RealD 3D glasses you keep, and stop paying extra for admission "Just an idea"

[Robert McGee]

There are a few theaters where I live that offer 3D but they don't all the same amount for 3D. One charges $2 another charges $2.50 another $3, the only time it seems you don't pay extra for 3D is when it's in IMAX 3D.

I took home a few pairs of RealD glasses and can plainly see that the lenses are like paper thin. You could just poke a nettle throw these. A pair of IMAX 3D glasses that I kept soon had one of it's lenses damaged. After that I poked out the other lens instead of throwing the frames away, I just turned them into Red/Blue Anaglyph 3D glasses.

Now this is how theaters could save money on the coast and overhead of having to recycle a pair of 3D glasses and stop charging extra every time. The lenses are paper thin just like I said earlier now I think they would last longer and be more durable if they where encased in hard clear plastic. The frames would be more durable like sun glasses. You would order a re-usable pair when you go to the theater, or on the RealD website. Each pair would come with a discount card where go to the theater or buy your tickets online, your only paying standard admission that you would pay to see a 2D screening. You would get one discount card good for at least 6 people at maximum, each pair would also come in a hard case. You can choose between the re-usable 3D glasses or the a pair of RealD's 3D sunglasses. Each discount card should atleast be good for up to 50 shows a year in order to encourage customers to return for a second showing. The discount card and the glasses themselves should be good for up to 2 years, you get a new card upon renewal.

[James T Mather]

what about the added cost of making the film in 3d to the filmmaker?

[jonnycom]

these are the coolest 3d glasses we've found so far.

http://www.mvo3d.com/

[Robert McGee]

what about the added cost of making the film in 3d to the filmmaker?

When a filmmaker shoots a film in 3D, it's just apart of the budget. No studio or filmmaker out there has ever stated that they actually profit from the added price of admission when a film is presented in 3D, because I don't think I would. Plus if the studio demanded that a film be shot in 3D, the studio would be responsible for the cost, not the filmmaker.

When you buy a ticket a the theater this is what happens, the studio gets it cut and the theater gets it's cut from each ticket sold. Some filmmakers still look at 3D as a gimmick because you don't directly profit from 3D, the only company that would get a profit in this case would be RealD. IMAX owns 90% of it's venues and you don't always pay extra for 3D.

One pattern that I am seeing is that 3D now offers a greater profit margin because it's a way to get people to come to the theater, because not all films that are presented in 3D are shot in 3D.

[Tim Hole]

RealD glasses are recycled. The problem is that up until recently distributors were subsidising the cost of the glasses. They no longer do, so some of the cost is passed over to you. They are encouraging you to keep your glasses to use next time.

IMAX 3D glasses are not officially available to buy to consumers and you don't usually don't get to keep them because they cost around C$5-7 each. They are still very easy to damage but cinemas wash and clean them after each showing.

[Robert McGee]

Well, IMAX 3D glasses may cost more but they are cheaper to maintain then RealD glasses and that's why IMAX doesn't charge extra for 3D.

This idea is primary for any conventional 3D system like RealD, Dolby 3D, Xpan 3D, exe. I'm sure that there is a way to get rid of the wild extra costs to few a film in 3D, it's not like RealD uses two projectors like IMAX Digital.

[Jonathan Stevenson]

Every IMAX 3D show I've ever been to has had a $3 surcharge for 3D.

[Jim Collins]

I would really like some prescription 3D glasses rather than have to wear the plastic ones over my glasses. I wouldn't have any heartburn paying a couple hundred bucks for them either. Although I doubt there are very high percentage of people like me.

I think the way they should handle it in the theater is to sell the glasses separately in a vending machine. Keep them or recycle them it would be up to the customer. They could also sell cheap ones and expensive ones that are designed to last longer.

[Robert McGee]

Every IMAX 3D show I've ever been to has had a $3 surcharge for 3D.

If you ask me, I think IMAX should go back to the drawing board and start using circular polarization for most if not all of their 3D venues. If there going to charge $3 bucks at the place you go to, then they should be using either RealD 3D or Dolby 3D glasses. Do you pay $3 because it's not IMAX's standard IMAX 3D system?

[Adrian Frearson]

Oakley should produce a Red D Cinema model :-)

[jimhare]

In Sydney Australia you get to keep the Real 3D glasses after the movie and if you bring them next time you get a $2 discount. Still costs more than a 2D film, but a step in the right direction.

[David Rasberry]

At least according to the vendors I talked to at InfoComm, the average cost of a pair of Real3D lcd shutter type glasses in quantity is less than a dollar.

[Rodney Johnson]

IMAX owns 90% of it's venues and you don't always pay extra for 3D.


IMAX owns a few theatres, Chicago's Navy Pier, Nyack New York, Apple Valley Minnesota, Sacramento California... that's four, they manage but don't own a couple also. The other 200-300 are owned and run by others who decide ticket prices and what kind of glasses to use individually.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Owning your own 3D glasses is surely a great idea, but the aded cost of the admission, is not only based on the Glasses but on the added costs of the Projection for 3D and S3D alike.

So even if it got to the point were the Cinemas do not longer provide their Patrons with Glasses, thickest will still be and have to be more expensive then 2D Standard Monoscopic Media.

One of my points, is that having your own glasses will prevent you form having to use those ridiculous recycled glasses so cheap and full of scratches.

[Bill Anderson]

The idea was previously raised in Recon under Pirates of the Caribbean. Now if I could only remember the poster's name; a smart, handsome guy, very modest....
It'll come to me.

[Robert McGee]

At least according to the vendors I talked to at InfoComm, the average cost of a pair of Real3D lcd shutter type glasses in quantity is less than a dollar.

RealD doesn't use LCD shutter glasses. LCD shutter glasses require an electrical charge in order to give you a 3D effect. 3D glasses used in the theaters use polarized lenses despite what type of 3D glasses your using. LCD shutter glasses where first scene in the U.S. on an 8bit gaming console out of all things, the Sega Master System. Polarization was first introduced back in the 1940s in order to maintain color correction, something that just can't really be done on colored 3D glasses all the time. It was good back in the 1920s when films where shot in black and white.

[Andrew clemson]

Here we get given the option of the base Real3D glasses that you give back after the movie, or you can spend 100Dirhams (roughly $25) for a pair of Aviator style "designer" ones that you can keep. Apparently more comfortable, but seeing as Ive only watched 2 3D movies including Avatar since the trend started, (the other was Alice, and it put me off 3D) I havent coughed up the dough yet.