is Clas of the Titans not filmed in 3-D? I mean it's a new movie like Avatar.

What do u mean? A 42 inch LCD costs like 700 Dollars while the new 3D TVs cost like 1500 Dollars.

Clash of the Titans was filmed in 2d and converted to 3d- most critics said it didn't look all that great. Avatar was originally filmed in 3D and i saw a big difference between it and Titans.

Thats not true, LCD shutter glasses allow a better perceive resolution than polarise glasses. It seems to me like people watched a 2D converted to 3D media. I mean 3D on my 32" cathodic TV with old equipment I had 10 years ago still produce a great 3D effect, when use with Imax movies. Its actually the only reason I have kept the tube TV, if not I use a projector for everything else.

Your right with your impression, like I stated earlier with LCD shutter glasses the image will be less blurry than with polarise glasses used in normal cinemas. Actually in cinemas theres a small blur, but 3DTV using LCD shutter glasses produce no blur at all and will look exactly as it suppose to look but in 3D. So its only normal you were satisfied more by that image than in the cinemas.

I too checked out the 3D TVs as BestBuy and Futureshop and the results were less then satisfactory. The BR 3D movie does not have a high enough refresh rate and this is very noticable. At best the refresh rate of a BR 3D or not is only 24Htz which is not enough. My sone and I were watching it in a dimmed environment for less than 5 minutes both of us were getting sore eyes due to eye strain.

So right now for an average consumer they will have to get a 3D TV at significantly more than a regular HD TV cost, 3D glasses at 250.00 per pop (note: a few TV packages come with 2 pairs but most don't come with any), and 3D BR movies costing more than normal BR movies all for a sub-par experience.

I think I'll have to wait a few more years for better technology to improve such as glass-less 3D and a higher refresh rate.

Sorry to say but nothing you said here is correct.

Bluray movies run at 24 frames per second wether you watch them in 2D or 3D. The screen you are watching it on is running at 120hz. Screen refresh rate does NOT equal video frame rate.

The current 3D tvs show everything at 120 hz (60 hz per eye) in order to give it a 3D effect but the video frame rate can be 1 frame per second and still be 3D running at 120 hz. Low video frame rate does not give you headaches...

I don't see 3D becoming popular at all outside of theatres. Mainly because you have to replace your current TV with a 3D one (so it will take a while for 3D TV's to enter people's homes) and also you have to wear silly 3D glasses which is annoying (especially for people who wear normal glasses like me)

You are correct Dissolitude, I misspoke stating Htz but ment frames per second.  In any case the frames per second is unacceptable.  Been a long day.  I would like to state that only that mistake was "incorrect" and the rest of my statement is opinion so it can't exactly be wrong.