Originally Posted by waltie
CES reports show the greatest problem with real 3D in home theater is that you have to change all your devices, including many of new receivers.
Remains to be seen. So far Sony keeps promising that the PS3 will deliver true stereo 1080p over HDMI 1.3 with the same quality as an HDMI 1.4 connector. I think it's too early to say conclusively what equipment needs to be replaced.
At this stage, 3D at home will imply in huge expenses, to have something that may not even compare to 3D in a proper commercial projector room.
3D at the home should be better than the theater if your 2D theater image is better than the 2D image at the theater. With high-scan LCD glasses you get no crosstalk between left/right and no loss of brightness: that should actually make for a significantly better 3D image as long as your glasses/display are running at 120 or 240 Hz.
3D at home is straddling and will take some years to achieve acceptable standards.
HDMI 1.4 is already a standard.
If by "acceptable standards" you really mean "improved display technologies" then sure, makes sense to wait if you'd like as better 3D display technology will emerge and get cheaper and cheaper. Also, 3D displays should make superior 2D images since in many cases image characteristics need to be more refined (especially for alternating left/right: latency issues with LCD response have to be minimized for example).
In this mean time it will restricted to to the niche of early adopters.
Hugh? I don't think that the guy who wants to watch the superbowl in 3D is as concerned with image perfection as we are. And since 3D is being added to many 120Hz + televisions for just a few hundred dollars over standard 2D prices, it's a "no brainer" to go with a 3D model for your new HDTV purchase just to cover your options.