21skywakeThu 5th Dec 2013 You do realise that the only difference at this stage between a 3D capable and a non-3D capable TV is the refresh rate right? Your average 2D TV runs at 50-60Hz and can't do 3D because half of that (25-30Hz) isn't enough to create a non-headache inducing 3D effect. So those TVs that are 3D run at 100-120Hz or they include some sort of inbuilt filter to enable passive 3D. Once a manufacturer has gone to that point then "adding 3D" is a fairly cheap and easy value add. So because of that basically all of the mid-to-high end TVs are therefore 3D enabled. What you're saying is (was?) a thing that happens with monitors with proprietary NVidia tech. Again only supporting monitors with refresh rates of around 120Hz and up and only working with NVidia's cards. It wasn't very popular. So in a nutshell no, what you're saying is a bad idea. Edited on Thu 5th December, 2013 @ 00:19 by skywake Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, The Avalanches "Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"