Nah...I was exaggerating to get the point across. Point was...3DTV technology ain't there yet, not even close to theater 3D.
Last week, I've spent three hours during work lunch, checking out all the top of the line sets at Fry's and Best Buy. (I've been wanting one for a long ass time...since seeing a 3D game with active shutter glasses in 1998 at one of those computer shows.) I had an interesting debate with an actual Sony rep onsite. I pointed out the flaws of the Sony; he pointed out the flaws of the other sets. I asked why 3D objects look natural in some scenes, but flat and layered in most others. I mean, if the 3D set is capable of displaying scenes natually, why not have it natural throughout? He attribute the limitations to the large amount of data processing. My translation: stationary scenes have more depth, because all the processing power can be used to create that depth. Moving scenes are flat, because some processing power needs to be used to create motion. Who knows if this is the way it work? Do any of you guys know???
In my opinion, the best one was the LG passive 3D TV, but it looked like someone blended two CRTs together. Great picture, best depth of the bunch, good viewing angles, except up and down...but poor, screendoor-like resolution. Bikini girls of Tahiti in 3D is NICE! 2nd was the Sharp Aquos. 3rd...Sony. 4th...Panasoni c. Last...Samsung .
With that said, I ain't buying no 3DTV, especially when no-glasses-needed 3DTV is at the horizon.
