Is paying $10K for the 90" Sharp wise?
In my opinion no, as the marketplace is rapidly changing.
At these prices and size its better to only consider 4K displays.
One major benefit is the 3D picture quality should be better than ANY
2K LCD display.
Passive technology usually halves the 3D resolution, but with 4K, the full 3D resolution will be displayed for the first time.
This is the superior technical solution.
In other words, there is a complete reversal for 3D at 4K resolution. For 2K displays active 3D is better, but for 4K passive is better!
4K displays offer double the rez for 2D and full rez 3D which is bright and (most importantly) ghost-free. Consumers can have-it-all!
Can you handle this abrupt new way of thinking? Or do you want to stay with an expensive 90" ghoster?
Note: Sharp needs to switchover to passive 4K panels. But can they? Not at all
, as this would require all new production equipment and designs.
Sharp is already heavily in debt.
This explains why the Chinese have not introduced low-priced active 3D LCD flat panels, as passive panels are cheaper to manufacture, and largely avoid the ghosting issue.
Lose the battle, but win the war?
A rather ruthless but brilliant strategy.