Comment Don't give up, just poor implementations of 3D. (Score 1) 457
I really like 3D photos, they allow me to see the separation of depth and this makes the photos more memorable. I use mirror stereoscopes which are crystal clear with no ghosting and 3D slide viewers which also have no ghosting and give an impressive field of view.
We purchased a plasma 3D TV from Samsung, and the experience was not good. The TV suffers from very bad ghosting. After exploring this it would appear that the plasma just goes not decay fast enough to switch between the left and right images fast enough. We then looked at many other models in stores and even $5000 models had bad ghosting. They also had poor brightness and thus poor color - the loss of brightness due to the glasses switching from left to right and the filters they required. I don't think TV manufacturers should be selling such TVs as '3D' and feel cheated - the technical problems are just too great.
Then there are the content issues. 3D content needs to have an appropriate separation for the field of view. With a mirror or slide viewer the field of view is known and the content can be produced to match and look realistic. For a TV the field of view changes with the viewing distance. Content made for iMax is not going to suit viewing on a home TV from a good distance where the field of view is much smaller. Perhaps 3D content needs to be produced with more than just two camera views to allow the viewer some selection.
There are a lot of good reasons that 3D TVs are not going to be well received, but please don't let this put you off 3D content as it has been done much better in the past and is improving. I note that Sony are producing a 3D TV Helmet, and this could solve many of the issues, and I look forward to giving this a try.