Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 18

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

I think 3D in the home is more in the hands of our kids then it is with us. Kids today are brought up on video games and subscription TV. I still think gaming is where 3D will make the most headway for now. 3D gaming, even with glasses, will grow as our kids buy more and more 3D games. That new 3DTV that their parents have in the family room but only use with an occasional 3D BD, will get more and more 3D use from the kids gaming.
As they grow up, 3D will be something that was pretty much always there, like color TV to us boomers. They will find the ways to improve the technology for other mediums.

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Don't know if you folks are aware of it or not, but to get full 3D when watching tv or movie all you have to do is cover one eye. Within a matter of seconds the picture turns into full 3D.

There is a reason that this occurs. When you cover one eye the mind can no longer discern that it is watching a flat picture and within a matter of seconds the picture seems to be in full 3D. Try it. I know it isn't practical for any great length of time but you really will see 3D with amazing depth.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

No thanks.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

Does anyone know what the term "strabismus" means? Look it up...Coming to a (home) theater near you!!

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

And if Steve Martin could be sued over what resulted by using his invention to keep eyeglasses from sliding down the nose, imagine the scope of the class action suit against the consumer electronics industry due to what resulted from watching 3D!

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

There is a reason that this occurs. When you cover one eye the mind can no longer discern that it is watching a flat picture and within a matter of seconds the picture seems to be in full 3D.

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Don't know if you folks are aware of it or not, but to get full 3D when watching tv or movie all you have to do is cover one eye. Within a matter of seconds the picture turns into full 3D.

There is a reason that this occurs. When you cover one eye the mind can no longer discern that it is watching a flat picture and within a matter of seconds the picture seems to be in full 3D. Try it. I know it isn't practical for any great length of time but you really will see 3D with amazing depth.

Originally Posted by CPanther95

Good news for those who's only reason for not using 3D is how they look in the "goofy glasses". Put an eye patch on - what's cooler than a pirate?

Originally Posted by notabadname

Full 1080p passive glasses is the tipping point for me. Some day, glasses-free will be nice. But using $10/pair glasses on an image that is ultimately "full" resolution will be great. But glasses at over $100/pair? Not going to happen for me. I don't need to spend $1,500 in glasses to host the SuperBowl party in 3D (not to mention the battery costs). But light, shutter-free glasses when I am at a theater are absolutely no bother for me, and wouldn't be for watching a feature film at home either.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

But that is also 3D's dirty little secret. Young children's eye muscles aren't fully developed until about 3 or 4. If they watch 3D content often enough, it MAY, POSSIBLY, have an effect on their eye development, changing they way young eyes focus, and VOILA... Strabismus! Yes, I know that children that age don't play many video games, (or do they?) but why take a chance on ANY young kid? I certainly wouldn't want to experiment on mine! It can cause headaches in older people, (focusing differently) but not strabismus. Forget it....its a deal-breaker for me.

Originally Posted by RandyT2

That's not entirely true. The receptor in the eye isn't flat like a CCD, rather curved, and one eye can actually see a certain amount of depth due not only to it's structure, but due to the fact that it can control the iris and "sample" it's surroundings at different depths of field and calculate positions of things. The brain does it's best to fill in the rest, with the information it has been given. When you cover one eye and view a flat picture, it kicks the assumption part into overdrive, using only visual cues to establish depth. It cannot use it's normal mechanical tricks, because the image is flat. The mind knows this, and therefore tries to compensate for the missing information.

This is also the reason why the 3D being marketed isn't actually true 3D, rather "stereoscopy". It's more like 2.5D, as in a diorama with cut-out, flat figures at varying distances from the viewer. Each image is flat, so your eyes are presented with two flat images, and your brain has to do it's best to reconcile everything else. But the subtle information presented to your brain by your eyeballs in the natural world, is simply absent in this technology. This is another one of those big hindrances to the feeling of immersion, and the suspension of disbelief it requires.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

But that is also 3D's dirty little secret. Young children's eye muscles aren't fully developed until about 3 or 4. If they watch 3D content often enough, it MAY, POSSIBLY, have an effect on their eye development, changing they way young eyes focus, and VOILA... Strabismus! Yes, I know that children that age don't play many video games, (or do they?) but why take a chance on ANY young kid? I certainly wouldn't want to experiment on mine! It can cause headaches in older people, (focusing differently) but not strabismus. Forget it....its a deal-breaker for me.

The problem is that general media is twisting a bit the story to make it sound like stereo 3D content will damage the eyes of young children should they watch any S3D content if they are 6 years old or younger. As Nintendo continues to explain, according to specialists watching whatever stereoscopic 3D content for long periods of time (not only on their upcoming console) can affect the development of young children's vision. What they are missing however is the fact that the binocular vision is developed in children up to the age of three, again according to specialists, so after that watching stereo 3D content should not be affecting something that has already developed. On the other hand some people are saying that watching stereoscopic 3D content can even help resolve some eye disorders that small children may have such as a lazy eye (Amblyopia) and others that affect the normal binocular vision not only of children, but even some for adults as well. The problem is that since the stereo 3D technology has boomed quite fast in the last 2-3 years, there is still not a lot of research being done on the short and especially long terms effects on the normal vision - either positive or negative. So it is hard to say for sure if a 6 year old child, playing the Nintendo 3DS in 3D mode can get his vision damaged from that or not, although there shouldn't be any permanent changes to the vision after it has been fully developed at around the age of 3.

Originally Posted by RandyT2

I think the major concern has more to do with the possible cognitive ramifications. Whenever the brain is called upon to do something it doesn't naturally do most of the time, it "re-programs" itself by re-routing electrical pathways, essentially allowing it to become better at doing those things. What happens if the effect of too much stereoscopic viewing isn't one which allows one to temporarily feel more immersed in the artificial experience as a result of the new pathways, rather always amplifying the disconnect between what the eyes are seeing, and actual reality?

Of course there is also physical eyestrain as a result of the eyes trying to find the extra information the mind thinks should exist when it doesn't.

One has to wonder how much research has gone into the effects of actual long-term and repeated viewing of stereoscopic 3D, and especially the effect it has on the development of human minds, most of which occurs between birth and 20 years of age.

Originally Posted by oldvideophile

Last night in Canada the CBC televised an outside rink NHL game in 3D...Montreal and Calgary Flames. I watched the first two periods and then turned it off! On the basis of this I would suggest that anyone anticipating thrilling sports broadcasts is going to be more than a little disappointed. It looked nothing like hockey and the images looked odd to my eye. I would definitely not watch another.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Hi Jona,

To elaborate on your point, Dreamworks is now producing all it's films in 3D and titles like "Shrek", etc. are for sure oriented towards families with children even as young as six.

Since there is already valid medical evidence that 3D could effect the visual development of some children it would be in the industry's best interest (not to mention social responsibility) to limit the release of such material to 2D until more conclusive information pro or con can be established. Even if that means it is eventually found that 3D viewing when limited to a certain amount of time poses little or no health risk to youngsters it is better to err on the side of caution - to do otherwise is forsaking of our children's health for profit.

While it is said that most children would not fall victim to such a serious malady, that would be of little consolation to the parents of those who do.

http://www.youtube.com/leanback?v=Bv_Kf-v7y0U

The American Optometric Association still cautions moderation in 3D use, but in a statement issued today says that there is no evidence that suggests viewing 3D in moderation would have any sort of negative effect in children or adults.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

Sounds a little hokey to me.....but nice try.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

Sounds a little hokey to me.....but nice try.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

No - it's true. The brain can reprogram itself. But it takes a considerable period of time. Days, not hours.

I remember an experiment that was done decades ago. The eyes see images upsidedown. The brain turns them rightside up. A man wore special goggles which caused him to see things upsidedown. After a number of days (he never took the goggles off), the brain corrected the situation and turned them rightside up.

Once he took the goggles off, he began to see images upside down. It again took a number of days for the brain to correct this and his normal vision returned.

Originally Posted by RandyT2

No more hokey than childrens' undeveloped eye muscles somehow being able to alter their eye development. The eyes do what the brain tells them to, if the eyes are physically capable of doing it. If the muscles are not developed enough to do what the brain dictates, they simply won't be able to do it. To think otherwise would be similar to thinking that asking a quadriplegic to carry your groceries might somehow exacerbate his/her condition.

This is a different situation than a headache, induced by eyestrain in an adult. The adults eyes have fully developed muscles which will work really hard to do what the brain tells them to, even if it's something that is very difficult (trying to focus with a lens that no longer has the elasticity it needs to achieve it, etc.)

Eyestrain and headaches associated with 3D displays is real. I worked in the industry for 7 years, and it was one of those things every optical design had to take into account.

It would not surprise me in the least to find that headaches, or other adverse physical reactions to 3DTV, have something to do with pupillary distance. Every person has a pupillary distance, which is the physical distance between your pupils. Most are within a certain range, but it can vary widely, and a young persons eyes are closer together than an older persons are. When the source material is created, the producer has to decide on an arbitrary pupillary distance, which may be quite different from that of the viewer. I have seen it written that artificially expanding this distance augments (or exaggerates) the depth effect, so there's no real knowing how closely any particular media will coincide with any particular individual's own natural vision process, or the long term effects of prolonged viewing when it does not.

Video games which can be calibrated to create the different views based on the viewer are much better able to overcome this issue than static conditions during filming, so there is a distinct advantage on the gaming side...but probably only for one person at a time.

Originally Posted by RandyT2

No more hokey than childrens' undeveloped eye muscles somehow being able to alter their eye development. The eyes do what the brain tells them to, if the eyes are physically capable of doing it. If the muscles are not developed enough to do what the brain dictates, they simply won't be able to do it. To think otherwise would be similar to thinking that asking a quadriplegic to carry your groceries might somehow exacerbate his/her condition.

This is a different situation than a headache, induced by eyestrain in an adult. The adults eyes have fully developed muscles which will work really hard to do what the brain tells them to, even if it's something that is very difficult (trying to focus with a lens that no longer has the elasticity it needs to achieve it, etc.)

Eyestrain and headaches associated with 3D displays is real. I worked in the industry for 7 years, and it was one of those things every optical design had to take into account.

It would not surprise me in the least to find that headaches, or other adverse physical reactions to 3DTV, have something to do with pupillary distance. Every person has a pupillary distance, which is the physical distance between your pupils. Most are within a certain range, but it can vary widely, and a young persons eyes are closer together than an older persons are. When the source material is created, the producer has to decide on an arbitrary pupillary distance, which may be quite different from that of the viewer. I have seen it written that artificially expanding this distance augments (or exaggerates) the depth effect, so there's no real knowing how closely any particular media will coincide with any particular individual's own natural vision process, or the long term effects of prolonged viewing when it does not.

Video games which can be calibrated to create the different views based on the viewer are much better able to overcome this issue than static conditions during filming, so there is a distinct advantage on the gaming side...but probably only for one person at a time.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

I completely believe that. What I thought was hokey was when he stated that it might "have cognitive ramifications". I'm not so sure about that.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

What? Like watching 3D content will ruin your vision? Baloney

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

If thats sarcasm, its hard to tell online. Regarding 3D ruining your vision, or children's anyway, the jury is still out. But I wouldn't want to experiment on my kids to prove a point, whether I believe it or not!

The American Optometric Association still cautions moderation in 3D use, but in a statement issued today says that there is no evidence that suggests viewing 3D in moderation would have any sort of negative effect in children or adults.

Originally Posted by jonasandezekial

If thats sarcasm, its hard to tell online. Regarding 3D ruining your vision, or children's anyway, the jury is still out. But I wouldn't want to experiment on my kids to prove a point, whether I believe it or not!