Top
230°

Glasses Not Wanted for 3D

In recent surverys, nearly 70 percent of the people interviewed were not interested in 3D technology at home. Why? A majority agreed that the glasses are what made them not want it. Noting that they were uncomfortable for long periods of use or just too troublesome to bother with. Lets not forget the expensive price tag slapped on any set of glasses not sold with a TV itself.

Read Full Story >>
ps3center.net
The story is too old to be commented.
T9X692718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

While I don't like the glasses as well, I would still like to have 3D. The only problem I have is how expensive the stupid glasses are, over $100 per pair is fucking ridiculous.

Omega42718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

I don't get it either, when i go to the Odeon cinema I have to buy the glasses (which are reuseable) and they are only £1!!!. I don't get how different the 3DTV tech is that the glasses cost so much, do they has some mini chip in them or something?

@mrv321
Thats true, the cinema screen probably does most of the work and obviously costs a lot. With the TVs they probably split the tech more evenly between the TV and glasses

mrv3212718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

That's because they use polarized light and they are cheaper.

These use much more advanced tech I believe it's shutter technology hence why they cost more.

It probably costs a hell of a lot more to produce a large screen HD polarized light source than to make a 120HZ TV.

I like how people think 3D costs too much, most new TV's support 120HZ+ which was one of the requirements for 3D. Another benefit of 3D is split screen without splitting the screen.

WildArmed2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

Yup, what mrv321 said.

Honestly, I could care less, glasses or no glasses. But I just want 3DTVs to be more affordable.
Plus, it'd be annoying when you are playing a game... and some1 sits behind you and they are like WTF ur game is screwd up man..
*hands them glasses*
better now?

I know I know, the new 3DTVs dont make the video look horrible like the polarized 3D (red/blue)... but it does make it look a bit fuzzy

sikbeta2718d ago

What's the Problem with the Glasses, people can whine that much for using glasses, I don't have any problem to use them, I know glassless 3D would be better, but not at The Moment, Glassless 3D needs Loads of Ca$h in R&D and more time, Glasses are the First Step until the next Tech become available and Affordable...

BBAM2718d ago

3DTVs need 'active shutter' glasses, which block out one eye at a time in sync with what frame's being displayed, while in Cinema both frames are projected using polarized light, the cheap glasses just require a lens that blocks the opposite direction the image is being displayed in.
The glasses are expensive, however the result is a huge payoff, gaming in 3D is brilliant. I can't wait for GT5 or Killzone 3. I also can't wait for 3D broadcasts after seeing 3D footage demonstrations.
Also for me, wearing the glasses doesn't bother me as I forget I'm wearing them similar to how you forget about your surroundings if your concentrating on the TV while gaming

2718d ago
HolyOrangeCows2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

The alternative is the even more expensive screens that you have to be 0-20 degrees from being straight ahead of it and stare at the center of the screen.

Which would you rather have?

edit:
"alot of people who dont want 3D still thinks of the old 3D tech"
Unfortunately, a lot of people do. The difference between the old red/blue glasses 3D and the tech used with 3DTVs is black and white.

2718d ago
USEYOURFIST2718d ago

the only thing i dont like is that the glasses dull the colours as if you are wearing tinted glasses, once this is solved i will be jumping on the 3d bandwagon hopefully its sorted by the next round of tvs

Ju2717d ago

3D glasses also have the advantage of having a cristal clear image compared to polarization filters and such. Each eye sees the full resolution and fidelity of the screen - identical (!) with the 2D image at full resolution. It also allows the same image quality in 2D mode with no trade off.

I was pretty impressed how sharp the image looks with the glasses - compared to any other 3D technology.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2717d ago
DasBunker2718d ago

i rather get some Ray-Bans for that cash.

1Victor2718d ago

Everyone made fun of them wearing glasses now we all have to wear them when watching the latest hot movie wile they're LOL in their home.

Donny2718d ago

i dont mind glasses of i can play killzone 3. my goty 2011(most liklely)

halojunkie2718d ago

i cant wait for killzone 3 just like you....damn just release it wtf!

and im not going 2 b able to afford 3d, so meh.

WildArmed2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

exactly, I dont mind have 6-8 pairs of glasses lying around the living room xD
I'd get a wall mount to put them!
As long as everyone can enjoy the 3D experince i'm happy.
I'm not keen on 'head tracking' 3d as it is limited to one person.. not really a '3d' that works for multiple people.

Anyways, it's just the price that holds me back...
damn I should held off buying a 3d tv -.-
everytime I goto best buy and see 3DTVs in action, I cry thinking about the great experiences I could have with the Ps3 n a 3DTV.

If you don't have a problem with watching 3D movies @ theater with 3D glasses (like me), I doubt you'll mind wearing these at home.

DARKrage342718d ago

...I'm gonna be wearing my sweet pair o' 3D glasses and fighting helghasts with the Move...!

Moonboots2718d ago

Limited Edition with custom KZ3 Shutter glasses would be cool.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2718d ago
harv0522718d ago

Affordability will come in time...How much were Blu-ray players in 2008 or 2009? You can now pick one up for less than a 100$.

Anon19742718d ago

No one wants to wear glasses but for the foreseeable future those who want the 3D experience are just going to suck it up and I for one think the minor inconvenience of wearing glasses is trumped by the experience of 3D. I never thought I'd see full color 3D in households in my lifetime, and now that it's here 3D gaming is the holy grail of video games. For the first time ever we can view 3D games as if we were viewing them in real life, with depth! In my opinion, this is as important as when home tv's went color. I'm sure those were a little pricey at first, and there wasn't much content available for at the beginning either.

Currently, glassless 3d simply isn't feasable for the home as you have to be in the exact position for it to even work, and the cost of these screens are priced out of the range of everyone but the most eccentric millionaire. Most companies behind the tech aren't even developing it for home theater use, opting instead for applications where you have a single user at a fixed distance like computer screens and medical monitors. Microsoft is playing with the idea of sending different images to different people, but the number of users and cost would also limit the use for home theater.

If you want 3D at home for at least the next decade, you're going to have to wear the glasses. Them's the breaks.

Spenok2717d ago

I'll admit the price is a little outragous, but the price will drop in price eventually. Thats the time to adopt.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2717d ago
Apocalypse Shadow2718d ago

but the same people that wear glasses,the same people that wear shades outside,the same people that wear headphones or earbuds to listen to music,the same people that wear headsets or bluetooths to play games and use cellphones....

NOW have a problem with 3D glasses....

if the tvs were $100 and the glasses were $10 dollars,we would not hear any of this.which is the same as when bluray came out.

but SOME of these SAME people are looking forward to microsoft's dual 3D tv technology and wouldn't mind wearing headphones to listen to their view of the tv.and had no problem using that FREE xbox 360 headset that came packed in.

amazing....

WildArmed2718d ago

lol.
Exactly, it's OK if you are wearing headphones..
but glasses are a no go -.-

IdleLeeSiuLung2718d ago

Nope, I have problems with them for two main reasons:

a) I already wear glasses, a second pair on top is not comfortable.

b) When I wear contact lenses, the 3D glasses don't come in enough different shapes and sizes to find one that is comfortable. With my Oakley sun glasses, there are at least a couple of dozen styles to select from. Some of them even are "asian fit" for us asians that don't have as a prominent nose bridge.

If I paid $100 for my Oakley's I use them all summer out side to protect my eyes. Buying a $200 pair of 3D glasses is for pure entertainment that I use with a few movies every now and then. So right now, it is of little use to justify spending $200 per person plus a new TV set. With that said, maybe in 3 years when things have fallen in price and vendors start making many different glasses that universally works it will catch on.

Right now, it is for the early adopter that is willing to spend minimum $2000.

thehitman2718d ago

But they are not as bad as people make them seem. They look like ordinary shades to me and are almost stylish people just want something to hate.

thebudgetgamer2718d ago

i think it will be hard for people with glasses.

SoapShoes2718d ago

I wear glasses and they fit right over my prescription ones with ease.

SoapShoes2718d ago

People say 3D is a gimmick, but so was the Wii Remote and look where that got Nintendo. Gimmicks work if people like the idea of the technology and I know a lot of people who like 3D and not the glasses but they'll wear them just to see in 3D.

Show all comments (51)
The story is too old to be commented.