| ssj12 said: the thing is that not all 3D TVs require glasses. Even two of Sony's 3D TVs dont require glasses at all. They are just way the freak more expensive. Sony, and Samsung, took the wrong route with their 3D making their entry models require glasses. Panasonic has passive-3D TVs that dont require glasses, so why cant these two companies forget the glasses? because the TVs that need the glasses are cheaper to produce and they can make tons of profit off the the glasses. |
Yes, glasses-free 3DTVs already exist. But even though they seem obviously superior they won't be successful for at least a decade. It's not just that they are extremely expensive (> 10.000$), they also have serious disadvantages when compared to 3DTVs with glasses. Displays like the one in the 3DS only work if the viewer is exactly in front of them. There is technology that makes it possible to see the 3D effect from more than one position, but that comes at the cost of reduced resolution. All these disadvantages have already led Philips to give up on glasses-free 3DTVs for at least a couple of years.
