Are The Glasses A Dealbreaker For Buying 3D TVs?

Whether or not it will last, 3D is still a growing trend at the movies and with TV manufacturers. However, a new survey shows that most people won’t buy a 3D TV just because they have to wear the required glasses.

According to the Nielson survey, 57% of respondents named the clunky specs as the main reason they wouldn’t purchase a 3D set for their home. And 90% of those surveyed said that the glasses would be an impediment to being able to multitask.

We imagine it must be difficult to watch a golf tournament in 3D while trying to check your e-mail and make sure the kids haven’t set grandma on fire again, all while sporting a pair of chunky specs.

Another concern of those surveyed is both the lack of 3D programming available and also the fact that it’s probably only suited for movies and events that would benefit from 3D. Do you really need to watch Two and a Half Men in 3D? Probably not.

One positive thing that people did agree on was gaming. Of the regular gamers surveyed, 70% said they want to try out their PCs, Xboxes and PS3s on a 3D TV.

What about you? If you take price out of the equation, are the glasses enough of a dealbreaker to keep you from buying a 3D TV?

Glasses a deal-breaker for 3-D TV []


Edit Your Comment

  1. sleze69 says:

    Yup. Also the headaches.

    • DaWezl says:

      Agreed! I have zero interest in bringing in a “Migraine Machine” into my house just for the crappy spectacle of 3D.

    • Hermia says:

      Yep. Migraine machine AND I already wear glasses.

      No thanks.

    • rdclark says:

      Exactly. I was willing to put up with the risk of headache and nausea to see Avatar, in order to find out if the state of the art had truly advanced. And it was worthwhile, if somewhat unpleasant. But then I watched Avatar on Blu-ray on my home theater with a primo surround sound system, and guess what? It looks better than it did in 3D at the theater.

      So no. It is not really 3D anyway. You can’t get up and walk around it and see what it looks like from the back.

      • chatterboxwriting says:

        I refuse to see anything in 3D because I just KNOW I will end up throwing up. It’s bad enough I get sick at regular movies if I sit too close to the screen. I used to think my mom was nuts for saying Super Mario Bros. made her nauseous (the levels where the screen moved continuously from left to right), but as soon as I hit my 20s, stuff like that started bothering me too.

      • DaWezl says:

        The colors are muddier due to the processing to make the movie “3D”. It made Avatar look so much darker and less vibrant than the non 3D version.

    • menty666 says:


    • The Marionette says:

      You all must have some screwed up eyes, when I see a 3D movie it doesn’t bother me the least bit.

      Anyways for the glasses I don’t think they’re that much of a bother. If they were either over-sized or too small that’s one thing, but I hear about them being “clunky”, it’s not you’re wearing a pair of goggles, they’re actually reasonable size.

    • Clyde Barrow says:

      and the motion sickness. And besides, didn’t Sony just come out a few weeks ago about developing a 3D TV without using glasses?

      Right now I am watching the TNT HD of Lord of the Rings. I enjoy it on my big screen Hitachi in 1080. I don’t have a need to watch it in 3D nor will I ever want too. I love the movie as it is in HD on my 57″ screen.

      • Wombatish says:

        Pretty much this.

        Even if I had the money to spend, I know the -instant- I bought one that uses glasses they’d announce the glasses-less version :/

        That coupled with the fact that I wear glasses normally (and wearing another pair over the top would be awkward) just is a no go for me. If some stranger gave me one I wouldn’t say no, but I’d probably seriously consider selling it, and even if I kept it I wouldn’t want it to be the only tv in the house.

        I’ll just sit on my bum and wait for full VR TV, kthx :P

    • mandy_Reeves says:

      also Drew Carey in 3D if you happen to watch Price is RIght….Or a 3D Doctor Phil or Oprah…um ,,,barf city….bad enough when you see them in HD .

  2. Number Five Is Alive says:

    Another thing is 3D really isn’t anything awesome or spectacular. Now if I had to wear glasses to view some true 3 Dimensional holographic television, then I might buy the stupid glasses. A handful of movies in 3D ranks about a 1 in a one to ten scale in my life in importance.

    • segfault, registered cat offender says:

      +1. Nearly everyone who wants a large-screen TV has already bought one. 3D is a gimmick to try to get people to upgrade, but isn’t that big of a deal. Eventually, it will be rammed down our throats, and all new televisions will be 3D capable.

    • redskull says:

      Agreed. 3D is OK once in a while for a big epic like Avatar, but I have zero interest in watching sitcoms or reality shows in 3D.

      Well, actually I have zero interest in watching sitcoms and reality shows at all, but that’s a story for another day.

  3. "I Like Potatoes" says:

    If you already wear glasses, the whole “glasses on top of glasses” thing is annoying.

  4. Radiating says:

    Aren’t there 3d tvs without glasses? They work similar to those holographic stickers.

    • Superdemon says:

      Not yet.

    • red3001 says:

      Toshiba is expected to announce glasses-less 3D TVs by the end of the year. Sharp has a parallax barrier lcd screen that has been demonstrated on the upcoming Nintendo 3DS that produces the 3D effect without glasses.

    • Buckus says:

      Yes, except then the 3d effect will be viewable only in a limited range. Ok if you’re single, not cool if you’re rocking twelve guests as well.

  5. Bystander says:

    What about those of us that already wear glasses.Anyone have experience with this? I always found it less than acceptable.

    • mandy_Reeves says:

      yes…I wear glasses during allergy season…and if I lay down watching tv…i have to be careful not to bend the frames…so I end up taking off the specs and watching tv from my Ipod…I use cloud browse app which is an html five enabled web browser and channelsurfing .net has the major 4 networks (fox nbc abc cbs) streaming on various channels

  6. CBenji says:

    Yeah, I am not really interested in it. It is one thing to do it through a whole 2 hour movie, but to sit around and do it all the time at home. No way. I can’t even imagine it. It isn’t even that exciting at a movie. Sure for “some” action flicks, but I don’t even think it is worth it for a lot of them when they ask too much money. I can’t even fathom wearing the glasses all the time. To want to shell out that time of money and then have to wear glasses. Just crazy.

  7. shoan says:

    The deal breaker with the glasses for me is the cost. There is 5 people in my family. Myself, wife and three kids. Right there is 3 pairs I have to purchase and what are they still 150 a pop. then on top of that what happens when the kids have friends over which we all know kids do, or say the grand parents visit. There is two more pairs i will need to have on hand. So I’m out like $750 plus tax for the extra glasses. That is insane and you know one of my little ones will sit on and break a pair of them. That is why my household is not ready for 3d TV.

  8. IThinkThereforeIAm says:

    Or… when multitasking, ensure that all other tasks work with your 3D glasses as well. I can only imagine how much more fun it would be to open Viagra ad spam in 3D….


  9. jaya9581 says:

    I refuse to spend the extra money to get a 3D tv & its accessories, or even to see a movie in 3D at the theaters. It’s a gimmick of the worst kind. As someone who needs to wear glasses full-time, I find extreme annoyance in having to wear special 3D glasses over them. It’s not comfortable and it’s not something I want to do for an extended period of time.

    Also, didnt they try this 3D nonsense almost 30 years ago and it was a great big bust? Granted, they didn’t have the technology they do now, but I know they showed 3D movies in theaters. There’s a reason they stopped.

    • redskull says:

      It seems to come in 30 year cycles. Started first in the 1950s, then there was a brief revival in the 1980s, and now it’s back with a vengeance in the 2010s. 3D can’t go away again fast enough for me.

    • ill informed says:

      agreed. the deabreaker is that it’s a stupid idea.

    • FrugalFreak says:

      They are losing profit share. They don’t like to lose what funds the attack dogs. IMO we went backwards in accesibilty with no CC over HDMI. Their plan of being like PC industry that is updating constantly is fail. No I won’t help pay for your son’s BMW at 16.

  10. dragonfire81 says:

    I have a vision problem which prevents me from being able to see in true 3d (I can’t watch 3D TV, movies or do those magic eye things) so I hope the whole 3D craze ends soon.

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      I have a similar issue. I even saw Dial Body Wash…. IN 3D!!!!

      Clearly this has gone overboard. Why can’t we fast forward to neural implants and virtual reality and just be done with all this?

    • tdatl says:

      same here. I look out of one eye or the other, but my brain will not fuse the two images. I can see the two overlapping images at will. Great party trick.

      I can tell in 3-D movies what is supposed to jump at me because I see both images. It does seem a little closer, but that’s it. I’ve wondered if I could see 3-D TV because it’s the glasses shuttering between the two. Seems like I could in that scenario, but I have yet to try it.

      Anyway, even if I could, I can’t image 3-D being anything but a dud, for the simple reason many people watch TV while doing other things — eating dinner, paying the bills, getting ready for bed. I often have the TV on for background noise, but even for the shows I watch, I spend remarkably little time looking at the image.

    • Tallanvor says:

      Same here. I’m not going to pay extra for a 3D TV… When people come over to watch movies, they can live with regular 2D images just like we’ve been doing our whole lives!

  11. Zowzers says:

    absolutely! I already wear glasses and there is no way in hell that I’m going to wear a 2nd pair over them just to watch TV in my own home. Sorry, ain’t going to happen.

  12. iConsumer says:

    I would be happy to be an “early adopter” *if* I didn’t believe that TV’s without glasses were coming in the next year or two ( But spending that kind of money to need glasses at this point just seems silly… Those glasses are going to be out of style in no time.

    • FrugalFreak says:

      Spending that kind of money without the glassses is silly too. You’ll buy anything huh? I got an acre of land to sell ya.

    • tomz17 says:

      Don’t believe a word of it… the non-glasses 3d displays will not be anywhere near as good as the ones with glasses (source : basic physics)

  13. B says:

    No, but the $3000 price tag and lack of 3D programming sure is.

  14. SoFlaSnowMan says:

    Reasons for not buying a 3D TV (now):
    1. Don’t need a new TV. Just replace my last CRT, non-HD TV last year.
    2. No compelling 3D content.
    3. TV technology is changing too rapidly right now. I’m still waiting for an internet-connected TV that works and my non-technical wife can use.
    4. Oh, and the “I already wear glasses” thing.

    • ShadowFalls says:

      Another reason to include.

      Toshiba has been working on having it integrated where the glasses aren’t even necessary. Since I know they are doing that, why should I even bother to buy anything out now?

  15. Bob says:

    In my personal experience, 3D movies are only worth it when they can take up your entire field of vision, like at an IMAX theater that is completely dark. You feel completely immersed in what is going on since you have nothing else to look at but the huge screen. After trying out 3D demos at Best Buy and Sears, I know that I would hate to have a 3D TV in my home. Why? Because at 42 or 50 inches, those televisions aren’t taking up my entire field of vision. At a comfortable seating distance, it feels less like I’m in the movie and more like I’m just watching a live action puppet show in a box in front of me. It’s also distracting as all else watching 3D TV with the lights on, like in the store demos, because the picture looks darker because of the glasses. Lastly, I don’t know why theaters can use cheapo glasses and the home versions cost upwards of 200 bucks a pair.

    • Oddfool says:

      You’re spot on about the size of the screen and the surrounding viewing areas. Theater does not have the distractions your living room has (Unless you count the people who just cant go 2-3 hours without their ‘bright-in-a-dark-room’ phones.)

      The theaters can get away with the cheap glasses,due to different technology. The screen is showing both images at once, each lens is filtering out one image. At home, the player, tv and glasses all sync together to show alternating images to each eye. Costs more that way.

  16. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    Are the glasses a deal breaker? No.

    Is the quality of most films released in 3D a deal breaker? Definitely.

  17. TechnicallySpeaking says:

    So, I’m actually an engineer working on 3D bluray and 3d tv technology. Does anyone have specific questions they’d like addressed?

    • Steve H. says:

      Hey TechnicallySpeaking,

      Are there any plans to make the TV-to-glasses protocol universal? The concept of glasses doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the thought of Panasonic glasses not working with Samsung TVs, etc.

      This, in my opinion, is one of the dirty secret problems with 3DTV.

      • TechnicallySpeaking says:

        You already stumped me. There is no 3D consortium or standards body, at least in terms of how the product is actually delivered to eyes. There are standards that govern how the content gets delivered to the TV (its covered basically in the the HDMI 1.4a spec, but all add-ons, including 3D are optional), but the presentation is up to the manufacturer.

        There is a company working on universal glasses that will be compliant to LG, Samsung, Panasonic, etc, but I don’t think they’re fully baked yet.

        My professional opinion is that the market will settle this one, because some of the formats are downright nauseating, and I think consumers will migrate towards TVs that don’t make them want to throw up.

        • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

          I avoided 3D TVs when shopping for a new one for this very reason. I’m waiting for an industry standard.

        • Steve H. says:

          My theory on this is that it’s not exactly the glasses that are the deal breaker, but everything about the glasses. Cost is a major complaint. Fit is another one. The comments section here are full of reasons.

          But I’m willing to wager that a very large percentage of people out there own glasses. Either prescription or regular sunglasses. Aside from the really cheap sunglasses, a lot cost a pretty penny. Imagine though, if you could go and order a set of 3D glasses that were prescription. Or a set that was custom, like Oakleys. Would people be interested in that? Maybe/maybe not. Would they be interested if it could work on all 3D TVs everywhere? Forever? Probably.

          I’d love to see the market research on that possibility. I realize that there are a lot of technological barriers to overcome first, like batteries, weight and range. But I believe a critical key to the success of 3DTV is the commoditization of the glasses.

          The people who really need to get on board for something like that are the executives who are responsible for manufacturing of 3D lenses. That is where the profits will lie. Of course in the short term, a 3D tech war would be even more profitable.

          TL;DR All the glasses complaints in these comments can ultimately be addressed once there is a standard for 3D glasses communication.

        • RS says:

          Actually there are several 3D TV consortiums (maybe that’s the problem?). One I’m most familiar with is the “3d At Home” group (http;// which provides technical research. The CEA (consumer electronics organization) is also key as standards organization. If I was developing 3D products, I’d keep close ear, or even join these organizations.

    • Buckus says:

      Yes: Why do big electronics companies think this is anything more than a niche product? Why do they keep trying to cram it down our throat? As my wife says, unless it’s a holodeck, forget it.

    • MikeM_inMD says:

      I have a very basic question – what’s the point of 3-D TV? Why do people think it is necessary?

  18. Robofish says:

    Never saw the need for a 3-D tv.

  19. adent1066 says:

    My dentist told me he looked into getting a 3D TV. It came with 2 pairs of glasses, but any extra were $300 each. Needless to say, that ended that, and he got some mega sized screen instead. I don’t think there’s going to be too many 3D Super Bowl parties at that price.

  20. Aeirlys says:

    I’m holding out for holograms.

  21. Zaphâ„¢ says:

    The glasses and the headaches will keep me from ever getting a 3D TV/monitor.

  22. aloria says:

    Don’t want to put in my contacts just I can watch 3D TV, thanks.

    Don’t want to have to take off my 3D glasses if I need to get up to get a snack, or use the bathroom, or check my email.

    I barely *watch* TV as it is– mostly I’m listening to it while doing something else and occasionally glancing at the screen.

    Also, look at the adoption rates for Blu-ray; most people don’t even see the need to take the plunge to get high-def movies. You really think they’re going to go the additional mile for something as gimmicky as 3D?

  23. quail says:

    I’ll just wait until I’m 2 or 3 years behind the curve, thank you. I did that with HDTV and got a set much cheaper and more capable than if I’d jumped on the trend when everyone else was jumping.

    Did that with HD-DVD & Blu-Ray and guess what? I didn’t buy into an obsolete format.

    Oh, and my two-cents worth is that 3-D TV will go the way of the laser disc. There’s not enough quality 3-D movies out there to merit the extra cost.

  24. DanGarion says:

    It’s a gimmick. Oh and it hurts my eyes. Not to mention what will my mom do (she is blind in one eye). 3D will die.

  25. Pax says:

    Technology that produces autostereoscopic images – meaning, “no glasses required” – is already in development.

    For example:

    That’s the “Ray Modeller”, a prototype engineered by Sony. It’s a cylindrical display, that produces 360 separate images – one for every degree of the circle. You can sit or stand ANYwhere around it, and see a 3D image – you can even walk around the image, to see it’s other side!

    Granted, filming live-action for these devices takes an eight-camera setup, which is logitically problematic for many uses. But there are still ways to possibly work around those limitations (for example, using only an arc of 3 or 4 cameras, and not producing a true, full-360-degree volumetric image … instead, showing several copies of the image on the display. Each copy would have the depth of a 3D image – you just couldn’t walk around “behind” it, to see the back side).

    Nonetheless: the days of “3D while wearing funky glasses” are not going to be here forever; the clock is ticking …

  26. Mike says:

    My biggest thing is the cost. Those glasses are usually over $100 each for extras. Most systems come with three pairs at the most, so if you have friends over you are SOL. If the glasses were like $10, sure I would get 6 or 7 pairs for fun. But $100 a pop is obscene.

    But I think 3D is here to stay. Movie theatres are making big bucks charging extra for 3D movies and Hollywood is just making more and more movies in 3D. Most of the trailers I saw at Machete were for 3D movies. Also, 3D is picking up steam in sports. The NFL and NBA have already broadcast some games in 3D.

  27. Gulliver says:

    It isn’t the glasses specifically, it is the fact that there are not many things I watch that intently that it matters. I put on sporting events in the background, so the wearing glasses between watching and not is silly. Unless I was 100% invested in something on TV, I MIGHT consider it. There are less than 10 times a year I am that invested in anything. If it is a movie, I would spend that money at the IMAX-lite theater and get 3d there

  28. xnihilx says:

    There’s a reason why I wear contacts….I hate glasses. They don’t fit my small head properly, they pinch my nose if they do fit and I don’t like the general downsides to them (like smudges, glare, etc.) I can tolerate 3D glasses long enough for a movie but otherwise I think having to wear them all the time at home is a deal breaker for me.

    Also, I agree 3D really only works if it’s something like a large movie format such as IMAX.

    Given the amount of people who cannot use the 3D for various reasons I don’t see this ever taking off for a home market.

  29. Mike says:

    Also, for those who think 3D will die, here is a list of all the recent and upcoming 3D movies:

    – 2010 –
    Shrek Forever After (May 21)
    Toy Story 3 (June 18)
    Despicable Me (July 9)
    Cats & Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore (July 30)
    Step Up 3D (Aug 7)
    Piranha 3D (Aug 27)
    Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D (Sep 10)
    Legend Of The Guardians (Sep 24)
    Jackass 3D (Oct 15)
    Saw VII (Oct 22)
    Megamind (Nov 5)
    Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Nov 19)
    Tangled (Nov 24)
    Chronicles Of Narnia: Voyage Of The Dawn Trader (Dec 9)
    Yogi Bear (Dec 17)
    Tron Legacy (Dec 17)
    Gulliver’s Travels (Dec 30)
    The Hole
    Bait 3D

    – 2011 –
    Priest (Jan 14)
    Green Hornet (Jan 14)
    Cabin In The Woods (Jan 14)
    Drive Angry (Feb 11)
    Sucker Punch (Mar 25)
    Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom Of Doom (June 3)
    Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15)
    Smurfs 3D (July 29)
    Underworld 4 (Sep 23)
    Cowboys And Aliens
    Green Lantern
    Spider-Man 4

    Here are some trailers:

    Follow the money- Hollywood is making BIG bucks off these movies, as gimmicky as they seem, people go to these movies and spend their money on them. I find most of these movies heavy on effects but light on story, but I have resigned myself to the fact that this is more than a fad.

    • Nighthawke says:

      Um, I’m not seeing any money to be made, save for the Potter empire, maybe the Green Hornet. But the rest, not so much.

      • Bye says:

        Spider Man 4
        Cowboys & Aliens

        You should look into some of these upcoming movies before you make your eyeblink reaction.

        • Michaela says:

          I will agree that Tron will be a hit, but I am nervous about Spiderman 4 (the third was an epic fail, imho).

          • Mike says:

            (the third was an epic fail, imho).

            Sorry, I need to correct this sentence, you made a mistake. It should read:
            (the third was an epic fail).

            No need to say imho, that movie was terrible and that is a fact 100%.

      • Mike says:

        I think what you aren’t seeing is quality, and I agree 100%, there is some trash on this list. BUT people still pay good money to see crap movies, for example see Michael Bay’s career.

    • Michaela says:

      Harry Potter is going to be 3d?! Darn…

      See, 3d movies have the same reaction as a bag of Puking Pastilles on my system. My friends still wish to experience 3d movies though, so I am always stuck taking myself to the movies or waiting for home release.

      I always thought the fad would die, but this list worries me.
      …my social life is totally screwed. :/

    • Putaro says:

      The 3D glasses still give me a headache. I saw Despicable Me and Toy Story in 3D this year and I would have paid extra to NOT have 3D.

    • Gulliver says:

      I think you are confusing MOVIES with TV. Even within the movie business it is a small number compared to the number of movies released. There will be a market for 3D at a theater, but that was not the question. Which of those movies does anybody really need a 3 D TV for? Unless 3 d becomes transparent (no glasses) like HD, people will not adopt to the fad.

      • Mike says:

        No, I am not confusing them at all. I spent years in the consumer electronics market and I am all too familiar with people’s buying habits. If they see all these movies in 3D in the theatre, there will be a good percentage of people who will want it at home. There will be a core group of early adopters who don’t care about how expensive the glasses are, or how bad the movies are, they just want the shiny new toys. I remember how bad the early plasma TVs were, you weren’t even supposed to watch CNBC on those things because of the burn-in possibility, but people still bought them. For these people wearing glasses is not a problem at all.

        After we get through that group of early adopters the glasses will get cheaper and more people will buy into the technology. The thing about 3d technology is that your TV will not be exclusively 3d, you can still watch regular tv on a 3d capable tv, so we will eventually see more and more tvs with 3d capability. Sure, there will be a few people who refuse for whatever reason watch 3D tv, but the writing is on the wall, 3D is here to stay.

        I am just going to avoid 99% of these movies listed though, just because they look like crap, especially those ones that aren’t natively shot in 3D.

    • MikeM_inMD says:

      And how many feature-length, 3-d movies were released in the 1950s? And how many of them were worth seeing for the plot, acting, or dialog? What makes you think this time is more than a fad?

      • Mike says:

        There are two major differences between the 3d films of the fifties and now:

        1) It was a different kind of 3d technology. Those old red and blue stereoscopic movies were lame compared to films now being shot with the fusion camera system. Comparing those fifties movies to the current movies is like comparing a computer from the eighties to one bought today. Also, remember those old 3d movies weren’t really even in color? I remember watching Jaws in 3D in the theatre and not being impressed. Although I found it boring, Avatar managed to captivate audiences. (yeah those fifties movies were terrible, but they gave so much material to Mystery Science Theater 3000 so I have to love them)

        2) In the fifties you couldn’t buy movies to watch at home. Now, it is not uncommon for some movies to make more money on DVD sales than original ticket sales. Kids will ask their parents for movies in 3d. Their parents will buy 3d capable televisions, even if they themselves don’t use the capability often. But the kids will push the technology forward, along with gamers because 3d gaming is something that is inevitable.

        I would love to come back to this thread in ten years and see who was right, the people who think it is a fad or the ones that think it is here to stay.

      • XTC46 says:

        The fact that they are good, makes me believe its not a trend. Ive seen several of the 3D movies, and enjoyed them. Some were not as good as others and didnt benefit from 3D, but movies like How to Train your Dragon, and Despicable Me were fun.

        • OutPastPluto says:

          3D seems to be something that Hollywood insists on “tacking on”. It seems more like an excuse to jack up the ticket price than anything else. There is a wide range of 3D quality in these movies. Some are actually worthwhile for that aspect but most seem not.

  30. Big Mama Pain says:

    I still feel like 3-D is a fad, no matter how much they are trying to foist it on the public. The quality of 3-D movies took a drastic nosedive once they realized how much more money they could make on 3-D, didn’t they?

    • TechnicallySpeaking says:

      The quality of 3D production is tied to whether the movies were shot in 3D natively, with stereoscopic cameras eg Avatar, or converted to 3D as is the fad.

      I mean, you could say that your statement is true indirectly, but the cause of bad 3D isn’t that the technology doesn’t work. Its that the studios are forcing some production teams to use it because its a cash cow.

  31. valthun says:

    The glasses and the premium price. Thank you tv companies for trying to push this down everyone’s throats because it has allowed non 3D tv prices to plummet.

  32. backinpgh says:

    To me it’s not the WEARING of the glasses, it’s the PURCHASING of the glasses. God forbid you want to have a party…does everyone bring their own? Do you spend hundreds on extras for guests in your home? Too much hassle and expense for me.

  33. CookiePuss says:

    After hearing how great the new 3D tech was in the movie Avatar I decided to take my nephew and was prepared to be blown away. Didn’t think the effects were that great. At all. Apparently it has to do with where you sit, the type of screen, the type of projector used, and which way the winds blowing. I love technology but 3D just doesn’t do anything for me.

    Someone should invest in 3D contact lenses. Probably make a few bucks.

    • Brunette Bookworm says:

      I was impressed by Avatar but I also saw it at a relatively new theater. I think the most amazing parts where the ash falling and the curved glass in parts of the movie. I don’t want to have to wear the glasses all the time to watch a movie, though, so no, I wouldn’t buy a 3D tv.

      • CookiePuss says:

        I think alot of the effect was lost because the place was packed and we had to sit in the 2nd row. The sides of the screen actually stuck out past the glasses field of view which was very annoying. If we sat further back it may have looked better but I was really let down after hearing the rave reviews about how it was like being in the movie. I didn’t get that feeling at all.

        On the other hand I wouldn’t expect the 3D effects to be that great on a small 50″ flat panel. At least not enough to feel immersed in the movie. I agree though, having to wear glasses at home, as well as having enough pairs for family/company would certainly be another reason I wouldn’t want a 3D flat panel.

  34. proscriptus says:

    I already wear glasses, and have serious difficulty believing there’s any way that could be remotely comfortable. No way in hell.

  35. JulesNoctambule says:

    3D technology in a tv set is the dealbreaker for me all on its own. Don’t want it, don’t need it.

  36. Epsilon748 says:

    I’d agree with the study from a gaming standpoint. I just bought in to the Nvidia 3d vision setup for my desktop. I got the monitor “cheap” ($300 for a 23″ 1080p monitor is expensive, but cheaper than regular price and way cheaper than the TV’s that will do it). I’m waiting to get the glasses, but only because I want to use my rewards points on them at Amazon to knock the price to a reasonable $80 for the kit….

    However, I did try out the whole system at work when they demoed them there, and I have to say… it was FANTASTIC for games. While I could conceivably use my desktop for 3d bluray with the kit too, the games were the selling point. If only I could find a way to rig up my Xbox to use them as well and I’d be set…

    All told, the cost of the monitor + kit will be something like $380 out of pocket, which is definitely affordable and gave me an excuse to dump my 5+ year old LCD with the washed out screen. The only real expense is for those that don’t have the computer to handle the content, which admittedly requires an expensive/high end Nvidia graphics card as well.

    If I had to pay much more than I did for the monitor and glasses kit, it would definitely have been too expensive a toy though. And for those that wear glasses, the kit (and 3d glasses in general) tend to be headache inducing or otherwise uncomfortable.

    • TechnicallySpeaking says:

      I agree. I played 3D Call of Duty (I think… it could have been some other war sim) at PAX East earlier this year, and it was just phenomenal.

  37. yessongs says:

    You look like a dork with them on… I’m sure all those who bought a blue ray player are buying 3dtv, and you can tell by their bank accounts.

  38. The_Fuzz_53 says:

    Absolutely. There is no way in hell I’m going to buy 7 pairs of these things at $200 a pop.

  39. shepd says:

    It’s not just the glasses. It’s the fact the glasses for home 3DTV require electronics. When we finally get polarized 3DTV happening, the glasses really won’t be a big deal (heck, you could use contacts!) because they’ll be the same thing you get at the theatre, except hopefully a hell of a lot more comfortable.

    Also, all the 3D movies seem to abuse the 3D effect, which is something that will need to disappear, as well. Right now it’s just like 3D was more than 10 years ago when it existed for the PC.

    • shepd says:

      And, for those wondering, glasses for polarized setups cost about $3-$5 a pop, so yes, you can have a party and afford to have glasses for everyone.

  40. RDSwords says:

    Why does the 3D aspect have to be a property of the display? Why can’t they incorporate the control of the glasses into a player as well. That way you can still upgrade to 3D by just getting a new player, and not replacing your entire TV. There is no reason that the A/V receiver can’t be in control of the 3D experience. The TV just needs to display the frames that are sent to it.

    • shepd says:

      Because you have to provide twice the signal to get this to work.

      Standard HDMI connections provide up to 1920×1200 @ 60 Hz. That means that at 1080p you’re going to get just a bit more than 30 Hz per eye out of it. At 720p, you could get 60 Hz per eye, but then you’d need a set that can understand 720p @ 120 Hz. Most sets won’t sync at anything over 60 Hz because it’s not standard.

      So, basically, even if it could work, you’re going to have to reduce the resolution a lot, or you’re going to have instant-headache-inducing flicker. Both options suck. So you have to have a TV that supports it. In which case you may as well have the TV do the shutter signal.

      Or you could use a computer, but that’s old hat now. ;-)

  41. Saltillopunk says:

    Talk about synchronicity! Last night I was in Best Buy to pick up a CD and happened to walk past the TV area. At that moment I heard a couple talking about the 3D televisions and basically conclude the fact that the special glasses were needed was a turn off. Personally the glasses are not a deal breaker for me. It is more that right now, it comes off as a novelty.

  42. geekpoet says:

    I wear glasses already so definitely no. But even if I didn’t wear glasses I’d be hesitant to spend a lot of money on a device that required a custom accessory to use.

    Also, if 3D tv is anything like the 3D movies, the headaches I get after half an hour would make it unbearable.

  43. cj4 says:

    It’s not the glasses, it’s the cost of the glasses. And I’m not just talking about blowing $800 to outfit the family. What, exactly, do manufacturers think we’re going to do for, as an example, a Super Bowl party? Do I go out and spent $10,000 to have my friends over for the game? Ridiculous. Either make glasses whose cost is negligible or come up with technology that doesn’t require them.

  44. axiomatic says:

    Not only are the glasses a deal breaker. Those of us with severe eye dominance, yeah the 3d effect (in whatever 3d manifestation) just doesn’t work well on us.


  45. Mknzybsofh says:

    I will never buy one because I already wear glasses. I cannot wear contacts for a number of reasons so this will leave me out of 3D forever.

    • Mike says:

      FYI, the glasses are designed to go over your own glasses. I wear big, black rimmed glasses to 3d movies at the imax all the time. You can watch 3d with glasses no problem.

  46. jimconsumer says:

    The cost of the glasses is ridiculous. $600 – $800 to outfit my family of four? And what happens when we have several guests over to enjoy that big new 3DTV? I don’t know a single person who is willing to spend $1500+ to ensure enough glasses are available.

  47. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    I’ll buy a 3D TV when…

    1. The 3D doesn’t suck. Even Avatar was only about 2.5D, as far as I could tell…a technology has to be good enough to *not* get noticed while using it. Which is to say, you need to not have the user experience intruded upon by constantly “noticing” that “oh, that plant there looks like it’s coming out of the screen!11!!” – when it’s to the point where the entire user experience is consistently a GOOD 3D environment, with no obtrusiveness to the user, I might be interested.

    2. There’s actually *good* 3D content to be viewed. Like, stuff I would want to watch. Including live TV broadcasts like sports.

    3. When it requires no extra gear outside of the TV itself. No headwear, glasses, VR gloves, extra-dimensional buttplugs, or whatever. Absolutely no deal – ever – if I have to wear glasses or anything else to watch the damn TV.

    4. When it has the same viewing range as a normal TV. So, it can’t be that you have to sit directly in the middle of the screen exactly 15′ away to see the picture properly – viewers from all angles and depths in similar comparison to current TVs must all see the same quality picture.

    5. When it doesn’t cost appreciably/any more than a regular TV. Kinda like BD vs. DVD – sure, I reckon a movie looks “better” in BD – but if the BD version is $25 and the DVD is $15, there’s no way in hell that the “better” is worth another $10. I’ll buy a BD version if it’s the same price, or maybe a couple bucks more than the DVD – same will apply to 3D TVs.

    6. When my current TVs die. Right now I have a 67″ LED-DLP and a 48″ LCD, both 1080p, and both unbelievably amazing to watch. They’re not getting replaced for any reason other than their own deaths. If they live for 20 years…then I’m not buying a new TV for 20 years.

  48. Ragman says:

    Definitely. I watched Avatar in 3D, wasn’t as impressive as I’d hoped, and the glasses got annoying.

  49. Jemaine says:

    If I can’t use the Rivers Cuomo 3D glass I got from seeing Alice in Wonderland 3D then no thank you. I just got a flat screen HDtv last year, and I still don’t have HD yet, so I definitely don’t want 3D.

  50. ryes says:

    I am constantly amazed by those who say “do you want to watch Two and a Half Men in 3D?” It reminds me of the switch to color tv from b&w. Did we really need to watch Walter Cronkite in color? Of course we did because of the perceived depth of the color image and the improved graphics. Once the kinks are worked out and enough compelling content is available, just as with the b&w to color transition, 3D is the next compelling step.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      3D is a cheap gimmick unlike sound and color.

      Sound and color are integral parts of how we perceive the world. Psuedo-3D is not.

      Projecting a “real” image with depth. Now that would be something. Or perhaps genuine VR.

      3D movies are a silly gimmick that’s already been rejected as such before.

  51. XianZomby says:

    Why are 3D glasses for at home so expensive, and 3D glases for at the theater so cheap? And why can’t they make the cheap ones work for at home?

  52. mianne prays her parents outlive the TSA says:

    Sitting here pondering which three hours of hell I’d choose if no other options existed. 1) Watch a 3 hour movie with these (over my glasses and the ensuing headaches and nausea) or 2) Fly for 3 hours in one of those forward tilting seats with the big lump in the middle.

  53. bdgbill says:

    “Do you really need to watch Two and a Half Men in 3D? Probably not.”

    Exactly! Same goes for the news, all sitcoms, reality TV, documentaries or pretty much anything else that doesn’t feature space ships entering warp speed.

    Also…the glasses totally suck.

  54. zlionsfan says:

    I have two perfectly good HDTVs that don’t need to be upgraded for quite some time. I have no desire to wear glasses on top of glasses to watch pseudo-3D stuff on what, two channels? Maybe I can watch movies that consist of actors constantly throwing things at the camera so that you get the feeling you’re actually in a bad movie rather than just watching it.

    “3D” as it exists now isn’t anywhere near worth the cost. I doubt it ever will be. But hey, if these are the companies replicating the laser disc experience so that future companies can make the 3D equivalent of DVDs, more power to them.

  55. Kodai says:

    3D with glasses. Welcome to the technology of the 1950s.

  56. radio1 says:

    Yes, frankly they are.

    I’ve been wearing glasses since I was 5, and contacts since I was 18. (And I’ll be 43 in two weeks) The last thing I need is some kind of device to wear to ‘enhance’ my experience. I get my ‘enhanced’ experience everyday– what you blessed people call ‘normal vision’.

    And I am getting to the age where I need either reader or bifocals.
    And we all live in this 3D thing already…

    Anyways, besides– they are to expensive for families- not enough market penetration to make these cheap just yet. Please, please call me back when when it is built into every TV, thank you very much.

  57. bwcbwc says:

    No, the strabismus is a deal breaker.

  58. justagigilo85 says:

    Fuck the glasses. If Nintendo can make the DS 3D without any glasses, then I have no issue whatsoever holding out until TV manufacturers do the same.

  59. CapZap says:

    I just can’t get excited about 3D. The reviewers cite ghost images as a frequent complaint and I couldn’t live with even the slightest ghosting. A bigger, better 2D is what I’ll get next.

    Glasses? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker here too.

  60. SEIowaRes says:

    I have a Samsung 3D Plasma…only because of an insurance claim on my 7 year old Mitsubishi Projection TV that was settled with the insurance company. My old Mitsubishi was loaded with connections and the Samsung was the only option they could take that even came close to the number of connections and features my old TV had (i.e. pic in pic, composite/component connections, etc. etc.) Their only option was to replace all of my old equipment that is not HD compatible which would cost them thousands more.

    The COST of the 3D glasses and the 3D Blu Ray is what has stopped me from dipping into the 3D world at home. My whole family loves 3D movies, but I can’t see $1000 more for 4 sets of glasses and the player. Even if they would drop the cost of the glasses by 50% the compatible Blu Ray player is quite costly.

    One thing I do like about the Samsung 3D TV over the others is the option that you can simulate 3D on non-3D movies IF you have the glasses and the Blu Ray version of the movie in any Blu Ray player. We did try this out in the store when we were looking at the TVs and it didn’t do as well as true 3D, but it was pretty good…much more lively than watching the movie without the glasses. But once again $150 per set makes me shutter. The glasses were rechargeable, but the connections were fragile and I could easily see my children breaking them in no time unless I insisted that only the adults recharged them (in fact the glasses we used at the store had been broken from being used in the store and they had to get out another set for us.)

  61. MikeM_inMD says:

    I already see in 3-D and my brain is capable of interpreting the TV image as a 3-D world, so where’s the need?

  62. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Seriously? 3-D needs to go away AGAIN. Spend the time/money on better content. This is a revised version of the same stupid gimmick to get more money for the same stuff for the third time.

  63. Nick says:

    I’ll wait until they come out with smell-a-vision.

  64. kathygnome says:

    I think the big issue is less that people hate glasses, though many of them do. It’s more that without the glasses, 3d tv is unwatchable. It’s basically only good for when you’re willing to dedicate yourself to sitting down and doing nothing other than watching. Watching something on 3d and someone else in the room is not really watching? The video is unwatchable for them unless they put the glasses on and if you’re wearing the glasses, you can’t really do anything else.

    For example, right now as I’m typing this I have a tv running next to the computer. I’m watching, not particularly attentively, a Premier League Match while I do things on the computer. 3d? Can’t do that. You have to uni-task because of the glasses.

    Hey, if it was free, that would be fine. I’d put on the glasses occasionally for a blockbuster, the same as right now we turn down the lights and turn the sound up. But buy special and expensive equipment? No.

  65. deadbird says:

    I just feel it’s a silly gimmick! It’s not really improving my television watching experience if I end up with a pounding headache and thousands of dollars in debt just to buy enough glasses for my whole family to watch! Not to mention what happens if friends stop by! I think this technology is just not up to speed yet.

  66. TVGenius says:

    At this point, the most effort is being put into 3D gimmicky crap (except Avatar), which I have no desire to see. Call me in 5 years, then we’ll talk.

  67. maruawe says:

    If you wish to view 3d on TV then you are going to have to trade off , multi-tasking or watching 3dTV.
    3D is an exacting science that manipulates the picture on the screen and the glasses that you have to be wearing. blacking out one eye at a time in synchronization with the movie on the screen, providing a three dimensional picture on the TV screen Therefore multi-tasking in not going to work while watching 3dTV

  68. Chaosium says:

    Yes, yes the glasses are for anyone who wears glasses.

    “Of the regular gamers surveyed, 70% said they want to try out their PCs, Xboxes and PS3s on a 3D TV.”

    I don’t :D

  69. CyberSkull says:

    I don’t want glasses for watching 3D TV or playing a game.

  70. Henry Brzrki says:

    In summary, it’s pretty clear people like 3D glasses.

  71. progrocktv says:

    The industry says 3D is the FUTURE of television. I can’t wait to see “Meet The Press” in 3D!!!!

  72. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Seeing Avatar in 3D in the theater was fun, but 3D has always been a novelty. It’s just not practical for everyday use. The glasses, the expensive technology involved, the physical effects on some people–it’s all too difficult.

    I would like to play games in 3D. I like the Myst games; that would be awesome.

  73. tooluser says:

    “Blue Skies on Mars, that’s a new one…”

  74. wild7s says:

    As someone who wears prescription glasses, the answer is yes. License the technology Sharp licensed to Nintendo, for their 3DS, so we don’t need them. Otherwise, stop bragging about old tech.

  75. Levi says:

    we already had a wave of this fad in the 50s. It went away then, and it will go away again.

  76. Cyniconvention says:

    I was looking at HSN (for some reason). They were advertising a Mistubishi 3D TV. It was playing “A Christmas Carol”, the new one, with the creepy CGI people. They paused it right on the closeup of the weird old man and the sales people were looking at it with the glasses.

    If not wanting to wear glasses over glasses didn’t do it, imagining that horror in 3D certainly did.

  77. StarVapor says:

    “a new survey shows that most people won’t buy a 3D TV just because they have to wear the required glasses.”
    One would think that the TV manufacturers would have held the customary research focus groups to determine whether or not people would want to wear the 3D glasses before they put these products on the market.

  78. thrashanddestroy says:

    There’s the aforementioned issues with 3DTV;

    – I have to wear glasses
    – Glasses are expensive
    – What if I have several guests
    – Hey, aren’t they releasing 3D TVs you don’t need glasses for?

    I, on the other hand, have one big issue that hasn’t been mentioned as much; proprietary glasses. Panasonic already has 3D glasses out in market that ONLY work with Panasonic 3D televisions. Sony and Samsung are following suit, supposedly, which is even more ridiculous since they’re manufactured in the same damn factories.

    All for a technology that’s going to be obsolete next year and — in my opinion — a fad that will fizzle out within the next three.

  79. BayardMozie says:

    Let’s face it. We’re all complaining about 3-D TV right now because it’s early technology that’s clunky, lacks content, and costs too much. No matter what we’re all saying, it is NOT pointless…

    Of *course* I would want to watch programming and movies if they really looked like real life in front of me and didn’t require glasses! The problem is that’s just not what 3-D TV gives us today.

    If I could wave a magic wand and have the 3-D TV of 20 years from now (no glasses, no price premium, no risk of nausea), you can bet I would want to watch everything from Two and a half men to Infomercials on it – and so would everybody else.

  80. DasSavva says:

    Nope. Even if they were $10 a pop, I wouldn’t buy them. I purchased contacts so I wouldn’t have to wear glasses.

  81. Tarbender says:

    I can’t see why the 3D studios won’t develop 3D that works for those of us who can’t use the glasses, or who have one functioning eyeball… oh wait… lets try the working eye… Nope – still can’t see why…

  82. TheFingerOfGod says:

    no 3dtv please!

  83. Anaxamenes says:

    3D movies are just gimmicky. I mean I felt that the 3D in Avatar just distracted from the overall effect of the film, I missed so many of the details in the backgrounds because I was watching the 3D parts.

    It’s like subtitles in a Sci Fi flick, it doesn’t work so well because often the visuals are just as or more important than the dialogue. If you have to read the dialogue, you are missing the visuals.

  84. johnrhoward says:

    Yes, absolutely. Even without the glasses, 3D is a novelty at best. I really don’t understand this big 3D push. I don’t know anyone who is desperate to watch 3D at home, and I certainly don’t know anyone who is going to care about it if they have to buy special glasses and use them everytime they want to watch TV.

  85. El_Fez says:

    3D gives me a MASSIVE headache (Thanks, Avatar for the four hours of pain I had after I watched!), so I’m staying far FAR away from this.