Originally Posted by fierce_gt
I've actually never seen anything in '3D', i'm blind in one eye.
that's why it's purely a technological interest to me. can't be something I just experience, I want it explained to me, hahamy question is actually how does it work for 2D. for me, i'd love the idea of glasses free 3D just so that I could watch 'normally' and still let others enjoy their 3D. it's a little annoying having to wear glasses just to see the movie in 2D right now.that's been my 'pet peeve' about TV's for about 4yrs now. it seems like manufacturers keep adding features(3d, smart TV's, etc) instead of just fixing the problems with backlight uniformity, contrast/blacks, motion resolution, etc. i'd much prefer somebody produce a display that shows near perfect 2D images than one that has every feature known to man but looks like garbage
Too bad you cant see 3D....but I think in your case, it should "just work", because if either eye was seeing anything but it's own image, the 3D effect wouldnt work. There might be some artifacts though, but probably nothing too huge.
You should give 3D some credit though, it's existence has probably done more to accelerate the pace of change in those factors than anything else. It requires a quick response, high refresh rate LCD panel or quick decaying phosphors on plasma (better motion resolution) and lots of light output (better contrast). Black levels have still been steadily improving on plasma, and LCDs have benefited in that area from the strobing backlights needed to make 3D work well on them. Beyond that, all the TV needs for 3D is a cheap little IR emitter, which adds almost nothing to the cost. Basically, the requirements of 3D significantly improve 2D quality...and arguably, they may have dragged their feet on making those improvements without it.