lol Yes we were. And this isn't the only company that have revealed glasses-free 3D TVs at CES. Though, I'm not too sure how well they work. And if they do work, I'm sure they're still a bit rough around the edges. On top of that: insanely overpriced, I'm sure. Of course, they won't be releasing immediately either.

10 years? lol Yea that's just ridiculous. Though I will admit I didn't think they'd be here this soon. Showing them off at CES is one thing, but some companies even releasing them by year's end? Definitely didn't expect that. I was thinking we would still be a couple years off.

It makes me wonder really. What's this going to do to 3D theaters? I would say it would almost hurt it. I mean, once you've got to do 3D with no glasses, who really wants to go back to using glasses? On top of that, I wouldn't think this technology would be able to be used in projection setups. It needs a backlight technology that's shooting the images directly at your eyes. And theaters getting screens like that surely isn't even feasible or even possible anytime soon.

Clearly that guy knows nothing about SFA. Technology advancements are lights years ahead of where they once were. COuple that with the fact that Nintendo is poised to release the 3DS THIS YEAR that guy knows nothing. I've seen a few of the early "glasses-Less" 3D TVs but they look terrible ascetically and were quite thick.

Good point actually. Though a problem like that seems game-ending so I would assume they have it worked out where that's not a problem. Though, you're right, it's beyond me how they could because with a basic understanding of the tech, it would seem that would indeed be a problem.

Scratch that, I looked up some hands-on stuff with TVs shown at CES and seems that's the big problem. While you don't apparently have to keep your head still, there is a very limited viewing angle.

However, with further reading, it seems they can extend the viewing angle by adding more lenses to the screen.

Seems another problem is that 2D on those TVs look like a blurry mess. This proves problematic because obviously not everything you would watch would be in 3D. Old DVDs and Blu-rays, TV, games (non 3D), etc. Everything would have to instantly switch over to 3D or you'd have to have two TVs.

So, I go back to my initial statement: it's still going to be rough around the edges, and will be that way for a while. Though Samsung has pretty much stated that glasses-free 3D is a stupid venture, so maybe they're right and those rough edges never will be smoothed out.

Onto holographic displays. I remember once seeing a basic holographic display when I was a kid. It was for an arcade game. Basically think of a big CRT TV that's been hollowed out. Then the holographic image was shown inside the box with lights coming from the top and bottom. That was a long time ago. It's a wonder they haven't advanced that to a workable solution yet.

First ones were not like this simply because the technology wasn't there. They have shutter glasses, which control light to each eye, and this gives a 3D effect in the brain. However doing this without glasses wasn't known just yet.

The first batch of glassless TV's probably won't be on par with glasses ones. Toshiba even announced 3 models, two with glasses and one without just to be safe.

Mine do that with certain movies too. Like Avatar i had a headache, and Tron I started getting one. But Tangled was fine and Resident Evil. i think its the ones trying to push it the wrong way that do it cs its not correct. That or just the length of watching 3D is a problem, anything over an hour and half could be the issue.