Lately this has become a serious question for a lot of people, especially when considering where to watch James Cameron’s movie Avatar… it has crossed my mind too, as 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, along with information on which one I personally prefer, but you are also more than welcome to share your personal preferences too 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 3D cinema can ruin everything with the one at fault not the technology being used… ;)
80 responses so far ↓
1 3D-dOOd // Dec 18, 2009 at 22:42
We have a theater chain that uses Sony’s 4k 3D Projectors w/ RealD and it’s phenomenal. That said, I’m seeing at IMAX first. :)
2 Dave // Dec 19, 2009 at 04:09
Thanks for the info! A few other comments:
IMAX: the only real reason it “feels” like there’s more screen “pop” is because the viewing area is so much bigger, therefore giving filmmakers more space to “play” in and less edge obstruction. IMHO, IMAX’s achilles’ heel is the use of outdated linear polarizers. Too much ghosting and eye strain (caused by neck muscles subconsciously compensating for linear alignment).
REALD: The circular polarizers make all the difference in the world, much more comfortable in terms of freedom of head position; plus, the way they process frames (each frame 3 times per eye, 2 x 3 x 24 = 144Hz) virtually eliminates ghosting. RealD is my current go-to choice — I went to the crappiest Mann theater I could find, and the film was *flawless*. Fairly “set-it-and-forget-it” technology.
DOLBY: I *love* the image this system creates, and because it’s basically a higher-tech version of anaglyph, there’s no polarization problems at all. However, the curved-glass lens is still too reflective — have you ever worn a pair of eyeglasses, prescription or sunglasses, and seen your own face reflected in the curve of the inside of the lens? That’s what happens with the Dolby glasses. They have a distinct curve, and are highly reflective, specially-coated glass — so in a darkened theater, with the bright projection screen illuminating your face, you end up seeing your cheeks (and sometimes even your own eyes) reflected in the lens before you. Your eye naturally wants to focus past it, on the screen — but it ends up being an annoying “haze” or “halo” around the otherwise clear and sharp screen image. The RealD glasses are flat, and don’t have the same convex qualities — and since they’re just plastic polarization filters, aren’t nearly as reflective. Your eye focuses right past them, and no light is bounced back from your face. The Dolby folks know it’s a problem, and the first step they took is to make the ear stems on the glasses very “thick” (like goggles) to block the light from getting behind the lenses. But it doesn’t completely resolve the issue, and I hope they are looking into additional anti-glare coatings and such to try and eliminate the “haze” problem.
XPAND: this is my current favorite system, but is hard to find (http://www.xpandcinema.com/). I saw AVATAR at the Cinerama Dome this way last night, and it was simply the best 3D I’ve ever seen. It’s a new generation of active glasses, with lighter frames and no flicker whatsoever. It’s the system of choice for all of the high-end screening rooms at the studios (Disney, ILM), and it’s pretty expensive for public cinemas to install, but if you see a theater with it, GO — it’s amazing.
3 Bloody // Dec 19, 2009 at 13:52
Dave, thanks for sharing all the information and your experience with the different technologies.
I still haven’t been able to watch anything in XPAND 3D cinema, but I’ve been hearing a lot of good things about the technology. I suppose that the use of much more expensive active shutter glasses is a bit of a setback for it to generate more interest compared to the other alternative. There is just one screening theater with XPAND in my country according to their website… so it is a no go… ;)
4 Ivan // Dec 20, 2009 at 02:30
IMAX have more “pop-out effect” because the screen is bigger and only for that.
The bigger the screen, the bigger is the convergence or divergence of your eyes for the same movies (if you have two screens one is double the size of the other, and you are at the same distance from both screens, the displacement of an object “in front” or “behind” the screen is bigger, and you will have to converge more or diverge more your eyes to join the two images, and it will look like it’s closer or further away.
There is one more product: Xpand
Xpand have shutter glasses running where the images are projected 3 times for each eyes for each movie frame.
The separation is very good if the system is well calibrated, but it sucks for lateral motion sometimes (even with the 3 times per frame and per eye scheme which was supposed to get rid of that).
Here in Europe Xpand is by far the dominant technology.
My vote goes for IMAX 3D (I love stuff poping out) and Dolby3D (best idea and best eye separation)
5 gareth young // Dec 20, 2009 at 12:24
last time i saw imax was in london about 8 years ago.
the glasses we had were like a headset of sorts – they seemed to be a shutter type and had built in speakers to supplement the auditoriums speakers – do they not use that type anymore?
6 edge_puppet // Dec 20, 2009 at 14:09
In Saint-Petersburg (Russia) I’ve seen 3D-movies in 70mm IMAX 3D (IMAX MPX with 1:9 screen), Real D, MasterImage and Dolby 3D.
1. IMAX 3D. I’ve seen in this format some film about the dinosaur and the film about the cosmic station. That was very distracting for my eyes and some objects looks very small because you see them on your nose.
But the U2 3D and Avatar were very impressed me. Like i’ve been on concert and on Pandora.
2. Real D 3D. It’s very good for eyes, I think. I have no pain in eyes at all after 90 minutes when I saw UP! and Crhistmas Carol. And image was bright and without any glitches. 3D were also awsome.
3. MasterImage. It’s like Real D, but it’s more darker and not so comfortable for eyes, but with the same 3D-effect. May be it’s only in that theatre, were I so film in that technology. In MasterImage I saw “Caroline”.
4. Dolby 3D I have read many opinions in internet that Dolby is the best Digital 3D-technology, but in 3 auditoriums, were I saw films in Dolby 3D the was dark image with some color glithes.
Maybe it’s because of cheap lamps. :-(
I saw in dolby 3D: “Beowulf”, “Journey to the Center of the Earth”, “Bolt”, “Monsters vs Aliens”, “UP!” “Avatar Day’s footage” and “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”.
p.s. I think the best technology is Real D, but Avatar I saw in IMAX because of large screen and aspect ratio of the film 1,78:1 because it’s native for that film and in Digital 3D it presented in 2,35:1.
7 ojaireiki // Dec 20, 2009 at 14:44
Will my REALD glasses work on an IMAX screen?
8 Bloody // Dec 20, 2009 at 15:09
No, they will not work… they use different polarization of the light.
9 Russ // Dec 20, 2009 at 17:18
I Work In a cinema in London, UK and we have Xpand, It is really good, flicker isn’t present from what I noticed. I love Dolby 3d but I do notice the green/red of the active wheel behind the lens! but it is very slight! Real D is easy and relatively cheap (glasses) so that is for sure gonna be the one in most cinemas.
depth is both good with Xpand and Dolby, but I’ve only seen one film in Dolby so I can’t say if it was the film (a christmas carol) that had more depth to what I have seen on Xpand
10 matthew // Dec 21, 2009 at 10:52
thank YOU!, I’ve been looking for this info all week, surprised no reviewers of Avatar were getting into it. I’d seen an Imax 3D years ago: headaches, dark, annoying. Been reading on forums, “yeah dude, just do IMAX, it is biggest” I don’ care, want best experience.
11 Naiden Gochev // Dec 21, 2009 at 21:44
I’ve watched the movie in IMAX 3D it was AWESOME it cannot compare to Dolby 3D it is far far far better it was … wait for it… LEGENDARY !
12 Pranay // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:09
- The article mentions that Dolby 3D has better color. Technically there is no reason why this would be so. Can someone explain. Since Dolby uses color seperation for the two eyes, if anything I would imagine their color reproduction to be worse.’
13 Bloody // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:38
It is precisely because of the color filter they use, although in reality you cannot say that the colors you see in Dolby 3D are way better than in RealD for instance… maybe just a a little bit, but that may also depend on a lot of external factors too. :)
14 Bob // Dec 24, 2009 at 07:03
I have seen Avatar in RealD (at an Oscar screening on the Fox lot at the Zanuck Theater), Dolby 3D (ArcLight Sherman Oaks in Theater #3 and Xpand (ArcLight Cinerama Dome). The RealD viewing was by far the best. The colors were very bright, the 3D was excellent and the glasses were very light and easy to wear. I would rate the Dolby 3D next. The picture was not as bright and I found the glasses to be heavy and therefore uncomfortable at the 2 hour mark. Also the damn water spots from the cleaning process are a pain in the the ass. I bring my own eyeglass cleaner and cloth anytime I go to a Dolby 3D movie. I would rate my Xpand viewing as unacceptable for the following reasons. The image was dark compared to the other two technologies. The glasses are heavy and after two hours become uncomfortable and the curved screen of the Cinerama Dome makes any image on the right or left 1/4 of the screen slightly out of focus. I plan on going to the Imax at the Bridge next week for my last viewing. So far RealD wins hands down for me. Some of this might be that the screening at the Zanuck Theater was probably tuned to make sure that it looked great because there were many Academy voters in the audience. I think that 3D amplifies the lack of projection quality in the public movie theaters.
15 Adult Games // Dec 24, 2009 at 22:29
I just saw Avatar in Imax 3D. It was definitely a visual spectacle but I found the “pop out” effect to be lacking. And in fact the feeling of depth going well past the physical screen was what I noticed more often than not. Granted I read somewhere that Cameron didn’t want to go overboard with cheap tricks to wow the audience. My friend had also seen the film in one of the other digital 3D formats (can’t say which) and said he found the 3D to be more impressive there. I definitely enjoyed the movie but I was a bit disappointed having seen Beowulf in Imax 3D and it was absolutely breathtaking all the way through by comparison.
16 Joseph Kal // Dec 26, 2009 at 06:22
Saw it twice in RealD, and interesting enough, one time is sucked, another time is was great. Two different locations.
Make sure your local theater has a high lumen projector and RealD is great, otherwise it can be quite dim.
17 J // Dec 26, 2009 at 06:24
I’ve heard that some swank theaters use multiple projectors for 3D which is not only brighter, but has less ghosting. So rather than alternating polarized frames they can show both at once.
18 Bloody // Dec 26, 2009 at 14:03
Improper implementation of a 3D technology in a cinema can really ruin the experience and this I believe is hardest to happen for IMAX as compared to the others.
Using two projectors can increase the brightness, but can also lead to other issues like misalignment of the images from the two projectors.
19 Mr.Floppy // Dec 27, 2009 at 04:59
Certainly, not pretty famous in Europe’s XpanD Active System XD
I hate active systems.
And I hate FakeImax tyny digital screens too.
20 Mr.Floppy // Dec 27, 2009 at 05:52
Here in Spain we have a lot of theaters equipped with XpanD.
The movies loss brightness and color pretty bad, I really don’t like active systems.
21 Sarah // Dec 27, 2009 at 06:16
In the last few days I’ve seen Avatar in RealD and XpanD and would not go back to a cinema with XpanD. The glasses were flickery and heavy. RealD didn’t have this problem at all.
Its possible it was the specific cinema, and I’d be curious to know more about frame rates since the last time I got this kind of eye strain was from old CRT monitors with refresh rates below 100.
22 BG // Dec 28, 2009 at 15:17
Thank you Bob, your comment was very useful for me ! There are very few people on the forums who’s seen all four 3D formats so I really looking forward to read about your IMAX experience.
I’ve seen Avatar in IMAX at first then in Dolby and the former was ten times better for me . The ghosting was so bad in Dolby that I couldn’t enjoy the film. In other dolby theatre sites people didn’t complain so it maybe depends on how good they adjust the projector and stuff.
23 igriP // Dec 29, 2009 at 20:08
Just saw Avatar is both RealD (digital) 3D and IMAX 3D.
IMAX 3D had a huge screen and outstanding sound, RealD 3D had normal screen with normal sound.
RealD 3D was easier on the eye and colors seemed to be brighter.
In IMAX 3D I had to keep me head straight to get the most 3D, i didn’t have to do that in RealD.
Fast movements seemed to be better in RealD.
RealD is the way to go.
Can’t way to see what Bob has to say about IMAX.
24 Bob // Dec 31, 2009 at 11:27
I decided to make this a long Avatar day and not only saw Avatar in IMAX 3D but decided that to better compare the 3 primary technologies that I would see it again in RealD 3D and Dolby 3D in different theaters from my first screenings. I agree completely with igriP, RealD 3D wins hands down for me.
IMAX has a huge image and spectacular sound but it was slightly darker than RealD 3D and because it uses a linear polarized technology I found that if I slightly tilted my head the image was blurred. I also found that the IMAX 3D glasses to be heavy compared to the RealD 3D glasses.
My second screening of Avatar in RealD 3D was the same, good 3D and bright colors and I love those glasses.
My second screening of Avatar in Dolby 3D was as dark as the first screening and as I mentioned before the glasses are heavy and all marked up with water spots. I have heard that Dolby gets around the darker image problem by using 2 projectors at film premiers. This is costly and it is difficult to align the image.
From my point of view the winner is RealD 3D.
I will be attending the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas at the end of next week and if I see anything that relates to this discussion I will comment here.
25 Pranay // Dec 31, 2009 at 12:46
Point to note that single projector RealD setups can be of two types, RealD OR RealD-XL, the XL being twice as bright.
26 CompuDude // Jan 1, 2010 at 13:34
I’ve now seen Avatar in 3D twice.
First time at the 12:15 am showing at the Sherman Oaks ArcLight (Cinema 3, it seems), near the center of row K. Nearly perfect… I was stunned. The glasses (Dolby 3D with new small glass lenses… different from what I’ve used in the past) were very lightweight and comfortable to wear and didn’t seem to impair my vision (or colors) in the slightest.
A couple of days ago, I joined a group of friends seeing it at the Bridge on their giant 62×82′ IMAX screen, with their 3D system (can’t recall). The screen was massive and beautiful, but I was very surprised to realize the 3D at the ArcLight was better. It just seemed more “crisp”. I didn’t notice a shift as much when I tilted my head at the ArcLight… maybe I was just more still, but it was VERY bad at the Bridge if I tilted my head even a little. The glasses were much heavier than the new ones at the ArcLight, and really started to hurt the bridge of my nose for the last hour or so of the movie….
I’d call the audio a draw… very good in both locations. The ArcLight is much closer to home, and I’m relieved about that, because given a choice, I doubt I’d spend the extra money for the Bridge’s big IMAX screen given the superior overall experience at the ArcLight.
27 Anuj // Jan 3, 2010 at 01:39
Question : IMAX has 2 types of theaters.. 3D and the domes.. are we comparing Domes Vs Digital 3D or IMAX 3D Vs Digital 3D
28 Bob // Jan 3, 2010 at 20:14
I am confused can someone tell me if The IMAX at The Culver City Bridge is a Digital IMAX 3D Theater? I thought it was. Also is the new IMAX at the AMC Century City which I understand is known as a Liemax theater by many detractors using a Digital IMAX 3D system? Anyone seen Avatar at this theater? And last has anyone seen Avatar on a MASTERIMAGE 3D system and know of a theater in the Los Angeles area that is using this system?
29 Bloody // Jan 3, 2010 at 22:25
Anuj, we are talking about IMAX 3D, not IMAX Dome… the dome screens are quite a different story and not so widely available. We are comparing the different 3D technologies used in theaters.
30 DolbyReview // Jan 4, 2010 at 09:40
The Dolby3D at the theater I went to was unpleasant. The colors were dull – noticeable ghosting during fast action especially during the live-action scenes. It was so bad that I wanted to watch it in regular 2D. And if you wear glasses, I definitely do not recommend watching it in Dolby since, due the Dolby glasses, you’ll see a huge glare from within the inside of the glasses. This is because the glass material of the Dolby glasses makes you see the reflection of the light hitting your own glasses which is really distracting b/c it filled at least the bottom 25% of my vision. I don’t have this problem with RealD glasses. So now I’m planning on watching Avatar 3D again on a different format since my Dolby experience was tainted. Thanks for posting this!
31 Digital3D Good // Jan 4, 2010 at 23:58
Just watched Avatar on Digital 3d, and was sitting right in the back, just below the projector, and got a good view from up there. The glasses were comfortable and images were crisp and clear and no straining or head turning whatsoever. The only drawback is the screen is not big enough compared to IMAX but the good outweighs that.
32 Bob // Jan 5, 2010 at 05:04
I plan on seeing Avatar on on a MasterImage system next week. Has anybody seen Avatar projected with this technology?
33 john // Jan 6, 2010 at 00:54
Saw Avatar in Xpan D at the dome. It was by far the best 3D i’ve ever seen. Very bright, and crisp. I agree with the other posting that the sides of the screen and get weird with focus, but that’s a dome issue not an Xpan D issue. The glasses hurt my nose when I took them off, but, the image was the best i’ve ever seen.
34 BG // Jan 6, 2010 at 01:20
Bob ! Don’t waste your time and money for master image because it’s the worst. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
35 Kev // Jan 6, 2010 at 10:27
Saw Avatar in IMAX 3D tonight and wow, best 3d I’ve ever seen. Image was bright and crisp, and I found the 3D effects to be perfect. Not too much, just perfect. All the environnement in 3D, wow.
I saw Coraline and Up in Real-D before, and I found IMAX give the same depth to the image(behind the screen), but it adds more things that pop out (like in front).
I’ll try to see it in Real-D but as of now, I can recommend IMAX. Plus it’s the original 1.78:1 aspect ratio in IMAX not 2.35:1 like in REAL-D.
36 Kaj // Jan 7, 2010 at 07:42
I saw Avatar in RealD and IMAX 3D at the same cinema. No contest for me, the RealD is the clear winner. It was a completely different experience between the two. The RealD has so much more depth and brightness. IMAX 3D was much darker and simply can’t keep up with the fast moving scenes in the way that RealD can. There is much, much more depth to the picture in RealD and no matter how fast the action got I never lost track of what was happening. IMAX 3D was totally different and far inferior in my opinion. RealD immerses you in the film as there is consist depth of picture, all of the layers are in focus and there is so much more brightness and clarity to the images. IMAX 3D looks gimmicky by comparison, it is clearly the older technology.
37 zolee // Jan 8, 2010 at 01:36
i’ve tried IMAX and RealD only, so i can only compare those!
Both of them have their advantages and disadvantages as everyone says, but personally for me IMAX is better.
Tho its true the IMAX may give u black seconds if u move yr head too much, cos of the linear polarisation it still gives much better 3D effect and experience with larger depths and pop outs! I never had a head ache or dizzy head, the longest movie i watched in IMAX was 1hr 30min
In RealD i dont think the experience is so awesome. Even tho the image might be more clear, the colours more vivid (but in that case u can just wacth HD movies at home, they are clear and vivid), if you’re going for the 3D experience it sucks! Sometimes i even had to take off my glasses to see the difference, if that part of the movie was projected in 3D at all,cos it just seemed 2D after a while! That never happened in IMAX it always feels like things are happening real, in front of you!
About the glasses, i think RealD glasses were very uncomfortable, i do have a big head, and still felt like they were falling off, sliding down my nose! that never happened in IMAX, their glasses fit better, and with the bigger lenses they cover the whole eye-sight, the theatre and screen together, whereas with the RealD glasses it was disturbing that i could see people sitting around me with bare eye and only saw the screen through the lenses!
About Dolby-3D i havent tried it, but the Color filter technics are just out of date, even tho that’s supposed to have some improvement to the old one, i still think polarisation is better! i also read the Color filter type can ruin your eyes if you watch it too much (dont know if its true tho)
So for me its IMAX, but better to go and decide yourself
PS i could buy 3 tickets in IMAX for the price of 1 ticket in RealD cinema :)
38 Chas // Jan 8, 2010 at 06:17
I am not as technically proficient as the rest of you. In fact, I didn’t even know there were different technologies until I saw Avatar a second time back home in Dolby 3D after having seen it on vacation in RealD. That’s what made me look things up on the internet. The RealD techonology was bright and clear and the background objects really appeared have depth. As the name implies, it looked “real,” and I was truly impressed. The glasses were light, clean (because they were new as you keep them when you leave). At our home theater we have Dolby3D and all the comments are correct that it is darker, with less of a true 3D effect. The glasses are huge and are reused. Mine were not only dirty they were scratched and I had to exchange them for another pair. There is someone at the door of the theater that collects them and gives you another pair if you go to the concession stand. I was really surprised to realize that Dolby 3D was so poor in quality in comparison to Real 3D.
39 Storm // Jan 8, 2010 at 06:49
I saw it at a Real-D cinema first, and then at Imax-3d a few nights later. Real-D is much better, as in the Imax it was blurrier for the depth (the central focus point was ok), and my eyes hurt after a while. I also didn’t get any more POP from the Imax than the Real-D, which I was surprised at. Both had exactly the same POP at the same scenes (ash, seeds etc).
Actually, what had the biggest POP effect in both screenings was the preview for Alice in Wonderland, when the Cheshire Cat jumps out of the screen at the end of that preview.
40 Storm // Jan 8, 2010 at 06:56
Just read the other comment from the Imax lover, and I found the Imax glasses to be uncomfortable. The ‘Buddy Holly’ Real-D glasses were great. I suppose it would be different for everyone.
Imax-3d tickets in Australia are more expensive than Real-D btw.
41 St. Chris // Jan 8, 2010 at 07:41
I’ve seen Avatar at two multiplex “IMAX” theaters in NJ now: AMC Loews New Brunswick 18 and AMC Hamilton 24. I’ve been to a real IMAX theater before (Franklin Institute, Philadelphia); these are just oversized screens in regular (though nice) stadium-seating theaters.
New Brunswick: I noticed the “screen door” effect (black space between pixels), and it seemed that the frame rate was too low for smooth fast action, especially in the pop-out foreground. Bulky but reasonably comfortable goggle-style glasses (as if they were slimline diving masks), linearly polarized.
Hamilton: Didn’t notice “screen door,” but had the same frame rate problem. Different glasses, one lens looking slightly green and the other slightly magenta, so I’m guessing that was Dolby 3D. Oddly, there were two styles of glasses in the supply rack: (1) fancy-looking curved silvery-black wraparounds with an IMAX logo and (2) rather cheap-looking yellow-framed plastic ones. (I was given the latter.) Overall, only a marginally better experience than New Brunswick.
I resignedly suppose that I’ll also need to see it in RealD 3D, since I’ve been told (by someone who’s seen RealD and “IMAX” at New Brunswick) that it’s hugely better than what I saw. Great movie, anyway.
42 Kaj // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:38
I can see what fans of the IMAX mean by the “POP”. Objects do indeed seem to jump out more at you at specific times with the IMAX 3D versus the RealD. But, this to me is the fledging 3D effect of 20 years ago on it’s last legs. It is striking, but when you see it you are always conscious of the fact that it is an effect.
What honestly makes me feel that the RealD is so superior is that it instead just tries to add a sense of depth to the movie. I found myself so much more engaged in the film in RealD. Instead of going for the “wow factor” of an arrow shooting past you, etc. every 5-10 mins as the IMAX 3D does, the RealD instead raises the level to the overall experience of watching the entire film. I do like the large IMAX screen size and the the sound effects in the IMAX theaters, but RealD is the one that enhances the visuals by adding depth so consistently, without any loss if clarity and without detriment to the ability of the viewer to follow the fast-action scenes. To me, and this is the bottom line, this all adds up to the RealD just engaging you so much more in the film.
Other than that I also think the IMAX 3D glasses are horribly cheap and uncomfortable versus the RealD glasses. The RealD glasses just remind me of oversize wayfarers. They are comfortable and after a while you just get used to them. The IMAX 3D glasses I got were flimsy yellow square frames with thin plastic films for lenses. You never forget you have them on for sure, between the discomfort of the temple-pinching arms, the thin plastic bridge digging in to you nose and the reflections you get off the over-sized saran wrap like lenses.
43 Tony // Jan 8, 2010 at 17:50
Very interesting comments.
I saw Avatar in 2D and 3D (Real-D) in the UK. As my only previous experience of 3D was Imax dinasours some years ago, I was a bit disappointed that the whole of the depth was behind the screen. I’d expected (and hoped) that the scenes where you fly through the forests and down between the floating mountains would have depth toward the viewer (in front of the screen).
I agree that the colour and precision of the real-D were good, but as the 3D effect was so modest, I didn’t feel it added anything over the 2-D showing. To me, the need to wear glasses subtracted as much as the 3-D added.
44 igriP // Jan 8, 2010 at 23:20
keep in mind that Avatar’s director decided not to go crazy with the 3D effect (so 3D might not impress you as it would in other 3D movies, if you disappointed about Avatar’s poor 3D blame its director)
45 Kooperatif // Jan 9, 2010 at 14:50
i saw Real-D Beowulf in Turkey. Was very nice
46 Jonathan // Jan 10, 2010 at 14:44
I just saw Avatar at the Cinerama in Hollywood with xpand. I have already seen it in all the other formats and I would have to day this one was my least favorite.
My reasoning is:
1. There was way to much motion blur. It was hard to follow everything when I couldn’t keep my eyes focused on the screen.
2. The lenses are green and it effected the colors in the movie. I’ve seen it in the other formats and the colors seemed much more vibrant.
My personal favorite is realD. IMAX is good but it is true that it pops to much. I like the depth not the pop. Dolby is okay but not my favorite. Just my 2 cents.
47 Yamert // Jan 11, 2010 at 22:36
I have seen Avatar at MK2 Bibliotheque, Paris (XPAND) and Kinostar Raduga, St-Petersburg, Russia (REALD). Both versions were very similar and produced very nice 3D effect. I am surprised that people find XPAND inferior to other formats, I did not find any particular drawbacks. Indeed, the 3D did not pop out too much, it looked more like a window to another world, few objects were “in front” of the screen. I think it is a good thing for a 2h+ movie, wow effect is more appropriate for theme parks. Still I wonder what it can give, so I plan to watch it again at the only IMAX 3D theatre I found in France – Gaumont Disney Village. I’ve already seen some short movie about sea depths at an IMAX 3D in Osaka and did not like it because of the clear crosstalk/blur effect whenever you move your head. I really think IMAXs should license realD technology instead of their 50-year old linear polarizers!
Another point : I think it is very important to have a good seat (close to the center of a row), otherwise it’ll look a little funny.
48 Bob // Jan 12, 2010 at 03:20
In my quest to find the best Avatar 3D experience in the Los Angeles area, I just saw Avatar in 3D in two theaters using the masterImage based projection system. The theaters are the Krikorian Premiere Theaters in Monrovia California. The masterImage system like RealD uses circular polarized glasses and a highly reflective silver screen. The first screen used a single projector with a 24 frame rotating wheel and the second screen used two projectors one on top of the other. I found both images to be excellent 3D with bright colors, even in the night scenes. The two projector system was slightly brighter. I would rate these screens at the top of my Avatar experiences along with my RealD XL viewing. So here is the ranking of my Avatar 3D viewings:
1) RealD XL and masterImage two projector
2) masterImage color wheel
3) Real D
4) Small format IMAX
5) Large format IMAX
6) Dolby 3D
7) Xpand
As I have previously mentioned, 3D amplifies the lack of projection quality in the public movie theaters but when done right as in the case of the Krikorian Theater in Monrovia it is a great experience.
49 Jim // Jan 12, 2010 at 09:22
Just came back from IMAX at Arizona Mills in Tempe, AZ. Screen=59′ High by 80′ Wide. Image covered most of it. Saw it last week in a REAL-D AMC theatre. Loved both versions, for different reasons. IMAX offers film, and was definitely bigger, brighter and louder – with better spatial audio FX for sure. REAL-D seemed more intimate, with forest scenes deeper and more engaging, while being less immersive than the IMAX, if that makes any sense at all. Real-D seemed a bit crisper in detail on the action sequences, but IMAX helped in the really dark areas. Note, this is a REAL IMAX theater showing 15perf-70mm film, not the new digital nor the minimax versions.
It’s kind of a tossup, but Im gonna say I prefer the IMAX by about 1 percent. You should definitely see it both ways. If you only have minimax, then definitely opt for REAL-D.
The REAL-D glasses are cooler btw, and u can keep them. I wish IMAX still used the electronic shutter glasses. Those rocked.
50 igriP // Jan 13, 2010 at 01:51
thanks Bob for all you effort going all the way, i’ll keep that list somewhere (it’s at least a $100 list :) )
and all the other comments are great also
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.
Leave a Comment