take my advice and wait for a couple of years... not only is the price currently rediculous (manufacturers initially said it had to be affordable to everyone upon launch else it would fail - i see they must intend it to fail given the current pricing...) but there is four competing technologies, of which I think the forthcoming Philips autostereoscopic displays combined with something like Toshiba's "realtime" 3d conversion technology (Panasonic said the current technology from Samsung is below-par and simply not good enough to be realistic) will be the only way the technology could ever become mass-market - but the price for large displays needs to be affordable to the majority.
3d is good in the pctures because of the massive screen - when you look up or sown, the screenview is still in front of your vision and you still get the effect, the same applies to looking right or left. On a small screen (less than 60") in the average sized living room at the average distance people sit away from the TV, the experience will be, to put it bluntly, absolute turd, and certainly not justifying of spending 3 - 4 times the price of a non-3d set and blu-ray player. the current technologies all require polarizing glasses and these are another serious obstacle imho; the forthcoming Philips technology will negate the need for glasses, which is why I think it is the only technology that stands a chance of being any more than just a niche product. However, there are some question marks hanging over the 3d viewing angles on autosteroscopic sets to experience the 3d effect, though Philips claim to have it to an acceptable standard.
I think all in all, 3dtv is a long way from becoming a mass-market product, and early adopters may be left sorely disappointed, maybe even in the short team, given the infancy of the technology and the lack of a standard technology as yet, and given over technlolgies that are still being developed. After all said and done, as to what benefit, in a home enviroment, 3d tv can truely offer, is questionable, and as to what benefit it can offer to the majority of programming on tv etc (ie. it may be good for movies and sports) is also questionable.
On the health side of things, manufacturers may claim the problems are solved, but too many times I have read user-comments of experiencing problems with sore eyes and dis-orientation etc..
is it a fad, a novelty, is the technology here to stay, what technology will win the format war, will it hurt my eyes in the longterm, will i need a 100" tv to use or be frustrated when watching 3d programming... too many question marks at present to make a viable risk, financially for most people.