Non-Rechargable 3-D Glasses – What the What?

In the wake of all the 3-D news that’s been rolling out, something’s been bothering me. Something apart from all of the usual complaints about 3-D glasses. It took a while, but I finally put my finger on it. 3-D manufacturers are actually putting out glasses with replaceable (not rechargeable) batteries. Talk about inconvenient!

I’m not a fan of 3-D movies yet. I’m sure if the trend continues, I’ll change my tune at some point in the future. You know, once a good director takes a successful stab at 3-D production that actually benefits the movie. But I get why some people are, and that’s fine. I understand 3-D capable televisions coming without glasses and I understand 3-D glasses and transmitters being sold separately, even if the price does seem awfully high.

The one thing I don’t get is this: Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to make non-rechargeable 3-D glasses? Apparently Sony, Panasonic, LG and most other makers of active shutter glasses. The only television manufacturer that even offers rechargeable glasses is Samsung.

Why are rechargeable glasses a big deal? Because I can’t imagine anything more annoying than having to get up in the middle of a movie to change the battery on your glasses. That’s if you stocked up – otherwise you’ll have to run out to Radio Shack to find the right battery for your 3-D glasses. Manufacturers boast hundreds of hours of battery life, which is fine, but all we really need is, at most, eight.

We’re a society that’s used to the idea of plugging things in at night. We sync and charge our iPods when we get home from work. We plug in our phones, our MP3 players and our handheld gaming systems. We pop rechargeable batteries into battery packs and we plug in our PS3 controllers. We, as consumers, get the whole recharging thing. At this point it seems built into our very nature.

The idea of taking off 3-D glasses and plugging them in when not in use is very basic. So what if the battery life is only eight hours? Most folks are only going to be watching for a few hours anyway. A smaller, rechargeable battery just makes so much more sense.Monster finally makes a product that isn't a rip-off!

The biggest surprise is that Monster Cable seems to be the only company making glasses that actually serve the consumer. That’s right, the same company that brings you overpriced cables of all kinds. The Monster Vision Max 3D Glasses, along with Monster’s own transmitter, are compatible with every 3-D television out there. They use RF signals for 3-D sync so, unlike with IR signals, you’ll be able to turn your head without having to re-sync. And they’re rechargeable.

Monster’s glasses are surprisingly cheap too. They’ve got an MSRP of $169 a pair, which is $20 more than most 3-D glasses, but $40 less than that of Samsung’s rechargeable glasses.

It’s about time some of the 3-D television manufacturers get on this. It’s a topsy-turvy world we live in when Monster is offering a better product than anyone else, and at a cheaper price too!


  1. EM

    Sorry, I prefer the idea of replaceable batteries (so long as they, too, are rechargeable). One of my pet peeves regarding many portable electronics such as cell phones and iPods is the inability to swap batteries. I carry a PSP and I always carry a spare battery—that’s just not an option for many devices. If I were to use battery-operated 3D glasses (…if…), I’d be pretty irritated if their power ran out and I had to wait a few hours before I could use them again. If you’re used to plugging things in at night, that’s great—make sure your removable rechargeable batteries are among those things! 🙂

  2. Bryan

    If all you got per charge was 8 hours, then I’d say no. That is, however, unlikely. If you got a couple hundred hours, which seems more likely, then I’d be more willing. I’m not a very patient consumer. I like new tech and I like it now. In this case, I am prepared to wait for televisions that use head tracking mixed with parallax barrier technology. Glasses-less 3D. With video gaming already breathing life into this possibly (Kinect, 3DS) , I have a happy feeling that I won’t be waiting too long.

  3. sab

    The best reason I could think of is that lithium ion batteries, over time, tend to deteriorate and their charge times and performance begin to decrease. So eventually, what was a pair of shutter glasses with a built in rechargeable batter that could last 8 hours when you bought it, might only last 4 or 5 after a year or so of use. And would continue to last less and less as time goes on. My laptops battery used to have a 12 hour charge, not it only lasts 20 minutes on a full charge. I’ve had it for 5 years and it doesn’t leave my desk. So you have two options. Buy a pair of shutter glasses with a built in rechargeable battery for $100+ and then buy a brand new pair after a few years for another $100+, or buy a non built in pair for $100+ and two sets of rechargeable Li-ion batteries (so you have a replacement when one sets dies)for about $20 and not have to replace those for about 2 years (because you’d be splitting up the usage among 2 sets of batteries , so each set would endure half the use as a built in rechargeable battery). It makes sense to me to go the “batteries sold separately” way. No waiting to watch you’re 3-D movie because you’re gasses died in the middle of it, and you will most definitely save money over time.

  4. Starrunner

    With the Samsung non-rechargable glasses, you get 50 hours per battery. These glasses are lighter than the rechargable brother. It use the coin-type battery CR2025 3V, which you can by 5 for $6. This will give 250 hours of viewing @ $.024 per hour. I think I live with that, given the wieght differnce.

  5. Starrunner

    The Samsung Rechargable glasses are 178.48 on amazon and will give you 30 hours of viewing after 2 hours of charging…

  6. SlaughterMeister

    My question still remains: Why the hell do we need powered glasses in the first place???

    Answer: To charge us more money, that’s why.

    They could have come up with a better solution, but they didn’t, because they want our money.

    And now, so do the battery manufacturers…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *