RealD figures designer glasses might help the acceptance of 3D
By Richard Lawler 
posted Sep 18th 2009 3:01PM
posted Sep 18th 2009 3:01PM
The solution to consumers gripes over ill fitting and odd looking 3D eyewear? Offer up polarized lenses in designer frames, or even prescription strength for glasses-wearers. That's what some execs have suggested at the 3D Entertainment Summit, revealing plans for Gucci and other frames to hit stores ahead of the launch of Avatar in December. We're still anticipating serious sticker shock when 3D comes home next year, tacking on ultraexpensive options above the already hiked theater price seems like the perfect way to stop any momentum this trend has gained.
It doesn't matter how designer they go... I'm not wearing them.
I paid a lot of money to *NOT* have to ever wear glasses again!
I agree. I just paid $4000 for laser eye surgery to also not wear glasses anymore.
Can you imagine how much these designer glasses are going to cost? Prescription lenses glasses cost me over $300 a year (That was with insurance, since I had a high prescription and astigmatism). I can see these being ridiculously expensive since insurance companies will not pay for something that is essentially not needed.
so I have some Oakley polarized glasses, does that mean I can wear those in the theater? If I can, that would be great. I can just walk in and never take my sunglasses off!
Nope, technically yours de-polarize light. Yours are designed to reduce glare on reflective surfaces like cars and windows.
Since 1/2 the 3D movies are targeted at kids it might help to maybe get some glasses that fit them. Took our daughter to see UP and the entire time her glasses were falling off.
I don't why people are so against wearing 3D glasses.
I mean people wear xbox headsets while they play video games.
What's the problem?
Won't look any geekier than walking around with a Bluetooth headset hanging out of your ear.
Guess who doesn't wear XBox headsets?
About 99% of the population, most of whom don't have XBoxes.
And, FWIW, XBox headsets and Bluetooth headsets don't impair your ordinary senses, which is why they're tolerated by people who use them while 3D glasses aren't.
OR, I've worked on some marketing materials for these guys in the past. -NO I did NOT create the website- But their auto-stereo (without glasse) 3D is the real deal. I've seen demos, we played Madden 07 and watched Spider-Man 2 clips, and it doesn't exactly "pop" images out of the screen as the 3D movies we are used to seeing (and the images their web designer decided to use), but it adds "depth" into the screen, giving it a more realistic touch as in everything you watch and/or play is contained inside the space of your TV. Best part about it, aside from the lack of wearing glasses? Is that DVD/Blu-Ray players, game consoles and cable boxes are plugged into and go through their box. You can get auto-stereo 3D at home on a regular LCD TV (apparently up to 57 inches, according to the site).
They also do stereoscopic 3D and, I don't know why because it will NEVER take off, but apparently they also are taking a shot at anaglyph 3D for mobile (anaglyph 3D is the 3D that requires the red & blue colored lenses)
http://www.3deyesolutions.com/
Some people are against wearing 3D glasses because they think they will look stupid, will induce eyestrain or be uncomfortable to wear. And that they're an inconvenience, an additional expense, and symptomatic of the technical limitations of format.
I'll be very interested when 3D does turn up in consumer kit but I'll quite comfortable to wait for it to become a standard feature of televisions. I see no reason to pay a premium for it. I also hope that TV set manufactures define a single spec for active and passive glasses so they can be purchased separate to the TV.
Gucci Mane? Wasn't expecting to see him here.
me either...lol
I would buy a pair of reasonably priced glasses if the lens were better and they could match my prescription, but that's only because I install these systems and spend a great deal of time with RealD glasses stacked over my prescription pair.
Should just build a display based on phased array optics that doesn't need glasses.
Shutter Glasses or GTFO -- No one wants your antique red / cyan glasses. Save them for the Playskool sets.
Yo RealD I'm happy for you and all, but Panasonic had the best 3D glasses OF ALL TIME!
I'm actually really glad they finally thought of the number of people who need glasses to see, meaning that they would need huge units that fit over their glasses to actually see the screen.
A nice pair that already had it built in would be pretty sweet actually and actually could make the difference on whether I would buy a 3D setup for home use. Because buying stuff meant for people without glasses just doesn't work well unless you like squishing your face with your glasses.
And I happen to wear glasses because I prefer the look
why not just offer permanent polarization a la lasik?
Wait so people are worried what they look like in a dark movie theater? Are these the same asshats that are constantly texting during the movie too?
I think Aaron has the best idea I've seen yet. I'm making an eye appointment right now.
Excuse me, but several major TV manufacturers seems ready to be releasing 3D TVs that do NOT use polarized lenses for the 3D effect! While I understand the need for a glasses system before the non-glasses stuff works really well, the problem is there seems to be zero consensus about exactly what KIND of glasses.
Not to mention that we already have content using the red/blue anaglyph system...
Mad y'all used Gucci Mane tho....lol
i wont be getting them .
(from article):
"I have two teenaged girls, and they don't want to go on dates looking like they're going to do some spot welding,"
People really refuse to go to 3D movies because they'd have to wear non-designer styled glasses in the dark?
Kids these days...