Any of you movie fans.....

[gotbeer]

Buy 3D glasses to use in the theater?  After watching Iron Man in 3D, I decided to go this route.  Just tired of having to clean the glasses that some of the time are scratched.  

 

From what I'm reading, there are two kinds of 3D glasses for the most part out there.  RealD and Xpand.  Xpand is used by Arclight, which I go to frequently.  But most including the Arclight in Sherman Oaks use the RealD.

 

Oakley makes a RealD glass which online you can find for about $70.  It's not made out of that flimsy plastic film.  And Xpand has a much lighter 1.04 version which is about $50 online.  You can buy the clunky one's that they use in the theaters for about $20 online.  And the reason it's lighter is it's made for personal use, not commercial herd use.  

 

So am I wrong in thinking this way?  

[Chimi]

My Dad actually bought his own 3D glasses that he takes to the theater to watch movies.  I think you might see people go this route since TVs now are using the same glasses for the 3D.

 

As for the glasses from the theater... the theater I go to doesn't reuse old glasses.  You're given a new pair in the plastic each time you go.

[Tank]

just steal a pair from captain eo, like st1ck did.

[sneaky_flute]

i don't see the point in buying your own pair of 3d glasses. when you buy a 3d movie ticket, you're paying for the glasses provided to you.

[Tank]

i don't see the point in buying your own pair of 3d glasses. when you buy a 3d movie ticket, you're paying for the glasses provided to you.

 

i wonder if theaters will deduct the cost of the glasses if you bring your own. if not, no real point in buying your own.

[Sam Sanchez]

If I watched movies in 3D or cared about it, I think I would still decide against glasses as I think it's part of the price. But I'm not very good to follow though since I try to avoid the 3D version of any film if possible.

[HaloCory22]

I just keep my glasses after seeing a movie. I have like 8 pairs that I switch up when some get old.

[arch stanton]

I'm not a big fan of accepting packages from total strangers then going into a dark room and placing it on my face. I'd buy the glasses.

[Jason]

I'm not a fan of the 3D experience anyways. I go because my daughter enjoys them.

[gotbeer]

Just heard back from Arclight, and they are changing their 3D and going to Dolby 3D.  So should be interesting seeing what the quality is like.

[VariousCrap]

Unless the film contains a bunch a female nudity, I'm not interested in 3D.

[mrwicked]

just steal a pair from captain eo, like st1ck did.

 

hoooooter!! where's the map?

.... i think i ate it.

[cysomeawfulpitcher]

i rarely even go anymore and just wait for Redbox instead.

[gotbeer]

So I bought a pair of XPand 3d glasses.  The Xpand X-104 universals.  This way I can use them at home on my computer or TV.  Arclight in Hollywood is still using the Xpand system, so watched Star Trek using them.  

 

My god, is that what 3D is supposed to look like?  I am typically not a 3d fan at all.  I'd usually go for the 2d versions because overall, the increase in price usually isn't worth having to have the glasses on, and i don't see a quality change.  And on Iron Man 3, it was ok.  I don't think it was worth the difference in price between 3d and 2d.  But for Star Trek, I wore my own glasses.  It was everything that I thought 3D was supposed to be.  The picture was crystal clear.  I could see depth in everything that was happening.  It wasn't the gimicky 3d pop out at you effects, but an actual 3d effect.  This was the first movie I saw that I can say, 3D is probably 100x better than 2D.  Maybe it was just the movie, but I had my buddy watch some of the trailers in 3d using my glasses, and he said he could tell that the picture quality was much better.  

 

Maybe I'm overhyping it.  But to me, the investment in the glasses was well worth the experience I just had.  It was just that spectacular.

[xboom28x]

3D isn't worth the price to me. Out here in MN I get out of work at 4 and catch a matinee of the movie on opening night for $7.50. No lines, reserve seating. 3D was going to be $12.25 for the same start time. I can't see myself spending almost $5 more per movie for 3D all summer long.

[gotbeer]

3D isn't worth the price to me. Out here in MN I get out of work at 4 and catch a matinee of the movie on opening night for $7.50. No lines, reserve seating. 3D was going to be $12.25 for the same start time. I can't see myself spending almost $5 more per movie for 3D all summer long.

 

I used to think like this too.  After my Star Trek experience, will definitely be seeing Man of Steel in 3D.  It was that much of a great difference with good optics.

[xboom28x]

I saw Avatar in 3D. while it was cool, I didn't find it worth the difference.

[deepdrive]

I saw Avatar in 3D. while it was cool, I didn't find it worth the difference.

Did you use the theater glasses?

[xboom28x]

Did you use the theater glasses?

I did. Maybe investing in a pair is the right idea. I just think my money could be better spent elsewhere than seeing every summer blockbuster in 3D.

[LBHalos17]

My movies don't use 3D (Wedding Crashers, Old School, Anchorman, Beerleague, Hangover).... Otherwise the empties we roll down the aisle would scare the S^*t out of everybody!