or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › The Physiology of 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Physiology of 3D - Page 2  

post #31 of 194

I have. Convergence is needed to assure that near-focused objects fall on congruent parts of the retina. No commercial theater places the screen that close. If there is strain experienced, it is likely due to the lack of convergence during the perception of a seemingly near object which is not really near.
post #32 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Many here are missing the basics about what one of the problems is.

The offset between the images in a 3D image makes the eyes cross slightly, which tells the eyes about how far away the image should be. When the eyes try to focus at that distance, they can't get a sharp image, because the image is really on the projection screen or TV screen, not where the eyes "think" it is. The eyes have to change what they have been taught do, and this can cause eye strain.

How bad is this problem? Nobody knows. "Adaptation" doesn't work here because you don't watch "3D" TV/movies and wear 3D glasses all the time.

Can young children watching "too much" 3D give themselves long-lasting problems? Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. That's the problem. It may not turn out to be a problem at all, but you can't assume one way or the other unless you test. This isn't about lawyers ... yet!

Remember when smoking was "healthy"?

We did learn that TVs were dangerous, and steps were taken to reduce x-ray emissions. If we just assumed that nothing was wrong and didn't test, there could have been lots of problems.

For laughs, hypothesize this potential damage for us...

This is ridiculous. Using the smoking analogy is dumbfounding: comparing the inhaling of carcinogens into your lungs over many decades. These are chemical compounds. Physical irritants. Versus casual, passive viewing?? Where is intelligence with these concerning points?
post #33 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

For laughs, hypothesize this potential damage for us...

This is ridiculous. Using the smoking analogy is dumbfounding: comparing the inhaling of carcinogens into your lungs over many decades. These are chemical compounds. Physical irritants. Versus casual, passive viewing?? Where is intelligence with these concerning points?

Sure. People who do not understand the physiology are too easily misled and alarmed. Despite reports of headache and discomfort, there is really nothing to suggest any damage.
post #34 of 194
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

What is your hypothesis? This is passive viewing. What very short term passive stimulus could possibly cause damage?

Though not a physician, my background is in physiology and neuroscience.

Considering your stated background, I find it unusual that you see no need to consider or test any hypothesis. Your mind is made up. Can you offer any proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

For laughs, hypothesize this potential damage for us...

This is ridiculous. Using the smoking analogy is dumbfounding: comparing the inhaling of carcinogens into your lungs over many decades. These are chemical compounds. Physical irritants. Versus casual, passive viewing?? Where is intelligence with these concerning points?

I have no interest in amusing you.

Consider the TV viewing example I offered. Passive viewing of TVs was casual, passive, and harmful.

Also, do you really think that people 50 years ago knew that cigarettes were harmful?
post #35 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

What is your hypothesis? This is passive viewing. What very short term passive stimulus could possibly cause damage?

Though not a physician, my background is in physiology and neuroscience.

Likely the content is more damaging!

Absolutely ! This thread is a joke. I'm laughing ,at least in that, it isn't a waste.

Art
post #36 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Considering your stated background, I find it unusual that you see no need to consider or test any hypothesis. Your mind is made up. Can you offer any proof?


I have no interest in amusing you.

Consider the TV viewing example I offered. Passive viewing of TVs was casual, passive, and harmful.

Also, do you really think that people 50 years ago knew that cigarettes were harmful?

Let's get off the smoking analogy. It is a loser in this context.

But since you completely dodged my question as to what the potential hazardous, long term effects are from casually watching 3-D movies, please tell me how TV is harmful? We know it makes you stupid but what is the harm you're eluding to??

I've been watching TV for 40 years. Tell me the harm of it all... Is it why I only grew to 5'9", why I lost my freckles or was it the source of my HT addiction?

(you have to be joking)
post #37 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

We know it makes you stupid but what is the harm you're eluding to??

You mean, other than the harm to my wallet to keep constantly keeping up with all this new tech?
post #38 of 194
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Let's get off the smoking analogy. It is a loser in this context.

Your opinion, again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

But since you completely dodged my question as to what the potential hazardous, long term effects are from casually watching 3-D movies, please tell me how TV is harmful? We know it makes you stupid but what is the harm you're eluding to??

I know you read my original post. I asked questions. The answers are not known, except in your mind's eye. Similar questions were asked at a large gathering of TV engineers and manufacturers (and more than a few researchers) and there weren't any solid answers. If you are planning to unleash the "next big thing" in media (not just TV) and it has already prompted concerns about eye strain, wouldn't you want to find out why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I've been watching TV for 40 years. Tell me the harm of it all... Is it why I only grew to 5'9", why I lost my freckles or was it the source of my HT addiction?

(you have to be joking)

Perhaps you don't realize that you shouldn't base conclusions on just one data point. And it's not good practice to use yourself as a justification for anything,
post #39 of 194
Our eyes have been switching back and forth between 2-D and 3-D ever since 2-D surfaces were used for writing/pictures and, since the "discovery" of perspective in painting/drawing, between 2-D representations of 3-D things and "real" 3-D things. When we watch movies on a screen we switch back and forth between a 2-D screen and (usually) 3D popcorn and drinks or the remote control (if the movie sucks).

Sure, there are going to be folks for whom the convergence accommodation thing will be somewhat problematic, but if it were a big deal for most folks, we'd have seen some evidence of its ugly menace already, don't you think? How long has "virtual reality" been around - anyone gone bonkers yet? It's wise to think about this kind of thing but it's been around long enough that we don't need to be alarmist, just sensible.
post #40 of 194
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJSJones View Post

Our eyes have been switching back and forth between 2-D and 3-D ever since 2-D surfaces were used for writing/pictures and, since the "discovery" of perspective in painting/drawing, between 2-D representations of 3-D things and "real" 3-D things. When we watch movies on a screen we switch back and forth between a 2-D screen and (usually) 3D popcorn and drinks or the remote control (if the movie sucks).

There is no vergence/accomodation problem watching a 2D picture in the real world. I imagine that is because there is no fooling the viewer that the picture is real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJSJones View Post

Sure, there are going to be folks for whom the convergence accommodation thing will be somewhat problematic, but if it were a big deal for most folks, we'd have seen some evidence of its ugly menace already, don't you think? How long has "virtual reality" been around - anyone gone bonkers yet? It's wise to think about this kind of thing but it's been around long enough that we don't need to be alarmist, just sensible.

There have been some negative reports about 3D when wearing "virtual reality" goggles. Now, you might expect that, but wearing goggles is a lot different than TV, which is also different than watching 3D in a movie theater. Still, it should suggest that you need to be sure before you bet the farm on 3D as being the future of TV.

For another opinion, try this: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2820271.htm
post #41 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

For another opinion, try this: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2820271.htm

Yes, opinions are all we have, some more informed than others. Nonetheless, I have yet to see any real findings or data.
post #42 of 194
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Yes, opinions are all we have, some more informed than others. Nonetheless, I have yet to see any real findings or data.

Which is why I posed the questions the way I did. The industry needs some real, researched answers, not just opinions/guesses.
post #43 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Which is why I posed the questions the way I did. The industry needs some real, researched answers, not just opinions/guesses.

Have you seen The Jerk?

Your premise seems like it has been borrowed from somewhere...
post #44 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

Did anyone notice how people who viewed the 3D demos at CES and at the Panasonic truck tour said that after a while they removed the glasses as they were fatigued and felt some eye strain?

Also, are the different display manufacturers using essentially the same tech or are they enough different to merit closer inspection?

I'm curious what does cause some people problems with 3D? I know the old style affected me quite bad but was told the new way shouldn't but have seen colleagues at work suffer from it also. I've yet to see "new" 3D.
post #45 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Which is why I posed the questions the way I did. The industry needs some real, researched answers, not just opinions/guesses.

How are they going to get that data?

Stand outside theaters showing 3D movies and ask 10's of thousands of people what their 3D experience was like? You would need 100's of people to do that.

Who would pay for that?

They already know that certain people experience issues with 3D due to physical differences in their eyes. Some people can't see 3D using glasses yet they see fine normally.

Whatever conclusion they cme up with would be no better than an educated guess IMO. And that is where we are today.
post #46 of 194
I think a measure of caution probably isn't a bad idea especially for young children until more is known about the long term effects. Someone needs to figure out how to strap 3D glasses on a bunch of baby mice and then figure out how to test if there are any undesirable consequences.
post #47 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I'm curious what does cause some people problems with 3D? I know the old style affected me quite bad but was told the new way shouldn't but have seen colleagues at work suffer from it also. I've yet to see "new" 3D.

http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html

Spend the $14 - as an experiment - and next weekend - go see Alice In Wonderland in 3D. You can easily afford $14.
post #48 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

How are they going to get that data?

Stand outside theaters showing 3D movies and ask 10's of thousands of people what their 3D experience was like? You would need 100's of people to do that.

I should hope that they will be researching the impact when viewing 3D TV. And I would hope that the impact of viewing environment would also be in this research.
post #49 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I'm curious what does cause some people problems with 3D? I know the old style affected me quite bad but was told the new way shouldn't but have seen colleagues at work suffer from it also. I've yet to see "new" 3D.

How to See Avatar 3-D -- It Takes Two Eyes to Tango!

http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html

Spend the $14 - as an experiment - and next weekend - go see Alice In Wonderland in 3D. You can easily afford $14.
post #50 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

I should hope that they will be researching the impact when viewing 3D TV.

Who is going to pay for it?
post #51 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Who is going to pay for it?

Whoever will be liable for it. Those who are liable will for the most part be those that make the most money from it.

The insurers of the liable would probably be wise to request it.

Of course, you could argue that if any harmful effects occur, it will be years before they are proven and the money made would more than cover the liability. However, that's a pretty sinister strategy.
post #52 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

How to See Avatar 3-D -- It Takes Two Eyes to Tango!

http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html

Spend the $14 - as an experiment - and next weekend - go see Alice In Wonderland in 3D. You can easily afford $14.

Might give it a go my daughter has been asking to see it so it's a good exscuse to go.
post #53 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

Whoever will be liable for it. Those who are liable will for the most part be those that make the most money from it.

The insurers of the liable would probably be wise to request it.

Of course, you could argue that if any harmful effects occur, it will be years before they are proven and the money made would more than cover the liability. However, that's a pretty sinister strategy.

3D Digital Cinema has been around since 2005 (Chicken Little).

IMAX 3D for decades.

Has anyone sued the theater/studio/projector manufacturer for a problem they experienced watching 3D?
post #54 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I'm curious what does cause some people problems with 3D? I know the old style affected me quite bad but was told the new way shouldn't but have seen colleagues at work suffer from it also. I've yet to see "new" 3D.

I am one who disliked both the Panasonic demo (120Hz?) and RealD (144Hz or 24Hz x 3 to each eye) as both to me had tremendous flicker, caused headaches, and made me sick. On the other hand I saw Avatar in Digital Imax 3D (24Hz to both eyes continuously) and suffered no ill effects.
post #55 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokeySmoke View Post

I am one who disliked both the Panasonic demo (120Hz?) and RealD (144Hz or 24Hz x 3 to each eye) as both to me had tremendous flicker, caused headaches, and made me sick. On the other hand I saw Avatar in Digital Imax 3D (24Hz to both eyes continuously) and suffered no ill effects.

Would you please tell me what "24Hz to both eyes continuously" means.

I believe you are under a misconception of the frame rate that Digital IMAX uses. There are two Christie DLP Digital projectors using the circular polarization method (with a silver screen) in a Digital IMAX theater.

RealD also uses the circular polarization method and a silver screen only they use a single projector.
post #56 of 194
Looking at displays that have 3D without the need of the glasses(on the net) where that's where I'm sold. I'll be waiting for a projector that hopefully can do that.
post #57 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

3D Digital Cinema has been around since 2005 (Chicken Little).

IMAX 3D for decades.

Has anyone sued the theater/studio/projector manufacturer for a problem they experienced watching 3D?


We're not talking about watching one movie per month here. I suspect 3Dtv may not ever take hold, but if it does you'd need to consider the possibility of small children watching 3-4 hours per day.
post #58 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Which is why I posed the questions the way I did. The industry needs some real, researched answers, not just opinions/guesses.

For what reason, seriously ? 3D imaging with glasses has been used in engineering for a very very long time. It has been and is used in aerospace, automotive and even in dentistry now without issues.

Of course, one could argue that everything should be researched to death and found 100% safe before we are allowed to use it. That should set it back nicely by at least a decade.

Art
post #59 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

We're not talking about watching one movie per month here. I suspect 3Dtv may not ever take hold, but if it does you'd need to consider the possibility of small children watching 3-4 hours per day.

Why would one not be concerned with small children watching ANYTHING 3-4 hours per day?
post #60 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

Why would one not be concerned with small children watching ANYTHING 3-4 hours per day?

Most parents could care less about their kids' viewing habits. Likely, 3-4 h per day is low on average. 3-D 'effects' are the smallest of bad outcomes with such viewing habits. Also of you think it is deliterious despite any proof, then don't buy it. But don't propagandize calamatlis effects. It looks bad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › The Physiology of 3D