<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> this means shutter glasses can be implemented at<br></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
practically no additional cost while "doing it right" brings<br>
the cost of the display into the $10k range.<br></blockquote><div><br>This is exactly why I think that the polarized technique will not really catch on; the average consumer isn't willing to spend more than maybe $2k for a really nice display, and if there's another display that is capable of providing pretty much the same experience for less than half the price, they're not going to care if it's not "the right way".<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">But, I can't imagine walking into someones TV room with 5 or 6 people
sitting around wearing 3d glasses, without bursting into laughter! :-D<br></blockquote>
<br>I just had a thought about sports bars, if all the games are in 3D, then everyone will need to be wearing glasses, that would just be really funny looking.<br>--Justin Johnson<br></div></div>