Theaters not giving option of 2D on 3D movies? - (BETA) DVD Talk Forum (2024)

Matthew Chmiel

Join Date: May 2000

Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posts: 13,262

Likes: 0

Received 1 Likeon1 Post

True.

Mono evolved into two-channels which evolved into three, four, five, six and now seven channels.

Black and white evolved into color.

Academy ratio (1.33:1) evolved into widescreen.

2D evolved in a 3D.

Color and widescreen were all "gimmicks" to get people away from the television and seeing films theatrically that have now become the norm. If 3D will continue that route, who knows. Where as we've been able to reproduce color, surround sound, and widescreen presentations accurately in a home experience, most people will need to do complete overhauls of their setup to take advantage of 3D. New television, new Blu-ray player, purchasing of multiple 3D glasses, possibly a new receiver, so on and so on. Because of that, 3D may not take off to become a norm.

al_bundy

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: in da cloud

Posts: 26,193

Likes: 0

Received 1 Likeon1 Post

Groucho

Join Date: Mar 2000

Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Posts: 71,383

To answer the original question, the reason you don't always see this is because it's very expensive to do.

The 3D image needs to be projected onto a small screen in the booth, which is then read by two cameras that are spaced apart and behind a pair of 3D glasses. The images are then read into a computer, which processes the 3D world and re-renders a flat image.

This flat image is then projected on the big screen -- all of this in real time.

Jonno2006

Join Date: Dec 2006

Location: Montreal, Canada

Posts: 539

Received 2 Likeson1 Post

Jedi Master 33

Join Date: May 2007

Posts: 1,023

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Troy Stiffler

Join Date: Nov 1999

Location: Under an I-10 Overpass

Posts: 25,794

That was me, and I am kind of bummed about seeing this.

If movies do 3D only, and I don't feel like sitting there with glasses on, I will not watch in theaters.

Supermallet

Join Date: Jun 2000

Location: Termite Terrace

Posts: 54,150

Likes: 0

It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Studios say people want to see more 3D. So they release 3D movies on way more screens in 3D than in 2D.

Thus more people end up going to the 3D screenings, because it's more readily available.

And the 3D screens make more money.

So the studio thinks people want more 3D.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Troy Stiffler

Join Date: Nov 1999

Location: Under an I-10 Overpass

Posts: 25,794

Blu Man

Join Date: Feb 2009

Location: United States

Posts: 2,506

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

No, this is worse.

mhg83

Join Date: May 2007

Posts: 12,247

Labor

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 738

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Yeah, there definitely would have been no 3D movies made since, nor a push for 3D from electronic manufacturers, and there definitely would have never been any 3D movies made before December 2009.

Does candy fall from the sky in your fantasy land as well?

Jon2

Join Date: Mar 2002

Posts: 2,033

Likes: 0

What universe do you all live in?

In mine (Phoenix, AZ) there is no plethora of 3D showings replacing 2D showings. I think most multi-plexes here (and there are quite a number of them) still don't have even one 3D screen. While a few do have two or three, even in those the 3D titles still have two or more auditoriums with 2D showings.

This isn't a problem for most movie goers, except maybe in particular venues with a smaller multi-plexes where they're trying maximize revenue.

Matthew Chmiel

Join Date: May 2000

Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posts: 13,262

Likes: 0

Received 1 Likeon1 Post

In Vegas we have ten theaters that are all digital projectors, six of them being Regal Cinemas with all 4K projectors. Most of those theaters have at least five of their auditoriums equipped to play 3D films.

For the remainder still running 35mm (mostly), those theaters in the city have anywhere from two - five auditoriums equipped to do 3D.

There's only three theaters remaining not capable of playing 3D. A dollar theater, the drive-in, and a run-down AMC (that AMC just took over mind you, it was a United Artists up until four months ago).

Last edited by Matthew Chmiel; 11-07-10 at 12:55 AM.

Blu Man

Join Date: Feb 2009

Location: United States

Posts: 2,506

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

My local second run theater is now capable of 3D.

Matthew Chmiel

Join Date: May 2000

Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posts: 13,262

Likes: 0

Received 1 Likeon1 Post

That is f*cking legit. How much are 3D showings compared to 2D?

I just did some quick math.

Total Screens in Las Vegas: 289 screens
Total 3D Capable Screens in Las Vegas: 78 screens

35mm: 112 screens
DLP: 176 screens
IMAX (70mm): 1 screen

Last edited by Matthew Chmiel; 11-07-10 at 12:55 AM.

Labor

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 738

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Blu Man

Join Date: Feb 2009

Location: United States

Posts: 2,506

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

2D: $1.50 Matinee, $1.75 after 6 PM
3D: $5.00 Matinee, $5.25 after 6 PM

Na, not for me. The only form of 3D that is worth the extra cash is 70mm IMAX 3D in my opinion. I'm not a 3D fan, but even I enjoyed watching a film (documentary) in that format.

Labor

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 738

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Well, I concede that 70mm IMAX 3D is the best of both worlds. And is by far the most immersive movie experience Ive ever attended.

However, the problem is that 70mm IMAX 3D is much more prone to blurring, ghosting, whatever compared to the Digital IMAX and Real-D in my experience.

Just one of the reasons that I can't wait for Cameron to move into 48+ FPS. When that comes along, Traditional IMAX in 3D will be absolutely unbeatable. But for now, the increased blurring is enough of an issue for me to choose to put my money towards a Real-D screen than a traditional IMAX

Jonno2006

Join Date: Dec 2006

Location: Montreal, Canada

Posts: 539

Received 2 Likeson1 Post

So I'm happy to report that in my area my favorite Theater has 2D screens of Thor! w0ot!

I just had to revive my old thread. Last fall i was scared that all the summer 3D onslaught of movies would have less and less room for 2D screens.

So one down and 19 to go? lol

We'll see about Transformers, Harry Potter, Kung fu Panda, Pirates 4, Cars 2, Green Lantern, Captain America and all the countless others coming our way this summer in 3D

Boba Fett

Join Date: Feb 2007

Posts: 6,283

I saw THOR in 2D today. Theater I was at had 3 screens in 3D one in 2D. However, many of the other theaters in town had at least one screen showing 2D. I think going back to SAW 3D, theaters knew that was a niche film and it was a huge risk to show it on two screens in the same theater in the first place.

I still think the 2D versions will be prevalent for more mainstream movies, however they might disappear sooner from a theater than the 3D version.

Labor

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 738

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Thats kind of a double edged sword

It worked for Saw (big increase in gross over the last movie) and Resident Evil (increase in gross, HUMONGOUS increase in gross overseas), but on the other hand backfired on Drive Angry, where understandably audiences might have been even more reluctant to plow down the cash for yet another, what one would assume to be, Nicolas Cage trainwreck, due to the higher ticket prices

Supermallet

Join Date: Jun 2000

Location: Termite Terrace

Posts: 54,150

Likes: 0

Matthew Chmiel

Join Date: May 2000

Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posts: 13,262

Likes: 0

Received 1 Likeon1 Post

Most theaters here in Vegas are similar, the max amount of screens for the 2D showings are two (i.e. one theater has it on three in 3D and two in 2D).

I know that Paramount had a policy in the past that the only way to screen a film in 2D was to show the 3D equivalent on an equal or greater amount of screens (ahem, How To Train Your Dragon, ahem). I don't know if that policy is still in effect.

If a film was shot natively in 2D, I'll see it in 2D.

If a film was shot natively in 3D, I'll see it in 3D.

Simple as that.

glassdragon

Join Date: Jan 2000

Location: Somewhere out there... YES THERE!!!

Posts: 7,936

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likeson0 Posts

Yeah, as said earlier, if 2d goes away then it's kind of unfair to make the people who are incapable of seeing 3d (like a friend of mine) pay 3 bucks more for a ticket. Just doesn't seem right.

What would be cool is if they came out with a tech that would show the movie in both at once, if you want to see 3d you can spend 3 bucks for the glasses, and if not then you don't, it will look 2d without the glasses (not the blurring effect of now without them) and 3d with them on, but then there would be people bringing their own pair of glasses in.

Draven

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: Rosemount, MN

Posts: 43,250

Same with us. We have to go at a weird time tonight (8:00) to see the 2D showing. There are three other 3D screens with times every 20 minutes.

So very very lame.