Originally Posted by TheBluePill
That makes sense.
Knowing my family, the ability to have cheap and easy to replace glasses like the RealD would be great. But, if they keep the cost of the shudder glasses to a minimum, i guess it doesn't make a huge difference...
Which is better for image quality?
Which is "better" might ultimately depend on a particular implimentation.
For instance, some polarized displays (like dual-layer direct-view) will have "constant on" left and right images. These would be the easiest on the eyes since there would be no back/forth flicker from left/right.
On the other hand, polarized reduces brightness, so you need a brighter image to compensate.
On the other hand, a front PJ using a rotating polarized filter will alternate back/forth with left/right images just like displays that need LCD shutter glasses, though with polarized lenses you're still saving money with cheaper glasses, but not avoiding the left/right flicker issue.
And for any display that does do left/right alternating... whether or not it uses polarized light or LCD glasses, the key will be the speed of the left/right. a 240 Hz display should be able to do 120Hz for each eye, which should avoid all flicker. A 120 Hz display can only do 60 per eye and there may be a slight visible artifact. A display that's limited to 60Hz total playback that boats "3D" will only give you 30 frames per eye per second... that will be unacceptable for just about any seroius videophile viewer and will give most people a headache after just a few minutes even if they aren't videophiles.
I think that with any 3D approach, the proof will be in the pudding. The best way will be to test out a given implimentation and compare to others before you invest too much $$ to ensure you won't get a headache and can live with any possible trade-offs like reduced brightness or flicker or the cost of glasses etc.