My good friend, colleague, and sometimes co-author M. David Stone alerted me to a product that he recently reviewed for PC Magazine: the SmartCrystal Pro from Volfoni. This is a device that can turn any 3D-capable front projector into one that uses passive glasses for $1,500 (street price). Inexpensive 3D projectors require you to use bulky shutter [...]
What a load of .... uh, excrement! The idea that someone would want to DOWNGRADE to passive 3D, known to those that know as distinctly inferior to active shutter is absurd enough, but to pay $2,500 for the priviledge is hilarious. I trust this readership is savvy enough not to fall for this nonsense.
"Active shutter used in low end projectors" ??? Do some research, Alfred.
My tongue is bloody from avoiding commenting on other people's comments, but this one is waaay over the top.
3D in general is not ready for prime time in my opinion, as those who read me know, but the marketing forces are strong - and getting desperate. ...............Caveat Emptor.
I have to say, I'm with Terry on this one. You can buy an awful lot of active-shutter glasses (and batteries) for $2,500. This makes zero sense.
Also, the title of the piece was rather deceptive. "Turn a Projector into 3D...". And then you say, "This is a device that can turn any 3D-capable front projector into..." WTH? You can perform the miraculous feat of turning a 3D projector into a 3D projector?
I share the feeling of the comments regarding that if the objective is for a family to save money in glasses it may actually end up costing more and reducing the resolution to half per eye when switching from active-shutter to passive.
There are several "schools" regarding how much brightness a 3D method would loose here and there compared to the other method, and the reality is that both loose big time relative to 2D, and this system is adding another lens in the path of the projector light that would make it even worst regarding light output, it is actually only 16% efficient (the text is in French but the specs are in English if you want to read the manufacturer's site).
However, some people maybe be driven by non-economic factors like:
"I must see 3D and have a constant large number of viewers that are careless with the glasses" and
"they do not even mind about color changes and image quality" and
"some indicated they have problems with active-shutter, and passive is the only way they can see 3D" and
"I have a bar and people want to see the championship in 3D but I have an expensive active-shutter projector that I do not want to change for the LG passive projector, but I can afford adding a portable screen" etc. etc.
For those this maybe the only way out, and the comparative economic factors become irrelevant when there is only one choice.
A few months ago one reader was asking if there is any product that can do this to a TV and I responded no, but there was Tru 3D for a projector, now there is a competitor for the cases above, or for those that do not know how to use a calculator.
Videgrabber (and Shane), please do not blame HDTV Magazine for this one; it is completely my fault. Due to other workload deadlines, I have fallen behind in my Almanac posts. Rather than leave a gaping hole (and skip over a bunch of topics that I want to cover), I have chosen to back-date my posts to maintain the one-a-day sequence. I hope to be caught up to the present by the end of this week (why do I feel like I'm caught in a Calvin & Hobbes storyline?) and maybe I'll do a better job of staying current going forward.
But please don't blame Shane or HDTV Magazine; this is not their fault.
