One Eyed Hopeful
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:31 pm
Multiple-choice-only makes it easy to fill out the survey, but it leaves out any possibility of communicating the why's behind the question responses. 30 questions isn't enough to tease out those why's, either, at least for most questions. So I'm posting to throw out a few why's for my responses that I thought would benefit from being clarified.
There were two different series of questions about how do you feel about the truthiness of facts related to 3D-enabling glasses. I didn't see any way to tell from my responses that I know 3D-enabling glasses can be worn over my prescription glasses but they're totally unacceptable in the home, and unacceptable in theaters long term. I'd be perfectly willing to wear them in the home if I didn't already wear glasses. Piling a second pair of glasses on top of the ones I already wear is just too much.
The survey says answer under the assumption that the 3D-enabling glasses are comfortable and stylish etc, and I did my best, but there's a point where both experience and physical reality overrides and I rebel. Second glasses over the top of prescription glasses will always be awkward and uncomfortable; no amount of fantasy engineering will solve that. The only solution I can see is integrating 3D-enabling tech into prescription lenses. I won't go so far as to call that fantasy engineering, but it's at least blue-sky engineering right now. Therefore unlikely, therefore 3D glasses are unacceptable.
The other question I thought needed some written clarification was the one about how much of a premium am I willing to pay to buy a 3D-enabled laptop/desktop monitor/HDTV/PDA/Cell phone/etc. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the only question that ever mattered. The answer is, of course, not much. For something new and ill-supported and untried, with often dubious benefits, I'm not willing to fork out very much extra cash to try it out. You could argue it's not that new and no longer untried, but it'd be hard to argue that support is readily available and easy to follow.
In any case, there have been promising products offered that have been discontinued and price was the likely killer. Sharp offered its LL monitor for a while. I can't imagine they sold very many. It was priced at $700 for a 17" when a regular 21" could be had for $450 and a regular 17" could be had for $250. An almost 300% price premium is just ludicrous for anything as prosaic as a display device. And yes, the display size is the point of comparison, and the 3D capability is only an afterthought. It's a feature, not a product category in its own right. Manufacturers could perhaps wish otherwise, but that's how it is.
Perhaps more could be said, but those were the two that stuck out in my mind. Other people might want to comment on other questions. The floor is open.