Probably more the point that no-one's interested in 3D
That's most probably because their watching on the crap glasses you get free on un calibrated screens
Glad you like the glasses strapped - it was a no brainier to me
spiny norman wrote:Probably more the point that no-one's interested in 3D
That's a sweeping generalisation.
3D television didn't take the world by storm, but there remains a niche market for 3D, which can happily exist in supplement to 2D viewing.
It really isn't an either/or formulation. Besides, we'll end up owning the technology by default; and the occasional 3D Blu-ray can be enjoyable.
One of the biggest issues with 3D is a lack of quality content, by which I mean a dearth of 3D movies that are worth watching in their own right. Gravity is perhaps as good as it gets, even if critics went a little over the top with praise.
Moreover, if the mag is willing to conduct cable supertests (products that many readers argue have no bearing on performance), a group test of glasses that clearly alter viewing experiences surely has some merit.
ellisdj wrote:Glad you like the glasses strapped - it was a no brainier to me
Actually, my original post was pre-VT65. The 3D3s offered clearer advantages over Panasonic's 2012 glasses, in my view.
In any case, my VT65 was calibrated through the 3D3s, so it'd be silly to watch 3D content using Panasonic's bundled specs...