I will tell you about my experience some time after watching a 3d film which I won't mention...
It started with normal films on my lcd. I could see the difference, as if I could somehow sense the depth of 2d movie in a way I couldn't before. This happened also with one 2d drawn betting chip with some shading that I was cropping at work. One more item that gave the same feeling was the hologram sticker on a nokia battery, I could never tell what was the big fuss about hologram stickers, as I could never see the hologram in 3d before, it was always just a smudge.
These symptoms have ceased after some time, but I can still see the hologram in '3d', the way I couldn't before. It's nice to read that these symptoms can exist, now I know it wasn't all just in my mind...
Keep doing that and you'll go blind
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I guess the main point is whether or not all of these broadcasters and/or tv manufacturers have done safety studies of the effects of 3D 'all the time' in our lives verses just during a 2-3 hour movie every once in a while. I could definitely see people (in these companies) dismissing there being a problem just because "people go to 3D movies all the time" even though the 'amount of exposure' is orders of magnitude different.
> 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).
I'm not advocating that kind of crazy. I'm just saying that it would be entirely irresponsible for companies to push this technology without any sort of testing. In general, I would be mostly concerned with children. I don't want to bring out the 'think of the children' argument here, but children have developing brains, and if this could adversely affect their brain development there should be a bold warning label at the very least. (Or such broadcasts should just be 'few and far between' -- i.e. only some 3D movies on TV or a 3D channel or ability to switch between 3D version and 2D version -- so as not to force children/parents into the 'consume potentially harmful content or consume no content at all' decision)
On the flip-side of your argument, I think that entirely too many companies rush products to market before bothering to ponder any sort of implications (though this is mostly just a problem with food/medical products, but things like infant-/baby-oriented products have this issue too).
Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I guess the main point is whether or not all of these broadcasters and/or tv manufacturers have done safety studies of the effects of 3D 'all the time' in our lives verses just during a 2-3 hour movie every once in a while. I could definitely see people (in these companies) dismissing there being a problem just because "people go to 3D movies all the time" even though the 'amount of exposure' is orders of magnitude d…
I think 3d full time would be terrible !
I don't want my TV 3d ! At most, maybe some movies, some games, and maybe sport (if I watched it). Certainly not for kids - kids have no need for that.
Surely it won't be 3d all the time though? And I still would like to see a quality study on the effect of 3d on depth perception - my intuition is that it is probably identical with a normal (long) movie going experience (we all feel a bit disoriented after being immersed in "another world" for a while).
Certainly on the food/medical side - that is where the issue lies mostly, and I think that is where the energy should be better spent.
Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind
#44The Wikipedia article refers to 13 cues total. Only 2 of which are under our physical control - convergence (our eyes crossing to focus) and accomodation (changing the lens shape). Providing separate images to each eye, triggers the 3d processing mechanism in a way that TV doesnt. For lifetimes, we expect if objects approach or recede, we adjust our focus, ie converge and accomodate (there's obviously a very high evolutionary advantage to getting the distances right). From what some describe, we keep attempting to focus when watching 3D and failing. Also, they're both feedback loops, there's some convergence/lens bending, the image gets a bit clearer, we keep going in the same direction, I'd guess that the brain keeps trying, fails and then reverts to focus on the 2d planes presented, 1000s of times throughout the movie, this is what causes the brain and eyeache. Possibly we can adapt, and naturally switch in and out of movie mode without discomfort, but we'd need to have movies worth seeing.
Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind
#45This 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 period…
Afterthought (telegraphic): Avatar 3D -> car accidents -> lawyers -> millions -> kibosh
Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind
#46moving your head doesn't change the picture. another limitation: the surrounding light of your living room doesn't influence the screen. This would be the only current limitations, right? Those devices could change that: "Towards Passive 6D Reflectance Field Displays" http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/prfdisplays/
There is an additional limitation I noticed with 3D movies. You are stuck with the focus of the camera used, you can't bring distant objects into focus because they are out of focus on the film.
That is something that directors will have to learn to work with when filming 3D. It's especially when video games use focal blur and motion blur. Trying to focus on a distant (or really close) object causes a headache because it never comes into focus, and the interactive nature of games increases the expectation that I should be able to look where I want to look, unlike movies.