I think the old movie "Jaws" had best 3D system: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jaws_3-D#3-D

it used cheap, disposable, cardboard polarized glasses. it had far better 3D effects than avatar. either that or my memory isn't so good.

i think the whole 3D thing is over-rated, a desperate push by the film industry and certain hardware manu's to make revenue.

The thing is, I have yet to meet anyone who actually cares or enthuses over the 3D future of film and tv. No-one wants to be tied to having to wear glasses just so they can view a film in 3D, and then having to buy extra glasses so that when friends come round everyone can see in 3D - what a load of pointless hassle. Currenlty 3D just doesn't make that nuch difference to a film, and the story line is crap or the acting bad then 3D won't help or compensate.

As for Avatar (Pocahuntas script in 3D), after the initial buzz at the prospect of it's 3D'ness, it was soon forgotten.

Let Hollywood waste it's time and money on the 3D fad (might as well as they've forgotten how to tell a good story, and think that cgi and fx are what counts). It's going to be at least 10 years before a 3D system is developed which won't need glasses - then maybe the public will start to take interest.

I found this article very interesting. Main problem - whoever wrote this has a 3rd grade reading level and should not put a draft up as a final copy. Spell check will help :)

Lumiere, surely?

quote"why not a port that allows you to add whatever transmitter you have, so when I go over to joe schmo's house to watch the game I can bring my own glasses and plug my transmitter into his telly?"

most glasses use infrared transmitters. the others use wires. either you'll get a ridiculous tangle of wire or a whole bunch of glasses that are not synchronizing with the frames. each pair of glasses would need to filter out the infrared... maybe with polarized filters but then we just start the whole circle again.

i wish they would just use circular polarization. if they had a standard for which side is which, all glasses would work with all tvs. then we could get laser surgery to polarize our eyes

you can even use a spinning wheel for projector systems so that only 1 projector is needed. it's the most versatile option, it's even usable on paper. imagine a world where we get our eyes polarized at birth and 3d would be everywhere

I 100% agree with what Ruben said, "at the base level you still need two images, and converting this into a format that works with your hardware is relatively simple"

To continue with that, the TV (or sat/cable reciever, or DVD/BlueRay box, or computer or whatever) doesn't need to be tailored to a specific type of glasses unless it's polarized.

The set (or player or whatever) sends an IR signal that the glasses recieve, to sync the viewing experience. So, you need a transmitter, and glasses with a reciever. Unless you just have a dial on the side of the glasses to sync, and then hope it stays synced. For non-polarized formats, why not a port that allows you to add whatever transmitter you have, so when I go over to joe schmo's house to watch the game I can bring my own glasses and plug my transmitter into his telly?

As the article stated, 3D is set to be a big thing.

This invariably leads to all the TV manufacturers being effectively required to come up with Something that will be able to display stereoscopic 3D. Computer monitor manufacturers aren't being forced as much, as the 3D gamer is currently a niche market, and monitors are used for more than just viewing media.

Fortunately, a "format war" per se, is unlikely. The reason for this is that fundamentally, a stereoscopic video simply has two video channels, one for each eye. Whether you're interlacing them, modifying polarisation, or simply alternating left and right images for active LCD shutter glasses, at the base level you still need two images, and converting this into a format that works with your hardware is relatively simple.

As the article stated, active LCD shutter glasses are being pushed by the TV manufacturers. Here's why: it's simple, it's cheap (for the TV manufacturer), and it can be made quickly. The fact that your bulky, possibly flickery (YMMV) glasses cost several hundred dollars is not really their problem.

Other options do exist, and are even on the market here and now: for a computer monitor, iZ3D offers a monitor that uses passive polarised glasses to achieve the 3D effect, as does Zalman (though with Zalman's offering, you lose half the vertical resolution). These cost around twice the price of a standard monitor, but glasses are cheap.

For a larger screen, dual and triple projector setups (costing twice and thrice the cost of a single projector, plus filters) allow similar use of cheap passive glasses.

It seems that what money is saved on the display is spent on the glasses. As the number of viewers increases (or the replacement cycle of glasses increases), spending more on a passive technology yields its rewards.

Finally, for those who complain about 3D causing headaches or whatever, remember that 3D is subjective, and maybe you're just not in the target market. This doesn't mean that you should nonconstructively yelp about it here.