Maybe I'm just in the minority, but I have never had a problem with 3D, and I've seen all kinds of 3D - red/blue anaglyph, green/yellow anaglyph, active-shutter, polarized, lenticular. I've never had eye strain. My wife, on the other hand, gets a headache with red/blue anaglyph but not with any other form of 3D. None of my three kids have ever reported eye strain after watching a 3D movie in the theaters. My only problem with 3D right now is that my TV is only three years old and I can't justify buying a new 3D TV! I want my 3D gaming!

I understand that some people do have problems with 3D; but I wonder if the problem is with the technology, the way that the technology is implemented (insufficient brightness), if it's possible psychosomatic, or a combination of the three.

I wish I had mod points for you.

I've been using the built-in red/blue 3D from nVidia with a number of my games, and for the most part it works great. Try flying through a mountain range or a bank of clouds in Microsoft Flight Simulator X with 3D turned on. Or watch IMAX Space Station 3D, which is phenomenally good even in red/blue. 3D WORKS! I sat completely mesmerized with the 3D of "Space Station 3D" Blu-ray 3D converted to red/blue with PowerDVD 9. My wife, who doesn't care for red/blue, watched some of it and said simply, "Oh, WOW!" Now, that said, in order to get the proper filtration I needed to double-up on the red/blue tint by gluing the cells from pair of glasses onto the front of another pair so that the red and blue tints were darker. That eliminated ghosting completely and made the images nearly flawless in their 3D effect.

3D does absolutely work. The problem is that the technology is nowhere near perfect, but like any other technology it has growing pains. Sadly, the haters use it as an excuse that it will NEVER work, which is utter bullshit.

Touché. :)

It seems to me to be more of trying to find an excuse to justify why they don't like it and to try to convince others not to like it. (Hell, it roped in Ebert, didn't it?) Personally, I love 3D. I don't get the headaches or nausea, even with red/blue 3D. 3D does work ... for me. So, coming out and saying that it does not work is bullshit. Simple, opinionated bullshit used by someone trying to mask his clear dislike with scientific theory.

And WTF do you care about how "dorky" they are when you're supposed to be looking that the screen and NOT each other?! Jesus! It's amazing how shallow people are regarding what they have to wear for two hours in a darkened room!

Oh, come on, guys! That was just really poorly done. The whole idea of anaglyph is to try to make as much filtered out in each eye as possible. Obviously no one really looked at this or else they used something other than "normal" shades of red/cyan. Close the right eye and there is a ton of ghosting through the red filter.

I'm a big proponent of 3D, but only when it's done right. This was actually painful to look at.

And yet more assumptions are being made. If thees people are actual professionals, they don't need a lot of time rehearsing as they probably have already played these symphonies many times over. You're also making an assumption that this is going to be a 9-to-5 job, when it might actually be an evening/weekend recording session. The musicians involved might be unemployed or they might housewives/househusbands while the other member of the family brings in the money thus allowing these people to volunteer to do this. There are many people of college age who are ridiculously talented and might be able to give their time during a semester break. These are just some examples.

So, once again unless you actually know these people and can ask every one of them about their financial situation as well as get the specifics of these recording sessions, you're making wild assumptions that could very well have no basis in fact whatsoever.

Did you ever think that maybe the people involved are highly skilled professionals who are doing this for their love of the music and all time and resources are being volunteered? If that's the case, $13,000 can go a long way. To just assume that the people are cheap amateurs is ridiculously short-sighted.

You obviously don't know or don't care that most people who listen to classical music have a much more perceptive ear than people who listen to other types of music. A synthesizer is still a synthesizer no matter how you try to market it. There's no way that it can accurately produce the various tonal qualities of a full orchestra. The type of mallet that's used to strike a cymbal, the stroke speed of a violin bow as it passes over the strings, the subtle change in tone dynamics by adding a vibrato to a sustained note on a cello ... synthesizers can't accurately reproduce those, yet each of those can be very important to the quality of a piece.

Yes, synthesizer technology is impressive, but it's still a cold, digital reproduction of an instrument no matter how good the technology gets or how hard you attempt to defend it.

Absolutely amazing. The amount of effort that people are putting out in order to bash a completely optional technology is staggering. No one is being forced to watch anything in 3D; no one is being forced to purchase 3D technology. Yet, so many people do anything they can to degrade a technology that they're not required to use with phrases like "goofy glasses" and "gimmick". Now "joke" can be added to that list. Might as well start calling the upsizing of fast-food value meals a "joke" and a "gimmick" considering that they're available, they're more expensive, and you're under no obligation to purchase those - just like 3D TV. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the efforts of those who looks to denigrate this technology, which in its current form is clearly in its infancy, amount to nothing more than trolling.

If you don't want it, then DON'T BUY IT! Why is this so difficult for these anti-3D trolls to undertstand?

Right now, my gaming PC's slowest point is the hard drive, and this is one of the newest hard drives on the market. The Windows 7 spec is 5.9, which is the fastest that a hard drive can reach from what I've read, and I can easily get 60-70 MB/sec throughput from it (continuous, not burst). But quite frankly unless SSD can reach the price/GB ratio that make it comparable to hard drives, my time really isn't valuable enough to warrant paying for the much, much higher price/GB ratio of SSD. Maybe in another 5 or 10 years it will be comparable or at least to a point where decision making will end up more like "I really don't need the space on that new 10 TB hard drive, so I'll get the 2 TB SSD drive instead for about the same price."

Tell you what. Stop making your advertisements obnoxious and overbearing and I'll stop blocking them.

Verizon Wireless. I attempted to access it over my VZW phone. No go. On my FiOS connection, there is no problem. People tend to forget that Verizon and Verizon Wireless are separate entities as Verizon Wireless is a joint venture between Verizon Communications and Vodafone.