4 ms·

The argument is that because watching 3D movies forces your eyes to focus in a different way (which is true), you'll forget how to properly focus objects in the

by codeflo 16y ago

The argument is that because watching 3D movies forces your eyes to focus in a different way (which is true), you'll forget how to properly focus objects in the real world. I think that's a bit sensationalist, and akin to the argument in the 1800s that the enormous speed of railways is hazardous to your health. It's not even like 3D images are a completely new invention. The article even mentions stereograms, which have been around for many years, force your eyes into a position that's even more extreme, and have been really popular at one point. I don't remember a widespread outbreak of lazy eye because of those pictures.

flatline 16y ago
Yeah, how many times as a kid did I hear "Keep making that face and it will get stuck like that!" I also recall my hands cramping into claws from playing Nintendo for hours and hours straight, and no RSI that I'm aware of, which seems like a much more realistic threat.
gojomo 16y ago
Looking at stereograms is seconds at a time. Movies, TV and video games are hours at a time. There are reasons previous attempts to mass-market polarized stereo 3D -- a technology over 50 years old -- keep petering out after short periods of enthusiasm. As evidenced from the SRI/Sega experience, this demonstrable lingering effect on stereo vision is a major factor.
- barrkel 16y ago
  What you have there is two separate things: the SRI/Sega tests which indicated possible harm to children from 3D headsets, along with product failure of 3D. But I don't think you can draw a causal factor from one to the other, that 3D headsets were a product failure because of harm to children, without introducing more evidence. There are alternative stories that can explain why 3D headsets, in particular, failed, independent of SRI tests etc. Computers were much slower, and the visual update speed (presuming gyroscopic control) likely lagged the rendered 3D view quite badly - and IMHO this is a much worse problem that could cause motion sickness, but need not apply to 3D video displayed on a flat surface in a fixed position relative to the viewer. 3D headsets also have significant usability and social use problems. They may be heavy, tiring to wear, bulky, tedious to transport, geeky and exclusionary to use. They may even leave one open to practical jokes, as they may act like a blindfold; or unpleasant surprises. I know my gf hates it when I surprise her when she's wearing headphones. 3D video, meanwhile, normally requires that everyone wear special glasses. That's a fad that gets tired pretty quickly, and turns TV into a more binary watching / not-watching experience. Personally, I'm not particularly afraid of gaze focusing issues arising from 3D video. I am, however, quite skeptical that it will ever be more than a gimmick that fades after a year or two of hype, while it still has accessory and viewing angle requirements.

by codeflo 16y ago

flatline 16y ago

Yeah, how many times as a kid did I hear "Keep making that face and it will get stuck like that!" I also recall my hands cramping into claws from playing Nintendo for hours and hours straight, and no RSI that I'm aware of, which seems like a much more realistic threat.

gojomo 16y ago

Looking at stereograms is seconds at a time. Movies, TV and video games are hours at a time. There are reasons previous attempts to mass-market polarized stereo 3D -- a technology over 50 years old -- keep petering out after short periods of enthusiasm. As evidenced from the SRI/Sega experience, this demonstrable lingering effect on stereo vision is a major factor.

barrkel 16y ago
What you have there is two separate things: the SRI/Sega tests which indicated possible harm to children from 3D headsets, along with product failure of 3D. But I don't think you can draw a causal factor from one to the other, that 3D headsets were a product failure because of harm to children, without introducing more evidence. There are alternative stories that can explain why 3D headsets, in particular, failed, independent of SRI tests etc. Computers were much slower, and the visual update speed (presuming gyroscopic control) likely lagged the rendered 3D view quite badly - and IMHO this is a much worse problem that could cause motion sickness, but need not apply to 3D video displayed on a flat surface in a fixed position relative to the viewer. 3D headsets also have significant usability and social use problems. They may be heavy, tiring to wear, bulky, tedious to transport, geeky and exclusionary to use. They may even leave one open to practical jokes, as they may act like a blindfold; or unpleasant surprises. I know my gf hates it when I surprise her when she's wearing headphones. 3D video, meanwhile, normally requires that everyone wear special glasses. That's a fad that gets tired pretty quickly, and turns TV into a more binary watching / not-watching experience. Personally, I'm not particularly afraid of gaze focusing issues arising from 3D video. I am, however, quite skeptical that it will ever be more than a gimmick that fades after a year or two of hype, while it still has accessory and viewing angle requirements.