3 ms·

This seems like sheer alarmism. Made-up pseudomedical terminology? Check. Won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children plea? Check. Confident claims of what's

by gjm11 17y ago

This seems like sheer alarmism. Made-up pseudomedical terminology? Check. Won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children plea? Check. Confident claims of what's likely to happen, right alongside complaints that no one has done any research? Check. (I originally had a paragraph here about how he links to the Wikipedia article on depth perception and says: here are all the distance cues your brain uses; 3-d movies only provide one of them; oh noes, your brain will get all confused -- whereas in fact almost all the distance cues listed there are available in 3-d movies, and indeed almost all of them are available in plain ol' 2-d movies. But someone else already did that in more detail, so I shan't bother.) Incidentally, I see that Mark Pesce's own Wikipedia page describes him inter alia as a "hack and shameless self-promoter". I'm about to delete that since it's obviously unencyclopedic and non-NPOV, but this article sure makes it look like it might be true.

gojomo 17y ago
On the other hand: we've had 3D in various forms, on and off, for over 50 years. It's always been interesting; it's never persisted as the main way of viewing. Perhaps this is the reason why. Pesce is not making things up; he's got real experience with a real system that didn't come to market, and the same effects have been covered in other news outlets: "The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will." http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/
ableal 17y ago
If you read the comments, quite a bit further down, a colleague (Rowley) pipes up with this: The data that put a bullet into Segas plans came from a study they commissioned to be done by SRI. Very few ever got to see those results since I don't believe Sega ever released them. But some of us got to be privy to the findings. In brief there was a small percentage of folks who retained depth perception issues for periods of time ranging from 15 minutes to a couple of hours. SRI determined that a small percentage of that group could suffer permanent loss of depth percentage. The potential liability issues were staggering and the plan to put headmounts on the worlds game playing kids was killed - kaput!. This seems believable, and SRI is a reputable company.
- ableal 17y ago
  Afterthought (telegraphic): Avatar 3D -> car accidents -> lawyers -> millions -> kibosh
michaelneale 17y ago
It reads very similar to how people objected to "fast travel" in the past (ie speeds at which we call "slow" in a car or train now) - people honestly thought they would go insane for reasons like sensory overload. It happens to anything new going mainstream really: predictions of doom. The article doesn't talk at all about evidence of this - the closest it gets is to the lack of evidence that it is "safe". Gosh - I can imagine this guy at the invention of the printing press: "people who read these words, and imagine fantasical worlds in their mind, will not be able to get up and walk as their mind adapts to the lack of physical stimulus while reading and imagining)."
- pyre 17y ago
  > It happens to anything new going mainstream really: predictions of doom. So obviously, caution should be thrown to the wind because anyone that speaks negatively of something that is 'going mainstream' doesn't know what they are talking about! If something is 'going mainstream' by virtue of the fact that it is 'going mainstream' it will always and in every case be perfectly safe! I mean space travel is 'going mainstream' (at least 'space tourism' among the ridiculously rich), so there are no issues whatsoever with it. It is 100% safe, right? Toyota brake systems are 'mainstream'... oh, nevermind. Please don't use 'mainstream' as some sort of proof that something is safe or that a critic is wrong by virtue of the fact that the technology is 'mainstream' (or soon to be). > The article doesn't talk at all about evidence of this - the closest it gets is to the lack of evidence that it is "safe". See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1118849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1118849
  - michaelneale 17y ago
    I just think it would be a very odd world if there were articles written in that style, by science writers who appeal to the mainstream non-scientific audiences, about every novel technology (eg "iPad to make you stupid !!"). And I don't think that link is really enough evidence - perhaps if the data was public it could be? In any case, the real issue with 3d for me is the eye strain - won't that be more of a hazard then temporary depth perception? (I have no evidence, just a headache). >So obviously, caution should be thrown to the wind because .. Obviously? how did I imply that? My point was that it would be nice to have more solid evidence in articles to avoid people turning into quivering messes at the potential danger of every technology. Or course we should have caution. I am a bit sensitive about this general issue (nothing to do with 3d) as there have been quite a few deaths in my area in the last year due to people's fears of radiation from mobile phone towers (which are in fact no where near their house, but that is another issue). interestingly, the Amish attitude to technology is to initially reject until they see that is both safe (physically) and enhances their values (pretty much the opposite to everyone else). I find that interesting, but I can't find the link to the article that talked about that.

by gjm11 17y ago

gojomo 17y ago

On the other hand: we've had 3D in various forms, on and off, for over 50 years. It's always been interesting; it's never persisted as the main way of viewing. Perhaps this is the reason why. Pesce is not making things up; he's got real experience with a real system that didn't come to market, and the same effects have been covered in other news outlets: "The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will." http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/ http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

ableal 17y ago

If you read the comments, quite a bit further down, a colleague (Rowley) pipes up with this: The data that put a bullet into Segas plans came from a study they commissioned to be done by SRI. Very few ever got to see those results since I don't believe Sega ever released them. But some of us got to be privy to the findings. In brief there was a small percentage of folks who retained depth perception issues for periods of time ranging from 15 minutes to a couple of hours. SRI determined that a small percentage of that group could suffer permanent loss of depth percentage. The potential liability issues were staggering and the plan to put headmounts on the worlds game playing kids was killed - kaput!. This seems believable, and SRI is a reputable company.

ableal 17y ago
Afterthought (telegraphic): Avatar 3D -> car accidents -> lawyers -> millions -> kibosh

michaelneale 17y ago

It reads very similar to how people objected to "fast travel" in the past (ie speeds at which we call "slow" in a car or train now) - people honestly thought they would go insane for reasons like sensory overload. It happens to anything new going mainstream really: predictions of doom. The article doesn't talk at all about evidence of this - the closest it gets is to the lack of evidence that it is "safe". Gosh - I can imagine this guy at the invention of the printing press: "people who read these words, and imagine fantasical worlds in their mind, will not be able to get up and walk as their mind adapts to the lack of physical stimulus while reading and imagining)."

pyre 17y ago
> It happens to anything new going mainstream really: predictions of doom. So obviously, caution should be thrown to the wind because anyone that speaks negatively of something that is 'going mainstream' doesn't know what they are talking about! If something is 'going mainstream' by virtue of the fact that it is 'going mainstream' it will always and in every case be perfectly safe! I mean space travel is 'going mainstream' (at least 'space tourism' among the ridiculously rich), so there are no issues whatsoever with it. It is 100% safe, right? Toyota brake systems are 'mainstream'... oh, nevermind. Please don't use 'mainstream' as some sort of proof that something is safe or that a critic is wrong by virtue of the fact that the technology is 'mainstream' (or soon to be). > The article doesn't talk at all about evidence of this - the closest it gets is to the lack of evidence that it is "safe". See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1118849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1118849
- michaelneale 17y ago
  I just think it would be a very odd world if there were articles written in that style, by science writers who appeal to the mainstream non-scientific audiences, about every novel technology (eg "iPad to make you stupid !!"). And I don't think that link is really enough evidence - perhaps if the data was public it could be? In any case, the real issue with 3d for me is the eye strain - won't that be more of a hazard then temporary depth perception? (I have no evidence, just a headache). >So obviously, caution should be thrown to the wind because .. Obviously? how did I imply that? My point was that it would be nice to have more solid evidence in articles to avoid people turning into quivering messes at the potential danger of every technology. Or course we should have caution. I am a bit sensitive about this general issue (nothing to do with 3d) as there have been quite a few deaths in my area in the last year due to people's fears of radiation from mobile phone towers (which are in fact no where near their house, but that is another issue). interestingly, the Amish attitude to technology is to initially reject until they see that is both safe (physically) and enhances their values (pretty much the opposite to everyone else). I find that interesting, but I can't find the link to the article that talked about that.