I have nothing against golf, it holds some of my favorite club throwing memories of summers with my dad, but this seems like a serious misuse of technology. 3D has very limited useful applications, in my opinion. I didn’t plan on this being a rant post, but 3D seems like something that the TV and movie industy big wigs have decided is going to be next versus what consumers really want. Considering how long it took for HD to become the de facto standard for OTA broadcasting, let alone get some decent coverage in the satellite/cable realm, I do not see the need for the massive push that media producers are enforcing on the consumer market.
The main reason I would see to get a 3D TV would not be movies or TV. It would be video games. The entirety of a video game is already being rendered in 3D, the reference points for depth perception is already easy to access. This makes them a prime candidate for post-release 3D conversion as well. Wipeout HD on PS3 is one of the most visually exciting games I’ve played in a long time. In 3D the immersive experience was twofold. I was spoiled at the time when I had the chance to play that, and I look forward to visiting that friend again to pick up Killzone 3 with both PlayStation Move and 3D. This is what 3D should be used for.
Golf? Not so much. Football: perception of the field would be cool, but not worth putting glasses on for. Basketball: possibly useful because of the greater variance of camera angles. Overall, 3D not so worth it. What could be? Higher resolution. Anyone do the math on screen density for a 55″ 1080p versus my 4″ smartphone with a qHD screen? Yeah, we’ve got a ways to go in the large screen format realm. I think that should take priority over 3D gimmicks.
You stay classy, World Wide Web.