Has anyone actually purchase a 3DTV or watched a movie/played a game on one?
I was thinking of upgrading my 10+ year old TV (still works great) at some point, and instead of just 1080p now the thing seems to be 3DTVs. Many games are also going 3D, and it's possible it's a short-lived fad, but also possible it's here to stay. One problem with 3DTVs is that you have to purchase expensive glasses, not to mention an expensive TV. Anyway, anyone has an opinion based on experience?

cheers,

-avatar!

I haven't tried one, so I can't help you there, but I can tell you that I have no interest in wearing 3D glasses at home or at the theater.  That said, I'm interested in getting a 3D TV simply to get a 240Hz model which I hope will do away with motion blur in side-scrolling games.  Anybody know if that's the case?

I believe you currently have to wear glasses for any 3DTV, is that not the case? Would it be any different for a 240Hz model??

I checked out that movie with the hamsters that are like spies on a 3D set. Made my damn eyes hurt, didn't do much to immerse me in the experience, though that isn't saying much, since I was watching a movie about rodents doing James Bond shit. Maybe that was problem #1.

I really don't get this 3D thing. It really just seems to me that there's absolutely nothing 3D can do to immerse me in films or games that a really well-crafted world with great visual design and aesthetics can't already do.

I think he was interested in the enhanced refresh rate offered to 2D mode images, and not the 3D itself.  3D televisions do have the option to turn back to 2D, after all.

Can't say myself if it eliminates motion blur or not.  Never laid eyes on a 240Hz model for movies, let alone games.

I believe most 3DTVs come with at least one pair of glasses (sometimes 2), so the cost of the glasses shouldn't factor into your decision.

I've been considering getting one myself, but the glasses are turning me off, not because of the price, but simple because of the fact that you have to wear them in the first place, and I already HAVE a pair on my nose.

People tell me that it'll only be a matter of time before glasses-free 3DTVs start becoming common, so I think I'll hold out. By that time, it should be clear whether this is a passing fad or something to stay.

Yeah, the industry knows that there is no future in having to wear the silly glasses at home, and even 3D movies at theaters aren't doing as well as they used to be, though the latter probably has more to do with the 30% price premium than the glasses.  The technology to have glasses free 3D on TVs already exists, but like any new technology, it's not at a consumer friendly price point yet.  Once these do become available at mainstream prices, it should be interesting to see if 3D takes off or if people continue to ignore it.  I also imagine that the viewing angles on glasses free 3DTVs would be a lot more limited than people are used to, so it might be difficult to gather a lot of people around the set.

So, are these glasses-free 3DTVs going to be like a giant 3DS? Would they not also cause eye irritation and headaches with prolonged use? Will you be able to enter Flatland, or will these be strictly 3D? These questions and more, will be answered, after these messages.

To my knowledge, there is no screen-based 3D technology that can fix the problem with the estimated 12% of the population that either can't see 3D images or experience considerable discomfort when viewing them.  Maybe holographic technology can solve this.

Actually, I wasn't asking about people who are sensitive to 3D, but rather it is to my understanding that nearly everyone experiences discomfort after a few hours of 3D. The question becomes do these TVs address the issue at all?

I'm still watching DVD movies, at 720p. I find the detail to be staggering and the amount of information in a 1080p blu-ray picture is beyond what the human brain can process, which is one of the reasons I won't upgrade (but I will gladly watch for free elsewhere). I already have 3D vision, so I don't feel compelled to invest in expensive technology that does a worse job at something my brain does for a few carbohydrates.

I would assume not. The discomfort is due to eye fatigue and glasses/no-glasses really don't make any difference. It's the 3D effect itself that causes the added eye strain.

Also, for me at least, the discomfort associated with 3D really isn't any different than the discomfort I experience from reading for a long time or staring at a screen for hours on end. With 3D it seems to happen a little bit sooner, but nothing overly dramatic.

There will probably be some improvements over time, but I think people are just going to have to get used to it if they want to experience 3D movies/games.

Well... actually, I'm not sure. Perhaps all at once it is more, but then again, I think if you look at a specific area instead of the whole screen, the details your eye can absorb are actually far higher. Of course, I'm not an expert, so if you have any sources to share that would be interesting.