Even for people who genuinely like 3-D, the need to wear 3-D glasses is a nuisance at best. No one actually likes wearing the glasses. Recently, Sharp announced that its new line of Quattron TVs will allow different viewers in the same room to watch the same screen in either 2-D or 3-D at will simultaneously. The catch: Everyone still has to wear the glasses.
I happen to like 3-D when it’s done well. However, as someone who already wears prescription lenses, I consider the burden of wearing 3-D glasses on top of my regular glasses a necessary evil. I’ll wear them if I have to, but I certainly don’t like the glasses themselves.
The idea of letting two people in the same room watch 2-D or 3-D independently at the same time sounds like a great plan. I just can’t imagine anyone agreeing to put on a pair of those dorky glasses to watch regular 2-D. What a nuisance.
Obviously, if everyone in the room wanted to watch 2-D, the 3-D feature can be turned off entirely. No one would need glasses in that example. However, if a single person wants 3-D, then everyone must put on the glasses.
Considering that the biggest consumer complaints about 3-D concern the need to buy and wear the glasses, doesn’t it stand to reason that, if someone does agree to buy the damn glasses (at $100+ a pair) and put them on, he or she will probably go ahead and watch in 3-D at that point?
I just don’t see the need for this, or think that it will be used very often.
Would any of our readers ever consent to wearing special glasses just to watch 2-D if friends or family with you wanted the 3-D feature turned on for their benefit?