Today's high-def 3-D looks amazing, but those movie theater glasses are dull, dirty and wasteful. every year, tens of millions of theater-provided pairs are used. now, makers of 3-D glasses are letting you swap those frames for reusable polarized specs that look and feel more like sunglasses.
Gunnar's lenses have an anti-reflective coating used in military binoculars to prevent flashes from revealing soldiers to enemies. They lose fewer rays to reflection, letting in 10 percent more light than most lenses for brighter, more vivid images.
Gunnar Midnight Onyx, $150; gunnars.com
To create its wraparound lenses, which help viewers perceive shapes and distances more clearly, Polaroid uses heat and pressure to shape a lens (embedded with 3-D-enabling polarized film) into a curve.
Polaroid Premium 3-D glasses $30; polaroideyewear.com
Keeping you from looking like a dweeb on a movie date, Marchon3D's new EX3D line also works in the 2-D world. The circularly polarized lenses won't distort linear outdoor light and are 100 percent UVA/B protective, so they can double as sunglasses.
Marchon3D EX3D $30-$35; marchon.com
A leader in "activeshutter" 3-D, in which lenses flicker, Vizio (along with other TV makers) is trying something new: passive circularly polarized specs. Built to the same standard used in most 3-D cinemas, they work at the movies or at home.
Vizio Theater 3-D Glasses, From $30; vizio.com
Yea, but there's still only one huge problem with this whole "new wave" of 3D glasses:
No one is ever going to want to constantly put on a pair of glasses just to watch TV. Even worse, people like me have to put on a pair of glasses ON TOP of my current pair of glasses; it's beyond annoying and actually painful to wear. This is why 3DTVs will never pick up momentum until they figure out how to apply glasses-free 3D (i.e. the 3DS).
3DTV and movies are fun but I find the glasses annoying and after a full length film my eyes always hurt. As things are, I will never buy a 3DTV.
"tens of millions of theater-provided pairs are used." really??? are those numbers accurate. are there that many 3D movies? dont the reuse them. Can the same said about a water or coke bottle? don't we use and throw away MILLIONS of water bottle every HOUR!
I have thought about buying a piar of 3D glasses because I wear NORMAL glasses and often the theatre ones are small and dont fit well, but I have seen a few for 10 bucks or so that are nicer and fit over my glasses better.
Also 3D TV is already hitting the market where you dont need any glasses. There is a model already being sold in Japan, and one in the USA soon. It is about 5 times the price of an already tripple the price 3D tv, but its here and it coming. coming soon enough that I am not going to pay 150 for 3d glasses.
Why don't they make circularly polarized contact lenses? For people who wear contacts and have a 3d tv or laptop they'd be very popular. Of course 3d is still emerging technology in home consumer electronics, So having a 3d gaming laptop (or even TV programing) is rare and very expensive. I am optimistic that it will become the standard and not go out like a fad of the 21st century.
Contacts would solve both the dimming and Tunnel Vision of 3D glasses making 3D seem more an inherent property of the tv and being circularly polarized would make it natural to the real world.
I find it funny that companies think the main barrier is the goofyness of 3d glassed complaint! I don't believe people are that vain.
"Yea, but there's still only one huge problem with this whole 'new wave' of 3D glasses:
No one is ever going to want to constantly put on a pair of glasses just to watch TV. Even worse, people like me have to put on a pair of glasses ON TOP of my current pair of glasses; it's beyond annoying and actually painful to wear. This is why 3DTVs will never pick up momentum until they figure out how to apply glasses-free 3D (i.e. the 3DS)"
OH SOOO TRUE! I'm lucky in the sense that I only need my specs for reading. My friends on the other hand are flat out blind w/o thiers. They all say the same thing about the 3D specs too.
As someone who wears glasses 24/7 and owns a 3D TV, I can say with certainty that the benefit of watching/interacting with 3D content outweighs the drawback of having to wear the glasses. Sure, it's annoying, but not painful. After the first few minutes, you don't even realize you're still wearing them. I watch just about everything in 3D, as my TV converts the image if not shot in native 3D, but the same is true no matter how long I wear them.
That being said, these glasses won't help me at all. The glasses that come with a 3D TV sync up with the TV itself as the picture is displayed. This is to allow the glasses to shutter at the appropriate times. My Samsung glasses won't sync up with a Sony TV and vice versa. These may be designed with most major theaters in mind, but they're certainly not for home use.
Also remember that the 3D used in the theater is typically projected at 120hz, giving each eye a 60hz refresh rate. My TV is 240hz, giving each eye 120hz. I've yet to see a native 3D movie in the theater come close to the quality of my TV. It is truly impressive and I'm completely satisfied with the technology as-is. Cheers.
Has anyone tried the 3D covers? (go over glasses)... i know Polaroid carries some...
Yes, there are that many 3D movies out... and more coming out... all the time...
the 3D tv's that don't use any glasses are still in the newbie phase, you have to be at a certain angle (directly in front of) the tv for it to work properly although i am sure they will work that out...
and there are 2 different technologies,the active which useds the shutter and that is what the 3D tv's that have been out are and the passive which is what these glasses are made for and that is what RealD and others are compatible with and what the new generation of 3D tv's are and are going to be.
my roomate's sister-in-law makes $66 every hour on the computer. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her check was $18724 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this
my friend's sister makes $79 hourly on the internet. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was $14062 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can try here