What would be the point of 2D glasses? If a person can’t see stereographic 3D, then 3D glasses would be 2D glasses.
Maybe they could make glasses with both eyes polarized in the same way - that way, you would only see the “left” side of the screen rather than the blurred picture without glasses or the headache-inducing fake-3D.
I wonder where that 10% figure comes from. Anyway, if a significant number of people got sick from 3D it wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has: Movie studios are nothing if not ruthlessly profit-driven.
I think that it will probably die out because the average consumer is not interested in it.
I think 3D TV’s will join the much hyped desktop video phones of yesteryear.
As opposed to the current pocket video phones?
What percentage of the calls on your cellphone do you make video calls with another person? Video calling technology has been around since the 60’s but other than limited* business conferencing and things like Skype via a PC, it was never picked up.
*By limited I mean total video call minutes/total call minutes. For Skype, they are averaging about 50% of calls including video but I don’t see the same thing for dedicated desktop devices or pocket video phones.
Anyway, this is a bit of a hijack to the OP.
Exactly what you said
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/?srp=2
These are for people who see in 3D, but get headaches from 3D films.
Dammit, they stole my idea!
Posters who were answering “no” may be technically correct in that there are not DVD players which do this (AFAIK), but there are converters which do. That product isn’t bad, at least watching the source they had cherry-picked for the trade show.
JVC has a much more expensive converter, which I wasn’t really impressed with.
Basically, there are a bunch of algorithms which the converter uses to try to figure out which information is foreground and which is background. It then processes the image to accent the foreground, which somewhat gives the impression of a 3D image.
For the JVC model, you can tweak the settings, with the usual risk of over correction. Looking at a video of sunflowers in a field, over correcting the compensation made the sunflowers seem like they were dangling in midair, and not connected to the green part of the plants.
Some sources were OK, such as a video of a Broadway show, others were not that good.
Also, regarding the glasses, they’re the Achilles heel of 3D TV and will remain so. It won’t matter how lightweight they can get, having to don eyeware of any kind will keep 3D TV a niche product. People who are used to glasses (i.e. people who wear them) can’t comfortable wear two pair and people who don’t wear glasses *really *don’t want to wear them just to watch television.
And although I’m sure ‘non-glasses-requiring’ 3D displays will eventually be achieved I think it will be quite awhile before they’re practical and affordable…