3D and Glasses

The glasses can and are made to be worn over other glasses.

I'm not so sure I see the point of your post other than it is not for you?

Well here is one thing to realize which both justifies the first post and the second post

1) "Old 3D" absolutely sucked for people with glasses. For those that don't have glasses you just won't get it. To me the old 3D simply didn't work, was annoying as heck over the glasses and well sucked

2) I saw Avatar in 3D twice. The first time I forgot to switch to contacts and I was pissed at myself when I realized it. Anyways we had pre-bought the tickets so I was like nothing else to do than sit down and shut up about it. Put on the new 3d glasses and was happily surprised. I went back the next week with contacts in (went to see in on the XD screen) and I can't say that there was any real difference. Hard to say for sure since the first screen was "regular" and the second was XD, but I don't think there was any loss / benefit at all due to glasses vs contacts (now the XD showing was way better but that was due to the screen)

With all that said is it nicer not to have two sets of glasses - yes. Should you blame the movie industry on your own eyes needing assistance -no. Are they coming out with 3D contacts.........yes - lol (they really are google it)

Hi Robert. How have you been?

In reality, there is simply no practical alternative to 3D and glasses, whether polarizer, Infitec, or shutter depending on the display system. Prescription 3D glasses I believe are available and will become more available as the sport grows. Should 3D sources and displays not be issued and made because of your and others need for prescriptive eye wear?

One shouldn`t get angry though. Life is too short. One can indeed have a nice life and a great theater such as you have without 3D. At some point there will be lots of stuff in 3D. The situation is much like the introduction of color TV. At some point, you may want it and hopefully there will be ways of dealing with the common disability requiring corrective eye wear.

I watched Avatar with 3D glasses on top of my own prescription glasses. It wasn't a big deal.

I wear glasses with easily attachable magnetic sun glass lenses. I'm not seeing the big deal if they can make an additional one which are with the correct polarization. This way no expensive cost for lenses which are prescription. Also, extremely easy to throw on and take off. I love the ones I have had for sun glasses, doubt it would be any different for 3D.

Shutter glasses aren`t clip ons and shutter glasses will be the prevalent glasses for flat panels. And what is no big deal for one, can indeed be a big deal for another. Some front projectors will use polarizers. Clip on polarizers will work fine on those but special polarizing preserving screens will be required. Shutter glass front projectors will need to be high high lumens.

Bob, I am a distributor of buggy whips. Let me know if I can provide you with a couple. Now get back to your 24" Philco B&W television set. That darn verticle and horizontal hold are always going out on me ! Thelma, re-coat those rabbit ears tips with the tin foil, please !

We are all snowed in here in MD and Va. Cabin fever is at epidemic proportions.

Robert. Rest assured that prescription 3D glasses will become available. This country has a way of providing product if a market develops.

All I can say is I'm stilled p#ssed that my new, expensive glasses acquired a scratch right in the center of one lens from wearing the 3D glasses over them during Avatar!

I think it's dumb that you have to "wear" anything to watch a movie. I don't have to wear anything for a normal movie, a stage play (which is 3D) or a concert (well maybe earplugs, depending on the band). I just want to go into the theater and sit down and watch. Buzz me when 3D movies don't require head gear.

And none of those venues have thrown you out or had you arrested for public nudity?

One day, perhaps your eyes will no longer be perfect? And perhaps surgery or contacts will not be suitable for correcting how they fail? Then perhaps you will realize "headgear" is not the end of the world - even for the real world. We'll wake you up right about then

No they wont.

There is no "market" that has or will ever develop for 3D if wearing glasses is involved.

The future will show you wrong on that. The fact of all those Buray 3D movies coming and over the cable sports, nature etc, and the fact of all the announced introduction of 3D flat panels with 3D capability with little cost disencentive over non 3d capable sets has set in flow a juggernaught. Shutterglasses will be required but the cost of those won`t be high enough to deter the market.

I'm not real excited about 3d glasses. I haven't seen Avatar for that reason. Given the earlier discussion I will give it a try.

racer59,

3-D will be HUGE, in theaters and in the home, IMO. The problem with 3-D in theaters now is that there are/will be too many 3-D movies competing for too few screens.

Less than 9% of the country's nearly 40,000 theater screens can play 3-D movies. That's about to change soon.

An article in the LA Times last Saturday stated that JP Morgan Chase & Co has raised nearly $700 million, which will be used to install digital projectors in about 12,000 theaters.

Of the 39,800 screens in the US, only 7,500 of them are digital and only about half of these current digital screens are 3-D equipped.

It cost about $70,000 to install digital equipment in a theater. The studios plan to release about 20 films in 3-D this year.

3-D will be huge. If you don't believe me, just ask JP Morgan.

Converting a film theater to 3d digital for only say $70,000? Not possible.

People seem to think that if they have a 3D TV in their home they will be required to wear glasses all the time. Not the case at all. I would virtually guarantee that all 3D-capable TVs will have a button on the TV/remote to switch immediately between 2D and 3D so you have the ultimate flexibility of watching 2D without glasses or 3D with glasses. After all, to show 2D the display just shows one of the 3D images instead of both.


Also, regarding glasses-less 3D, the simple science of delivering two separate images to each of your eyes to produce a 3D effect dictate that there needs to be some sort of medium (i.e. glasses) in between your eyes and the display, unless:
- you are alone in the sweet spot and not moving your head very much (lenticular-type displays)
- they come up with some type of laser solution that aims each image directly into each viewer's eyes (this doesn't seem likely in the near future)
- the display takes up the entire room like a holodeck in Star Trek (this hasn't been invented yet of course)

I have read of 3D contacts.. So technically that woudl eliminate the need for glasses.

I didn't see Avatar when it first came out. I waited until I got my new hearing aids.

The latest hearing aid technology requires a little gizmo that rests behind your ear. This thing interferes with your eyeglasses especially if you are wearing two pair at a 3D movie. I expect everyone to feel sorry for me now.

Bob. I once purchased prescription diving gogles for my wife. She snorkled four or five times using them to see stuff. They cost me a bundle. My guess is that you could afford if you wanted them without sacrificing anything in your life for them. All this is premature. Gee now that 3D Bluray is coming I will have to buy my seventh different edition of the 5th Element, This time 3d Bluray.

Contacts would only work for polarized 3D, like most movie theaters have today (passive glasses, not active). Home 3D will be mostly active shutter glasses but I suspect there will be some home projectors (and maybe rear-projection TVs) that use polarization that could theoretically support contacts. But to see 3D on a home polarized projector setup you would need a screen that doesn't negate the polarization (a silver/metallic screen of some sort), and that screen will likely result in sub-par 2D picture quality with hot-spotting, so I suspect that active shutter 3D will be most prevalent in home installations.

I guess theoretically in the future they could invent nanotechnology that allows for active contact lenses...but at that point perhaps they will have bionic eyes which act as the display to feed the images directly to the brain (no TV or projector required). I definitely will not be an early adopter of that technology!!!

Maybe there is studio subsidization not mentioned. I know there were some deals in place where they were pitching in the funds equivalent to if they still had to make prints for a year to offset theater costs of going digital.

If it does, I will be the first to admit that I was very wrong with my assessment. As of now, I respectfully disagree.

My argument is as follows, of the many people I know who have only upgraded to HDTV's within the past 3 years, none that I know are even considering getting a 3D capable panel. As a matter of fact, most are upset at the idea of having to upgrade yet again.

While I have no data to back this up, I'm of the opinion that the average consumer will keep a durable good (such as a television) for at least 10 years unless it becomes inoperable / unrepairable before that.

I know that 3D was huge at CES this year - I work on a trading floor and we have CNBC on all day - and it was notnstop CES coverage, nontsop 3D. Not one person on my desk, or on the entire floor for that matter was remotely interested in 3D.

The most common arguments I heard against it - "wearing a pair of stupid glasses" and 'having to buy a new TV yet again"

So by your logic (and even ignoring 3D) I guess sales of TVs in general are going to tank now because everyone has a new TV and they will keep it for 10 years??

That is not likely. Obviously there are people buying plenty of new TVs every year, otherwise the TV industry would collapse. If 3D TVs are only a small premium over a 2D TV, why wouldn't people buy one when they are already buying a new TV? They don't have to use the 3D capability unless they want to, but at least their new TV will have a future compatibility with 3D if they choose to try it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everybody will run out and buy a new 3D TV to replace their current model, but it will happen in due time.

I would bet that by late 2011 all of the major manufacturers (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, etc) new TV lines will be 3D capable. So people will have no choice but to buy 3D capable TVs, unless they purchase older models that are still in stock (or budget brands that lag behind the major manufacturers).

Whether or not people choose to use the 3D capability is an entirely different question, and the jury is still out on that question.

Exactly how much thought did it take for you to figure that out?