puffy said:
superchunk said:
LOL to anyone who thought only PS3 could do it... lol, you know your out there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, PS3's 3D (as all home 3D at this point) is a huge flop of shit and needs to be skipped by the consumers. The manufacturers need to realize we won't pay $100's for each pair of glasses just to watch 3D at home.
If costs prevent glassless 60" tvs, then at least utilized the passive system theaters use. Worked just fine for Avatar and every other 3D movie and would only cost a few bucks, if that for each pair of glasses. Then I wouldn't mind my 4yr old wearing them or buying 20 for the big sporting events. |
You'd need two projector lenses (or two projectors) each polarized differently for that to work. It'd be more expensive than the current set up even if you included 10 shutter glasses in the price and more importantly, it wouldn't be LCD technology which means big, bulky rear projection or just a projector, which isn't a TV.
|
Actually, I am pretty sure you are wrong here. In Jan/Feb when I was looking at buying my tv, I was very much interested in 3D and I researched the various forms of the technology. You can do the active shutter or the passive version with LCD tvs just fine. The difference is where the 3D effect is actually formulated.
With active shutter the screen looks ok as the glasses take care of the effect. Benefits are that the tv companies can keep the cost of the TVs down as the consumer must purchase expensive glasses.
With a passive system the glasses would be cheap and easily replaceable but, the TV would cost more. I don't believe this type would require a projector.
If I'm mistaken, I'll eat my words, but it really comes down to the tv manufacturers trying to hide the costs of 3D by pushing the overall worse system on the consumer.
