[QUOTE=CDan;2574269]There’s a lot of undisclosed issues with the “passive 3D” technology, just like there was with active shutter glasses. Suffice it to say that the image quality is mediocre and fraught with viewing angle and position issues. I see no need for it. You’re trading image quality and viewing angles for the convenience of universal glasses. You can’t even tip your head with these things.
3D will never be mainstream in the home, it’s too expensive and there’s almost no content to watch.[/QUOTE]
April Fools Check - No… they’re actually serious …
Passive 3D is just … stupid …
The ACTIVE 3D with glasses is impressive, in some implementations, but the active glasses needing recharge, weighing too much, costing $100+ a pair, interference from other IR sources (according to samsung, whose IR signalling implementation is just plain bad) & 3D isn’t going anywhere with the prices they’re charging, nor the extreme lack of 3D content anywhere.
Releasing “Passive” 3D, which sucks in comparison to active 3D, at price points not significantly cheaper - bah. Waste of time.
I’m sure there will be a few nostalgic buyers tryng to relive the 60/70’s 3D experience.
I just can’t see “Passive” 3D going anywhere.