3d Movies and the purchase of polarizing glasses

[Mark Mentzer]

With the advent of films such as "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland" I question the fairness of having to pay an extra $2.50 to buy the polarizing glasses over and over again. 

I did some research to see if anyone else is questioning the fairness of this extra charge and found only one blog. Here's a link to the discussion: http://www.blogbydonna.com/post/2008/08/Why-Should-We-Pay-Extra-For...

The theaters have "recycling bins" making it seem like your being green when, in fact, all they are doing is getting you to throw your $2.50 in the bin so they can clean them and sell them to you again.

The answer of course is CAPITALISM and GREED plain and simple. Remember the old red and blue 3d glasses? You didn't have to pay for those even once let alone every time you saw another 3d movie. But now you do. 

Why are so many of us such suckers to allow the greedy capitalist PIGS to rip us off over and over again?

Many people including Wanda the Faye are accepting of this practice which surprises me. What are your thoughts on this issue?

— Mark

[Mark Mentzer]

Oh yes you are paying for the glasses over and over. It's GREED plain and simple and I'm surprised to see you being so passively accepting of it.

There was a specific technology with the red and blue 3d which made it more expensive to produce and we did not have to pay off the GREEDY CAPITALIST PIGS as we have to now. I'm quite familiar with the process and understand the extra cost because I've created graphics using this RGB technology. Face it they're taking us for SUCKERS and taking us for a ride and I will be VERY choosy as to what I go to see because I don't want to buy into their greed.

And these days films are expensive enough as it is. Let the GREEDY CAPITALIST PIGS defray their own costs as they did in the 50s and 60s. Believe me they'll still make their precious profits.

I think you are being rather "simplistic" to passively accept this and by the way the problem with health care and the problem here are EXACTLY the same problem GREED and CAPITALISM!!!!!

[Mark Mentzer]

I thought we were having an intelligent conversation and as such I don't see my response as an attack.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions. We may not agree on this particular issue but my opinion remains that the people in charge of these decisions are that of CAPITALIST PIGS. I think Michael Moore would agree with my opinion on this issue.

[Mark Mentzer]

Thank you Pacis for pointing out that the corporations/movie studios are out for the bottom line whether it is technology or for the corporate schmoozers. It clearly is the studios who are making out here and not very much for the theater owners.

[Mark Mentzer]

Wanda the Faye said:

"So...the facts don't come into play with your opinion? You just ignore them?

Mark, perhaps you've missed why 3-D movies cost more. It's NOT the glasses! To show a 3-D movie, the theater must employ two projectionists, use twice the equipment for ONE film as it takes two projections running simultaneously, and yet, they only bump up the price by $3. You're missing the point that even though they are using twice the paid labor and twice the equipment, they are not charging you twice the price.
I think that Michael Moore would disagree with your opinion on the issue.
And as far as this thread, I would have appreciated giving my own opinion from the outset rather than having you state my opinion FOR me in the opening thread, which, by the way, is poor etiquette since the conversation in question was in real life and you've chosen to broadcast it with my name on it here. I don't appreciate that."

Mark replied:

Wanda, I don't know where you have gotten your "so-called facts" but they are COMPLETELY WRONG! The truth is that the theaters do not have to buy twice the equipment nor do they have to employ 2 projectionists (whose average salary by the way is a meager $23,547 to $34,686. Not exactly a CEO's salary). it's one projector and one screen that must be purchased by the theater owners without a penny being supplied by the BIG CORPORATE STUDIOS who already makes a hefty profit and would fare just fine at the regular LARGE ticket price of $7.50.

As stated earlier prior to Reaganomics trickle-down economy in the 1950s the blue and red 3d glasses technology was more expensive to produce than regular movies yet we the ticket buyers didn't output one bloody extra penny.
The REAL truth is as follows from wired.com: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/04/3d_movies
"Studio execs have an odd conundrum: Box-office receipts have steadily grown but the number of ticket sales have not. Thanks to the proliferation of home theaters, movies-on-demand and portable video players, moviegoers have fewer reasons to actually "go" to a movie. The studios' solution? Hike ticket prices by a couple bucks apiece and ramp up production of 3-D movies.
"It's pretty clear right now that you can charge a premium for 3-D," says Doug Creutz, an analyst with Cowen & Co., who covers the entertainment industry. "We're probably talking about the difference between $15 and $10 [tickets]. And attendance is much better for 3-D movies."

In basic terms, a 3-D film is shot in two frames -- one for the right eye and once for the left eye. The projector buffers the left and right streams and projects them in alternation at 144 frames per second, using a "triple flash" technique that shows each frame three times in order to smooth out the picture. The RealD 3-D system also requires theaters to install a special silver screen to maintain the polarization of the image.

In order to install a 3-D system, theaters must have digital projectors. And at the moment, there are only 4,600 digital projectors in the United States, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to digital projectors, and $20,000 to $50,000 more to install a 3-D system. It's a rich investment, and theater owners may not see much of a return on it: Studios, on average, make 55 percent of ticket sales, leaving just 45 percent for the theater owner."

So, as you can see the GREEDY CORPORATIONS/MOVIE STUDIOS are the one's who are taking the $3.00 extra out of our pockets in the guise of RECYCLABLE GREEN glasses and putting it right into their own pockets. This green disguise actually lines their pockets more as they produce less glasses.

Did you see the same movie that I did when you saw Michael Moore's Capitalism, A Love Story? I saw a movie that showed what has happened to this country since Ronnie RayGun's Trickle-Down Reaganomics have taken place. Michael Moore would TOTALLY AGREE WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE AS IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF BIG CORPORATION lining their GREEDY pockets with more of our money. Frankly, I am baffled that a seemingly progressive woman such as yourself is defending BIG CORPORATE saying "and yet, they only bump up the price by $3".

[Mark Mentzer]

Oh and by the way Wanda. If you recall I gave you full opportunity to put this very posting up with your point of view but you didn't want to and told me to. So I did and here it is. I'm sorry you feel that my calling your POV out is a personal attack on you but I'm just calling it as I see it.

As far as your so called facts go you are using IMAX for your data (see Boothby's explanation below) even though you didn't specify that. Did you see Alice in an IMAX theater? I've never seen an IMAX film because of the extra expense. Now the regular theaters are trying to charge me extra. Let the goddamn corporate studios pay the extra. They can afford it more than me.

[Mark Mentzer]

Wanda the Faye stated:
"Gee Mark, sorry to see I've upset you so by not agreeing.
Sorry, I was under the impression this was still a free country and that I was entitled to my opinion just as you are. These are OPINIONS, Mark. Perhaps toning down your attack would be in order?"

Mark's response:
This is NOT a free country. Hasn't been in quite some time. Maybe hundreds of years.

[John Turberville]

3D doesnt work for me anyway. And, Avatar was the first "in theatre" movie I have been to in many years (and that was a matinee for $5). My theatre wasnt 3D.

[Boothby171]

In the days of red/blue (or red/green) "Anaglyph", you had both left and right frames superimposed on a single frame of film. The left and right information was separated out by color. No special projection equipment was required, no special screen was required, and the glasses could be produced very cheaply.

It is, in part, why more than 99% of all HOME 3D movies are produced this way--only now we use a red/cyan split, and they can sneak some color back into the mix. (There are some expensive and esoteric systems that use "flicker/polarization" technology...see Lenny Lipton's book on 3D Videography for more info).

However, the moment we went to polarization systems, a number of things changed:

1) You can no longer use a beaded screen. You have to use a silvered screen. The tiny glass beads, while excellent for reflectivity and sharpness, totally screw up the polarization.

2a) You need either TWO projectors (which is what IMAX uses) with each one running an independent strip of film (talk about a HUGE expense! Especially if you've got a 70mm x 70mm frame size!!)

2b) ...or you need a special splitter lens attachment in front of your ONE projector. In this case, the regular film has TWO images per frame, squeezed down in height to fit in a single frame. One is for the left eye, and one is for the right eye. The "splitter" scales the images up in height (has to be very exact), sends the different views through different polarizers, and then allows you to align them properly.

Don't forget--by throwing the images through the polarizers both at the projector and again through your glasses, coupled with the loss in screen reflectivity, you very often have to increase the lumens output of the lamphouse! ALSO a costly endeavor.

I believe that Disney 3D utilizes a 60 frame/sec (instead of the normal 30 fps) projection rate, in digital video, and a flicker polarizer in front of the lens.

http://www.rainbowsymphonystore.com/3dglasses.html
30 cents for basic anaglyph, paper frames

http://www.rainbowsymphonystore.com/plastic-3d-glasses.html
$7 for circular polarized, plastic frames



Note that all the above is FROM MY HEAD. I studied 3D film-making in college, and have tried to keep up with it since. I also worked very closely on "TERMINATOR 2 in 3D" at Universal Studios (Florida/California/Japan).

And all those aspects of PROJECTION don't even BEGIN to address the costs of production!

So, yes--there are a hell of a lot of expenses involved in 3D presentation!!

But here's a WIKI reference, just for the heck of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film

[Mark Mentzer]

Thank you boothby for sharing your vast technical knowledge here. My point is not that it is more expensive just that the studios could afford to produce these kinds of movies and charging us the regular price and still make their precious profits. I do not begrudge them selling us the glasses the first time we go to see one of these movies. I'm just saying that after that we should be able to re-use them without having to PAY each time.

[Boothby171]

I was thinking in terms of the theaters charging more.

Both my local IMAX as well as my local multiplex charge more for 3D movies (though they do not attribute the cost to the glasses). So, as far as that goes, my costs remain the same whether I keep or return the glasses (so I return them).

I know it costs $50K to $100K to install "Disney 3D" in a theater, and that needs to be amortized out.

In theory, the ability to use digital projectors opens the theater up for additional uses, such as being a venue for live feeds, conferences, etc. We'll see if any movie theaters (multiplexes) take advantage of that.

But I went upstairs to the IMAX projector booth after AVATAR...they were running TWO projectors, with all the associated flat spools of film. ONE projectionist, by the way. But impressive, nevertheless. I'll GLADLY give them an extra $3 or so for a 3D movie.

Then again, 3D "Stereophotography" works for me...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#Stereo_3-D_images (info, but no costs indicated)

[Mark Mentzer]

Boothby, I'm not stating that the extra costs are due to the glasses. I am just objecting to the extra expense coming to me. I want to see the studios swallow those costs allowing me to re-use the glasses at no additional expense.

[Sal Paradise]

I'm missing something here. Are you "buying glasses"? Or paying to see a movie?

I understand the cost arguments - it's more expensive to make and show a 3D film than a 2D film. But that's also tangential to the fundamental issue, which is how price is determined. Cost and price are only loosely related. Price is determined by the market. If the price people are willing to pay is less than the cost (or not enough greater than the cost), the product goes away.

If the beef is capitalism, period, then I still wonder why this little bit of it is worth choking on, when every other aspect of the entertainment industry is already dominated by the profit motive and market economics.

I can see turning the glasses into a pet peeve, but it should be recognized as such - the gnat that choked you after you swallowed the elephant. In Hollywood, 2D or 3D film making runs on capitalism from start to finish. The profit motive has always been central to it, and the price has always been as much as the market would bear. How is this different?