
2D: 1,867

So, it's clear that they prefer 3D above 2D. Looking at other multiplexes around here, I see similar distributions. I guess those multiplexes benefit from the fact that they still have rooms left that can do 3D. Formats like digital IMAX also still retain their 3D capabilities. Those small premiums they can get for 3D and other special shows factor into their bottom line, so those multiplexes will steer people towards 3D shows.

[Steve Guttag]

It would appear if I just want to see the movie..."without your four fried chickens and without your dry white toast" (e.g. 2D/24fps), I have but one showtime in a smaller room (14 at 9:30pm). The theatre is sort of dictating what people will prefer.

For the HFR fans, 8 out of 10 screens offer that. Are we to believe 80% of the public prefers HFR? Or is that just what was offered?

They must hate 4DX getting just 10% of the screens and 13% of the shows. Or, quite possibly...just one auditorium had the system so that was their "choice."

This also doesn't take into account any pressure applied by a studio/distributor to override consumer preference.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Do customers have an actual preference when it comes down to 2D or 3D or are they just eating what we're feeding them?

Room 2 is the only 4DX room. I don't think 4DX is really that popular, it's more like a gimmick to have and if you have 24 rooms to fill, you may as well put some gimmick systems like 4DX or ScreenX into a few of them...

But I guess people will be hating the ticket price too, according to their own site:
€ 14,50 | Normaal tarief
€ 7,20 | Supplement 4DX
€ 1,00 | Supplement Film Lange Speelduur (>/=2u10)
€ 1,75 | Eénmalige aankoop persoonlijke 3D bril (Price for new 3D glasses, unless you happen to still have some RealD glasses left...)

EUR 24,45 a ticket, excluding transaction and reservation fees. Yeah, unless you kept those 3D glasses from your last show, you save EUR 1,75. I don't even know where my Polaroid 3D glasses are at this moment in time. And you can't even take your nachos with cheese sauce into the room... not even popcorn... only bottled drinks are allowed. I've seen a movie in 4DX twice, and I hated both times...

Like Mike indicated, when people go to such a show, most of them will probably go for the biggest screen and the most bells and whistles, because that's probably the best. So, in this case they end up in a "Laser Ultra PLF" screen or IMAX screen in 3D. I doubt that even 10% of people know what HFR, but it costs EUR 1,00 extra, so it must be good?

Maybe, those who really dislike 3D, will explicitly choose a 2D show, but I guess they still will choose the biggest screen available in that option, which is still a HFR show in this case.

[Steve Guttag]

My point is...what is being offered is not necessarily a reflection of what customers want. There are studio and distribution influences on what amenities are offered (required). I looked at one of my client's sites and the 3D offerings were 75% of the showings. I doubt that is what their actual demand is. And, given that most patrons think cinemas are too expensive, already, even on normal performances, forcing an uncharge for an unwanted technology seems to only give the perception that cinemas are even more expensive.

[Mike Blakesley]

"without your four fried chickens and without your dry white toast"

I love that line. "Best damn chicken in the state!"

I guess a PLF screen with all the bells'n'whistles including 3D is like flying first class. Yeah, I want the wide seat and the leg room, but I don't give a crap about the wine and the fluffy pillow. I just want to watch the movie I downloaded.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The difference though is that flying first class is like 3 to 10 times as expensive as a comparable economy seat. We're not yet there with PLF offerings compared to normal ticket prices.

My point is...what is being offered is not necessarily a reflection of what customers want. There are studio and distribution influences on what amenities are offered (required). I looked at one of my client's sites and the 3D offerings were 75% of the showings. I doubt that is what their actual demand is. And, given that most patrons think cinemas are too expensive, already, even on normal performances, forcing an uncharge for an unwanted technology seems to only give the perception that cinemas are even more expensive.

Point taken, and I agree. The problem is, there is very little quality information out there about what customers actually want. My presumption is, most of them don't care about 3D, but we're all susceptible to confirmation bias. Showtimes like I published are biased because, like you mentioned, they're influenced by interests from both the exhibitor and the distributor/studios.

[Mike Blakesley]

The difference though is that flying first class is like 3 to 10 times as expensive as a comparable economy seat.

My point was just that people will buy the first class seat JUST because of the legroom, the convenience etc. without caring about a lot of the perks. I suspect the same might be happening for Avatar in 3-D -- some people want the biggest screen but they'd really prefer to see it in 2D. There's not really a way to quantify that, I guess.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

My point was just that people will buy the first class seat JUST because of the legroom, the convenience etc. without caring about a lot of the perks. I suspect the same might be happening for Avatar in 3-D -- some people want the biggest screen but they'd really prefer to see it in 2D. There's not really a way to quantify that, I guess.

Watch the chains ads to see how many 2-D shows they are doing every 7 days. That should give an idea of what to do. In Forsyth, probably one 2-D a week would be good.