Quit using glasses as an excuse to dismiss 3D.

I keep seeing people say "3d is a gimmick for games, bring glassless and I'll consider it"

While I agree that 3D is a gimmick, you guys HAVE to learn something important.

Glassless 3D is highly inferior to active shutter 3D.

1# - It has awful viewing angles. For cell hones, or portables such as 3DS, it is fine, but for tvs, it is just awful. It is a tech that is meant for small screens.

2# - Not as much depth as active shutter.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

reachrocksman

1) People want fewer peripherals, not more. More peripherals means more money, more that can be lost, can be broken, etc.

2) 3D glasses can be very expensive. God forbid you need more than the 2-3 sets of glasses most TVs give you.

3) Many 3D glasses are currently brand locked to their TVs

The reason people want glassless is because glasses 3D it's just an annoying interim technology we're going to have live with until the really practical technology comes along.

the current 3d tech just doesn't do it for me.

i'll wait for 3d hologram thanks

What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?mrmusicman247

I mostly dont like 3d glasses, because i need perscription glasses to see. Thats why I like the idea of the 3ds

its not so much the glasses. its more the fact i have to buy a new TV that puts me off 3D. i only got mine a couple of years ago and a TV should last you 10+ years.

What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?mrmusicman247

I don't care what the reason is, If I have to have glasses for every person that wants to watch 3d television with me, it's a dealbreaker.

Right now without expensive add-on glasses I can watch TV with a group of people. I can't do that with a 3d television and the effect really isn't all that compelling that losing that ability is a good idea. It isn't.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?reachrocksman

[QUOTE="reachrocksman"][QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] Not really.Danm_999

did I say they HAD to buy it? Also, if you really want to into 3d pricing, glassless costs WAY more than active shutter. So that argument is null also.

I dun mind the galsses, I mind the price for the whole set up.

I already have glasses, i don't need to were another set it watch something

I dont need to say "WOAH! That camper just jumped out of the TV"

Also, if you really want to into 3d pricing, glassless costs WAY more than active shutter. So that argument is null also.

reachrocksman

There are numerous disadvantages to the glasses beyond the technical. Price and comfort will factor into it greatly for many people, and thus people would prefer not to worry about them.

I keep seeing people say "3d is a gimmick for games, bring glassless and I'll consider it"

While I agree that 3D is a gimmick, you guys HAVE to learn something important.

Glassless 3D is highly inferior to active shutter 3D.

1# - It has awful viewing angles. For cell hones, or portables such as 3DS, it is fine, but for tvs, it is just awful. It is a tech that is meant for small screens.

2# - Not as much depth as active shutter.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

I keep seeing people say "3d is a gimmick for games, bring glassless and I'll consider it"

While I agree that 3D is a gimmick, you guys HAVE to learn something important.

Glassless 3D is highly inferior to active shutter 3D.

1# - It has awful viewing angles. For cell hones, or portables such as 3DS, it is fine, but for tvs, it is just awful. It is a tech that is meant for small screens.

2# - Not as much depth as active shutter.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

I keep seeing people say "3d is a gimmick for games, bring glassless and I'll consider it"

While I agree that 3D is a gimmick, you guys HAVE to learn something important.

Glassless 3D is highly inferior to active shutter 3D.

1# - It has awful viewing angles. For cell hones, or portables such as 3DS, it is fine, but for tvs, it is just awful. It is a tech that is meant for small screens.

2# - Not as much depth as active shutter.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

Glasses are a dealbreakerfor lots of people , if you want to enjoy a movie with friends you need like 4 extra glasses and also when wearing those glasses it gives you a feeling of isolation from the others more than watching a movie without 3d glasses .

I agree with TC, as stated serveral times here on GS, most I showed the tech to were amazed and nobody cared for the glasses. People here just don't have the money to buy such a Tv and this is why they have to trash talk it >__>

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="reachrocksman"] I know really, On average a 3dtv is $300 more than its 2d counterpart. Every makes them out like they cost thousands more.....reachrocksman

did I say they HAD to buy it? Also, if you really want to into 3d pricing, glassless costs WAY more than active shutter. So that argument is null also.

$150 a pair per sunglasses? lol....sorry, i'll pass for now until it becomes more standard in homes....right now, nooooooot even close

[QUOTE="reachrocksman"]Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

Danm_999

1) People want fewer peripherals, not more. More peripherals means more money, more that can be lost, can be broken, etc.

2) 3D glasses can be very expensive. God forbid you need more than the 2-3 sets of glasses most TVs give you.

3) Many 3D glasses are currently brand locked to their TVs

The reason people want glassless is because glasses 3D it's just an annoying interim technology we're going to have live with until the really practical technology comes along.

I agree with TC, as stated serveral times here on GS, most I showed the tech to were amazed and nobody cared for the glasses. People here just don't have the money to buy such a Tv and this is why they have to trash talk it >__>

ArchoNils2

3d tech is dead on arrival. Its bombing all over the world. I am not gonna spend a cent of my money on something that was destined to fail. The glasses area huge detriment to it being a successful device.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="reachrocksman"]Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

XenogearsMaster

1) People want fewer peripherals, not more. More peripherals means more money, more that can be lost, can be broken, etc.

2) 3D glasses can be very expensive. God forbid you need more than the 2-3 sets of glasses most TVs give you.

3) Many 3D glasses are currently brand locked to their TVs

The reason people want glassless is because glasses 3D it's just an annoying interim technology we're going to have live with until the really practical technology comes along.

And the ironic part is that, its true;)

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="reachrocksman"]Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

XenogearsMaster

1) People want fewer peripherals, not more. More peripherals means more money, more that can be lost, can be broken, etc.

2) 3D glasses can be very expensive. God forbid you need more than the 2-3 sets of glasses most TVs give you.

3) Many 3D glasses are currently brand locked to their TVs

The reason people want glassless is because glasses 3D it's just an annoying interim technology we're going to have live with until the really practical technology comes along.

buying a 3dtv is too expensive for me right now and i won't replace my prescription glasses with 3D glasses because it'll look blurry.

I keep seeing people say "3d is a gimmick for games, bring glassless and I'll consider it"

While I agree that 3D is a gimmick, you guys HAVE to learn something important.

Glassless 3D is highly inferior to active shutter 3D.

1# - It has awful viewing angles. For cell hones, or portables such as 3DS, it is fine, but for tvs, it is just awful. It is a tech that is meant for small screens.

2# - Not as much depth as active shutter.

Why would you want an inferior 3D tech, just over wearing glasses? It boggles my mind.

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] A few reasons.

1) People want fewer peripherals, not more. More peripherals means more money, more that can be lost, can be broken, etc.

2) 3D glasses can be very expensive. God forbid you need more than the 2-3 sets of glasses most TVs give you.

3) Many 3D glasses are currently brand locked to their TVs

The reason people want glassless is because glasses 3D it's just an annoying interim technology we're going to have live with until the really practical technology comes along.

Danm_999

No, those things are not why people are not liking the glasses. They don't like the glasses because they don't want to wear them.

XenogearsMaster

The chances of there being one simple reason for everybody not wanting the glasses would be a little slim.

because 3d is corny 90% of the time. why would i want to use something that i'd be embarrassed about?yellosnolvr

No, those things are not why people are not liking the glasses. They don't like the glasses because they don't want to wear them.

XenogearsMaster

I wear prescription glasses and have no problem wearing 3D glasses on top of them. It helps that Nvidia's 3D glasses come with a set of nose pads, so you can choose the most comfortable piece.

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"]No, those things are not why people are not liking the glasses. They don't like the glasses because they don't want to wear them.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"]No, those things are not why people are not liking the glasses. They don't like the glasses because they don't want to wear them.

XenogearsMaster

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"]No, those things are not why people are not liking the glasses. They don't like the glasses because they don't want to wear them.

XenogearsMaster

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]because 3d is corny 90% of the time. why would i want to use something that i'd be embarrassed about?DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] So you still don't get that I called the technology annoying, and not the actual act of putting on glasses?

dog_dirt

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?antifanboyftw

Yup, there was a 50 inch 3dtv for £800 in england, its dropping quick

[QUOTE="antifanboyftw"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]What about the fact that 3D TVs costs a bajillion dollars?firefluff3

Yup, there was a 50 inch 3dtv for £800 in england, its dropping quick

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] So you still don't get that I called the technology annoying, and not the actual act of putting on glasses?

Danm_999

[QUOTE="XenogearsMaster"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] So you still don't get that I called the technology annoying, and not the actual act of putting on glasses?

dog_dirt