Wow, I'm honestly impressed by that. Normally When I see the "non-glasses" 3d it looks like crap with crap viewing angles, which is not the case for this demo.
Also, it looks grainy because of the cameras refresh rate in contrast to the devices refresh rate, I would have to assume.
Originally Posted by Stealth Pyros
Still a gimmick. These producers aren't getting the point. Samsung/LG/Sony/etc. confirmed their sales numbers of 3D TVs weren't so great. They need to grasp the fact that 3D just isn't getting much interest. We don't CARE if we don't need glasses. We don't want to spend $2,500+ on a TV when we just bought one last year for about $1,000 to $2,000. 3D alone isn't worth that even if we had the chance to just pay the difference for a full value trade-in. Even if it's for a handheld... not very awe-inspiring. Technology buffs would much rather start seeing panel-less holographic displays, which are not that far into the future.
What you don't get is that you're only complaining about price and not the technology. This technology is very appealing, just most people cannot afford it. It's not that people don't want to see 3d media, look at Avatar for example, the highest selling movie in history. It's just that it's too expensive for most people and when 40"+ tv's cost <800$ of course they are going to by a bigger screen over a smaller screen that has 3d capability.Edited by KusH - 12/17/10 at 1:56pm