[antiRepublicrat]

Because when you’re watching an Obama press conference in 3D you instinctively cringe when he turns his head as the big ear appears to be flying out to hit you.

[kaylar]

My local theater is an “8 plex” (octoplex?) and they’ve recently started giving the patron a choice on 3 D : For movies that are in 3 D, you can either buy a ticket for the 3 D showing OR the 2 D showing-your choice. We have been shunning the 3 D option and going with the regular version as too many 3 D films have NOT been improved by the 3 D-in fact, many seemed too darkly lit(hard to see what’s going on onscreen) , the 3 D seems to be used as a substitute for a plot, character development, or anything else you’d like in a film, and most of the time , it’s not real 3 D any way, just computer simulation of 3 D inserted post filming, and that looks even worse than true 3 D which we don’t like in the first place! We bought a 48” flat panel HDTV 1080p in 2009-no way in h—l are we going to replace it with a 3 D tv, and I wonder how many people who *like* 3 D will feel compelled to replace their flat panels, in this economy. No Mr. TV Manufacturer, we *won’t* pretend it’s 2005, just because you want us to!

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

3DTV is the Betamax of the 21st century.

[JoeGar]

11. 3D means nothing to those of us with eyesight in one eye only.

[Ditto]

The Glasses Are Too Expensive For a Family Some TV makers bundled one free pair of 3D glasses with each 3D TV purchase. But what about a family of four? Or, a family of six? Or, a family of eight. Large families do exist, you know. (Just watch any Discovery channel documentary if you don't believe me.) With the glasses costing up to $150 a pop, how can even a mid-sized family afford one for everyone?

My wife recently went out and bought a LG HDTV with 3-D and it came with 4 pairs of glasses and also said that the cheep throw-away glasses they give you at the movie theaters will work as well.

As to the other comments in the article, I tend to agree. It's a nice 3-D effect, but it's not all that exciting to me.

[The KG9 Kid]

3DTV is not the landmark milestone change that it's been made out to be by people who hope you buy into the technology, where they maintain the difference is akin to how television made the golden age of radio entertainment go away. At least right now it's now.

It's not as distinct as the old time radio greats not even knowing what hit them when television became mainstream, and transitioning their radio shows (Jack Benny Show, etc.) to television just didn't translate well at all and ended their careers.

Now, video games... Oh, 3DTV will own that market sure as hell.

[TomGuy]

1. 3D TV Interrupts Your Viewing Experience You can't watch 3D TV for more than a minute without finding your eye focusing on individual elements of the screen rather than the picture as a whole.

Too bad film makers don't realize that the same is true whenever they add a signficant amount of 'subtitles' to a movie or TV program. One can watch the action or one can read the scripting.

[rlmorel]

I don’t know, folks. I just convinced my wife to get a real tv (hadn’t had one for about six or seven years, and I stopped watching network television around 1998-1998)

I wanted a television to watch movies on, because I still enjoy movies (Favorite movie: “The Best Years of Our Lives”)

Anyway, we got one of the new Samsung 55” series 8000 LEDs, and...I think the 3D looks pretty good and doesn’t hurt my eyes. Granted, I have only seen one of the Shrek ones (I think the second...and they aren’t THAT great in and of themselves) but...all three of us who watched thought it looked really REALLY good. I guess we didn’t expect much,and were surprised.

I was kind of hoping to be able to watch NFL in 3-D someday...:(

[TomGuy]

I remember it from movie and TV attempts decades ago.

It had too much red and blue to ‘distort’ the image into the appearance of 3D. So, even regular ‘color’ was washed out. In the early days, even a black&white screen was easier to watch.

[dangerdoc]

I only see two major problems.

1. The sets are too small. 3D on a home projector does not look the same as on a 42 inch set at Best Buy.

2. The engineers need to learn what they are doing. I saw in interview the other day, the people looked like moving cardboard cut outs set with the room behind them also completely flat appearing to be about 2 feet behind the people.

[catfish1957]

Got one, and only used the 3-D function on blue ray movies twice. Really neat for about 10 minutes till you get tired of those heavy glasses.

[steveo]

2. It Makes You Sick Doctors have estimated that up to 20 percent of the population will get headaches, dizziness or even nausea while watching 3D.

I get that way watching television in the first place. Have you seen Fran Drescher's new show? *barf*

[Ladysmith]

11. 3D tv’s and movies are hell to watch for one-eyed jacks and jackies.

[madamemayhem]

the only 3D movie I have ever seen was Jaws3D. It was horrible. I had a headache from Hades after 10 minutes. Of course that could also be attributed to the utter stupidity of the story also.

[MrEdd]

I haven’t owned a TV since March of 1995.

I guess I can start not watching 3D about as well as I don’t watch 2D now.

[Lazamataz]

The newest thing in 3d.

[Lancey Howard]

And then there are people like me who are so one-eye dominant that 3-D simply never works, no matter what kind of glasses I wear.