At this price they are good enough for the novelty value for the Home Theater buff and grown-up movie lovers.
But, certainly not for families -- not just because of the initial price - but mostly because of the replacement costs after a few kids get their hands on them.

i wear glasses so how can i comfortably where another one? im force to buy contacts??

why can't they just put all their efforts towards glassless 3d.. im all on board with that.. and i know it exist

I agree. I still think this is a fad that won't take off. Folks just aren't willing to wear glasses like this in the home (saying nothing of the price).

I also wear glasses and find it a pain to watch 3D movies in theaters with my boy, but I struggle with it for his sake.

It's at least another year or two before the technology matures enough and prices are decent, before this will have any chance of becoming mainstream.

Also, what good is a 3D HDTV when most of the content today is not even HD to begin with. It will take forever for 3D content to become common place.

I'm happy with my 58" Plasma and will not be buying a new set at least for another 4 years. By then, if 3D catches up, then I will make the switch.

The reason that they don't work on making the tv not require glasses is because making a 2D projection look 3D is hard. It is possible to do it without the glasses, but you need to be in a very exact position, which would completely kill any freedom of movement wihle watching, and making watching tv/movies a one person experience. Personally i am not digging the whole 3D HD push, mainly because of the idea of wearing glasses while i watch tv. But i am interested in seeing how the nextgen consoles will take this into consideration. Maybe if we are luckly they will all optionally support it, rather than the current Nintendo's console to ignore HD all together, but only time will tell. Good to know that the companies finally set a date, although it would be nice to see the transcript from the orginal LG press conference if it is available.

I do not even have the remotest care in the world for this glasses tech.
Someday we will have a real 3d experience not this type of stuff.
and a lot of folks do not have a hd tv yet nor blu-ray.i personally dislike blu-ray and only see it as a way for greedbag hollywood to suck more money out of us.just sit down and look at a properly upsampled dvd on a flat screen and compare it.
do you really think blu-ray is worth paying all the extra cash after viewing this type of comparison cause on my decent system with OPPO DVD it sure looks sweet already.I have been borrowing a panasonic blu-ray and i am not impressed.
blu-ray could be the format to die quick and you never know.
blu-ray 3d is a gimmick and it will die quick.no one is going to want to sit around wearing glasses or glasses over glasses (like me) day afetr day just to watch TV.

Nay sayers sound like same folk who said talking pictures were a gimmick and would never replace silent movies. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!
This version of 3D is NOTHING like the 3D of the 50s and 60s and if it requires glasses to achieve the effect it will be well worth it and about time we FINALLY step beyond flat 2D to true multi-dimensional visual experiences.
I've been following XpanD technology for a couple of years and they seem to have a solid product.
Anywho, before anyone has an opinion you probably ought to hit the teater, put on the glasses and then fasten your seat belt as I and my sons plan to do on Monday.

I think 3d tv will be a great experience with or without glasses , i watched a 3d film with clear glasses nd forgot i even had them on because i was having such a good time , if that is the worst thing about 3dtv we are still lucky i think , as a domainer i did register 3dgameglasses.com so i guess its fair to say i have no problems regarding glasses if it makes viewing a better experience

we just bought a 65 dlp tv for 1200 $ that can do 3d seen the 82 inch in action

I saw 3D TV's at last years CES and all I can say is WOW! Even if you're just watching it on a TV, the 3D and picture quality are amazing! Just watching a quick U2 Concert Video in 3D made you feel like you were there. Just amazing!

THEY ARE WORKING ON 3D HDTV'S THAT DON'T USE GLASSES. check out the link above.

Why the hell do the glasses need to be powered?!?!?! The ones at the theatre certainly aren't, and if you look up the realD website, you can buy a projector from them to display just like the theatre. Are you trying to tell me then, that my TV is not capable of displaying the same thing that the theatre projectors are putting out? Seems like a load of BS to me.

@nightwind Concidering non-projection TVs can show two different polorized images at the same time... then yes, that is exactly what they are saying.

^cannot

Edimensional sells those glasses for 49$ each - and ive had mine working on my 100" projector for the last two years - playing games in giant 3d is awesome.

'Why the hell do the glasses need to be powered?!?!?!'

I've experienced the powered glasses and the image is even better than with the passive ones, there is no ghosting at all from what I could remember and it just appeared to be better quality trust me.

I am an early adopter and have a Mitsubishi 73" DLP TV which is 3D ready. I am not too impressed at nVidia's 3D glasses solution. Looking at Xpand but would like to find a store where I can demo them before purchasing. Ideally $75 a pair would be a great starter price for early adopters like myself.

There is lots of misunderstanding and hard-to-find info on this, and I don't understand it all either. But for those of you who are asking about why the 3D glasses for home need to be powered, it is because your TV is not going to produce polarized light. What will happen is that the left and right images will flash one after the other and the glasses will flash in synchony. When the image for the left eye appears on the screen, the lens for the right eye will go dark for that split second. Then the reverse will happen for the other eye . . . I can see this working, but what I don't see is why new TV's will be needed. Is it just because the TV needs to display 120Hz to get a flickerless 60Hz display for each eye? The DVD player itself would seem to be able to do all the synchronization required between the glasses and the TV.

About the usefulness of 3-D in general, I think the skepticism is warranted. I saw Avatar at a digital IMAX 3D. It was good, but I think seeing in 2-D would have been almost as good. IF the quality on 3-D in the home is good enough, it will be a nice option, but I doubt we'll ever watch everything in 3-D. 2-D is just good enough, and it is easy. There is a lot of hype surrounding this all. Keep your salt handy ;-)

Powered glasses will fail as a technology. I've seen 3D on an enabled lcd using the same polarized glasses that you'd use in the theater. It looked amazing! (Better than in the theater IMHO) Who will be willing to pay the extra money for powered glasses when there's a much cheaper option available? People just need to keep a few extra pairs that they actually pay for when seeing a 3D movie instead of turning them in for recycling at the end of the movie.

Shonangreg - The new 3D enabled TVs do produce a polarized image. That's why you need a 3D enabled TV. Not all companies are using the same 3D technology so be careful and research any purchase before you make it.