Hey friends,

Sometime ago I posted here "How To Enjoy Theater Quality 3D Movies using your laptop/desktop/LCD/LED/CRT even on your mobiles" which introduced many people to how to enjoy anaglyph 3D in a low cost way, there were many pros of this old school technology but as stuff happens, people wanna criticize for each and everything.

Dhiraj Criticizes:

this is frikin awesome oh wait 
it would have been awesome in year 1990
there better methods like barrier parallex get up with time dude

Asking me to write about parallax method is to defeat the purpose of writing about low cost 3D tech to which I simply put up the following questions

- What is the requirement difference in mine and yours "new age" method?

A- Mine only requires a simple screen which can produce colors. So my method becomes universal for TVs which have been in mass production since late 1970s till today, all phones which can playback color videos (ranging from $20 - $2k), any damn device that can render video, be it your home theater system, projector, photo frames laptops, anything accompanied by a 50 cent pair of 3d glasses.

At the same time, the parallax method will require a screen upgrade, so you either buy a new 3D TV with the parallax screen which will cost you something like $2k and above or you go for a phone like evo3d which will cost you like $400 something. You get a glassless 3D with limited viewing angle, increased power consumption, and pocket killing costs.

- Difference between implementation costs?

A- Mine is straight forward 50 cents for the glasses, take or give a two, somebody said earlier you could nip one or two from PVRs for free. Dhiraj’s method would ask everyone to spend a fortune on a technology which is still in initial phase.

- Difference between running costs?

A- Mine method will virtually add nothing as running costs. But the parallax screens consumes 100% more power in the original version (because 2x backlight is needed) and in the updated version requires 20%-30% more power.

- Difference of Sustainability costs?

A- So the costs added apart from the above mentioned is, the cost you will have to pay in future for the same. Anaglyph technology has seen all sort of improvements and is at its final stage, so that almost ZERO sustainable costs. But for the barrier parallax, it’s just like a first birthday. So it has lots more to see, so you might wanna upgrade your sets with tech upgrades.

Let’s put it this way:

To me an ideal Tech Enthusiast is not the one who pushes other's to spend more on new technologies so that they can make their existing technologies absolute and throw them out of the window. That would only result in higher e-waste and carbon footprints.

The ideal Tech Enthusiast is the one who is capable of using existing technologies in conjugation with the new ones both for the betterment of society, nature and our future.

To add too all of this I would like to add for the all the readers who are in acceptance of my thoughts, that this Dhiraj Guy is either fake or a friend of someone who actually wanted to post here. The best part is I would like to discuss more on this, so please comment down here, regarding the following:

1. How many of you knew this 3D watching technique? (just to know the popularity)
2. How many of you actually tried after reading my previous post?
3. How many are in favor that currently it’s better to spend 50cents to watch 3D on your laptop/CRT/phone than to rather update all your gear for a fortune?

Hope you enjoyed reading!

For reference: http://gizmodo.com/5084121/giz-explains-3d-technologies they explain nicely all available 3D technologies. Read the comments which justify the anaglyph 3D is the most economical solution. As polarized glasses do not work on TV, shutter glasses come $100 a pop. The barrier parallax is interesting, but still in beta and costs a fortune.