A/X Armani Exchange offers a unisex navigator style of 3-D...

A/X Armani Exchange offers a unisex navigator style of 3-D glasses (for theater use only) with polarized lenses to reduce glare and distortion, $58; at A/X Armani Exchange stores and armaniexchange.com. Credit: Handout

No matter how you feel about 3-D films like "Toy Story 3" or "Tron: Legacy" - and whether they deserved an Oscar last night - one thing is clear: If 3-D technology is really going to take hold, it'll need more to legitimize the effect than jazzy visuals or fancy awards.

It's going to require some slick designer frames.

Those goofball cardboard glasses helped sink the 3-D film industry in the 1950s, and today's plastic versions handed out at theaters, though better, are still kinda geeky.

"Eyewear companies realized consumers would want stylish alternatives to those generic, one-use options," says Kristie Whitford, spokeswoman for The Vision Council, an industry trade group.

"We originally designed our eyewear for professionals working with 3-D, but have seen an increase in consumer demand," confirms Gunnar Optiks co-founder Jennifer Michelsen.

Gunnar, Gucci, A/X Armani and Oakley already offer stylish 3-D glasses, ck Calvin Klein hits in March, and Nautica and Marchon3D roll out in spring. (Marchon is even developing 3-D prescription lenses.) All boast crisper quality than toss-aways, thanks to circular polarizing technology, and are compatible with RealD projection systems (found in most cinemas) and "passive format" TVs (not common now, but coming).

Theaters may wind up selling frames in the future, but for now, Whitford says, consumers have to buy them elsewhere. But think of the day: "I'll take a large popcorn, Diet Coke and those Gucci aviators."

A TEST DRIVE

To see if designer 3-D is worth the fuss, our intrepid investigator viewed "The Green Hornet" wearing AMC Loews' handout frames for the first hour, Gunnar Optiks' RealD Compatible Phenom I-AMP 3D Glasses in graphite, $99, for the second half. The (admittedly unscientific) results? AMC's frames felt heavier and slightly irritating by the end; Gunnar's were lighter, comfier, and the rectangular shape provided wide-field viewing (though the frames' edge was more noticeable when glancing up or down). Still, the streamlined shape won extra points for that vital "cool factor." Now, if only they could've improved the on-screen action.

SUBSCRIBE

Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME