And 3D TVs are even more ridiculous. Think of all the TV programs that you watch. How many would actually benefit from 3D? News? Sit-coms? Reality shows? Game shows? Nope. Yes, 3D TV movies but then you fall into the same quandary as my first paragraph.

Hollywood is desperately trying to put off the day that people don’t go to the movie theaters anymore because their home flat-screen TVs are give them just as large of an viewing experience (if not more) than what they can experience in the movie theaters. That’s what 3D is all about in Hollywood. Trying to survive the home theaters. 3D is like swords trying to beat back the tide. Too little too late.

I wont invest any money into 3D at home, seems like a waste. What if the fad dies out in 6 months or changes formats (HD-DVD vs Bluray) and what happens when you have 10-15 people over at a party and you only have 6 sets of 3D glasses ?

1) 3D is shown on a 3D display and not on a 2D display showing slightly offset videos.

2) Artists begin to understand the medium. 3D is not about shooting video with two video camera’s taped to each other. Nor is it over exaggerating the 3D effect for the “coolness” of it. That’s the part that makes you sick and gives you headaches.

3) Creators provide compelling stories that require 3D. 3D is a near field effect. Anything fast moving or further than a few feet away from you and you naturally use other cues to gauge depth and distance. By creating content that requires the viewer to be close to the scene would make 3D a more compelling effect.

3D has come and gone many times in the past. The Virtual Reality buzz in the late 90′s was the last time it hit the market this big and we all know where that ended up.

This 3D feature is just another way for the Display Manufacturers to wring out more dollars from the market as the Displays have come down in price so much they are almost a commodity. By adding this 3D feature they can charge more for the display and charge ridiculous amounts of money for the shutter glasses, one set for each viewer, which cost them probably less than $20. (And those of you with TVs that support greater than 120Hz refresh rate should be asking why 3D is not supported on your TV. It probably is but you just didn’t pay to have it activated. Nice feature.)

1) 3D is shown on a 3D display and not on a 2D display showing slightly offset videos.

2) Artists begin to understand the medium. 3D is not about shooting video with two video camera’s taped to each other. Nor is it over exaggerating the 3D effect for the “coolness” of it. That’s the part that makes you sick and gives you headaches.

3) Creators provide compelling stories that require 3D. 3D is a near field effect. Anything fast moving or further than a few feet away from you and you naturally use other cues to gauge depth and distance. By creating content that requires the viewer to be close to the scene would make 3D a more compelling effect.

3D has come and gone many times in the past. The Virtual Reality buzz in the late 90′s was the last time it hit the market this big and we all know where that ended up.

This 3D feature is just another way for the Display Manufacturers to wring out more dollars from the market as the Displays have come down in price so much they are almost a commodity. By adding this 3D feature they can charge more for the display and charge ridiculous amounts of money for the shutter glasses, one set for each viewer, which cost them probably 120Hz refresh rate should be asking why 3D is not supported on your TV. It probably is but you just didn’t pay to have it activated. Nice feature.)

People have seen 3-D movies (especially Avatar) but they’ve hardly seen 3-D TV.

The technology of 3-D movies is much more developed than the technology of 3-D TV.

There’s an assumption 3-D TV will be expensive.