The Nintendo 3DS works because it limits your viewing angle to right in front of you. It's going to be slightly more complicated to make 3D TVs work without glasses because they will need to offer multiple viewing angles to several people. That basically means that for viewing angles to be bearable, they'll have to recreate the same image several dozen times. It's only been a few years that TVs can do 1920x1080. The biggest problem with the development of glasses-free 3D TVs is not the technology itself, but the resolution.

The glasses-free 3D prototype I saw at the Geneva Invention Expo was interesting, but it was running at DVD resolution and had only maybe 6 viewing angles. But the potential was there.

I'm holding out for Holgraphic displays myself

Seriously though I know a few people who have tried these systems and watched a whole movie. They ended up with a headache afterwards.....

I would stay away from this tech.

Saw 2 demos last month. First Sony - football match wasn't that much better than 2D. Slightly better depth, eg., when the ball is going across the goal mouth you can really see if it is going out or into the goal. Then the underwater scene with fish, etc. Nice pictures, but I'm not watching national geographic everyday.

Then I saw the panasonic demo. Japanese teen sensation Ryo Ishikawa playing golf. Again, not much of an improvement having just seen the US Masters in HD. There was one spectacular moment though when he hit a shot out of the sand in the viewers direction, in slow motion - first the ball flew over my head, and then his follow through sent sand into my face.. Wowzers!

However, when I stepped further back to replicate the distance I would be sitting from in my living room, the 3D effect is gone. So either I need to get a huge 3D TV, or I need to sit nearer. I'll wait a few more years.

Will wait a few years for this one.
Tried out a Sony at media markt and first the set of glasses did not work (battery dead?) and then when the sales person brought the second pair it was still very blurred.
Could never justify the price

I just bought in the worlds first non.shutter 3d tv, i must say the quality is absolutely amazing. I have sky3d, which runs all day long. Bluewin tv also has a demo and will be showing regular sport through this year in 3d. the animations are unbelievable and sport is the hit. These effests are amazing considering its with passive glasses, meaning they are not the big clumsy headsets which are battery operated.

I recommend!

Do you look a bit of a geek wearing them funky glasses all the time?

At least for Samsung TVs, the batteries in the glasses can be charged over a normal USB charger - no need to keep spare batteries at home.

as for the passive glasses: yes, there are already TVs using that technology available in the US. They have two advantages: the glasses are lighter and they tend to darken the image less. However, they have one major disadvantage as well: the TV's resolution is essentially cut in half, turning your nice HD TV set into an SD set while watching 3D content.

Samsung has even launched an ad campaign showing the advantages of active glasses over passive ones.

As for glasses-free 3D: it's been talked about for years but ain't going to happen anytime soon. Parallax displays are troublesome to use (they only offer good 3D depth for certain seating positions, meaning that you have to sit at the exactly right spot in order to see the 3D image. Also, they tend to cause nausea and headaches in more people than "traditional" 3D rigs using glasses) and are unavailable for large TVs.

Actually, the glasses just look like sunglasses. I have seen worse

I've had 3D capabilities on my PC for 2 years now, just been too lazy to find the right glasses. Don't think I'm missing much as it is limited to 1080

Is this the LG?

I tried 3d glasses and faced a bit of a problem as I wear glasses too. And moreover if I go for it then I have to wear glasses everytime.

Bit late, but the answer is yes

Matchnight was always popular in McArthurs