Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung's Active 3D Glasses Gets Priced

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 48 comments

Consumers will need to dump more money into active shutter glasses after shelling out a huge load for the 3D HDTV.

Will 2010 be the year of 3D in our living rooms? That may depend on our wallets. 3D HDTVs won't come cheap, and many brands won't include the required active shutter glasses, forcing consumers to shell out even more money for the emerging technology.

Samsung will be one of many who won't include the specs with the HDTV, making it hard for the second class consumer to drop loads of money into the new trend.

According to ITProPortal, Samsung's 55-inch 3D LED HDTV is already on sale at Amazon, tagged with an impressive $3300 pricetag. However Samsung is also selling separate active shutter glasses for a whopping $150 a piece (the SSG-2100AB).

With that said, a family of four will be forced to shell out $600 for the glasses after dumping over $3,000 load into a new 3D HDTV.

ITProPortal also points out the drawbacks to active shutter glasses: they require a CR2025 battery, they may have an effect on brightness and contrast calibration, they they do not fit children. In addition, viewers must have at least own one pair of the active shutter glasses in order to benefit from the 3D technology-- those without the glasses can't watch the content simultaneously because of the way it's formatted.

So the question still stands: is this the year of 3D? For consumers with deep pockets, 3D technology may be tomorrow's investment. Consumers pinching pennies may not jump onto the 3D HDTV bandwagon for a while. Besides, the first version of 3DTV is probably going to not be so great and have kinks that need to be worked on.

We suggest waiting for at least 2nd generations of 3D TVs.

Discuss
Display all 48 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 25 Hide
    beayn , February 26, 2010 6:33 PM
    If they stuck an Apple tag on it, it would be revolutionary and brilliant, making the high price well worth it.
  • 18 Hide
    cscott_it , February 26, 2010 6:15 PM
    I completely agree with Kevin (begin voting me down now), this technology isn't ready for mass adaptation. Maybe in it's 2nd or 3rd generation.

    Maybe it's because I'm not rich. Maybe it's because I wear perscription glasses and don't want to wear contacts.

    Or maybe it's because other gimmicks exist I'd rather blow my money on.
  • 10 Hide
    grieve , February 26, 2010 6:39 PM
    I am a little surprised at your guys comments..

    Frankly if i had the cash to burn and was in the market to get a new TV, i would be reading up on this in great detail.

    If you have 3k to spend on a TV, you can throw another 500 in for glasses. For some people 3-4k is not a lot money... Unfortunately it is for me :( 
Other Comments
  • 1 Hide
    traesta , February 26, 2010 6:15 PM
    way ugly glasses samsung!
  • 18 Hide
    cscott_it , February 26, 2010 6:15 PM
    I completely agree with Kevin (begin voting me down now), this technology isn't ready for mass adaptation. Maybe in it's 2nd or 3rd generation.

    Maybe it's because I'm not rich. Maybe it's because I wear perscription glasses and don't want to wear contacts.

    Or maybe it's because other gimmicks exist I'd rather blow my money on.
  • 7 Hide
    dman3k , February 26, 2010 6:16 PM
    And the price from Vizio? $2000 with 4 pairs of glasses...

    Looks like I'm going with Vizio.
  • 4 Hide
    sciencectn , February 26, 2010 6:17 PM
    I think you have a typo: "they they do not fit children"
  • -4 Hide
    bcube , February 26, 2010 6:18 PM
    greedy
  • 9 Hide
    gekko668 , February 26, 2010 6:18 PM
    Is it just me or 3D tv is just a fad?

    I personally like my tv non-3d and prefer not to wear the dorky 3d glass.
  • 1 Hide
    Parrdacc , February 26, 2010 6:23 PM
    3d t.v. is just too expensive right now, that and the history of 3D shows it as a fad the comes and goes every few decades. So until it shows it is going to stay and the price comes down I'll pass.
  • 25 Hide
    beayn , February 26, 2010 6:33 PM
    If they stuck an Apple tag on it, it would be revolutionary and brilliant, making the high price well worth it.
  • 7 Hide
    Honis , February 26, 2010 6:38 PM
    What amazes me, is that after decades of this economic tech cycle people get all up in arms about new tech being "ZOMG to high of cost!!!!" It's new tech, it's going to be expensive for a little while, then it's going to lower in price, then we'll see if it catches for a long term trend (blu-ray, VHS, DVD, x86, etc.), gets a quick dump off (HD-DVD, Beta Max, etc.), or a niche market (Beta tapes, tape backups, Apple computers [pre x86], Laser Disc, etc.)

    If the shutter glasses catch on, then companies with some style will see an open market and drop a few good looking pairs. I for one was hoping the polarized 3D would win since the glasses require only your face, but it seems that's a no go.
  • 10 Hide
    grieve , February 26, 2010 6:39 PM
    I am a little surprised at your guys comments..

    Frankly if i had the cash to burn and was in the market to get a new TV, i would be reading up on this in great detail.

    If you have 3k to spend on a TV, you can throw another 500 in for glasses. For some people 3-4k is not a lot money... Unfortunately it is for me :( 
  • 5 Hide
    grieve , February 26, 2010 6:42 PM
    This past year i went to an Imax show in 3D, wore the cheesy classes and all... I was blown away at how "3D" it was. It hurt my eyes for the first 15mins but after that it was amazing!

    If i could have that @ home, hell yah, bring it. I really, really, really want to see boobs in 3D!
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , February 26, 2010 6:44 PM
    It's hillarious reading today's version of the folks that laughed at color television as a "fad" or a "gimmick" and are amazed that any company would invest money here.

    "I personally like my tv non-3d..."

    Priceless.
  • 4 Hide
    invlem , February 26, 2010 6:50 PM
    I swear the only reason they went with active 3D was to scam people out of $150 per set of glasses...

    $3300 for a TV they should include 4 sets.
  • -5 Hide
    tenor77 , February 26, 2010 6:56 PM
    Is Kevin constipated?
    He seems to be wanting to drop a load or something.
  • -5 Hide
    bunz_of_steel , February 26, 2010 7:00 PM
    They are stupid if they think I'm gonna pay over 2K for HD much less 3d kuhrap and not get them stupid glasses. suky execs runnin the show will kill any good techy idea.
  • 0 Hide
    mactruck , February 26, 2010 7:03 PM
    I am definitely waiting until 2nd or 3rd gen 3DTV, both for lower prices and more content, but I think it will be more than just a fad for video games. I'm delaying my planned receiver upgrade until I can get HDMI 1.4 later this year, but the overpriced TV and goggles will have to wait longer than that.
  • 1 Hide
    victomofreality , February 26, 2010 7:03 PM
    It's new tech so the first run of it is going to be way overpriced. The companies are trying to make back some of their initial investments and get money together to push the tech further. At this point it's only people like the ones mentioned above where 4k isn't really all that much or people who feel the need to be at the leading edge of the tech curve. Give it a few generations (or like me wait for the passive that will one day hit the market) and things will start to be more reasonable.
  • 2 Hide
    thegreathuntingdolphin , February 26, 2010 7:12 PM
    I think the real question here is if any of the active shutter glasses will be compatible with each other? Will these glasses work with nvidia 3d vision and vice versa?
  • 5 Hide
    Chris_TC , February 26, 2010 7:15 PM
    gekko668Is it just me or 3D tv is just a fad?I personally like my tv non-3d and prefer not to wear the dorky 3d glass.

    3d glasses won't be dorky forever. Once there's a mass market, you can certainly order your pair of polarized 3d glasses in an Oakley frame.
Display more comments