×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3D Hurts Your Eyes

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the eat-your-vegetables dept.

Displays 244

sajjadG writes "After experimenting on 24 adults, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley has determined that viewing content on a stereo 3D display hurts your eyes and your brain. This can supposedly cause visual discomfort, fatigue, and headaches According to the article, 3D content viewed over a short distance (like with desktops and smartphones) is more visually uncomfortable when the stereo content is placed in front of the screen. In a movie theater, it's the opposite: Stereo content that is placed behind the screen causes more discomfort than scenes that jump out at you. With the explosion of 3D-capable gadgetry such as televisions and mobile phones, understanding just what this kind of technology is doing to our bodies may help us better use it in the future. The only problem is that technology tends to far outpace research, and until we get a better handle on its effects, we're more or less walking blindly into a 3D world."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

244 comments

Get 2D Glasses (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856438)

http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/

Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (5, Funny)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856512)

First of all, there's no way to know if two things are separated by a volume of space unless you have a headache. That's how evolution works: the cerebral nerves were caused to evolve specifically by Darwin in order to function as a kind of animal cruelty version of Pavlov's dog in which mapping three-dimensional space actuates the occipital squinting reflex, causing us to narrow our eyes meaningfully at expansive vistas while also wishing for acetylsalicylic acid and a glass of water.

Scientists consider this sort of thing basically self-evident, like the existence of atoms or Jenny McCarthy.

Furthermore, the so-called Disney Cortex is capable of parsing dimensionality exclusively through parallax; in effect, the neck pain caused by this subtle lateral shifting of the head is conveyed via the uvula directly into the cranial brain-case, tapping into the same area of sensitivity exploited by the spatial depth pain discussed above.

Elementary biochemisphology tells us that the only way stereoscopy can function effectively in the real world of fake entertainment is by pulling out all the stop and going holographic, so that the images can be processed and hurt us in as natural a way as possible. This is God's way of telling us that the Holodeck was cool.

Fad researchers have understood this for centuries, since the time the Illuminati first started actively repressing news of the stereoscopic newspaper in 1743.

Your friend in science,
Cheeseburger Brown

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856558)

The Disney Cortex? Is that made by evolution specifically to watch Disney movies in 3D?

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856652)

After experimenting on 24 adults, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley has determined that viewing content on a stereo 3D display hurts your eyes and your brain.

We have plenty of great eye doctors in the USA. What we don't have is much intellectualism. For the love of God stop hurting their brains. They barely function as is.

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856690)

Brodmann would gouge out his own eyes upon reading that...

Plagues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856894)

The Ancient Egyptians had locusts and famines. The USA has Baby Boomers.

Can we trade?

At least the locusts weren't hurting their own grandchildren.

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857060)

No subluxations? Darn.

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (1)

genner (694963) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857102)

First of all, there's no way to know if two things are separated by a volume of space unless you have a headache. That's how evolution works: the cerebral nerves were caused to evolve specifically by Darwin in order to function as a kind of animal cruelty version of Pavlov's dog in which mapping three-dimensional space actuates the occipital squinting reflex, causing us to narrow our eyes meaningfully at expansive vistas while also wishing for acetylsalicylic acid and a glass of water.

Scientists consider this sort of thing basically self-evident, like the existence of atoms or Jenny McCarthy.

Furthermore, the so-called Disney Cortex is capable of parsing dimensionality exclusively through parallax; in effect, the neck pain caused by this subtle lateral shifting of the head is conveyed via the uvula directly into the cranial brain-case, tapping into the same area of sensitivity exploited by the spatial depth pain discussed above.

Elementary biochemisphology tells us that the only way stereoscopy can function effectively in the real world of fake entertainment is by pulling out all the stop and going holographic, so that the images can be processed and hurt us in as natural a way as possible. This is God's way of telling us that the Holodeck was cool.

Fad researchers have understood this for centuries, since the time the Illuminati first started actively repressing news of the stereoscopic newspaper in 1743.

Your friend in science, Cheeseburger Brown

You still believe in Jenny McCarthy?
Everyone knows that's a just a story someone made up to scare children.

Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857226)

I think that was the most awesome thing I'll read today. Well done, sir.

No shit (0)

AgentUSA (251620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856440)

I could have them that 30 years ago.

Really? (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856458)

They needed to do an experiment to figure this out? The millions of people that say it constantly wasn't proof enough?

This just in, water is wet. Film at 11.

Re:Really? (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856484)

They needed to do an experiment to figure this out? The millions of people that say it constantly wasn't proof enough?

The millions of people were just holding their glasses wrong. Or bringing their car floor-mats to the cinema. Or something else, like intentionally exploding their laptop batteries.

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856538)

No kidding ... I have seen two movies in 3D, and will never see another. I had eye strain and a headache for several hours after.

I am not paying more to see the movie if it hurts, but, given that everybody else seems to like it, I question how long before I have no option but 3D.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856744)

I question how long before I have no option but 3D.

I share that concern. In my small family of four, my wife and son are OK with 3D while my daughter and I are not - we get headaches from it. Yesterday the kids had a cousin over and they were going to see Captain America. I asked the cousin if she wanted to see the 3D or regular and she said (without any prompting), "3D gives me a headache, can we see the regular one?". So it seems to be fairly common. I believe I have seen statistics that say about 15% of people get eye strain or headaches from 3D. I believe there was also a correlation to certain conditions affecting visual acuity (for example near sighted). I personally had very good vision up until these last couple of years but am now (due to getting older) becoming far sighted.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856848)

Hank Green of vlogbrothers fame created glasses with the same polarization in each lens for people with this exact problem so that they could enjoy 3D movies in 2D. His wife also couldn't watch 3D movies comfortably but he enjoys them profusely, and he wanted them to be able to go see movies together, which was his motivation.

Here is a YouTube video explaining them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsJHbw5iRds

Here is a link to his online store:
http://www.2d-glasses.com

You can also buy them through Amazon.com now, I believe.

Re:Really? (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856870)

Since the last few 3D movies have done over half their sales in 2D, I wouldn't be too worried. There's a pretty good 3D backlash building up. If they really start only showing some things in 3D, don't see them at all. Money talks.

Nintendo's learning that with the surprising weakness of the 3DS.

Re:Really? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857120)

The only reason I don't have a 3Ds is that when I was looking at it, I didn't have the money in the bank to pay for it. It was pretty mind blowing in terms of what I was seeing. I'm guessing the bigger problem is all those checks the government has been sending to the rich at the expensive of the working classes that's causing that weakness. It's hard to find money for a luxury item when the costs of most things one actually needs are going up in price significantly.

Re:Really? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856956)

How long before someone in America (with the highest percentage of ambulance chasing lawyers) tries to file a lawsuit, or class action lawsuit based on this.

Hurts the brain? (2, Insightful)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856474)

How does this hurt the brain? Isn't it just the eyestrain that gives the headache? I thought the brain itself had no pain receptors.

Re:Hurts the brain? (5, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856498)

It's the emotional hurt that kicks in when you realize that odds are high that the movie you're seeing in 3D wasn't actually filmed in 3D and instead was faked so they can rip you off for an extra 5 bucks on your movie ticket.

I think.

Re:Hurts the brain? (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856626)

How does this hurt the brain? Isn't it just the eyestrain that gives the headache? I thought the brain itself had no pain receptors.

Mostly it hurts your eye, neck and facial muscles ( a 'tension' headache). Besides, at least for males, the brain clearly has pain receptors. Go kick some guy in the nuts and see what happens.

Re:Hurts the brain? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856720)

You're correct, and the summary is wrong. Meninges and blood vessels have pain fibers but brain tissue does not.

Re:Hurts the brain? (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856916)

How does this hurt the brain? Isn't it just the eyestrain that gives the headache? I thought the brain itself had no pain receptors.

Your overly literal reading of the summary hurts my wiener.

Re:Hurts the brain? (2)

VanGarrett (1269030) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857194)

It's not a matter of pain receptors, it's a matter of causing harm. Your brain is accustomed to interpreting two images from your eyes, which are an established distance apart. Movies in 3D do not precisely replicate those parameters, and thus your brain has to compensate, and teach it to handle 3D data under different parameters. Basically, it makes your brain think your eyes aren't in the expected place, and forces it to learn to handle that accordingly. If you watch too much 3D, then I suppose you could find yourself having difficulty pointing both eyes are something in real life.

We're more or less walking blindly into a 3D world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856476)

Evolution has not had enough time to make human vision compatible with three dimensions.

Things won't get worked out until they have technology that can reproduce 1 dimension, 4 dimensions, or 11 dimensions, depending on the real nature of space-time.

24 people? (-1, Troll)

perpetual pessimist (1245416) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856492)

Why do research like this on just 24 people? That is NOT a statistically valid sample size. So this study is not only obvious, it's invalid.

Damn it, just once I'd like to see a "research team" submit a report that says they spent the grant money on hookers and blow.

Re:24 people? (4, Insightful)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856640)

What's worse: The article says less than the obvious can go. It doesn't say anything about the effect of jumps between scenes of different depth, about stereo strobbing effects that appear when using a small frame rate, the straining effects of overly dark 3D displays in some cinemas, etc.

And with so little people you can't correlate personal characteristics of the viewers with the strain and headaches - I'm a sensitive person, and I get headaches from watching a normal cinema from too close or from an unusual angle, from watching a LCD monitor when the other lights are out, from using a closeup display (e.g. cellphone) in a moving vehicle, and I don't have any issue with 3D unless some exacerbating effects are present as well, which in my case would be dark picture or the screen being too close.

Re:24 people? (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857404)

Studies need to have tractable questions in order to get funded. While "24 subjects" sounds small, each of these subjects probably ran thousands of trials, and multiple different conditions already. Each additional dimension you'd like to investigate requires exponentially more data to reliably estimate the relevant joint distributions.

Re:24 people? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856672)

Uh you can get statistically significant results with a small sample size if the effect is strong. For example, if you toss 24 coins from a bag and they all turn head, you can be pretty sure that the coins in the bag are not all fair coins.

The sample size is sufficient (4, Informative)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856674)

Yes, the sample size is "statistically valid." You can show a statistically significant result using any sample size; using a smaller sample simply means you need stronger evidence to show the same significance. There are some specious statistics in the paper, but this criticism is plainly false.

Re:The sample size is sufficient (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856746)

Correct. I can prove that cutting off people's head is 100% fatal with an extremely small sample. In fact I'd like to start with GP.

Re:24 people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856716)

Yeah, if 23 out of 24 people have issues with 3D, then that only means that 23 people in the world have issues with 3D. You're absolutely right. Or dumb as fuck.

Re:24 people? (4, Informative)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856734)

in ui design I learned that people are sufficiently similar that you can test on 7 randomly chosen subject and if your ui work on all of them it will be good for 95% of the population, those 5% be damned. People are not that different inside so unless you are looking for a 1/100000 effect you don't need a big sample, around 30 will be sufficient in most of the case, I don't remember the mathematical proof but it exist.

However if your are doing a research on something with a great variance like food preferences you will need a bigger sample. You can read more about the optimal sample size in those paper : http://www.ime.usp.br/~abe/ICOTS7/Proceedings/PDFs/InvitedPapers/3J3_ALIA.pdf [ime.usp.br] and http://nordbotten.com/articles/OptSampleSize.pdf [nordbotten.com]

Re:24 people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856736)

it was enough for Jack Bauer, damn it!

Re:24 people? (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856820)

Why do research like this on just 24 people?

Because you have to start somewhere. If all human studies used hundreds or thousands of people you'd have not even 1/100th as much research done. We don't have an infinite amount of cash or of decent scientists.

That is NOT a statistically valid sample size.

I somehow think the good people of UC-Berkeley realize that 24 people is a small sample. Studies of this size are usually done to suggest and design further studies, or because the premise is interesting but that particular team doesn't have the resources for a larger study; everyone who matters understands that these small trials rarely prove anything at all. It's just arrogant and ignorant to trot out sample size arguments in response to every single damn study with less than 1,000 people as if it proves you're smarter than every scientist and grant reviewer involved.

Furthermore, sample size isn't everything. If I pulled 24 frogs all with 13 legs a piece from a lake that I knew to contain 150,000 frogs I would not think "that is NOT a statistically valid sample size", I would think "Jesus Sideways-Hopping Christ, somethings wrong with this lake!". It's quite possible to get data from a small sample that is quite clear and quite certain. Many amazing discoveries in physiology have been made with sample sizes in the single digits. They had to be reproduced with hundreds of other samples by dozens of other people to check method and provide absolute certainty, but they were effectively undeniable as originally published.

The annoying thing is people dumb enough to read a study done on 24 people with any ambiguity at all in the results and go on reporting that it's a new discovery. Well, that and insouciant bastards like you who get off on thinking they're smarter than entire research departments.

Re:24 people? (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857006)

Why do research like this on just 24 people? That is NOT a statistically valid sample size. So this study is not only obvious, it's invalid.

You probably meant statistical significance and it doesn't just depend on the sample size. It also depends on the noise and error in the thing being studied.

Damn it, just once I'd like to see a "research team" submit a report that says they spent the grant money on hookers and blow.

You don't know how grant money works. It's not really possible to spend grant money on hookers and blow - mostly because they don't you receipts and partly because Dell doesn't sell blow and you can't charge hookers to the hotel bill without it being extras and such.

Re:24 people? (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857286)

If I flip a coin 24 times, and 22 times it comes up heads, that is indeed statically relevant. (No I did not RTFA, as I hate 3D and openly advocate for anything that diminishes it. I'm a biased sample, who might report a headache, which would back up your point above).

My phone is definitely 3-dimensional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856514)

It has this rectangular shape with a thickness, it's definitely a 3-dimensional object. Will looking at it hurt my eyes and brain too?

Re:My phone is definitely 3-dimensional (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856616)

well obviously no because its actually there.

flicker-shuttered parallax effect at 60hz per eye showing two different images is a bit different than continuous light reflected from an object, strangely enough.

Not 3D (5, Insightful)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856532)

That's because it's not 3D; at best, it's 2½D. The back side of the objects are not projected. There are true 3D projectors that create objects that are viewable from all sides (without special glasses). I call them 3D-in-a-box. You can stand in front of it and see things in 3D while somebody else can stand on the other side of the projector and see the other side of the objects (in 3D). I wished they stop lying by calling it as 3D but that's not likely to happen. :(

Re:Not 3D (5, Interesting)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856670)

That's because it's not 3D; at best, it's 2½D. The back side of the objects are not projected. There are true 3D projectors that create objects that are viewable from all sides (without special glasses). I call them 3D-in-a-box. You can stand in front of it and see things in 3D while somebody else can stand on the other side of the projector and see the other side of the objects (in 3D).

I wished they stop lying by calling it as 3D but that's not likely to happen. :(

Worse than that, the 'movement' you see on the big screen is just an illusion achieved by displaying still pictures fast enough that the brain is fooled into thinking it is seeing real movement.

And even worse still, I watched a '2D' movie the other day and one object actually moved behind another. That's not 2D. That's not even close.

Sarcasm aside :) I wonder if the 2D stuff we've been watching for the last 100 years or so has any negative effect on the eyes or the brain? Rapidly showing still pictures and showing an image that the brain thinks ought to be 3D but is flat....

Re:Not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857184)

It can, some people are not able to play first person shooters for example because they get sick and headaches because their brains are trying to look at the 2D image as though it was 3D. Causes the eyes to keep trying to adjust focus that isn't there and it strains them.

Another part of this 3D thing is what about people who CAN'T see 3D at all? I have a sister who is blind in one eye, she can never see the 3D effect.

Honestly all of these 3D effects are nothing more than a glorified viewmaster toy

Re:Not 3D (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856722)

To be fair, many call it "stereoscopic 3D" (or "stereo 3D" in the article) which is not a lie as it indeed provides a picture for each eye.

Re:Not 3D - Height, Width, Depth (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856752)

Yes it's 3D, it has 3 dimensions. It's not virtual reality, and doesn't claim to be. You can't wander around it and see it from the back. What you can do is infer the depth based on the stereoscopic effect, just like you can infer height and width based on surrounding objects.

You can't see the back of things, you can't re-focus on something that the camera didn't focus on. Yes it's gimmicky and limited. But there are 3 dimensions, and if you want to count time (as in watching a movie) it has 4.

I think you just regurgitated from an article here posted a while back without really thinking about what you've said, but if you managed to come up with the exact same deivel independently, I have to applaud your stubbornness.

"But the real world has 4 dimensions, and it doesn't have those limits, how can you call it 3D if it's limited?" The real world is the real world. When we can simulate that, it will be called holography or something more interesting than 3D. The real world has smells, no one complains about those missing in 3D. The real world has things like neighbors making noise, interrupting phone calls - I think we would be happier with a limited simulation, even when we get to that point.

It's 2x 2D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856874)

You would need an infinite number of 2D images to have 3D, not just two.

Re:Not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857042)

"That's because it's not 3D; at best, it's 2½D. The back side of the objects are not projected."

Also there is no depth and no parallax. Which means it's more like 1.5D.

bibble (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856536)

I live in 4d, how do you think I feel?

Fuck Everything, We're doing Five D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856740)

If 2d is good and 3d is better, obviously 5d would make us the best fucking display technology that ever existed. Comprende?

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856572)

walking blindly into a 3D world.

Boom-tish!

Except I (and many more folk) refuse to see films at the cinema in 3D and refuse to buy 3D gadgets because I consider the whole thing to be a gimmick. For my money, Hollywood struggles to make watchable 2D films and this new-fangled 3D [wikipedia.org] craze is fooling nobody. Avatar was the biggest piece of shit in any dimension..

Eyes ... can't ... focus ... everything ... blurry (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856594)

I don't go to 3D movies anymore because of the eye strain. I think it's because my eyes want to focus on things other than what the director has chosen to be the point of focus, and they can't. In Avatar, the scenes where there were bugs in 'front' of the screen caused my eyes to water.

My brain knows it can't focus, but the instinct is to try and focus. Possible if I viewed enough 3D-like movies, I could overcome that instinctual urge.

Avatar was visually stunning, but I've seen it again at home and don't think the 3D effect really added that much to it.

Went to see Harry Potter earlier this week, and decided to wait a half hour and not see it in 3D. So it looks like I won't get to continue my own personal experiment.

Re:Eyes ... can't ... focus ... everything ... blu (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856712)

I am yet to see a 3D movie. I tend to be a bit susceptible to motion sickness, and I can pick up on and be annoyed by a 60-70Hz refresh rate on a CRT that doesn't bother anyone else. And even if none of that is a problem, i'm just as likely to fall prey to the negative placebo effect, going into a movie just knowing it's going to make me feel sick :) I kind of suspect that this is the reason a lot of people have a problem with 3D.

Absolutely terrible title, summary, etc. (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856654)

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.abstract [journalofvision.org]

Where am I seeing anything about 3D hurting eyes in here? This might just be the worst slashdot heading, summary, and linked article in a while.

The whole study is trying to measure specific angles and distances where 3D is uncomfortable. There's nothing about 3D actually hurting eyes.

Re:Absolutely terrible title, summary, etc. (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856852)

Who's going to read the entire study to actually find that out? They just read the abstract and press the "hate 3D" button.

The study actually doesn't say that, read it. (5, Informative)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856678)

TechCrunch (Along with Ars Techinca and others) got it completely wrong.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/22/samsung-studies-3d-viewing-discomfort-finds-out-bloggers-dont/

If you read the study, and not the abstract, you'd know they didn't actually watch any 3D. They tested different situations of focusing on various objects to find out WHY some 3D hurts peoples eyes. They did not "find that 3D hurts your eyes" becuase that's not what they were looknig for.

In fact, they discovered the comfortable range for 3D viewing is wider than previously thought.

But you have to actually read the study to know that. - link to the study: http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.full

If you hate 3D, hate 3D, but actually read the article before throwing your two cents in.

--Richard Lawler, Engadget

Re:The study actually doesn't say that, read it. (3, Interesting)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857276)

Yea, I'm getting annoyed at these posts. What's worse is that the summary doesn't seem to understand the concept of dioptric distances. At a movie theatre, with the distance you are sitting from the screen (assuming a few rows back) you could basically never make a stimulus with a dioptric distance different from that of the screen by simulating objects behind the screen. You are already basically focussed at infinity. I know the authors well, and have conversed with them a number of times about this study. In fact, an alumnus of that lab is currently in our lab. This was a terribly written synopsis.

Re:The study actually doesn't say that, read it. (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857350)

The problem is most people read the abstract and didn't give even a cursory glance to the study.

It took me about 5 seconds of reading to realize the TC and AT blog posts were way off, i have no idea how they got published.

What's new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856700)

Well, it's nice that they basically redo the studies from shortly before the Sega VR kit should have been in the market, but where's the news? Go into a mall where they have a 3D display as demo, grab the demo glasses and look for half an hour - then you know why i refuse to buy anything 3D related.

So? (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856730)

Setting aside the fact that this "experiment" had some very obvious flaws, does anyone really care if it can potentially give you a headache? We all stare at computer screens all day and that is very clearly terrible for our eyes and gives us headaches!

I've been walking around in 3D all my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856784)

Always wondered why I couldn't get rid of this damn headache.

Did nobody read the article? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36856808)

The experiments were to determine specific zones of comfort in relation to different 3D displays. It wasn't to determine whether or not viewing 3D is good/bad for the brain. The techcrunch article totally misinterprets the study.

And in other news... (1)

kelarius (947816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856866)

Falling from a great height can hurt, you can't fly by simply flapping your arms, and farmville still sucks.

i posted a story about this a few months ago (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856898)

http://slashdot.org/submission/1454046/3D-Cinema-Doesnt-Work-And-Never-Will [slashdot.org]

the source of the discomfort is that millions of years of simian and primate eye evolution has created an eye that focuses and converges in parallel

look at a mountain, and your eyes are pointed nearly straight out, and are focused wide

look at a book, and your eyes are slightly cross-eyed, and are focused close in

but, for million of years, this focus and this convergence has always been in parallel. millions of years of our ancestors have never had the need for eyes that, for example, cross in, but focus wide, or point straight, but focus close in. 3D expects our eyes, to, for the first time ever, or, since tens of millions of years ago, take your pick, to work in this unnatural way, unnatural for primates

much like blind cave fish or flightless birds: if the function is not needed, the ability atrophies. of course, BEFORE binocular vision, animals with eyes on either side of their head, for example herbivores and ungulates and certain primitive carnivores, can certainly focus, converge, and even point in independent ways. look at a chameleon: its eyes are pretty much independent entities neurologically and physiologically

but this has not been the case, since before even our distant lemur-like ancestors really started working binocular vision, for our bloodline to have eyes that focus and converge on different tracks. we simply can't do it any more without stress and pain. so this is the source of the discomfort with 3D technology, physically and mentally

there is also some concern that very young eyes, that are still developing, can actually be permanently harmed by 3D

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856914)

The only thing that makes less sense than thinking these two stories are relevant, is believing in the one you posted above.

Explain how millions of years of evolution prepared our eyes to watch still images flashed rapidly in succession to create the illusion of moving pictures.

I'll wait.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857016)

because images moving in rapid succession do not ask our eyes to do anything unnatural to their physiological and neurological design

present day 3D technology (some future tech may solve this problem), by splitting our eyes' naturally parallel efforts of focus and convergence, DOES ask our eyes to do something unnatural to their physiological and neurological design

do you understand now?

anything else i can help you with today?

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857040)

Well, obviously it's true because you said it, since there's no other evidence to support that claim.

Also, you didn't answer my question. At any point before motion pictures did anyone's eyes have to watch still images and pretend they were moving?

Unnatural things only seem to bother you (and Ebert following syncophants) when they have to do with 3D.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857082)

you know what, i explained it very simply and straightforward. if you understand the idea of convergence and focus, you can follow along with my words. do you understand the concepts?

it doesn't take a PhD to understand this. it doesn't take you trusting me without proof to agree with me. it simply takes your intellectual ability to follow along and understand what i am saying. can you do that? i'm not asking you to trust me. i'm asking you to THINK

you don't have to agree with me. but you have to have a logically valid argument to pose against my words. that's 100% fine. i have given you a proof. you have given me an atavistic rejection my words without thought, just because i am challenging you to THINK

oppose my logical and reasonable words on logic and reason, or fuck off

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857122)

The problem is your argument doesn't make sense. The idea that watching simulated motion is any more natural than simulated 3D is silly, false and entirely without proof. The fact is many people have problems watching simulated motion too, will that never work?

That you tied your earlier argument to this post, which is entirely incorrect, provides more reason to believe you'll just go along with anything anti-3D whether or not it's true.

If you want to approach this logically, please do, i'm still waiting.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857168)

convergence: do you understand the concept?

focus: do you understand the concept?

focus and convergence in parallel: how vision in our bloodline works, for tens of millions of years, since we developed binocular vision

3D tech: asks our eyes and brain to focus and converge on different tracks

do you fucking understand the logic here?

apparently, not. you are either stupid or being purposefully intellectual dishonest

simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution. do you understand logic and reason?

you have to oppose my words with a logical and reasonable argument of your own. you can't simply reject it because you're the king of france

you don't have to agree with me. but if your disagreement is an emotional rejection, without any logic and reason, your disagreement simply marks you as idiot

come out with a logical and reasonable disagreement with my logic and reason, or admit you're a hysterical emotion-driven nitwit

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857264)

>simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution. do you understand logic and reason?

It's a simple fact that it does. You choosing not to acknowledge that, shows where your argument starts from -- hating 3D, not not taking a clear look at how vision works.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857234)

"The problem is your argument doesn't make sense. "

I'm a research director and his words make PERFECT sense.

I suggest you go give your education a steroid shot.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857196)

At any point before motion pictures did anyone's eyes have to watch still images and pretend they were moving?

I'll just pop in to say one thing: it's not the eyes that pretend anything, it's the brain. Watching a still picture is physically absolutely no different from watching a series of pictures as long as they change fast enough; eye doesn't move, eye doesn't change focus, the muscles don't need to do anything at all that is different from watching a still image. It's the brains that interpret the changing scene the eye sees as movement.

Now, comparing that to 3D there actually _are_ physical differences, not just mental ones; the eyes do have to keep moving, changing focus, sometimes even moving in non-parallel motion, and eyes are trying to focus on something that seems to be far away even when it's all the time at exactly same distance. This all causes a lot more strain on the muscles in the eye than would otherwise happen.

Ie. you're comparing apples and oranges. I won't take part here in if it's a good thing or a bad thing that people watch 3D, I just wished to point out the fallacy in your argument.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857248)

This is all entirely dependent on what you're watching. 2D video changes focus too, however it usually doesn't do it too quickly or too often because --- evidence has shown that causes viewers discomfort.

Sit around and watch some 2D shakycam footage with some idiot constantly changing focus from close up to far away and tell me your eyes don't get tired.

I'm not saying 3D doesn't make your eyes work, I am saying it is not a 3D exclusive problem.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857054)

Oh yeah, and this:

"there is also some concern that very young eyes, that are still developing, can actually be permanently harmed by 3D"

also not true. Doctors actually believe watching 3D video can help diagnose vision problem in children while they're young and can still be fixed. The reasoning against having kids watch 3D content is because their eyes aren't far enough apart yet.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857098)

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May-Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children [slashdot.org]

fear based hysteria about the unknown is a problem in this world

reasonable concerns based on logic and science is not

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857148)

LOL. Did you read it?

There was no evidence to support it.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-hand-held-3d-gaming-devices-may-help-uncover-undiagnosed-vision-problems-112955424.html

You are totally welcome.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857188)

http://www.google.com/search?q=3d+young+children [google.com]

do you work for a 3D company or something?

what is the source of your emotional, factless animosity to logic and reason?

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857236)

What is that google search supposed to show?

I have facts and doctors to support what I said. You have incorrect blog posts.

Clearly, it's my emotion that's getting in the way, not information and research.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857250)

He's a shill, duh. His homepage redirects you to Engadget.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857316)

No, I'm a human being who has talked to optometrists about this subject in order to research it for my articles.

I don't get paid by anyone to support or knock 3D, I do get paid to find out and report the facts. My name and my association are in my first comment on this thread, if you missed them.

--Richard Lawler
Engadget.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857244)

"The reasoning against having kids watch 3D content is because their eyes aren't far enough apart yet."

Provide a source, now. Plenty of other animals have great 3D vision with eye spacing CLOSER than that of a human child.

Are you just being purposely obtuse or are you just that retarded?

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857304)

"The reasoning against having kids watch 3D content is because their eyes aren't far enough apart yet."

Provide a source, now. Plenty of other animals have great 3D vision with eye spacing CLOSER than that of a human child.

Are you just being purposely obtuse or are you just that retarded?

Human beings aren't other animals, and becuase kids don't have adult sized heads, 3D video isn't created with them in mind

Deeper explanation of how 3D sight develops:

http://www.eye-patch-info.com/eyesight-test.html

American Optometric Association
http://3deyehealth.org/faq.html
At what age can my child view 3D safely?

Answer:

Vision, including binocular vision, develops from birth. No detrimental effects of viewing 3D have been reported at any age. Parents should note that from 6-12 months of age, basic binocularity is established. By the age of 3 years most children will have binocular vision well enough established to enjoy viewing 3D television, movies or games.

"A child's eyes begin to develop most crucially between the ages of 6 months to 6 years. It's at this time that the two eyes learn to coordinate and that the child can perceive 3D objects. In fact, from the age of 6 months the eyes themselves are as physically developed as in adults."

You're welcome.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857270)

There's a reason Sega didn't make a stereoscopic visor set in the 80s, pal. I suggest you actually PAY ATTENTION TO HISTORY instead of simply ignoring it.

Nintendo and Sony ignored Sega's prior attempts at enhanced gaming peripherals, now they're having to put warnings all over their 3D-capable devices.

You really need a new education, the one provided to you is absolute shit.

Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago (1)

Rjcc (143360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857328)

Thanks for your comments. Have you ever read the warning label on a PlayStation 3 or an Xbox 360 concerning regular old 2D video?

Go do it, I expect you'll find it to be quite illuminating.

Isn't the real world 3D? (1)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 2 years ago | (#36856950)

I had a Ninetendo 3DS for about two months before I realized I couldn't handle the 3D effects. I literally went from feeling buzzed to headache in about 45 minutes.

But the real world is 3D - perhaps the difference is the implementation of trickery, which is why 3D often seems more 'fake' to me than a 2D film.

Sega? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857010)

Iirc, researchers working for Sega found something similar related to 3D games and children back in the 80s.

Was this not funded by Samsung? (1)

BrendaEM (871664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857204)

I read elsewhere that this study or one like it was funded by Samsung, HTC's competitor. If that is true, it makes the study AstroTurf.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36857222)

They've found out what they found out the last time this technology was being pushed down peoples throats several decades ago? How very very surprising.

Why Worry? (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857274)

I am sure there is absolutely no correlation between 3D and visually-related discomfort or fatigue, just like there is no correlation between the constant viewing of computer monitors and TVs at close distance with myopia, or the lack of exercise and constant consumption of fast food with obesity, or the smoking of cigarettes with lung disease, or the shortage of doctors with rising medical costs, or the debt funded government with rising federal deficit, or lastly, reality with things being real.

I can't REMEMBER movies in 3D! (1)

LordRobin (983231) | more than 2 years ago | (#36857364)

Am I the only one with this weird problem? After having seen several movies in 3D, it dawned on me that I never had any visual memory of what the 3D effect looked like. For example, take How to Train Your Dragon. I remember that "the 3D was great". I remember the fact that several specific scenes looked friggin' awesome in 3D. I can even explain what was great about each scene. But I can't bring up a visual memory of what the scenes looked like, 3D-wise. All my memories of the movie are flat. When that began to sink in, 3D movies lost a lot of their allure. Knowing that, once I left the theater, the memories I was left with would be no different than if I'd watched the 2D version removed some of the incentive for paying extra for that 3D effect.

You know, my dreams are flat, too. I wonder if that's related, somehow.

------RM

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...