Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep doing that and you'll go blind

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#31

Post by gojomo »

gjm11 wrote: post #14

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 pr…

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/

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#32

Post by JunkDNA »

iujhygfbh wrote: post #13
JunkDNA wrote: post #7

I really wish there was a way to do 3D that allowed your eyes and brain to naturally do what they do in the real world, though perhaps we're a long way from that? Anyone familiar with or doing any research on better mechanisms for 3D? I have yet to experience any sort of 3D entertainment that isn't (at least initially) disorienting. The need to wear glasses constantly ruins the experience. But even beyond that, the u…

In the real world - you don't really see 3D very much. Your eyes are only 0.1m apart so anything more than 3-4m away isn't really in 3d anyway. Everything in the distance is handled by your knowledge of it's relative size and position - which works just as well on a 2d screen anyway. Try it, cover one eye and look at the scene, you will see a difference on your desk, but no difference for the scene outside your windo…

Agreed. This is one of the reasons a sufficiently large (non-3D) IMAX screen provides an incredibly immersive experience for all kinds of long distance "big" shows like "Everest" or my childhood favorite "The Dream is Alive". You get all the right visual cues to feel as though you're looking out an airplane window zooming over terrain or standing on a mountain peak. In my experience, the IMAX shows that have been less impressive have been the ones relying on lots of close-up work. Undersea ones in particular don't feel as immersive because the camera needs to be too close to the subject in order to have sufficient detail.

I would argue though that just because you don't see in 3D at a long distance, doesn't mean that the little area at 3-4m away isn't important for traditional movies. Most personal interaction is at that distance. In fact, a lot of the dialog scenes in movies are shot as though you're standing right there looking the actors in the face. I think good 3D in that range is also what pulls you into the scene and really makes you feel like you are there. There were a couple of scenes in Avatar where this was really well done, most notably when they were in the thick of the jungle and insects were buzzing around your head. That little detail really made me feel like I was standing there.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#33

Post by rationalbeaver »

winthrowe wrote: post #26
tocomment wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Avatar did seem to focus only on one thing at a time to me. I noticed it distinctly. I was in a non-imax though.

Having been able to see it both formats, I found that I was able to shift my gaze and focus on something in the foreground or background in a well positioned imax seat. The other 3d format (RealD?) was far more locked to a chosen foreground object it seemed to me. YMMV

I felt the same way in the Imax. And to provide some context to my downvoting detractor, here's what I was using as the basis for my speculation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096

It's a huge comment, so here's the relevant bit:

"What Cameron has been doing with Avatar is to shoot in deep focus (no using the aperture and focus controls to blur out the background, a favorite technique for isolating the subject from the environment) but instead create depth by altering the angle between the two lenses dynamically, creating the illusion of a large space in which attention to depth is focused stereoscopically. Until now most 3d projects have kept the stereoscopic distance fixed, which yields the feeling of watching the story take place on a stage in front of one and occasionally having one of the props or actors protrude outwards toward the audience. By varying the angle between the lenses in the same fashion as our eyes, Cameron presents a far more immersive way of experiencing the third dimension."

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#34

Post by ableal »

gjm11 wrote: post #14

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 pr…

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.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#35

Post by michaelneale »

gjm11 wrote: post #14

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 pr…

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)."

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#36

Post by noonespecial »

If the brain is malleable to change itself to a depth perception compromised state due to exposure, isn't it malleable to change itself back when the exposure is removed?

Or it might just be malleable to figure the whole thing out after a little while and make it a non-issue.

As for me, I have very poor depth perception anyway thanks to having lousy vision in one eye, but the effect in the movies works quite well for me. Perhaps (diabolical laugh) the score will finally be evened up!

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#38

Post by JunkDNA »

rationalbeaver wrote: post #33
winthrowe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been able to see it both formats, I found that I was able to shift my gaze and focus on something in the foreground or background in a well positioned imax seat. The other 3d format (RealD?) was far more locked to a chosen foreground object it seemed to me. YMMV

I felt the same way in the Imax. And to provide some context to my downvoting detractor, here's what I was using as the basis for my speculation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 It's a huge comment, so here's the relevant bit: "What Cameron has been doing with Avatar is to shoot in deep focus (no using the aperture and focus controls to blur out the background, a favorite technique for isolating the subjec…

Thanks for digging that up! If I understand this, it's not just that there is simple depth of field in the 2D/photography sense where the background of a primary subject is blurry. They are literally forcing your eyes to look at the primary subject using 3D tricks as well. This certainly would explain why I had such a strong sensation that I was being forced to focus on specific things... because I literally was being forced to.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#39

Post by pyre »

michaelneale wrote: post #35
gjm11 wrote: post #14

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 pr…

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 c…

> 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

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#40

Post by michaelneale »

pyre wrote: post #39
michaelneale wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> 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 mains…

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.

Post reply on HN