As consumers of technology, we are all somewhere on what’s known as the Technology Adoption Cycle. We are classified in one of 5 classes: innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority and, unflatteringly, laggards.
In the early days of 3D technology, the Innovators latched onto the 3D TV and 3D Glasses technology made manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony and Panasonic.
They did what all technology manufacturers do and applied the innovator/early-adopter rule of 'money being no object and technical specification being everything.' So they all when ahead and developed the geektastic active 3D technology systems that require shutter glasses with powered lenses and transmitter mechanisms to sync the tech-heavy 3D glasses to the display unit.
As the 3D TV market began to matured into a developing early adopter/ early majority market place, other world-class TV manufacturers such as LG, Philips, Toshiba, Vizio, Cello, Manta, Bush and Finlux began to develop 3D TV systems aimed at mainstream consumers.
These manufacturers are just as interested in cutting edge 3D TV and 3D glasses technology but are more interested and perhaps more equipped for mass-market development of 3D.
Having seen the pros and cons of early 3D units, they opted to use passive 3D systems technology paired with relatively inexpensive passive 3D glasses. Making passive 3D glasses is no more complicated than making a pair of standard sunglasses. Only the specially designed polarized lenses are different.
At this point, manufacturers, supports and critics begin to establish and defend their positions as innovators or early majority leaders in a kind of phoney war: you have to take sides in the active v passive debate.
Millions of articles are produced, even court actions are instigated as the argument kicks into overdrive with the result that Sony and Panasonic only recently and arguably reluctantly joining the massed ranks of passive 3D TV makers.
The fact is the only real difference lies not in whether active 3D glasses are too heavy/cause dizziness and headaches, or passive 3D glasses offer a less immersive cheap as chips experience: the real difference lies in the eye and the mind of the beholder.
Each of us experiences 3D in a way that is unique to our own viewing physiology. Our eyes, our experiences and our preferences, shape the way we see things. The fact is, we simply do not see exactly the same things as people sitting right next to us. Moreover, 3D is a depth-perception illusion created in our mind’s unique eye. While technical facts and research can advance all manner of claims, it is only you who can decide what rocks your 3D world... This blog entry is a variant abstract. To read the full article visit the news page at www.oskav.com