in my previous life, I was a photogrammetrist. Photogrammetry is about making maps from aerial photographs that are viewed in stereo (or 3D). I learned "back in the day" with the giant analog Stereoplanigraphs. This picture is a Zeiss Stereoplanigraph C4- Stereoplotter
You could see in stereo because of two images viewed through the optics. These were aerial photographs that were like "negatives" but were positives printed on film for the light to shine through. You needed two photos with about 55-60% overlap taken from airplane and in that overlap, you could see in stereo, thus elevations, so you could scale and level the "model" to create accurate maps including topography.
around the same time, there was the Kelsh
to see in stereo, you could do this one of two ways - original way was to wear red and blue glasses and the two images being projected down were viewed in stereo and then there was a spinning interface that sat in between you and where the image was projected. by viewing through this, the two images were being shown alternately and you could see stereo. It looked like a can on its side with rotating metal pieces inside that "opened and closed " the area where one image was and alternately on the other image. Very crude, but it was nice to not have to wear the glasses. You hung your head down over the area where the image was projected and "traced" the images onto the Mylar drawing surface below. Note: My hair used to get caught in it all the time and stop the spinning.
Then we moved into the digital age - still viewing two images through optics
and the technology has marched on and on...
WHAT IS MY POINT? (you ask)
the point to this history lesson is this:
This is 2010, sitting and viewing TV with red/blue glasses is about 70 year old technology and I just can't see paying the HUGE bucks they want for this silly technology.
viewing in 3D is all about viewing the same image from two slightly different angles, doing this with "moving pictures" and not stills as we did in mapping has to have massive files to do so. BUT, I would still think that the images could be processed inside the TV or better yet from the origin as rapidly shifting images to see 3D without glasses. This technology has been around for 40-50 years.
I think the "technology" is way too new to spend money on it. I give it another 5 years for them to bring this up into the 21st century, THEN, for me anyway, it MAY be interesting to look into.
.
