Lately this has become a big question for a lot of people, especially when considering where to go and watch James Cameron’s 3D blockbuster Avatar, and the questions has crossed my mind too, considering that there are cinemas with all of the three major 3D technologies where I live too. So here is a quick and short comparison between the three major solutions used in 3D movie theaters worldwide, along with information on which one I personally prefer, but you are also more than welcome to share your personal preferences along with the WHYs…
IMAX 3D
This one is the oldest of the three standards that is famous mostly because of the very big screens present in these cinemas, but they are still not very widely available around the world with most of the IMAX cinemas present in USA. Up until very recently IMAX 3D was only analogue with the movies being shot on large frame 70mm film in order to achieve good image quality on the larger screens these cinemas use, as compared to normal 35mm film. The digital version was introduced last year and still very few cinemas use that and the resolution and respectively the projection screen sizes for these implementations are not as big as on the analogue ones. IMAX uses big linear passive polarized plastic glasses for the viewers that do not provide the best possible experience. Anyway, getting back to the user experience, there is something very specific for IMAX 3D and that is the fact that the movies shown there are usually optimized for more pop-out screen effect than depth. This means that most of the time objects literally seem to pop out of the screen appearing as if you can touch them, kids do love this effect, but this is also more tiring for the brain. So usually longer movies are a bit of a problem to watch and Avatar is close to 3 hours, so you should be carefully consider this, especially if you feel a little “out of this world” when watching movies in an IMAX cinema. Some other drawbacks that are not always present and most of the people miss are the lower contrast in some dark scenes, a bit more ghosting of objects and problems refocusing your eyes quickly enough to follow the whole picture in fast action scenes and thus you might miss some important parts. Anyway IMAX 3D is certainly the most easy way to achieve the WOW effect with just about anyone that is watching his first stereoscopic 3D movie, but it this is not the first for you, then the other alternatives might be better…
RealD
This is a bit newer standard, but a digital one from its start… digital here meaning that the movies are recorded in a digital format and the projectors being used are also digital. RealD 3D cinemas uses circular polarized plastic glasses instead of linear polarized to provide better user experience when watching stereoscopic content. Circular polarization is considered to be better, because viewers are able to move their head as they like without the loss of the 3D depth effect. With the linear polarized glasses you have to be a bit steady, not moving around too much and sometimes you might have trouble finding the right position for your head in order to achieve the best effect when watching the movie to fully enjoy it. The circular polarized plastic glasses used here are also cheap to produce, but this technology requires the use of more expensive silver screen for projection which makes it a bit more expensive to implement. Still at the moment RealD is the most widely used standard for stereoscopic 3D movie projections all over the world, so you will most likely have one of these cinemas where you live. The immersion experience with RealD is a bit different compared to what you get at IMAX 3D projections as here the depth perception is of actual depth so the action is more going inside the screen, and not popping out of it. This does not make things less impressive, although some people might get a little disappointed at first if they were expecting to have the IMAX 3D pop-out effects, but after some time of watching they still get the feeling they are right in the middle of the action. This way of going more in the projection screen and not out of it is also easier on your brain as it is not that overloaded with information and is considered better for longer movies. Also it is easier to keep track of quick action scenes and the ghosting is usually less, so most of the people prefer this technology, although it is still not perfect.
Dolby 3D
Also known as Dolby 3D Digital Cinema is the newest of the three technologies for stereoscopic 3D movie projection and as you can guess not only by the name it is as well digital like RealD. A lot of people find that Dolby 3D is the best stereoscopic 3D technology for them to watch movies in the cinema. Here we also have the typical cinema style plastic 3D glasses that use a bit more specific passive filters related to the main colors we see which is by far considered to provide the best results. Of course this special type of polarization brings the cost of the glasses up compared to the normal linear or circular polarized glasses the other technologies use, but there the projection screen doesn’t have to be specific (Dolby 3D at home, anyone?). Dolby 3D provides better color reproduction (colors look a bit brighter and more vivid) and a sharper image with more details visible (especially in darker areas), better contrast and almost no ghosting of the objects you see on the screen, which also are not that much popping out of the screen like in IMAX 3D, but rely more on inside depth, like with RealD. Still the stereoscopic 3D experience here is yet again not perfect as you might have trouble with the quick refocusing of your eyes on some objects moving fast from the back to front and some people might have weird troubles seeing the right colors some rare occasions.
And after all this you can say that it is still mostly a matter of personal preferences where you’ll watch 3D movies, but sometimes you might not have IMAX 3D cinema around or any other technology. Have in mind that with the case of Avatar, it is also being shown in some 2D cinemas, but that will be too stupid to do when the movie has been made especially to be watched in 3D. The only thing I don’t like about IMAX is that after about 40 minutes I’m a bit tired and I probably will have trouble watching a movies that is much longer than that. As for RealD and Dolby 3D for me there is hardly any significant difference between the quality and experience you get in cinemas equipped with one or the the other technology, although Dolby 3D seems to be slightly better. And don’t forget that sometimes not well enough built or equipped 3D movie theater can also ruin everything with the one at fault not the technology being used… ;)
95 responses so far ↓
51 Jo // Jan 14, 2010 at 03:17
What I have seen has been Xpand and it is not really worth the money. It may well be due projector our theater has (Finland, Finnkino) but on our group the Avatar3D caused plenty of serious headaches and one Bad Migrane that caused two people to leave the asile within 30 minuted of the begin…
IMHO these 3D theaters should have some kind of standardization and minimal requirements so that most people could enjoy the movie event
52 Bob // Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09
A correction to my earlier post regarding the masterImage system. The technology used is a “polarizing filter wheel” not a “color wheel”.
53 Steve // Jan 17, 2010 at 23:43
I watched Avatar in iMax 3D and then in another “regular” 3D which I’m not sure what it is, but it was on a regular size of screen vs. huge iMAX. There is no comparison, iMAX is 10000 WOW to the other one. Watching iMax i was “INSIDE” of the movie, i was like “dude, this is mind-blowing!” while the other screen left me with “it’s nice” feeling. I don’t pretend to be a specialist of any kind, but IMHO iMax is THE 3D, and I would not go to see anything else even for 1/4 price.
54 Georg // Jan 21, 2010 at 09:47
Saw Avatar first at the Bridge in Los Angeles in Real 3d and was blown away by the experience. Nice depth, bright colors, very sharp. A couple of weeks later I saw it again on the IMAX, thinking it will be that much better. At that time I had no idea about different 3d technologies. I was very disappointed by the Imax experience. I got kind of dissy half way into the movie, the fast scenes acutally hurt my eyes, they were fussy and overall, the movie seemed dull. Another problem was, that I had to keep my head tilted in a specific way to keep focused. Also, in the Real 3d I remembered some of the tiny insect flying around, which I missed to a great part in the IMAX.
So, I am not an expert in 3d technology, but real 3d is the way to go for me at least.
55 Hertz // Jan 22, 2010 at 01:14
Regardless of the technology, make sure the theater has a good projector and screen. For RealD3D, make sure that the theater has the new Sony SXRD 4K projector. The alternative will be a DLP 2K camera. This link: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-4KTheaterLocationsAll.shtml will show all the theaters with the new Sony projector. Also, many theaters have cheap reflective screens (required to maintain the polorization). A cheap screen can seem sparkly, or very grainy; sometimes the screens are stored rolled up and can become damaged (creased, really).
As far as my Avatar 3D experience: I live in the Denver area, so there are no active systems like Xpand (cowtown blues). I haven’t found a Dolby 3D theater, either. My recommendation for either IMax 3D or RealD3D is the Orchards 12 in Westminster. Perfect screens and a Sony 4K for RealD3D and a brand new IMAX 3D projector (film, not digital). I prefered the RealD3D for the spherical polorization, however the IMAX 3D resolution was very nice. I’d recommend either at this theater.
56 Steve // Jan 28, 2010 at 07:34
I saw Beowulf at an IMAX, and agree that there was very much a “pop-out” effect. It was somewhat cheesy looking to me, but I just chalked that up to the CGI being a work in progress. I still enjoyed the movie.
But with Avatar (same IMAX theater), I noticed only the faintest trace of that effect. Also, I did not suffer any eye fatigue or other ill affects. I did notice that if I tilted my head to speak to the wife, the picture would flatten and dull a slight bit. No problem … stop whispering to the wife! I do wish the glasses were not so ridiculously large.
The movie was artistically stunning. I enjoyed every minute of it. Because of the 3-D, it was a pleasure just to immerse myself in the visuals. Stunning. Job well done!
I do have one question, for some of you with a good knowledge of the tech. Are there adjustments to film “timing” (one projector reference the other), projector offset or focus that could affect the quality of the presentation, i.e., the bulging out, or lead to inconsistent quality with the IMAX system? The reason for the question is that I see such varied replies. One in particular said that Beowulf was of better presentation quality than Avatar at IMAX, which at MY IMAX, was indisputably NOT the case.
On last thing .. the sound quality at IMAX is great. I have never heard better at a movie.
57 ney-tiri // Feb 1, 2010 at 22:01
My preferences goes for reald 3D for avatar (compare to dolby 3D).
58 Amy // Feb 7, 2010 at 21:32
I’m a bit confused. Regarding the Avatar screenings at the Arclight Dome (Hollywood)…is it IMAX or XPAND? Reading the above it sounds like it has been both?
I saw Avatar yesterday at in an Arclight blackbox theater (flat screen) in Dolby 3D and thought it was gorgeous!
59 John Bäckstrand // Feb 9, 2010 at 11:27
So, am I the only one who find RealD flickery? You do get used to it, but it was definitely flickering when I watched Up!
60 Scott // Feb 13, 2010 at 16:39
Netherlands Amsterdam saw Avatar in IMAX 3D in Pathe Arena Theatre- so linear polarized.
I’ve been raised with viewmaster and a stereo photographing dad, so quite experienced in the 3D stills. Prefarably viewers, anaglyph gives me headaches quickly. I was curious, but not looking forward for a 3 hr lasting moving images session. Boy, was I wrong. Much to my surprise not a hint of fatigue (and it was a friday after a week of hard work) Besides I was absolutely amazed at the quality, impact, effects and colours all were very nice. My god, the neon forest at night, what an accomplishment…. Yes, if you tilt your head sideways you notice the image blurs/doubles but since I was mesmerized like a 5 year old seeing fireworks for the first time, keeping my head straight was no problem.
XpanD seems complicated to me, hear diverse stories (flickering, heavy stories) but curious to see Dolby 3d. But IMAX 3D definitely recommendable.
I do think the quality of the theatre/ technique and the place you sit will make a difference. I was sitting pretty in the middle one third in the audience, I guess row 10 or 12. A sweet spot for me, obviously.
61 trgz // Feb 14, 2010 at 13:02
Just seen Avatar at a RealD 3D cinema:
Disappointing 3D during fast moving L-R objects – like a low refresh rate TV/monitor – objects felt like they were stuttering as they crossed the field of view; and some foreground objects weren’t quite ‘right’; otherwise the slower shots really conveyed a natural sense of depth. Actually looking forward to seeing it on my humble 37″ plasma on DVD (not Blu-Ray) as I personally think the cinema experience was somewhat lacking in terms of picture quality for this 3D presentation. Sound was superb though.
62 Stevie // Mar 1, 2010 at 05:01
The article needs updating with regards to RealD XLS, which is when the latest sony 4K projectors are used. Instead of 144 times a second switching, it displays left and right constantly all the time (by splitting the 2K image stacked top n bottom on its 4K chip). Thus allowing much improved luminance and colour response. I saw Avatar today at a cinema equipped with the new Sony projector and WOW, what an incredible 3D image. Totally blown away.
63 Flow // Mar 3, 2010 at 03:04
I saw Avatar in real film-based, huge-sized (28 x 21 meters) IMAX 3D in Berlin. It was absolutly great. No projection errors, flawless 3D with maybe 1 or 2 short moments of slight ghosting and powerfull 25,000 watts of sound with unforgettable LFE (=low frequency effect=bass) that I could FEEL in my stomach and of course full 1,78:1 instead of cropped 2,35:1…
The only strange thing was: There were black bars not only on the top and bottom of the screen, but also ca. 2 meters wide black bars on the left and right side. But I forgot that soon.
Summary: See this film in IMAX (neither LIEMAX nor MINIMAX)!!!
64 katie // Mar 14, 2010 at 23:50
I saw Avatar twice. Once with RealD glasses at the Burbank AMC and once in IMAX 3d at Universal.. AMC was perfect. The ReadD experience is by far my favorite. IMAX glasses were too small, uncomfortable, and the focusing was annoying. And, I recently just Alice In Wonderland at the Sherman Oaks Arclight. It was the worst 3d experience I’ve ever had. The Dolby glasses were too heavy, had bad waterspots that wouldn’t come clean, and the picture ghosted horribly. I would have much rather seen this movie in 2d. I’m curious how this movie looked with RealD. I plan on seeing it at AMC just so I can tell how the movie was intended on looking. I can’t imagine that the 3d production of the movie was as awful as it seemed with my Dolby expierence.
65 Steve // Mar 15, 2010 at 19:06
Real D shows the 24 frames per second of film three times for each eye as the eye’s flicker response is 72fps.
Rather than showing the frame three times, film ought to be natively produced at 72fps. That would get rid of any studder/judder. Motion is poor at this frequency. However, the real problem is the industry has a fetish for 24fps. They love the look, but it proves a problems for viewing. After all, thats *our* problem, not theirs.
66 Paul // Mar 27, 2010 at 07:26
As a professional in the field, some things to keep in mind:
1) If an object should be 50 feet (15m) away from you, then properly it should appear behind a RealD screen, but “pop-out” of an IMAX screen (because IMAX screens are much further away from you).
2) Most, if not all, productions are mastered for one type (i.e. size and shape) of theater — you will get the best 3D in that type of theater.
3) Field-of-view makes a much bigger difference in 3D than it does in 2D — unless the director has authored the film for a small field-of-view anyway.
PS@Steve: if we made films with 72 distinct frames per second — instead of 24 frames per second each repeated 3 times it would indeed look better, but it would also cost much more. Most experiments in this direction have failed miserably.
67 Marc // Apr 5, 2010 at 06:17
I just returned from seeing Avatar in IMAX 3-D at the New England Aquarium, Boston. I had previously seen it several weeks ago in RealD at the Capital Theatre in Arlington, Mass. In a nutshell, IMAX was not as good.
The following comments reflect only the New England Aquarium IMAX. I can’t speak for other IMAX theatres.
1. Compared with RealD at the Capital, Aquarium IMAX glasses are old-fashioned, uncomfortable, provide a limited range of peripheral vision, and have water spots that you can’t wipe off. This significantly detracted from the experience.
2. It seemed like the screen dimension (aspect ratio) was different. Seemed like they crop the left and right sides in the IMAX version. Not sure if I’m correct about this. My friend, who hadn’t seen the film before , remarked after seeing the IMAX film that he wasn’t impressed by the 3D experience.
3. The film quality didn’t have the “wow” factor at IMAX like at the other theatre.
I will say that after the IMAX, I heard people in the row behind me saying how amazing they thought it was. So, the film is still impressive at the IMAX, and the sound was effectively BIG. However, despite the screen being larger, I felt considerably more “immersed” in movie-world the first time I saw the film. Aquarium and Capital appear to be the only two cinema’s in/near Boston still showing Avatar. I regret spending my thirteen bucks at IMAX, and wish I had just gone back to the Capital for my second viewing.
68 004forever // Apr 6, 2010 at 00:28
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D with the Dolby system and it looked like shit. That is really the preferred method? All of the colors seemed way off and the 3D wasn’t that good. Did I get a bad pair of glasses or something, because that experience was awful.
69 RJ // Apr 18, 2010 at 11:13
I was about to see “How to Train your Dragon” at the Arclight Sherman Oaks tonight, but called ahead and confirmed that they were screening it using XpanD. I skipped it and went to the AMC Imax screening at Universal Citywalk.
My experience with XpanD has been horrendous. Starting with the awful Avatar screening in the Cinerama Dome and most recently with a press screening of Clash Of the Titans (also at Hollywood Arclight).
Consistently, the XpanD system results in a darker image, that has a yellow cast to it. Very dark at times. I saw Avatar 3 times, first at a press screening at the Hollywood Chinese complex (small theater, not the premier screening in the large theater) that used the RealD system. Then the very next day at the Dome using XpanD. Then a week later at Sherman Oaks Arclight using Dolby3D. Of the three presentations, the RealD was the winner, with Dolby3D coming in close, and XpanD a distant third.
I can’t recommend enough, you avoid the XpanD system. But if you get stuck in a screening with it, just pop the (heavy) glasses up during the movie and you’ll see just how dark the image is and the color cast the glasses introduce. It’s bad.
70 Nikodem // May 7, 2010 at 13:02
Just a remark on “popping out” images.
Keeping in mind that in stereoscopy immersion effect depends on the difference between possitions of left and right image of given image element – if your right image at the screen is on the right side of the your image of the same object then your object seems to be behind the screen, if it is on the left side then the object seems to be in front of the screen – it means that this “pooping effect” needs to be printed into movie or in case of two projectors presentation can be manipulated by alignment of those. Also the bigger screen is, or the closer we are to the screen then those distances (between position of left and right image) are larger than “normally” – if object is behind the screen it goes deeper than normally and if it is in front it comes closer than normally (and then those objects seems “thicker”). So it really depends on the place we are sitting in the audience, the size of the screen (see: iMAX) and the horizontal alignment of projectors (if there are two of them).
And one more (important) thing. Objects cannot properly pop out from the screen if they are on the side of it – we cannot see image outside the pyramidal (or semi-pyramidal) space between the screen and the eye (we won’t see those: http://productionguild.com/live/pictures/3D_TV3.png , http://www.academyconfidential.co.uk/images/3D_01.jpg , http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Phillips-3D-TV.jpg – it could be almost this: http://keznews.com/pics/jokeware/3d_tv.jpg ). Object that are designed to pop out perpendicularly from the screen will in fact always pop out toward us (wherever we are sitting). So it is good to design large 3d effect in the center of the picture but not on the sides or on the whole picture. It, in my opinion, explains differences of experiences at different cinemas (iMAX again) and different movies.
71 fred // May 25, 2010 at 09:10
reald now have the xd system (experience digital cinema) wich the screen is much biger … so will have the same pop out efect like in imax ??????
72 Bloody // May 25, 2010 at 10:10
Probably not like on IMAX if they use the same source as with the normal RealD screens, but the pop-out and depth should be higher because of the increase in size of the image.
73 Star // Jun 5, 2010 at 20:15
I hate wearing those 3D glasses so I watched Avatar in 2D and it was still awsome!
74 vel // Jun 6, 2010 at 10:26
I have a question:
can RealD glasses be used to watch Dobly? and vice versa?
thank you
75 Bloody // Jun 6, 2010 at 12:27
No, each type of glasses can be used only with the technology they were designed for…
76 Royal Majesty // Jun 7, 2010 at 19:30
This review is GARBAGE!
To say that RealD has ANY advantage over IMAX is a flat out LIE! IMAX is way brighter (and that’s a huge deal when wearing “sunglasses” in a movie theater!) and has far superior contrast and wildly superior color saturation. Motion is also undeniably smoother and the sound is simply incomparable.
I’ve watched Avatar and Alice In Wonderland in IMAX, RealD and regular 2D at the Regal Dole Cannery location. RealD is merely a 3D version of a 2D presentation. 3D, yes, but nothing spectacular. IMAX transports the patron into the film in a way no other format can. It is TRULY an immersive experience unlike any other.
All of Avatar was truly readily noticeably more vibrant and superior in every way on IMAX than on RealD and the closing credits in Alice (where the screen border of flowers and plants is growing) had so much more luminance on IMAX, it was really a “wow!” kind of difference.
This was evidenced by the Honolulu IMAX running sold out performances of Avatar for many weeks while the RealD and 2D theaters had modest sales during the same period. Just about everybody in Honolulu that watched Avatar watched it in IMAX. And rightly so. Same for Alice In Wonderland.
The only thing I can garner from the review is that the author got paid to write what he did. It’s simply blatantly false. RealD is unquestionably the “poor man’s IMAX.” NO doubt about it. It’s honestly not even close. Not even the same ballpark. Seriously.
77 Bob // Jun 28, 2010 at 00:20
It’s been a while since I commented here but my experience last evening at The ArcLight Sherman Oaks angered me enough to generate this post. I am a fan of 3D, if it is done right, but last evening’s viewing of Toy Story 3 on the ArcLight’s new Xpand 3D system was sub par. The ArcLight theaters used to use the Dolby3D system in all of their 3D theaters with the exception of their Cinerama Dome at their Hollywood location that used the Xpand system. They have now converted all of their 3D screens to the Xpand system. While I am not a great fan of Dolby3D, in my opinion the Xpand system is worse. I found the picture very dark and the glasses very heavy. The glasses, within 10 minutes of putting them on, hurt the bridge of my nose and my temples. I can’t even imagine how I would wear these 3D glasses if I wore eye glasses. These glasses ruined the movie for me and therefore I won’t be attending any 3D movies at the Arclight. I am a fan of RealD or MasterImage and their light disposable non-active glasses and brighter screens. I am curious has anybody else had a similar experience with Xpand?
78 Mojo // Jun 28, 2010 at 07:16
Wow, Bob, you took the words right out of my mouth! I too saw Toy Story at the Sherman Oaks Arclight and was appauled. The brightness reduction was unacceptable, and the colors very washed out. Flipping up my glasses revealed a totally different movie.
And I agree, the glasses were heavy, uncomfortable and kept sliding down my nose. My friend had to get new glasses 5 mins into the film because they started flickering!
The Dolby system looked great and for the life of me I can’t figure out why a theater would opt for a system that has such expensive upkeep and and inferior picture.
I will never see another 3D movie at the Arclight if it’s in Xpand, and the group of friends I was with all agreed. This is shame, since we go every week to see a movie at the Arclight, but now we’ll have to venture elsewhere to see 3D films.
79 james braselton // Jul 24, 2010 at 21:43
hi there here is what could change movies in the next 60 years steroscopic 3D screens like nintendo 3DS halo decks and halo grams 4D might come 8D stuff was found on the interent you can thank 3D avatar and nintendo bringing mass market 3D too consumers why did sony not release a 3D psp vs psp or psp go
80 chris // Aug 17, 2010 at 15:54
i know all three methods and dolby 3D is by far the best. You only get a colour shifts if u look out the edge of the lens which isn’t possible looking at screen directly. Imax 3D offers no more or less pop out than either dolby or real D. I think people are getting there wires crossed and blaming technology for 3D issues rather than the movie itself. If a movie has pop out then it will be the same regardless. Imax uses a huge screen which being so close and clear feels very touchable.
Xpand is just shutter glasses. They are alot better then early shutter glasses but if a cinema is set up correctly with a native 3D film. Dolby will will win hands down. Imax is probably the brightest due to duel projection thus huge lumen output. A duel projector setup would definitely set dolby apart.
Duel projection is the best method for 3d and use triple the light output and display Left and Right perspectives at the same time. Much easier for brain to process.
Avatar premiere used duel stack 2k projectors (4 projectors) with dolby 3D because with high lumen output the 3D is pretty much flawless. Only problem i have personally with dolby 3d is the glasses are a bit weighty with glass lenses but plastic lenses are being worked on but quality is the issue.
81 rababo // Dec 1, 2010 at 22:52
aLL THE COMMENTS WERE VERY INFORMATIVE but left me very confused. i want to make a 3d cinema but with only for kids >disney 3d movies and i have no idea on the equipments or best quality systems i should be using. do all equipments need to be ofsame designer or you could have different make. thank you and hope i can get a reply that wold be less confusing. thanx in advance
82 Doug // Dec 23, 2010 at 09:05
When I was a kid 3D first came out. The House of Wax, Phantom of the Rougue Morg, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, all of those movies had pop out 3D. Much better than anything I have seen. There are a few scary movies that have had good pop out, but none of the Pixar movies I have seen have pop out’s except snowflakes or leaves.
83 carl // Jan 6, 2011 at 09:19
Tron sucked on dolby. Just saw today.
It looked like the movie was 2d made and then adapted to 3d.
3d stuff were cut from the back and shown on the front. The back was always unfocused. Look liked “paper in front of a more far away from you backgroung”. Most of the scenes were 2d. I want my money back. I could not keep the glasses….
84 Pav // Jan 11, 2011 at 21:36
I am not too sure about the difference between the different screens. I’ve seen avatar last year on an IMAX screen with circularly polarized 3D and it was amazing. Now, I’ve recently seen Tron on the same screen and like carl pointed out, it was Dolby 3D (linearly polarized) and it sucked. I don’t quite understand why 2 different technologies would be used on the same screen, when one is definitely superior to the other.
85 Nitaino // Jan 16, 2011 at 10:52
Well due to the comments I picked RealD as the winner, follow by MAX 3D and Dolby D 3D. Only saw RealD movies and damn! Love Technology! Just like you guys!
86 Dennison Uy // Feb 22, 2011 at 06:55
To Royal Garbage who said IMAX is better than Real D: have you considered the idea that perhaps theater setup and calibration had a lot to do with it? Here in the Philippines we have limited IMAX theaters, so we pay a premium for it (double the price of Real D). So perhaps that allows IMAX theaters to be better maintained compared to the more common Real D.
87 Ron // Apr 27, 2011 at 18:16
According to this article http://www.reviewmaze.com/2011/03/3d-technology-in-cinema-imax-3d-reald.html thre is also another technology XpanD 3D which they consider the best. Is it not mentioned here because it is a new one or for another reason?
88 fitzgerald // May 4, 2011 at 15:51
Wow, the comments are so goddamn CONFUSING.
89 arg // May 7, 2011 at 18:50
too tired to watch a long movie?!?! Please clarify, cause im picturing a severly morbidly obese Roger Ebert who is complaining that the butter dispenser under his arm rest is broken. Been to many IMAX shows, huge difference in a retrofitted theater versus an actual IMAX theater, but I’ve never left feeling tired
90 Juan // May 20, 2011 at 21:54
So after 15 minutes reading this entire post, I still don’t know which one is better, lol… I think I am just going to choose my shows depending on which one adheres to my time schedule and how much money I am willing to spend on that movie.
Taking your whole family to the movies is an expensive matter nowadays… :-)
91 Lisa // May 26, 2011 at 16:45
It would be nice to see a table comparing the specifications for each technology. Ultimately the quality won’t matter too much, however… just like with BlueRay and VHS technologies it will be up to content providers (in this case studios) that will determine what technology becomes the defacto standard.
Personally I don’t think 3D will take off until we completely lose the glasses.
92 tom watson // Jun 6, 2011 at 19:37
The IMAX 3D glasses provided at AMC Potomac Mills were horrible. I don’t know if this is a typical experience, but they appeared to be mad of cheap plastic, and I was told that they are “washed” between viewings, with the result that they are all streaky (I looked through several) and appear that way while viewing. I’m sure the movie would have been much better viewed in regular 2D. IMAX needs to examine the policy regarding their glasses or provide better glasses for a more enjoyable vieing experience.
93 James // Oct 15, 2011 at 21:43
You raise some interesting points, but it sounds like you’re a bit biased towards the newer digital technologies. I won’t pretend to know as much about the Dolby 3D as Real D, but in regards to Real D there is one big difference between that and IMAX 3D. Real D uses circular polarised glasses, but only uses ONE projector to display both left and right eye images onto the screen. The RealD projector does this by alternating between left and right eye frames, and polarising each one separately for the corresponding eye. The key point being, left and right frames are never shown simultaneously onscreen, instead the image flickers between the two. This produces a noticeable flicker, particularly noticeable on big white backgrounds or vistas such as a white sky or snowy scene. Aparently some projectors run at 48fps to try and reduce this flicker, but even so, it is still visible. IMAX 3D, shows both left and right eye images simultaneously. Both eyes recieve dedicated images at the same time (what I call ‘proper’ 3D). Flickering between left and right, is just as bad as those LCD shutter 3DTV glasses, (watch something moving against a white background on a 3DTV and you’ll know what I’m talking about). Its like 1080p vs 1080i. 1080p has the full information there all of the time, 1080i tries to ‘cheat’ the image by alternating lines of pixels.
I’ll admit, each has its own merits, and everyones entitled to their own opinion, but when the next big 3D film comes out, you can bet I’ll be watching it on a 20m x 26m IMAX screen.
94 christian // Nov 3, 2011 at 22:11
IMAX is the best wether its 2d or 3d so from the power of the sound u feel like its happening at the same time in 3d its better it could be also in 2d so its better if u chose IMAX!
95 buckdog // Dec 11, 2011 at 23:26
i watch avatar 3d on my 50 samsung 3d tv..with monster max 3d glasses…works flawlessy..the images jump out at you you feel like your in the movie..the picture is very sharp and detailed….it great to have this experience in the comfort of your own place….
Leave a Comment