Leftyguitar, as I already said, I am aware of the controversy, as you and Jimmybean have spammed it all over this site!
I am curious about what owners think about their tvs when they are actually watching them, not when they are obsessing over test patterns and photographs that couldn't possibly represent what the human eye and more importantly, the brain actually see! I will admit that I have no personal experience with 3D TV, but years of building and tweaking high performance PCs has taught me to be wary of putting too much stock in tech specs and artificial benchmarks.
In this case, if the resolution is being split between two eyes, and you take a snap shot of the image intended for one eye, then naturally it isn't going to look as good as the full image combined. What seems to get ignored in the controversy is that the image is being alternated with the other half of the image at 120hz (or 60hz per side?). When this is done, the brain is more than capable of splicing the images together into 1 3d HD image!
So once again it comes down to how it looks when you are watching a movie, not when you are staring at test patterns! I do not expect my $750 TV to have the same quality image as models that cost more than double that! I was surprised I could even GET a 3D tv for that price!