greenmedic88 said:
This sort of illustrates part of the problem though. Assuming many of the posters here are more savvy about leading edge technology than the average consumer, if they don't understand the current barriers in producing viable big screen autostereoscopic displays for the living room (ones that aren't ridiculously expensive, or only 3D viewable by those sitting directly centered in front of the display), then the "average, clueless consumer" probably isn't going to get it either. But I think it's safe to say that the "average, clueless consumer" already associates the 3D viewing experience with glasses since that's how it's done in the theaters where virtually all consumers currently view 3D content. |
Plasma screens cost over $100,000 at one point. The price will of course come down and the quality of the screens will of course improve over time. The point people are making is that by the time enough 3D content becomes available there will be better screen technologies to take advantage of the content. At the very least passive glass 3DTVs using polarised displays will probably become relatively mainstream far sooner. Its better to wait and get the right technology with content to play than buy an early 3DTV which will become obsolete very quickly with little content to watch in the mean-time.
