
A New High-Tech Battle - Which 3-D Glasses Are Best?  - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/technology/28glasses.html
======
antipax
If "designer" 3D glasses catch on, I'll eat a shoe.

"Ms. Costeira of XpanD thinks personalized designs that can be used with 3-D
HDTVs and video games could turn into something big. “Stylish, thin and light,
3-D glasses will become your new iPod,” she said." was particularly laugh-
worthy.

~~~
rms
I think it's possible. Instead of thinking that Ms. Costeira makes the new
iPod, let's assume Apple makes the new iPod. It just looks like normal
sunglasses, except that it's a full video iPod and by default the back of the
lenses are glowing Apple logos. Using it to view 3D TV is not the main use,
watching 3D internet on the lenses is the main use. I give it 5 years.

------
axod
All of them absolutely suck IMHO. You end up with kids who get bored tired and
irritated, removing the glasses and squinting at the screen to try and make
out what's going on.

The move toward 3D is a great shame. I seriously don't think it actually adds
anything. I've seen a few movies in 3D, and after the initial "haha cool"
moment, you forgot it was in 3D (Apart from being a dimmer, more irritating
headache inducing picture).

Conspiracy theory: It's to combat people camcordering movies in cinemas?

~~~
wmf
Couldn't you just put a polarized lens over the camcorder and get a normal 2D
view?

------
nazgulnarsil
only one line in the article is about the title. and the line is a throwaway:
"I don't think consumers can tell the difference".

post something about it when someone does an actual analysis. this crap is
useless.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Anecdote: The Polarized 3d glasses make me feel somewhat nauseous for the
first half hour; I haven't tried the other types.

~~~
jamesbritt
" ... make me feel somewhat nauseous"

I think you meant nauseated.

nauseous -> nauseated

poisonous -> poisoned

