De-3D Glasses

[Uranium City]

I love Think Geek on April Fool's Day:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/e8be/?pfm=AprilFools_homepage_Featured_5#tabs

(Sometimes, due to strong reaction, these things get made into real products...my son has the Tuantaun sleeping bag from 2 years ago, for instance. Although they never made the 2001 Monolith action figure from last year.)

 

[Dreadylocks]

I love April Fools!

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Hahah, that would be a cool option.

 

[knightly]

It would completely work too Instead of perpendicular polarisation, it would be parallel and totally eliminate one of the optical frames. Brilliant!

 

[Cracker Funk]

That might actually work!

 

[SinEater]

Funny. While it's possible from a technical standpoint, it wouldn't be practical as an actual product. There are multiple competing 3D technologies in use by different theaters, so you would need a different pair of glasses for each type.

 

[chilipie]

Funny. While it's possible from a technical standpoint, it wouldn't be practical as an actual product. There are multiple competing 3D technologies in use by different theaters, so you would need a different pair of glasses for each type.

This side of the pond, RealD's 3D technology (which would work with these glasses) seems to be the most popular by far - even in the States, if you go the the same cinema all the time - which doesn't seem that unrealistic - I can still see people thinking they're worth the price.

 

[harpsichoid]

This side of the pond, RealD's 3D technology (which would work with these glasses) seems to be the most popular by far - even in the States, if you go the the same cinema all the time - which doesn't seem that unrealistic - I can still see people thinking they're worth the price.

However, also on this side of the pond, (at least where I am) the cinemas have 3D and regular screenings, which would make de-3D glasses a huge waste of money as the non-3D screenings cost less to go to.

 

[Flicker Pictures]

Take back the D!