Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

Is 3D Bad for You?.... Your thoughts..


SteamAhead

Recommended Posts

Many more articles are appearing of late on the long term effects of 3D on peoples eyes, this being the latest:

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/24976/?mod=related

 

Are you guys worried on what 3D tv/cinema maybe doing to our eyes?.

Do you think the same industry pushing us in to 3D are doing enough research on the long term effects?

Have you suffered headaches after watching a 3D film in the cinema/home?

 

Friend of mine said a while ago that she knows of someone that cannot see the 3D, so it's a total waste of time for them.

Nintendo only said a while ago about turning the 3D function off on the 3DS for children under 6 years old, plus people have ended up getting a headache playing that machine after a few minutes.

 

What are your thoughts.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mate gave me a demo of his 3D tv a while ago and it gave me a bad head after about 15 mins.

 

He stuck on a full 3d film which was very impressive, but I was struggling to focus on the whole picture. Probably not helped by the fact that I was barely about 6ft away from an enormous wall mounted screen. I found my eyes were constantly flicking to different areas of the screen every few seconds, very tiring.

 

Then he put on an ordinary film to show off the upscaling to 3d and that probably wasn't as bad as you could visibly see the parrallax points and didn't constantly feel like you were refocussing on different bits.

 

Then he stukck GT3 on his PS3 and that was not set up right and was truly horrid. I only managed one short lap before I had to urn it off.

 

No experience of 3d films at the pictures as I can't justify spending damn near £40 for me and Lucy just to watch a film.

 

Definately not a technology I'd be rushing out to buy in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A work colleague's optirican thinks that if your eyesight is 20/20 in both eyes then 3D TV/movies/games should not be any problem at all. Its those that have one eye with different capability than the other is where the issues arise.

As each eye is given a different image to focus on, the brain is attempting to use the stronger eye to resolve the whole picture, therefore causing confusion and making the stronger eye 'work' harder in trying to resolve the 3D part of the image that is given to the weaker eye. This usually means some people don't see the 3D at all and in others it causes eye strain and headaches.

 

Don't know if this is true or not, but sounds plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A work colleague's optirican thinks that if your eyesight is 20/20 in both eyes then 3D TV/movies/games should not be any problem at all. Its those that have one eye with different capability than the other is where the issues arise.

As each eye is given a different image to focus on, the brain is attempting to use the stronger eye to resolve the whole picture, therefore causing confusion and making the stronger eye 'work' harder in trying to resolve the 3D part of the image that is given to the weaker eye. This usually means some people don't see the 3D at all and in others it causes eye strain and headaches.

 

Don't know if this is true or not, but sounds plausible.

 

 

My eyesight isn't that bad, I'm only -2.0, but without wearing contact lenses or my glasses the 3D I've seen in the cinema just does not work. So that sounds right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nintendo only said a while ago about turning the 3D function off on the 3DS for children under 6 years old, plus people have ended up getting a headache playing that machine after a few minutes

 

The new 3DS in a nightmare. Every time i look at it my eyes go squint. If you move in the slightest it goes out of focus and you need to be looking at it from a certain angle for the 3D effect to work. Granted, you can slide the 3D on and off, but whats the point in spending all that cash on a "3DS" and not use it in 3D.

 

Waste of money imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stepping slightly away from the main subject of eye damage watching 3D....

 

Do many of you think that 3D has much of a future?

 

Having watched Avatar at the cinema, then buying it on Blu-Ray, I felt that the 3D made no difference in the experience of the film (and yes I can see the 3D)

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my tech and follow all the latest big things but I'm really not sold on the idea as yet, also as a person that wears glasses, I do find it irritating wearing those bloody 3D glasses over the top of them

:cool::haha:

 

Once these 3D TV's don't need the glasses then perhaps it "maybe" stepping in the right direction but.. are we then going to have the problems that the 3DS is having - Warnings for younger viewers / can't sit at an angle / regular breaks from viewing.....

All this then steps back to the main subject again :rolleyes:

.

.

.

.

Agree with Suprab1, curious to watch playboy in 3D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never sat & watched a 3D tv but i'd be curious to watch playboy in 3D :)

 

I've never been to the cinema and watched a 3D film and I've never viewed a 3D television either. So I have no idea if they're good to watch or cause headaches. But porn in 3D? That I would watch :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suffer headaches, but it can be hard work on the eyes after a while. I will only watch tv in 3G for a couple of hours, and 1 hour on games, then have a long break. We watched toy story in 3G the other night, that looks amazing. Football is also much improved IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you class as "bad for you". If you have a lazy eye as AJI was adhering to then 3D vision is reduced or non existent if suppression of a weak eye is involved. I'm not sure I agree with the statements in the article, i'm not sure if the message is being lost in the quotations but the accommodation and vergence stuff is a bit off. At distance, eyes are generally straight (there can be a slight convergent deviation which is called an esophoria) or a slight divergent deviation called an exophoria and others the more rare vertical deviations. The binocular fusion system controls this using eye muscles and this stops any issues. If some people have larger deviations then it's more prone to strain and breaking which is why some people have prisms. So vergence wise, if the eyes are working properly, the vergence for looking at a distant target should be insignificant. As 3D object appear to come out from the screen, then the eyes might converge slightly but this tends to be more within half a metre as you could for reading - eyes point inwards which is convergence again. The whole world is 3D though so you could argue that this applies to everything.

The accommodation side of it is strange too - at distance, unless you're longsighted, then the eyes won't be accommodating. They will only do that when targets come closer and will do that while linked with convergence, that's if you're following them close to you. Nothing different from whether you were playing football and you were looking at the ball coming at your head.

The issues with 3D that i've heard is then objects appear artificially 3D and are off the primary axis of gaze but this could just cause headaches. I'm not keen on 3D stuff as it always looks slightly blurred to me and I associate that with the off axis and motion side of it. I've seen it referred to as a "health risk" but i don't know if I'd go that far, if your binocular fusion system is slightly weak then it'll just be hard to watch and make your eyes tired. That's what I've picked up anyway :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it a few years and you won't be able to buy a 3D tv from anywhere but the local free-ads.

 

Bit of an odd thing to say. You could say the same for almost any TV though.

 

TBH if you're looking to buy a pretty well specc'd TV at the moment, you might as well buy one with 3D (alot of the higher spec models only come with 3D now)

The thing you should really be looking for in a telly these days is LED. A good one puts everything else to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LED lit LCD you mean?

 

IMO plasma is still the best compromise. LCDs in big screens look terrible with SD material.

 

nope actual led tv's not backlit...they really do put anything else to shame on the market at the moment but not cheap at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope actual led tv's not backlit...they really do put anything else to shame on the market at the moment but not cheap at all

 

All LED TV's are still just LCD, but a fancy backlight. Unless you're on about OLED, which isn't really available yet apart from that Sony 11" one I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.