Non-Rechargable 3-D Glasses - What the What?

Dick Ward Writes: "In the wake of all the 3-D news that’s been rolling out, something’s been bothering me. Something apart from all of the usual complaints about 3-D glasses. It took a while, but I finally put my finger on it. 3-D manufacturers are actually putting out glasses with replaceable (not rechargeable) batteries. Talk about inconvenient!"

- Comments (10)

fatstarr5035d ago

Why cant I just use my 3D glasses from the movie theaters...
I really think technology company's are pulling one over on the consumers with 3D in its current state.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

gonzodamus5035d ago

You can if you buy a television that's capable of using them. But since that kind of TV can jump into the $10,000 range pretty quickly, most companies aren't working on them.

I'm sure we'll see a few get announced at CES this year though. Vizio is even working on one, so maybe the pricing won't be so bad! :)

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

snoop_dizzle5034d ago (Edited 5034d ago )

Where are you getting the $10,000 price? They seem to be running more in the 2 thousand to 3 thousand dollar range (at least in the US).

And Samsung, Vizio, Sony, and Panasonic are working on them and a few of them have 3d tv's out, so most big companies have some displays that are 3d capable.

At the same time I don't like 3d in its current state.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

gonzodamus5034d ago (Edited 5034d ago )

That was a response to the previous comment about televisions that use passive technology.

"Why cant I just use my 3D glasses from the movie theaters"

I hit "Add Comment" rather than "Reply" :p

Sorry for the confusion there!

Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

fatstarr5034d ago

It makes no sense. they should be working on trying to pull of what nintendo is going to do. Its like in terms of tv evolution this is a .5 and not a full +1 just a stop in the middle of the road...

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

snoop_dizzle5034d ago (Edited 5034d ago )

Believe it or not 2 to 3 grand isn't insane for a tv (doesn't mean I can afford it though lol ;) ) Even older tv's like the Pioneer Kuro can easily run 4+ grand (it also is still considered one of the best tv's out there).

Given 3d tv's are newer tech the prices don't surprise me one bit. It will be expensive initially. In the next few years prices will drop.

Keep in mind these tv's aren't some low end tv's with a 3d feature, rather, extremely capable tv's with a 3d feature. Meaning even when 3d isn't on it would likely perform better than most low to mid range tv's on the market in 2d (I am generalizing of course). However, seeing 3d on these doesn't do too much for me given it seems everything seems pretty dim (becasue of the glasses), and for me to like it, it has to look really good. That is at least what I have seen with in-store demos.

Over the next few years this likely will simply be a feature in most mid range tv's (possibly even low end ones as well...referring to sub 600/700 dollar tv's) like it is in some high end ones currently.

Now what they should do is make bundle deals with the tv's with say, 4 glasses or so. When Blu-ray came out they allowed people to get free movies with their player to spark interest.

There is supposedly experimental displays that can disply 3d properly without glasses, but that is exteremly pricey.

However, even if 3d does improve, I don't necessarily want to use it all the time.

A good movie once in a while is fine with me, but other than that, I don't want to see every movie in 3d.

Edit: Also, this is a good thing too because it lowers the prices of non 3d displays.

If anything, the main problem 3d has now is lack of content. Prices will reduce over time.