| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (31)

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:03PM Zertoss said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
They couldn't come up with anything more original than Anime and Phenom? Am I buying glasses or am I buying Japanese cartoons or a processor from AMD? I DON'T KNOW!

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:19PM Themoreyouknow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Zertoss
They don't look too different from each other. I can't even see any "anime" or "phenom" inside them.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:03PM PlatinumSkeet said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
God I can't wait until 3D price comes down and you don't have to wear glasses to see it on most devices....

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:04PM Thorz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Again, if only I could see in 3D, good thing I don't own a PS3 if 3D is the next big thing. I hope its all just overhype. :(

Ontopic, they do look quite stylish, but honestly I dont have people watching me when I play games so why bother?

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:32PM Wiizer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Thorz

Hey, dummy! 3-D is not a PS3 exclusive... The 360 has Avatar in 3-D, but Sony's really pushing the extra dee's since they sell TV's, too.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:08PM pmiddy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Phenom's (and maybe the Anime) have been around. These are just 3D compatible versions.

Personally, while they do make things slightly bigger and more contrasty, as someone with contacts, the glasses tend to dry my eyes out more (less oxygen? They fit closer than my normal glasses).

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:08PM Dizazter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I do like that these are more like normal looking sunglasses and that they're more reasonably priced that most other $150 3D glasses. Where does this pricing come from anyway?!? Aren't ALL 3D glasses just sunglasses with 2 different polarized lenses? They should cost $30 not $150.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 6:44PM Dirty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) I find that your opinion is very uninformed. Please read up before you open your mouth.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 6:54PM SpartacusMagnus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

While I'm not supporting inflated prices due to popularity or perceived value, even a decent pair of regular sunglasses cost more than $30. I worked at an optician's during college and from my training and experience there, I would never purchase a cheap pair of sunglasses for daily use. You can screw up your eyes pretty bad wearing cheap lenses on a regular basis.

PSA: Oakley still make the best (most optically correct or neutral) polycarbonate lens. If you like more traditional styling, go for a Maui Jim. and please stay the heck away from Ray Bans. Your eyes will thank me later.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:09PM ShredDaGnar said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
HA! I can have this for free, I'll just use the glasses I borrowed (stole) from Avatar. It uses the same lenses right?

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:14PM MillsAnimation said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just think of how badass you could be when you take your lady to see Twilight 4 in 3D... you say. "No thank you, I have my own 3D glasses" and whip these bad boys out of your pocket.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:34PM Wiizer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MillsAnimation

If you're going to see Twilight 4 with a lady, she's just going to call you her BFF...

COCK BLOCK!
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:19PM Thorz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just came to a great realisation, these are to make you look cool right? Well if you go and boast to your buddys that you just spent $100 on a pair of 3D glasses, chances are you are going to get a reaction of: "Get a life dude".

Defeats the point completely, I guess if you have money to burn its okay though.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:20PM Bloodyghost said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One hundred dollar for a pair of 3D glasses? Add to that the averge price of an 3d tv is expensive and also add to that that there making 3d TV without glasses to be released in the next 3 to 2 years?

Why?

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:22PM R Planteer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bloodyghost

$$$
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:21PM StevieH said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
3D TV: $2000
A pair of 3D glasses: $100
Not looking like a total tool? Priceless.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:58PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@StevieH You look like a tool just for owning the TV. The glasses matter not.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:32PM Nofriendo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Would it put everything in 2D if I ware them while driving?

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 7:05PM Kuipo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nofriendo I'm not sure but I think you may have a hard time seeing the red lights.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:58PM Ezio Auditore da Firenze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ooh, nice.

I can't wait to start gaming in 3D!

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 5:58PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'll say it again: 3D will never take off until it is free from the glasses. Nobody wants that.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 7:02PM Kuipo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@FredFredrickson ... or the headaches.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 7:31PM SpartacusMagnus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kuipo

The headaches are primarily from live action 3D filming as when using a mechanical lens, only certain elements of the scene are in focus at one time but your eyes are tricked by the 3D tech into thinking they can look at another element on screen and that element will come into focus. Your eyes are basically overworked and the muscles trying to bring things into focus end up giving you a tension headache.

This effect is largely avoided in animated 3D films as there is no mechanical lens and all elements can be "in focus" on screen at the same time.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 6:12PM Hunter2223 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't want to be the one to break this to you guys but... those aren't shutter glasses.

So what you're spending your $100 on is just so you can bring your own 3D glasses to the theater, not so you can look cool while playing Motorstorm at home.

Posted: Jul 2nd 2010 12:47AM Stitches said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter2223

I'm glad someone realized these are just polarized glasses that are (currently) only good for theater use.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 6:17PM TaintedKane said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder how fast 3D TVs will be in the bargain bin? Once there I'll buy it

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 6:51PM xJimmeh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every time I see 3D now, I just think about how my Christmas was ruined because of the lack of 3DS

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 7:00PM Kuipo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now THAT is money well spent...

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 7:36PM SpartacusMagnus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

These aren't shutter glasses, so they won't work with ANY 3D TV's that use that tech. As someone above mentioned, it would seem these are primarily for trendy BYOG theaters...

Posted: Jul 2nd 2010 12:52PM Timerider said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Diesel jeans? Do mechanics wear them?

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 7:11AM TechRyze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oooh - but surely these aren't active shutter glasses!

Where would the batteries and bluetooth / infra-red go?

These wont work with the new 3DTVs being released now, unless I'm missing something...

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW