AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 194 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,574 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase /forum/post/18210359


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?

Exactly:

Researchers say eye strain a concern as 3-D TVs debut
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts
As a parent of 3 kids, I wouldn't worry about it as the typical child's movie is 90 minutes. If the child complains, then remove the glasses. But no permanent muscular or ocular damage could possibly occur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm not an alarmist, but I would like a little more research to be done before any conclusions are drawn.


And as a parent of 2 kids, being a parent gives you no advantage in making scientific conclusions about permanent muscular, ocular, or perceptual damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland /forum/post/18211051


As a parent of 3 kids, I wouldn't worry about it as the typical child's movie is 90 minutes. If the child complains, then remove the glasses. But no permanent muscular or ocular damage could possibly occur.

Are ya sure. Has this been tested. As a corollary, if a child has had stabismus surgery, 3D might in fact be good to have the eyes working together.


PF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I'm not suggesting that there is definitely a long term problem, but there hasn't been a whole lot of study about this, and the studies that have been done so far don't paint a good picture. Headaches are common, and some of those studies say that the problems get worse with smaller, closer screens.


Kids watch a lot of TV. Vendors want to sell a lot of 3D gear. If there is a problem, what happens then? It's hard/foolish to build a whole market segment based on assumptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland /forum/post/18212052


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!


First of all, your assuming that it is short term stimulus. I don't have kids but my nephew and many other kids that I have encountered through work are addicted to T.V. and games. What is my hypothesis: long term viewing of 3D material has an impact in the development of binocular neurons in a chld's brain? That good enough???


Money is more important than health - right? right. Cigarettes and alcohol are the most damaging drugs out there - in terms of heath care costs.... and they're both legal....hmmm. So lets not put our faith in companies to determine what is safe and not safe.... . Studies would certainly be reassuring, but that will never happen.


PF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts
If those kids are addicted to TV, their parents aren't involved enough in their lives and they'll have other issues more important than 3-D fun.


Bottom line, it is innocuous for the casual young viewer.


Tv addicts ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland /forum/post/18213600


If those kids are addicted to TV, their parents aren't involved enough in their lives and they'll have other issues more important than 3-D fun.


Bottom line, it is innocuous for the casual young viewer.


Tv addicts ....

You don't help your point of view with the "It's harmless because I say it's harmless" argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,451 Posts
Mark Schubin has been keeping up with this stuff. You might find some useful links at his site:

http://schubincafe.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase /forum/post/18214027


You don't help your point of view with the "It's harmless because I say it's harmless" argument.

OK.. It's harmless because I say it is...



Please hypothesize how watch Toy Story 3-D will bring about catastrophic physical changes to a child... simply by viewing.. Eye strain and headaches don't count as their are a myriad of other innocuous stimuli that cause those symptoms.


This is a ridiculous argument... especially trying to defend the unknown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase /forum/post/18214027


You don't help your point of view with the "It's harmless because I say it's harmless" argument.

OK.. It's harmless because I say it is...



Please hypothesize how watch Toy Story 3-D will bring about catastrophic physical changes to a child... simply by viewing.. Eye strain and headaches don't count as their are a myriad of other innocuous stimuli that cause those symptoms.


This is a ridiculous argument... especially trying to defend the unknown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,407 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,432 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP /forum/post/18215492


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?

If you get out and play a different sport or rigorous activity for a few hours, you might notice some muscles you rarely use are sore afterwards.... same here.


Try wearing prescription glasses for the first time. Headaches and eyestrain a re normal. Eye muscles are trying to accommodate. This is normal until your eyes are able to adapt.


This is a normal response in search of a controversy. Ridiculous, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,701 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP /forum/post/18215492


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?

Sure, but nothing permanent happened to them.


It's no worse than spinning yourself around in a circle and getting dizzy. You haven't scrambled your brain. All you've done is thrown off your equilibrium for a bit.


Stare at one color for a few minutes, then look at the rest of the room. Everything will have a color tint toward the other end of the spectrum for a moment. For example, staring at a green chromakey screen for a few minutes will result in everything looking a bit red or magenta when you look away. That's why when blue screen technology was first being used (before green screen) in movies like "Spaceballs", crew members wore yellow tinted glasses. That odd color tinting in your vision that occurs was thought to be damaging, so wearing the yellow lenses was a "protective" measure until the effects were understood.


If you wear contacts and seldom wear your glasses, you know that when you first put the glasses on for those rare occasions it usually results in a bit of temporary blurry vision.


Now, you can hurt your eyes by exposing them to overly bright lights or light wavelengths known to be harmful, like UV or concentrated LASER frequencies. Illuminated displays will cause eyestrain if viewed for long periods of time, but that can usually be undone with either rest or looking away for a while.


Your brain is a very advanced and complicated computer. It's very adaptable, but sometimes takes a short time to do it fully. Your eyes will adjust to 3D viewing slowly (which is why you stop noticing it so much as the movies go along unless something really jumps out at you) and will adjust back to reality slowly (hence some dizzyness, eyestrain or fatigue).


Over time, your brain can adjust to about anything, including the loss of an eye completely or color blindness.


One can certainly assume that the longer you view a 3D presentation, the longer it will take to re-adjust after, but it's really not much different than adjusting to bright lights after being in a darkened room.


The reason for the odd feeling afterward is simple: you're brain is used to being fed images at the same exact moment from the same source. With 3D, there is a deliberate offset of the images that you can't process consciously, but your brain realizes is there. It's not hurting you so much as requiring your brain to switch gears faster than it normally would.


Now, if there was a way to slowly "bring you out" of 3D (like slowly fading up the lights in a theater), I'll bet few people would experience any negative symptoms. Instead, we yank off the glasses and walk out into the real world without taking time to adjust. It's no wonder you feel weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,574 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWDinc /forum/post/18215403


Anyone that has seen a well calibrated 1080 set knows what 3D is.

That doesn't make sense. Could you elaborate on how viewing an accurate 2 dimensional image makes the viewer "know" what a 3D image looks like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,701 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock /forum/post/18216179


That doesn't make sense. Could you elaborate on how viewing an accurate 2 dimensional image makes the viewer "know" what a 3D image looks like?

I think the intent is that a well calibrated display with a good HD source almost looks 3D. This is because the elements front to back seem to pop more due to the sharpness and color of the image. This is unlike a muddy SD image where everything looks flat due to edges blurring together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,574 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV /forum/post/18216214


I think the intent is that a well calibrated display with a good HD source almost looks 3D. This is because the elements front to back seem to pop more due to the sharpness and color of the image. This is unlike a muddy SD image where everything looks flat due to edges blurring together.

Well, frankly, a properly calibrated set will probably NOT "pop" more than the typical LCD/Plasma with default showroom settings. Calibration is about accuracy - not about exaggerating the colors and adding artificial enhancements to make things look sharper.
 
1 - 20 of 194 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top