Are 3D Glasses Hindering the Adoption of 3D TV?
By Dennis Kuba
July 7, 2011
July 7, 2011
- “Almost everyone interested in seeing 3D on a home TV would be much happier if they didn’t have to wear those awkward glasses to do it,” writes TVTechnology.
- While autostereoscopic 3D is available for small screens such as the Nintendo 3DS, it is not yet practical for large flat screen displays.
- Both lenticular and parallax technologies exhibit sweet spots where the illusion is best.
- Phil Lelyveld, ETC’s Consumer 3D Experience Lab program manager, says we’re many years away from a marketable product.
- “3D is the one of the first art forms that impacts your visual system and can have a health response on it,” says Lelyveld. “Some autostereoscopic display technologies can be very age-dependent, and market research has found that people in their early 20’s and younger can more readily accept the AS3D effect, but people in their 20’s and older find it very annoying.”
2 Comments
I don’t think it’s a mystery. Of course we would all rather not have to wear the glasses. Good things rarely come without inconvenience. Great food, health, wealth… Oh well…
I am unaware of any conclusive medical studies on health consequences, though there has been allot discussion. I don’t consider headache’s or nausea while watching 3D to be a “health consequence” any more than I do the same result when watching Bill O’Reilly or Colbert Report. When I stop, it goes away…
I don’t think it’s a mystery. Of course we would all rather not have to wear the glasses. Good things rarely come without inconvenience. Great food, health, wealth… Oh well…
I am unaware of any conclusive medical studies on health consequences, though there has been allot discussion. I don’t consider headache’s or nausea while watching 3D to be a “health consequence” any more than I do the same result when watching Bill O’Reilly or Colbert Report. When I stop, it goes away…
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.