Tech Crunch wrote:After experimenting on 24 adults, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley has determined that viewing content on a stereo 3D display hurts your eyes and your brain. The scientific term is “vergence-accomodation,” which means that the eye must constantly adjust to both the distance of the physical screen and that of the 3D content. This can supposedly cause visual discomfort, fatigue, and headaches, which I had thought were just a part of life but apparently there’s a scapegoat: 3D technology.
In his Journal of Vision article, The Zone of Comfort: Predicting Visual Discomfort with Stereo Displays, author Martin S. Banks (also professor of optometry and vision science) writes, “When watching stereo 3D displays, the eyes must focus — that is, accommodate — to the distance of the screen because that’s where the light comes from. At the same time, the eyes must converge to the distance of the stereo content, which may be in front of or behind the screen.”
I haven't noticed 3D movies affect me, but I have seen two examples of this. Back in Durban, the one software developer I worked with was epileptic, and 3D would cause him to go into a seizure. DJT's SO has problems with 3D as well (although not as severe).
must say... don't think i have noticed any of those problems.... but the only major problem that i have with 3D is that it's a bit difficult watching those movies with 2 pairs of glasses on...
"This eBook is displayed using 100% recycled electrons."
My eyes take strain with 3D movies. Eyes start hurting while watching. Sometimes I take a bit of a breather and take the glasses off for a few minutes and enjoy the blurriness.
However, I'd always chose 2D over 3D because:
* It's more brighter
* It's cheaper
* No annoying glasses
* My eyes don't hurt
I hate 3D and have not watched a number of movies I really wanted to see because they were only available in 3D at nearby cinemas. It doesn't surprise me at all that it hurts your eyes, although I would potentially dispute the second part of the claim. I'd think that your brain must have been hurt before you decided to go watch 3D.
natural 3D is different from the gimmick 3D moviemakers expect us to watch. Real life resolution is also infinite as opposed to HD which is 1920 x 1080 even in 3D (but ive been reading reports that 3D is not true HD either)
besides what moviemakers now claim to be 3D is actually 2d images just set further away from each other in a psuedo 3d - its just like a form of super edge enhancement but you still only discern width and height and items in 2d with some deeper or more forward than others - but you still cannot notice much depth perception in each item so it doesnt look realistically 3 dimensional - to me it looks like a person is cardboard thin anyway even though he seems to pop out from the screen - so it can seem very artificial and they wont get this right as the technology stands - the only thing that will sort that out is to have holographic imaging - and that wont really translate onto a screen so we are far away from realistic 3D entertainment
3D can be damaging to your eyesight as explained at many places on the internet - and even read the small print in the owners manual of your 3D screen - the guys who sell you the screen tell you that it could be harmful to you and you watch at your own risk
heres a link you probably have not seen before for a small sample of the info you will find elsewhere
i have nothing against 3D and i quite like the experience - it doesnt affect me adversely but to be honest i dont want to get into it because i really feel that the technology is stillborn ie its about as useful as laserdisc - the lack of content tells you this - and already 3D without glasses is making its presence known about as an example on the portable nintendo Wii's as well as PC monitors and apparently LG have a 3d without glasses monitor ready for sale
so yeah 3D that you see with glasses is on its way out already and soon you wont get much content for it at all because everyone is going to be having an orgasm for the new "latest and greatest" thing since grated cheese and sliced bread ie 3D with no glasses required at all. so im saving money by not being an early adopter of useless technology (its nice but will never ever become mainstream adopted) and waiting till the real thing hits and then when that technology stabilizes enough to become affordable to the masses i will then upgrade to it ..... as it right now 3D is not for me because i dont have the content for it and 20 to 30 movies available out of which i will only want 5 is not enough for me to lose out by selling what i have to upgrade to something thats twice the price of what i already have ..... so yeah no rush - im still enjoying HD with proper surround sound to the fullest and normal blu-rays are still a thing of beauty as long as your system can play it how the director intended
Asus Z68-V Pro/Gen3, i5-3570k, 16GB Kingston Hyperx DDR3-1600, Gigabyte Radeon HD6970 OC graphics card, Corsair H100 liquid cpu cooling, Lite-on Blu-ray burner, Western Digital Raptor X HDD, Gigabyte Sumo 5115 modded case, Samsung P2770 monitor
KatrynKat wrote: it's a bit difficult watching those movies with 2 pairs of glasses on...
Not really, just push your regular pair all the way up your nose and put the 3D glasses in front. How difficult is that?
I've watched about 20 hours of 3D movies since getting my 3D TV and it hasn't hurt me at all. Saturday afternoon I watched almost 4 hours in one sitting with no ill effects. Although my mother gets a headache after a while, as do some others I know so it would appear to effect people differently...
No surprise epileptics cant watch it. They get seizures watching episodes of Pokemon.... although most sane people should get seizures watching that anyway.
Well current active 3D could be bad for you on the basis that every 2nd frame is blocked from your sight so the effect on your eye might just be bad. Passive 3D that uses polarized glasses might be better as it is a constant effect. See my thread here for passive vs active 3d http://forums.pcformat.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=39959
It is an eye trickery. Until we get holographic tech that actually displays either depth layers or actual depth. What I did not mention in that thread is I've played on a 3DS. Glassless 3D atm is only doable if your dead center on the sweet spot. Move a few degrees and the 3D is gone. My 950D supports 2D to 3D. It is not perfect. It can easily get the depth wrong and you will always have a the trapizoid effect that the screen gets smaller from bottom to the top. AMD card support sequencial 3d that renders full frames and displays them 1-2-1-2 with no rez down scaling.
There was an article that said 10% of all people cant see this fake 3D. I am very interested in the developement of the technology. But how long might it be before its simply decided that the tech is just to elaborate to use and just stick with our plain flat panels for moving pictures.
3D mostly annoys me. I can't focus properly and it's slightly unbalanced. I noticed during the latest Happy Potter movie that 3D can't cope with bright flashes that well. The single best thing to happen to TVs lately is the 600hz refresh rate. Now that does make a huge difference and is worth the cost.
I no longer think of myself as Atheist however I reject religion as a concept where you must do x because someone says so. May contain nuts.
JollyJamma wrote:3D mostly annoys me. I can't focus properly and it's slightly unbalanced. I noticed during the latest Happy Potter movie that 3D can't cope with bright flashes that well. The single best thing to happen to TVs lately is the 600hz refresh rate. Now that does make a huge difference and is worth the cost.
Sadly that is post-rendered refresh. I've played Mass Effect 2 on ps3 with a 200 motion clear rate on. The downside to this is your source remains 60hz, everything else is rendered faster on the screen and feels very out of place. When your game frame rate falls then your entire frame rate falls. When it runs at a nice pace your entire experience is smooth once again. But nothing is better than actually having that 120hz or more input rate for a direct on screen display. I'd rather have 24fps (bluray is 24hz btw) that is refreshed at 120hz than 24hz fake refreshed at 200hz and messing up the actual motion of the movie or game.
naughty wrote:
besides what moviemakers now claim to be 3D is actually 2d images just set further away from each other in a psuedo 3d - its just like a form of super edge enhancement but you still only discern width and height and items in 2d with some deeper or more forward than others - but you still cannot notice much depth perception in each item so it doesnt look realistically 3 dimensional - to me it looks like a person is cardboard thin anyway even though he seems to pop out from the screen - so it can seem very artificial and they wont get this right as the technology stands - the only thing that will sort that out is to have holographic imaging - and that wont really translate onto a screen so we are far away from realistic 3D entertainment
Thor proved this. Quite a few times I thought I was looking at cardboard cutouts because the characters had no substance on the sides if that makes any sense? I have experienced some discomfort with 3D movies as well and as such I refuse to watch them.
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
My brother is a animator for a SA animation company and his previous film was remade into 3D (Jock of the bushvelt was first because the bastards were dragging bottom). I've had a look at his new project in 3D and it looks like the best 3D I've seen yet in any film.
Shameless advertising time
And here is a 3D promo aswell. Watch if you have a 3D TV or monitor I suppose
But like you said Anak it is like a cardboard cutout. They way they are doing it is it adds a small amount of depth that gives the feeling that some object is infront of another one.
Well to those that have a problem with 3D when everyone else wants to go watch a 3D movie just buy 2 glasses and swap the left and right lenses so you have L-L and R-R glasses. You will be able to see in 2D But it might have the flicker problem.
My problem is that my right eye is perfect no hassles at all. My left eye is slightly smaller and this makes me short sighted in that eye. Try to watch a 3d film with the different perceptions and it causes you to get all buggered up...
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
Well then you will miss out on the developing stage and maybe get to see it once the tech has been perfected. I find watching 3D films uncomfortable because I am wearing glasses for everything more than 30cm away and when watching anything on a screen. But is this a problem when you are logging thru those blue and red glasses at a book aswell or when you stare at those 3d posters with the hidden images?
To answer the side question. Red & Blue glasses had no effect on me except for making me light headed. As for the hidden images, I could never find them. No matter how hard I tried I could not see those damned images. Just my luck...
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
Seriously though, I can understand that people might develop tired eyes, nausea and headaches, but what do they mean by "hurts your eyes and your brain"? That's not exactly very specific, is it? Do they just mean people can develop tired eyes, nausea and headaches, or do they mean there can be permanent damage?
Because if it is the former, then if you don't get these symptoms, why worry about it? My parents used to tell me not to sit so close to the TV, because I would damage my eyes and also not to read in low light conditions for the same reason, but I know now it is simply not true. Your eyes can get tired and start burning or whatever, but the next day you'll be as good as new.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Intel i5 2500; AsRock Z77 Extreme 4; Asus GTX580; 4x 2GB DDR3 1333; Intel 520 240GB SSD + 2x WD 3TB + 2TB Samsung; Samsung 22X DVD/RW; 23" LG W2343T-PF; Huntkey 700W
When we watched Transformers in 3D, I could feel my eyes take some strain and also took the glasses off for a while just to alleviate the discomfort a bit. The glasses is also very uncomfy to wear for a long period.
Although I don't think 3D movies will have lasting side affects leading to vision and brain problems, I think it all boils down to the individual. I still prefer 2D movies, but will go watch a good animation movie in 3D purely because I think 3D effects are better generated with animation and you can get more of a 3D feel with them.
Friend of mine that watched the Transformers with us (first 3D movie for him) also commented on how much more vivid and real the 3D effects were on the 3D adds that was coincidently animated.
Something I hope does not happen is that film makers start to focus more on the visuals and then forget to add a good story to the film as well. I doubt they would have ever made say "Million Dollar Baby" in 3D.
CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 555 (OC'ed to 3.8Ghz) CPU Cooler: CM Hyper TX3 P/P GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD5850 Motherboard: Asus M4A785T-M Memory: 4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 Case: Zalman Z7 Display: Samsung Syncmaster 2243BWX
