The Physiology of 3D - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 05:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
All they need to do is develop 3D displays that display 3D more like what we see in real life so that there would be much less chance of people getting eye problems and it would be more realistic. ie. displays with real 3d depth so the eyes would focus on points in 3d more like they do normally.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 06:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

+1.

Spend the research $$ on a cure for cancer... What a waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

But the preponderance of evidence is on the side of it being safe while there is little or no evidence that it it is not. To take the position that it must be unsafe therefore smacks of irrational sensationalism.

The burden of proof is on you !

Art

Hmm...Risking permanent harm to thousands or even millions of children for the sake of entertainment and profit. I'd argue that would be a waste.

Airliners started out with square windows until someone figured out that they caused fatigue cracks at the corners leading to catastrophic in-flight structural failure.

The burden of proof (responsibility really) is actually on anyone and everyone with a conscience. I won't lose any sleep AT ALL if you guys have to miss out on 3Dtv for a little while just because I and others were being cautious. H
cpcat is offline  
post #93 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 06:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'm certainly glad that we don't use your model to help us move foward in science or we would be in serious trouble.
Art

I know I said I wouldn't respond to this but it's just so ridiculous as to be funny.

Art, first of all this isn't science we are talking about it's ENTERTAINMENT. Couch potatoes lounging eating chips wearing 3D glasses. You get the idea. Taking risks from a scientific perspective is all about risk/benefit. There is basically ZERO benefit (from a scientific perspective) to 3Dtv. Considering there certainly are risks (however small or theoretical) i.e. to immature visual pathways in children, then the risk/benefit approaches infinity.

Without somehow mitigating the risk, then from a strictly scientific perspective there should be NO WAY it will happen. Unfortunately, scientists aren't making the decisions.
cpcat is offline  
post #94 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:01 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

I know I said I wouldn't respond to this but it's just so ridiculous as to be funny.

Art, first of all this isn't science we are talking about it's ENTERTAINMENT. Couch potatoes lounging eating chips wearing 3D glasses. You get the idea. Taking risks from a scientific perspective is all about risk/benefit. There is basically ZERO benefit (from a scientific perspective) to 3Dtv. Considering there certainly are risks (however small or theoretical) i.e. to immature visual pathways in children, then the risk/benefit approaches infinity.

Without somehow mitigating the risk, then from a strictly scientific perspective there should be NO WAY it will happen. Unfortunately, scientists aren't making the decisions.

The funny part is you are the one making the claims of harm with absolutely nothing to stand on. If you are going to continue to spew effluent then put your money where your mouth is. The use of the 3D technology we are discussing has been around in industry and in entertainment for a very long time. You continue to simply state that because you personally feel that it needs to be researched better before we use it at home (while saying it isn't science by the way) without anything more than your claims is absurd.

The whole idea that we should do more research isn't invalid but the sky is falling tact is not based on logic, background or science. Despite the fact that it is entertainment ,to conclude anything, you need research , science based, not faith based as you obviously would prefer.

As I said ,I have evidence it is safe,where is yours that it is not ?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #95 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:11 AM
Member
 
MarqueeMarc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Western PA
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Art, first of all this isn't science we are talking about it's ENTERTAINMENT. Couch potatoes lounging eating chips wearing 3D glasses. You get the idea. Taking risks from a scientific perspective is all about risk/benefit. There is basically ZERO benefit (from a scientific perspective) to 3Dtv. Considering there certainly are risks (however small or theoretical) i.e. to immature visual pathways in children, then the risk/benefit approaches infinity.

This is halarious. Is this how you run your decision making process day to day? To try to hold everything to this sort of standard would put us back into the stone age overnight.

I agree, where is your evidence of even theoretical harm,the evidence of safety is strong ?


Marc
MarqueeMarc is offline  
post #96 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:14 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Hmm...Risking permanent harm to thousands or even millions of children for the sake of entertainment and profit. I'd argue that would be a waste.

Wow !

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #97 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Wow !

Art

You think it would be okay or funny if millions of consumers developed serious eye problems from watching 3D TVs?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #98 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The funny part is you are the one making the claims of harm with absolutely nothing to stand on. If you are going to continue to spew effluent then put your money where your mouth is. The use of the 3D technology we are discussing has been around in industry and in entertainment for a very long time. You continue to simply state that because you personally feel that it needs to be researched better before we use it at home (while saying it isn't science by the way) without anything more than your claims is absurd.

The whole idea that we should do more research isn't invalid but the sky is falling tact is not based on logic, background or science. Despite the fact that it is entertainment ,to conclude anything you need research , science based, not faith based as you obviously would prefer.

As I said ,I have evidence it is safe,where is yours that it is not ?

I'm not "spewing" anything other than common sense.

Saying there is "evidence" that this is safe in the context we are discussing (equating small exposures on an hours per month scale to likely exposures of hours per day) is simply incorrect. If you can't see that then all I can say is I'm sure others can.

As both a physician and parent, I would recommend a healthy measure of caution when deciding how much exposure to allow for children to this technology. I'd also recommend asking the advice and opinion of your family physician or pediatrician, ophthalmologist and/or optometrist. This places little burden on anyone at worst and at best might prevent harm for many.
cpcat is offline  
post #99 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:48 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

I'm not "spewing" anything other than common sense.

Saying there is "evidence" that this is safe in the context we are discussing (equating small exposures on an hours per month scale to likely exposures of hours per day) is simply incorrect. If you can't see that then all I can say is I'm sure others can.

As both a physician and parent, I would recommend a healthy measure of caution when deciding how much
exposure to allow for children to this technology. I'd also recommend asking the advice and opinion of your family physician or pediatrician, ophthalmologist and/or optometrist. This places little burden on anyone at worst and at best might prevent harm for many.

I will ask my wifes optometrist when I see him next.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #100 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 07:59 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Again, I ask - how are young children going to experience this new tech called S3D? None of the CEM's are making ASG's that are designed to fit a childs head and face. They are ALL adult sized.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #101 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 08:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,667
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

With so many companies going "all-in" on 3D, has anyone bothered to address the physiological aspects of watching 3D on a screen? When watching 3D on a screen the brain and eyes give conflicting signals that often result in eye strain. And many of the 3D films are targeted for children. What are the effects of 3D on a developing visual system?

Why focus on the negative effects only, how about the discussion of the positive efffects unique to 3-D?

Like activating previously unused areas of the brain related to memory imprint.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #102 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 08:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Airliners started out with square windows until someone figured out that they caused fatigue cracks at the corners leading to catastrophic in-flight structural failure.

Do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is that I'm pretty sure early airliners actually had round windows - like ship portals, mostly to play off the name: Airliners. Newer double-paned laminated windows are actually rectangles with rounded corners, meaning they've gotten more "square".

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Art, first of all this isn't science we are talking about it's ENTERTAINMENT. Couch potatoes lounging eating chips wearing 3D glasses. You get the idea.

I'd say the couch potato eating chips is more likely to have heart problems than issues from 3D TV.

Quote:


Considering there certainly are risks (however small or theoretical) i.e. to immature visual pathways in children, then the risk/benefit approaches infinity.

Without somehow mitigating the risk, then from a strictly scientific perspective there should be NO WAY it will happen. Unfortunately, scientists aren't making the decisions.

What risk?

Show me a documented case where anyone has suffered any permanent harm? Any "issues" people have encountered normally don't happen when the glasses are on (other than for those prone to motion sickness, which can happen in a moving car, not just with 3D) and have worn off shortly after removing the glasses. The effect some people experience is the transition of vision from the imaging device to reality. Some adapt easier than others, but there has yet to be one single reported case of anyone feeling any negative effects for any major length of time after viewing the content. For some, it takes seconds, for others it's minutes. For a few, it's as much as an hour.

However, everyone recovers and the amount of exposure doesn't seem to be the cause, since demos are not the same length and people stick with them for different amounts of time - yet the number of those reporting any artifacts is pretty consistent at these events.

I'll bet if you took a sample of people on a drive somewhere, roughly the same number of people would get car sick on a 5 minute drive verses a day trip somewhere.

The fact is, the proof it isn't dangerous long term is in the lack of any reported cases of anyone feeling effects beyond a short visual recovery period following viewing content.

Show me your proof that there is a danger. Otherwise, you're simply an alarmist.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #103 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 08:44 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is that I'm pretty sure early airliners actually had round windows - like ship portals, mostly to play off the name: Airliners. Newer double-paned laminated windows are actually rectangles with rounded corners, meaning they've gotten more "square".

He was referring to this:

de Havilland Comet

Go to: Comet disasters of 1954

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

Still trying to figure out what airplane design has to do with eye/brain vision issues
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #104 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is that I'm pretty sure early airliners actually had round windows - like ship portals, mostly to play off the name: Airliners. Newer double-paned laminated windows are actually rectangles with rounded corners, meaning they've gotten more "square".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I'd say the couch potato eating chips is more likely to have heart problems than issues from 3D TV.

Agree, but that wasn't the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

What risk?

Developing brains are "plastic" in that synapses and pathways are effected by external stimuli. Similar mechanisms also apply to extraocular muscles as well as to the muscles of accomodation.

Amblyopia, extremely common in children, illustrates aspects of all three mechanisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia

So, there would seem to be a plausible mechanism to produce effects on the developing visual system from 3D tv. It likely depends simply on the dose/exposure as to what the effects would be. 24 hour/day exposure over an extended period of time would almost certainly have a profound effect (?positive but most likely negative). Zero hours/day would have no effect. The unanswered question is what is the safe threshold and "safe" would need to mean for virtually 100 percent safety IMO.

It's been mentioned that 3D tv could even be therapeutic. I would agree. But, as with most therapeutic intervention, as a therapy it would need to be prescribed, not indiscriminately dispensed, to prevent over (or under) exposure.
cpcat is offline  
post #105 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 10:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


Still trying to figure out what airplane design has to do with eye/brain vision issues

An example of proof of harm coming after the harm occurs. I considered cigarette smoking but it seemed a tired example.
cpcat is offline  
post #106 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 10:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

AFAIK, all the active shutter glasses are designed to fit an adult head. They will just fall off a childs head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Again, I ask - how are young children going to experience this new tech called S3D? None of the CEM's are making ASG's that are designed to fit a childs head and face. They are ALL adult sized.

At first I thought you were making a joke, but it seems that you are serious. Is this how you expect to "child proof" 3-D?
hphase is offline  
post #107 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Why focus on the negative effects only, how about the discussion of the positive efffects unique to 3-D?

Like activating previously unused areas of the brain related to memory imprint.

Oh boy... The snake oil salesmen have arrived.
hphase is offline  
post #108 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 11:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

A better example would be if you worked in a club where you sat under a red light while checking ID's at the door. At first, the red light is going to bother you and your vision will be off when you walk out into regular light. However, as time goes by, you'll get used to the effect and it won't bother you.

No, it's a bad example. Chromatic adaption is something our brains do all the time, and the eye doesn't have to do anything differently. It's why a white shirt looks white indoors and outside. If you work in "NetworkTV" you should know this. That's why cameras have different color correction filters, but our eyes don't. We've evolved to sort out what color something looks like, probably so we could recognize a tiger or other predator on either a sunny day or a cloudy day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

It's like people who work in an environment with continuous noise or those who blow things up or shoot guns often.

The first few times you walk into work in the noisy location, it will bother you, but you get used to it and simply stop paying any attention to it. Likewise, after you set off a few charges or blast a few paper targets, you stop flinching when it happens.

We adapt easily to things we encounter often.

Even a worse example!!!

Loud sounds can permanently damage hearing. I hope you really don't go to the shooting range without hearing protection. Professionals don't. But they didn't always know, and that's the point here. They had to learn about the ill effects from bad experiences. Many here seem to not want to learn or even ask a question.

Even audio mixers need to be aware of how loud something is if they are going to work at it all day. Sometimes your ears ring after a live concert. Eventually it might go away, but one day it will never go away...

If this is the logic you use to conclude that 3-D is safe, I think I'd ask someone else.
hphase is offline  
post #109 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Do you have any evidence that it is harmful ,any ? This has been used in plantariums,museums and theme parks for a long time (read children).
Art

And how much time do kids (or adults) spend in a museum, planetarium, or "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" at a theme park? Compare that to the time someone spends watching TV. Also, do you not realize the physiological differences that the eye experiences watching 3-D on a close-by TV as opposed to the more-or-less theatrical situations you mentioned? And spare us your ironically accurate observation that kids watch too much TV. That's not the topic of discussion here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

But the preponderance of evidence is on the side of it being safe while there is little or no evidence that it it is not. To take the position that it must be unsafe therefore smacks of irrational sensationalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

If you are going to continue to spew effluent then put your money where your mouth is.

Oooh, now we're breaking out the big words! It doesn't help your argument. I haven't seen any evidence from you other than your anecdotal opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The whole idea that we should do more research isn't invalid but the sky is falling tact is not based on logic, background or science. Despite the fact that it is entertainment ,to conclude anything, you need research , science based, not faith based as you obviously would prefer.

As I said ,I have evidence it is safe,where is yours that it is not ?

Again, what evidence? You have your opinion, based solely on what you have anecdotally observed.

No one is saying the sky is falling, but you are certain that it isn't even raining because you've only looked at sunshine.

I happen to agree with you (if you really want to do -- and listen to -- research) but it is not faith-based, as you seem to conlude. Talk about irrational sensationalism..
hphase is offline  
post #110 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 11:40 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

At first I thought you were making a joke, but it seems that you are serious. Is this how you expect to "child proof" 3-D?

Sure - if they can't wear the glasses - how are their eyes going to be potentially harmed?

You know why 6 years olds aren't involved in traffic accidents as drivers? Because they can't physically drive a car.

Why don't they put child proof caps on liquior bottles? Liquior can be dangerous to a young child.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #111 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 11:53 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

An example of proof of harm coming after the harm occurs. I considered cigarette smoking but it seemed a tired example.

Problem is - there is no proof of any permanent harm from watching 3D. Any negative effects are temporary. 3D has been around for over 50 years. Been in the home for over 10 years

Nothing more than theory and speculation. The "what if" game.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #112 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
William's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 8,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 39
The problem with endless research is it can never provide a satisfactory answer for a doubting Thomas like cpcat. You can't prove with 100% certainty that it won't harm anyone (can you prove that eating irradiated food isn't a danger in some small way?) so there is no way to reach a satisfactory conclusion. So what is the point in researching this and how can you prove a problem with no physical or circumstantial evidence to support a theoretical conclusion? Do you bring in teams of psychologists to "invent" some Freuden problem with 3D?
William is offline  
post #113 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 12:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

You think it would be okay or funny if millions of consumers developed serious eye problems from watching 3D TVs?

No except there is nothing that would lead me to believe that that would happen do you have something ?

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #114 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 12:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Saying there is "evidence" that this is safe in the context we are discussing (equating small exposures on an hours per month scale to likely exposures of hours per day) is simply incorrect. If you can't see that then all I can say is I'm sure others can.

I'm not saying it is perfectly safe never did. I do however have evidence from both long term adult exposure for many hours per day in industrial settings and with both adults and children for watching 3D films at museums,theaters planatariums etc that it is relatively safe. As I said, besides your opinion, which has essentially nothing scientific backing it ,you have nothing; you are just being an alarmist.

You are minimizing what I have ,which has a considerable base of data ,yet you have nothing,nothing !

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #115 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:03 PM
Member
 
Max Gault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

As both a physician and parent, I would recommend a healthy measure of caution when deciding how much exposure to allow for children to this technology. I'd also recommend asking the advice and opinion of your family physician or pediatrician, ophthalmologist and/or optometrist. This places little burden on anyone at worst and at best might prevent harm for many.

You are a physician and you base recommendations to your patients on your opinion that runs counter to the data ?

Ugh !

Definition of an alcoholic: Someone who drinks as much as you but you don't like them
Max Gault is offline  
post #116 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

No except there is nothing that would lead me to believe that that would happen do you have something ?

Art

http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

Quote:


A long session of 3-D viewing tends to cause an adaptive response in the oculomotor system, temporarily changing the relationship between accommodation and convergence. That is to say, audience-members may experience very mild, short-term vision impairment after a movie ends. I won't pretend there's any hard evidence that these transient effects could develop into permanent problems. But if 3-D becomes as widespread as some in the industry claim—every movie in three dimensions, for example, and television programs, too—we'll no doubt have plenty of data: Small children, their vision systems still in development, could one day be digesting five or six hours of stereo entertainment per day. There's already been one published case study, from the late-1980s, of a 5-year-old child in Japan who became permanently cross-eyed after viewing an anaglyph 3-D movie at a theater.

http://www.journalofvision.org/8/3/3...jov-8-3-33.pdf
Quote:


Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue

In that document they show a design for a 3D display that they say reduces (or prevents?) the problem. Though that is basically just a display with 3 flat planes at 3 different real distances (to show the theory), with it split so that the left eye only sees one half and the right - the other half. I'm sure they could come up with a better design - I'm not sure why they need to split it in half - I'm sure they could have a TV with 10 or more flat planes and it would give real 3d at different depths. The trouble is, a real TV like this using lots of depth would take up a lot of space. Though something more like holograms is probably the future.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #117 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Why don't they put child proof caps on liquior bottles? Liquior can be dangerous to a young child.

I guess your bizarre logic would say that the reason you don't put childproof caps on liquor bottles is because children can't lift it to pour it? Incredible...
hphase is offline  
post #118 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:27 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

I guess your bizarre logic would say that the reason you don't put childproof caps on liquor bottles is because children can't lift it to pour it? Incredible...

No ,the logic is sound, you still have to parent.

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #119 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

I guess your bizarre logic would say that the reason you don't put childproof caps on liquor bottles is because children can't lift it to pour it? Incredible...

You still haven't told me how young children are going to watch 3D in the home, let alone get affected by it. Those ASG's are big and heavy compared to the lightweight polarized ones they give away at RealD presentations.

Is it the fly in the ointment? The Elephant in the room?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #120 of 194 Old 03-06-2010, 01:37 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
^^^^^

See Art! I told you that Anaglyph 3D stuff is crap!
Lee Stewart is offline  
Closed Thread 3D Tech Talk

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off