Do you think the reviewers actually saw S-3D, or were poor settings and experiences what triggered these reactions? Do the mentioned reviews hold any credibility for you? Do you think media education will make a difference?

Neil

1) I think the got just enough convergence to mess up the Hud. The rest stays nearly FLAT. It's sort of the 'beginner Level' --> They don't like it it is still '2D'.

2) Other testers might have had to extreme settings, so they get eye-Strain/headaches --> not good for normal gamers

It might be do to the "instant" gratification syndrome that is so prevalent now a day. Being an old S3D user (both in age and length of time using S3D) it seems today's solutions are relatively easy. But unfortunately they are not quite "Plug and Play". So any guild to reviewers or such should be brief and concentrate on giving a good experience quickly with the option of spending a bit more time to get that “blow the doors off” experience. IMHO
It’s too bad we can’t just tell these jacka**’s that they should get their heads of their a**’s. But that would just make it worse.

Well I said it before... but if those reviewers give bad reviews, why not make a section on MTBS and let the pro's (yes, we) do the reviews. Perhaps not for the difficult setups like a dual projector rig, but the experience helps to review more plug and play solutions like the IZ3D and Zalman.

And I don't mean the post type reviews as on the forum. A nice "3D technology reviews" section on mtbs.. with pictures, chapters.. like a true technology site. but then pure S3D.

Perhaps this conflicts with the current business model of sponsors though.. not sure. But it sure would be interesting and attract more visitors. And if done correctly, thoroughly and honestly.. it could aid the S-3D community/MTBS.

I think..

Then we'll just have to get the reviews to famous reviewers so they can link them back to our site

I might be able to make a review to shutter glasses. Unfortunatly it's not much

The problem with MTBS doing reviews is it puts us in a conflict of interest. If our sponsors are all S-3D manufacturers, who would believe our reviews? Where would we be on the credibility scale?

While they will be very successful, there are only five to ten reputable solutions on the market today. If MTBS gives a bad review to even one solution, it hurts everybody. One day, when there are 100 competing products on the market, then reviews would make sense, but it would not be helpful today. It's better to let the external sites review the 3D products, and we'll give them the tools needed to do their job well.

For us, I see the direction as reviewing games from an S-3D angle (e.g. how does stereo look in a game, FPS ratings, anomalies, etc.) and hardware from an S-3D point of view (e.g. how playable is the game with modern S-3D solutions, etc.). I see ourselves having guides on how to get the best results out of S-3D hardware too. This is more what MTBS is about, and I think it's a healthier balance.

For people interested in learning more about the quality of S-3D solutions, maybe there is a way to structure our forums or create a member driven review section. You should have a right to express your opinion on products.

Regards,
Neil