Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3D Displays May Be Hazardous To Young Children

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the don't-look-at-me-that-way dept.

Medicine 386

SchlimpyChicken writes "Turns out 3D television can be inherently dangerous to developing children, and perhaps to adults as well. There's a malaise in children that can prevent full stereopsis (depth perception) from developing, called strabismus or lazy-eye. It is an abnormal alignment of the eyes in which the eyes do not focus on the same object — kind of like when you watch a 3D movie. As a result, depth perception is compromised. Acting on a hunch, the guys over at Audioholics contacted Mark Pesce, who worked with Sega on its VR Headset over 15 years ago — you know, the headset that never made it to market. As it turns out, back then Sega uncovered serious health risks involved with children consuming 3D and quickly buried the reports, and the project. Unfortunately, the same dangers exist in today's 3D, and the electronics, movie, and gaming industries seem to be ignoring the issue. If fully realized, 3D just might affect the vision of millions of children and, according to the latest research, many adults, across the country." The Audioholics article is a good candidate for perusing with Readability — the pseudo-link popups are blinding.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No replies? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32704660)

Huh? Hours old and no replies yet? A bug?

Re:No replies? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706016)

This is very strange.

Re:No replies? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706082)

The GNAA may have found a way to change the times of posts, or Slashdot's own changes to the site are causing artifacts(or they're just disgruntled and fucking with us), and they may also be trying to implement an automatic first-post system to prevent epic trolls.

Also, this. [slashdot.org]

Re:No replies? (1, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706410)

Not strange at all, its hard to post while on your crying because your wet dream since wolfenstein 3D just got crushed. Going to have to settle for integrating a stun gun accessory into counter strike to add incentive to play better.

-Steve

They -buried- the reports? (4, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705898)

WTF is wrong with them!? Why did they bury the findings!

Re:They -buried- the reports? (4, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705908)

WTF is wrong with them!? Why did they bury the findings!

I'm guessing to hide the loss of money and man hours from share holders.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705986)

When I research something for my company, and find it has adverse effects, I bury the reports. More specifically, I throw my findings into the project documentation folder, and move on to something else that will work without the problems. Hopefully, nobody will need to look at those reports again. Granted, I'm evaluating software packages, not consumer products, but I'm assuming the concept's the same.

Why waste time and money making a formal report, announcing it to the world, and generally just scaring people when 99% of the time the problems are eventually solved, anyway?

Re:They -buried- the reports? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706154)

Because you have a moral and ethical responsibility to tell people?

Re:They -buried- the reports? (0, Troll)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706354)

No, we are all atheists now. No need for morals or ethics. As long as no one knows, it is all good.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (2, Informative)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706414)

ethics asside, didn't someone say that those who ignore history are deemed to repeat it ?

Re:They -buried- the reports? (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706288)

I would hope that, should you come across something that would be harmful like this (and not strictly specific to your product, but a physiological issue) you would at least make sure the appropriate people would know about it. Anonymize it and send it along to a few researchers or something.

Instead, it got shoved away and forgotten about.

Good thing this guy remembered!

I mean, I understand why they would bury it had it actually been released for mass consumption. But this was not the case. There's nothing wrong with saying "Oh, we were going to do this, but when we found out it causes harm we canceled it" - Hell, that's a positive thing to do! It shows forethought and at least the illusion of caring for your customers.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706330)

I understand why they would bury it had it actually been released for mass consumption

...

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706452)

Understanding does not equate to condoning.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706356)

I just think this needs a good old car analogy. Lets say Ford is making a prototyping a new car. They find out that the fuel cable rubs on the brake line when one of the test cars experiences a brake failure with a resulting collision on a closed course. Ford engineers write a report suggesting possible fixes, implement one of them and forget about the whole thing. Obliviously, it would make Ford look bad if it were announced that Ford makes cars with brakes that fail after 5,000 miles. Also another reason for burying the reports is in case of an other fail of the brakes after the car is released, even if the failure is unrelated it would make Ford in front of a jury.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706406)

wait didn't that happen lately ??? with toyota ?

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1, Interesting)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706504)

That happened not lately, with the exact company in the example given. THE FORD PINTO!!

Jesus fuck, have people forgotten about that already? The god damn thing was designed in such a way that it would explode if you hit it just right. The fix for the problem was something like $2 per unit (even taking into account inflation, that ain't a lot of money) and ford decided against implementing the fix.

A company that said "hey, our product kills people" and then decided that it was worth a small amount of money even if they knew hundreds of people would die.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706226)

It's a giant conspiracy with the government. They know that children grow up to be terrorists, and that FPS video games are used by terrorists as well as the armed forces for training purposes, so they want kids to use this technology to wind up with lazy eye. When they grow up, and formally join up with terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups will want them to point guns at other people and shoot them. But with lazy eye, they can't shoot so accurately.

So, it's just smart, long-term planning by the gov't, in their war on terror...

Re:They -buried- the reports? (2, Insightful)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705918)

Hey, you must be new here. This is what corporations do. They can't get in trouble for stuff no one knows about. Parents won't sue Sega for a malady that they didn't know had been inflicted on their kids.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706200)

More corporation-bashing.

Burying inconvenient/embarrassing data is something PEOPLE do.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706280)

More corporation-bashing.

Burying inconvenient/embarrassing data is something PEOPLE do.

But people, unlike corporations, have ethics and a sense of morality to guide them.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706382)

But corporations are made of people and somewhere along the chain, someone knows that what is going on is wrong/bad/harmful/etc... Corporations like to PRETEND that they didn't know, but someone always knows.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706460)

> But people, unlike corporations, have ethics and a sense of morality to
> guide them.

That's true. A piece of paper has no ethics or morality. It also lacks the abilty to make any decisions or carry out any actions. People do that.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706210)

Parents won't sue Sega for a malady that they didn't know had been inflicted on their kids.

Parents would sue Sega for releasing a product that they didn't release?

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706388)

Except no harm was inflicted. They actually did the right thing and killed the product before it ever went out.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (5, Informative)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705926)

Of course they buried the reports. Sega didn't want the PR of "We make headsets that screw up kids' eyes lol"

What they DID do right, is never release the product. That was the first right thing to do. It would've been nice if some non-Sega-related entity were to release the reports, but that's secondary. It's by FAR a safe bet that no company today would ever do the same. The reports would still get buried, and non-disclosure agreements would be plastered on every researcher, but the product would be on every freakin' shelf from Wal-Mart to Best Buy.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706374)

It's by FAR a safe bet that no company today would ever do the same.

Really? You think companies have changed so much since then? I'm going to guess that some would, and some wouldn't. A poster above pointed out that Nintendo has talked openly about the very dangers of 3d we are talking about here.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705942)

Because they probably already had a few prototypes out and had a few people using them. Now, if a study comes along that tells that there is a serious health risk associated, the study gets buried. Why? Because it's one thing to not know something is dangerous that you subject people to, but it's a completely different matter if you actually know. Worse, the people you subjected to the experience will know, and they will contact a lawyer to see if they can squeeze some money out of you somehow.

Instead of chewing Sega out, we should praise them. In this day and age, and if it had been a certain other 4 Letter company, I am not so sure if such a report would have resulted in sinking a probably incredibly expensive project. Instead, I would expect them to bury the report AND release the item. Only to later "discover" that there might be some hazards attached (read: as soon as someone couldn't handle his conscience anymore and blabbed) and "immediately" cease production. By then the product will have recovered its development cost, so at least no loss incurs.

Yes, that's what I'm fully expecting from a company this day.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706180)

Worse, the people you subjected to the experience will know, and they will contact a lawyer to see if they can squeeze some money out of you somehow.

They will probably do this even if you didn't know about it, class action.

After all, your product still caused them the same amount of harm, they are entitled to recover the same reparation as they would be if you knew about it.

And your company was negligent in failing to conduct the most basic of safety studies to discover a widespread problem with the product that should have been discovered during design and earlier stages of development...

The only thing that might be different is the punitive damages, and the chance they will settle.

But if it becomes a major issue, there is a good chance they will start subpoena'ing witnesses, and questioning them.

They will be obliged to reveal even information collected under a NDA. There is a chance they will discover the company tried to cover it up....

The only way it makes sense to hide a study and not respond to it in the product design, is if the issue is believed to be so minor, nobody will notice, and the 'harm' of the product will never be proven.

A good example would be cell phones, and some people's belief that radiated energy might be related to cancer....

Maybe a mobile phone company's internal study suggested it at some point. It would make sense to bury this, because the data is so conclusive, and it can always be easily and credibly argued that the product does no real (perceptible) harm at all.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706192)

s/<conclusive/inconclusive/;

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706212)

but it's a completely different matter if you actually know.

Not really, strict liability trumps the "state-of-the-art" defense.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706048)

Don't worry, they have top men working on it now.

Top men.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706484)

Money. SURPRISE! Cooperation do unethical things when there's money to be made from it (or losses to be avoided)! News at 11.

Someone says to a cooperation "I have medical studies that prove your product to be dangerous". The company then has two options:
A) Do the ethical thing and kill the product.
B) Hide the report and make money.

Seriously, if this surprises anyone then they deserve to be shot. Shit like this is why we need more regulation of business when it comes to ethics. EVERY company acts unethically when there's money to be had, there's no competition for ethics and thus the free market fails here. I can't take my business to another company because NO OTHER COMPANIES ACT ETHICALLY.

Re:They -buried- the reports? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706508)

They did kill the product though, didn't they? At least this is what I'm operating on, here. If they kept it going then my question is stupid.

Just rate it M for Mature (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32705904)

Parents are sure not to buy one for their kids right? Right? Riiiiight?

Re:Just rate it M for Mature (2, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705924)

M for Mature is a rating for content like films and games, not for the mode of delivery of content.

Re:Just rate it M for Mature (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706300)

It was supposed to be a dig at how putting an age limit would be useless since people already complain about how M rated games reach chilluns because THEIR PARENTS BUY IT FOR THEM.

I guess my attempt at subtlety was too subtle or just bad.

Re:Just rate it M for Mature (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705944)

That would be hilarious if each and every 3DS game got a M rating with a content descriptor of "3D images". :D

E10+ is sufficient (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705988)

Virtual Boy hardware was rated 7+ in its manual.

Besides, this is a display panel, not goggles. Setting stereo separation to 0 would make it little different from a DSi with a better video chip.

Re:E10+ is sufficient (-1, Troll)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706130)

Because stereoscopic vision is gained by the age of six or not at all. Six years old is the cut off for stereoscopic development.

Re:E10+ is sufficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706364)

you love that phrase

No Replies? (1, Funny)

difster (318632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705910)

I would have replied sooner, but I just couldn't focus properly on the text of the story.

Like sex on TV! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32705920)

Alarmist pseudoscience? On Slashdot? Never in the world!!! ;)

better sources would be nice (2, Informative)

rutter (1430885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705936)

Not too much to ask for a journal article from a reputable journal or an article from well know science print.

Sega probably buried the reports because... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32705954)

Ten years prior to that, Sega actually did release a 3D headset for the Master System.

Re:Sega probably buried the reports because... (4, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705970)

Wikipedia link about SegaScope 3-D Glasses. [wikipedia.org] And for the nostalgia of it, the commercial for the glasses. [youtube.com]

Re:Sega probably buried the reports because... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706122)

Wikipedia link about SegaScope 3-D Glasses. [wikipedia.org] And for the nostalgia of it, the commercial for the glasses. [youtube.com]

I still have a pair of those glasses. Using them for 3D with a crappy sis based vid card because I can't find a decent Nvidia Geforce 4 or better with a headjack lcd shutter glasses input. =(

Next technology, next cassandra (2, Insightful)

faber0 (234887) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705962)

Whenever a new technology pops up, there come the people that warn about the dangers coming from it and how the world as we know it will end. This was the same with books, trains, cars, radio television, internet, cell phones.... i am sure there are plenty more... As long as you or your child doesn't consume 3d television 24/7 i am sure you'll be fine.

Re:Next technology, next cassandra (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706002)

If you get your children one of these [dailytech.com] you in all likelihood won't have to be too concerned about any potential adverse effects 3D displays might have on your children's visual acuity.

Awesome excuse (4, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705966)

"Daddy, it's my turn! Let me play my 3DS!"

"Son, for the hundredth time, it will be your turn once your stereopsis is fully developed!"

"Mommmmmy!"

Re:Awesome excuse (4, Funny)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706266)

The first time my kid runs to Mommy because Daddy said no is when Daddy will hit for distance. When Junior comes down from orbit, he's not going to pull that shit ever again. Or will be more deceptive and conniving about it, which I fully approve of.

Re:Awesome excuse (2, Funny)

scromp (148280) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706486)

Don't hit your kids.

Re:Awesome excuse (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706370)

that is one cruel dad!

This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (3, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705974)

Auto-stereoscopic displays don't require glasses and wouldn't cause this sort of issue if I'm understanding the vision problems correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy [wikipedia.org]

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (4, Interesting)

Anonyme Connard (218057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706098)

The problem with children is that they still have to train their brain to match eyes convergence and focus, while with 3D displays the focus is always on the screen, whatever the technology.
So no, auto-stereoscopic displays such as the coming Nintendo 3DS should not be used by children below the age of 2 or 3.
And for adults, it is a cause of eyes fatigue.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (-1, Redundant)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706144)

Stereoscopic vision is gained by the age of six or not at all. Six years old is the cut off for stereoscopic development. I would say a not for use under the age of seven to be sure.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (0, Flamebait)

Delarth799 (1839672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706222)

Nope, you already said it. The first day you turn six years old BAM too old after that to develop it.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (2, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706118)

The issue should apply to pretty much all normal 3D tech, as all they do is simply get different images to each eye. It doesn't really matter how exactly they do that, as the core problem is that your eyes have to focus on the 2D screen, while you are looking at objects in front or behind the screen. Thus where your focus is and where it should be are different places.

Not sure about holograms, they work a little different, so they might be fine. But as we don't have interactive holographic displays thats a moot point.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (2, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706216)

Doesn't this issue involve the eyes not focusing properly o a point in space? Typically the path of the eyes meet at a point of focus in the distance with both eyes looking at the same 'point', rather than at an 'infinite' distance. Children with this issue are unable to focus both eyes on the same 'point' in space.

If you are using an auto-stereoscopic display, they are focusing on the same point in space, but each eye is presented with a slightly different image, which tricks the brain into seeing 'depth'.

By contrast, go into any 3D movie that requires glasses, and you will see a very visible offset of the images on screen. I have to wonder if that offset contributes to this issue where the eye is trained not to focus on the same point point in space, but rather relaxes more towards an 'infinite' focus point, much like you use when viewing those old 3D photographs.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (3, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706274)

Doesn't this issue involve the eyes not focusing properly o a point in space?

The issue is that you are looking at an 3D object say 1 meter in front of you, while you are focusing on a screen that might be 3 meter away from you. Thus your depth perception gets a little confused and possibly permanently damaged when you do that stuff to much while your brain is still developing. This issue is exactly the same when you use an auto stereoscopic display instead of shuttle glasses or polarized lenses. The offset between both images is exactly the same as on any other type of 3D screen, as thats where the 3D comes from.

Re:This would affect most 3D displays, but not all (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706346)

I disagree. The focal point may appear to be 1 meter behind or in front of the screen, but the actual focal point hasn't change off of the 2d plane it's represented on (your tv screen). The same is not true of the older 3D technology that showed a visible offset without glasses on.

Not all companies are trying to hide this. (5, Informative)

raving griff (1157645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705976)

In this interview [kotaku.com] the president of Nintendo discusses the fact that the 3D affect can be dangerous to developing children. Considering the fact that Nintendo began placing health and safety warnings at the beginning of all of their games in 2004 and has included such a message on the startup screens of both the DS and Wii, we can assume that they will make an effort to warn parents and children of the dangers any time the product is turned on.

Re:Not all companies are trying to hide this. (2, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706188)

Now that I'm reading this I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo included some kind of parental control that disabled 3D altogether on the 3DS, even if the slider was adjusted.

Re:Not all companies are trying to hide this. (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706404)

Yes because we all know that when warning labels are on everything, and it's the same warning label, that they're taken seriously.... not even close.

Unless the effect is immediate (even mild) I cannot imagine a problem like this turning out well.

Driving after watching 3D TV (4, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705980)

I went to a talk last week given by BBC R&D with the Institute of Engineering and Technology and the Royal Television Society. The problem with children was raised, however research that is currently being conducted and is finding that children adapt better than adults. We will have to wait until they are finished and peer reviewed however.

What is more worrying is driving a car after watching 3D TV. You eyes focus on a 40 inch screen 3-4m away, however you brain thinks you are looking in the distance because the image is converging at a different point (not 3m away). This isn't really a problem in the cinema as the distance to the screen is far greater, as at 50 feet your eyes are focused at almost infinity. Stepping out of the living room and in to a car can easily have an effect on judgement of distance, and give you headaches.

Headaches, incidentally, is a problem with all consumer home 3D TVs. They will give the vast majority of people a headache after 10 minutes. That's a fact!

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (2, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706018)

Oh, and "3D TVs" are not 3D, they are stereoscopic TVs.

R2D2 has a 3D TV with his hologram projector. That for a 3D TV is what we all aspire to. :)

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (4, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706080)

R2D2 has a 3D TV with his hologram projector. That for a 3D TV is what we all aspire to. :)

Aspire to what? A washed out and static-y picture?

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706302)

Well since most of the Cam movies from Pirate Bay are washed out anyway we'll be used to it...

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706480)

That was just an artifact of cracking the DRM. If you remember the movie, it's a miracle the princess got that movie past the MPAA troopers in the first place.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (1, Funny)

xianthax (963773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706060)

They will give the vast majority of people a headache after 10 minutes. That's a fact!

I hope someone else gets the irony in this line.

A subjectively measured number of people have problem X and "thats a fact"

Really? I had no idea.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706086)

Yeah, 3 people in 2 get these headaches.

You wanted a number.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706134)

I went to a talk last week given by BBC R&D with the Institute of Engineering and Technology and the Royal Television Society. The problem with children was raised, however research that is currently being conducted and is finding that children adapt better than adults. We will have to wait until they are finished and peer reviewed however.

What is more worrying is driving a car after watching 3D TV. You eyes focus on a 40 inch screen 3-4m away, however you brain thinks you are looking in the distance because the image is converging at a different point (not 3m away). This isn't really a problem in the cinema as the distance to the screen is far greater, as at 50 feet your eyes are focused at almost infinity. Stepping out of the living room and in to a car can easily have an effect on judgement of distance, and give you headaches.

Headaches, incidentally, is a problem with all consumer home 3D TVs. They will give the vast majority of people a headache after 10 minutes. That's a fact!

Um, my 40" hdtv is like 3 feet away.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (2, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706194)

I have a similar effect when I change from my glasses to my contacts or vice versatile. It's annoying but hardly critical. It's actually worse walking than driving as you worry a lot more about depth perception when walking I think.

More of an issue is that recently I'm having what the doctor is calling ADHD, which I'm a bit doubtful about, where I can't process the visual information I'm receiving fast enough. If someone talks to me it blurs my vision and gives me headaches. It even helps to close one eye. Taking ADHD meds does help but I can't see why this kind of issue would suddenly just start in my thirties. I'm amazed at how much this problem is limiting me in other ways too - like I really can't read or think straight sometimes or even walk. I can understand why a kid with a learning disorder might really not be able to overcome by willpower alone.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (1)

MurphyZero (717692) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706250)

I have strabismus. In my case, I had it as a child, corrected by surgery, but a car wreck at age 19 damaged my eye, and it got worse over time (20 years almost now). Much worse when driving. My glasses need high levels prism to adjust. When I had a pair without it, I often had to drive cyclops (close one eye) so I didn't see two sets of cars. I don't have this problem walking. Probably because it was so bad that near items appeared blurred but distance objects were completely separate items, though one was more of a ghost than the other.

Re:Driving after watching 3D TV (1)

Heratiki (943721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706252)

Headaches, incidentally, is a problem with all consumer home 3D TVs. They will give the vast majority of people a headache after 10 minutes. That's a fact!

Right because I'm absolutely sure no one has done any research towards this effect before producing a multi-billion dollar production plan. Because you know just selling a TV doesn't mean you make a lot of money. Look at the PS3 on it's own. It's a loss for Sony to produce but they do it because the software is what nets them the most profit. I'm pretty sure that your "vast majority" is only speculation at this time as I have several friends who own an HDTV with 3D capabilities and out of the several movies we have watched not one of us have experienced discomfort. So you know maybe we just aren't a part of the "vast majority". I'm not saying 3D is perfect or won't cause any issues, but what I am saying is that lambasting it completely because "someone said so" is not distinct proof. I have yet to see papers produced that state the "vast majority" of marketable consumers will experience headaches when viewing 3D in the home. I would be willing to read though. As long as their is homework to back it up.

Oh good... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705990)

Re:Oh good... (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706380)

awww....arent you special?
but seriously, if you can't see 3d then there is some serious malfunction in your eyes and possibly your brain too. you should get them checked.

Virtual vs. Real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32705994)

How is viewing virtual 3D (where your eyes focus at different depths) different from viewing the real 3D world around you (where, again, your eyes focus at different depths)?

Maybe They Can Help Correct Strabismus (1)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32705996)

I know nothing about this other than my own inability to focus on different points without the aid of a stereoptic viewer. Many people can do this, but I cannot.

It would seem that anything which hinders the development of the ability to focus both eyes on a single point could be designed to help train one's eyes to do this.

Hopefully, if this has not already been researched, this issue being in the news will catch the interest of a PhD student with the proper background to look into it.

-Todd

On the other hand... (4, Interesting)

wrook (134116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706006)

I used to have fairly poor vision, but equally in both eyes (-4.25 in both). As I've gotten older, my vision has improved, but more in the right eye than the left (-2.25 left, -0.50 right). I often read at night and never use my glasses. With my vision being somewhat different between the eyes I started getting lazy and only reading with my right eye. Eventually I stopped using binocular vision at all.

Then a few months ago I started to get interesting in stereoscopic photography using the "crossed eyes" method. After about a week of looking at pictures like this, suddenly I was using my binocular vision while reading again. And overall my depth perception improved. I suspect it has something to do with having better focus control of my eyes. So I'm not sure that I buy this "3D is bad for your vision" thing. Actual studies showing the effects would be interesting, but this seems to be just speculation.

Re:On the other hand... (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706100)

I was about ready to completely agree with you, since as a kid I use to look at random-dot stereograms and I have fantastic vision despite the fact the 4 other members of my family all need glasses. However, I then realized that 3d glasses are a trainer to get your brain to see 3d as opposed to something you control your muscles to do, so I don't think its quite the same. On the other hand, when looking at a 3d image you see a ghost of something in the fore-ground if you are looking at the background until you train yourself to focus on it, so maybe it would help in the manner you described.

Either way though, I don't buy that lazy eye BS.

Re:On the other hand... (1)

boojumbadger (949542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706244)

As someone who had an eye operation to (unsuccessfully) correct such a condition when I was 4 years old, I can assure you it can be quite debilitating. I never could use those stereographs back in Geography class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus [wikipedia.org] Educate yourself.

Re:On the other hand... (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706398)

yes i had the same lazy eye problem as you but it was noticed quite early by my eye-doctor. he gave me a card with two incomplete cats printed on it side-by-side. i have to look at it and cross my eyes to make it combine into one cat and see a 3d picture. this i have to do for 10 minutes every day for a decade.
sometimes when it gets really severe they put a sellotape on one lens of the spectacles. but thankfully that has never happened to me.

Hazardous To Young Children . . . yes . . . (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706028)

But will it keep them off my lawn . . . ?

i used virtual boy when i was 12 (1)

orthicviper (1800010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706042)

when i was 11 i played the virtual boy for hours straight, completely immune to any headaches. this went on for a couple of months with almost daily usage by the hours. how fun Wario Land, mario clash, red alert and mario tennis were. my eyes have not developed any problems, for what it's worth. i guess i will be more cautious with letting my own kids use 3d over a matter of YEARS, though.

Re:i used virtual boy when i was 12 (0, Redundant)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706184)

Stereoscopic vision is gained by the age of six or not at all. Six years old is the cut off for stereoscopic development. I'm guessing you had no ill effects because you were over the age of seven.

Re:i used virtual boy when i was 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706276)

You've made this comment multiple times (at least 3 that I noticed) in exactly the same way in this thread. If you're going to take such an obnoxiously authoritative position, at least have the decency to cite it in one of your numerous posts.

Re:i used virtual boy when i was 12 (1)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706312)

A bit off topic here, but I had a great experience with Virtual Boy too, and to this day I still have a great fondness for the system. As much as anything, I suspect that the market just didn't want a monochrome device.

Yeah right, nice try Sony (4, Insightful)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706046)

So Nintendo rolls out the best thing in handheld games since the first Gameboy, and suddenly 3D is bad for children. What a coincidence. I suspect that this is just an underhanded PR attack against Nintendo by one of its rivals.

Good news everbody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706102)

It's social Darwinism at work - It will take care of the problems of the idiotocracy via heavy use of the idiot box.

You heard it here first, on Network 23 News (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706108)

This is Edison Carter, reporting live and direct for Network 23.

How serious is this? (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706160)

I had this kind of issue when I was a kid and correcting it involved the difficult effort of playing video games wearing special glasses and laying on my back starring at a ball on a rope as it circled my head. Horrible thing to experience. Like having your eyes gouged out with a rusty spork. Or not..

Great (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706182)

Now when I watch 3D porn I really will go blind

You focus on different objects? (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706318)

Aren't your eyes focusing on the same object (ie what ever you're looking at) when using a 3D display?

Magic Eye? (2, Insightful)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706390)

So wait, does this mean Magic Eye pictures (remember those?) can make you go blind too?

And while we're at it, is it really such a great idea that almost all the kids movies these days are pushed in 3D?

Islam is evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706400)

You can take that to the bank, brother. Those fucks will do anything to get people to follow their lie of a god and their child molesting prophet.

Fuck Islam!!!!!

Only half 3D ! convergences does not match focus (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706432)

The ayes react to the proximity of an object in two ways

The first in convergence : both eyes make a slight angle in theay a telemeter would do. this is bound to the distance or at least the PERCEIVED distance when each eye has a different image.

The second is focus : if the object is 50cm away, the focus of each eye is set to 50cm.

In normal vision, these two actions are synchronzed, and many years of living with it has helped us to do so.

Unfortunately, in 3D vision, convergence asks something while focus asks for something else (you see the object at 50cm, but each eye should focus on the screen nevertheless), which is the reason why this false 3D is far from perfect and can be just as painful as eye convergence reeducation. In fact, it is ye convergence DISeducation.

Once upon a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706448)

... I did the obligatory periodic health test for those who have a driving licence.

Everything was ok (I use glasses) but for one thing (which apparently did not prevent me from getting the renewal): depth perception was bad (I was about 40 +/- 3 years then).

The only thing I can relate to 3D is Doom and DN 3D.

Go figure...

(*) It was all 3D in the Wolfenstein 3D sense... I didn't use any special hardware -- not even the weird blue-red glasses.

Oh NO! (2, Funny)

0m3gaMan (745008) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706470)

All those Viewmaster slides!

Accomodation and Vergence (3, Informative)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706482)

I believe most 3D will "make your eyes hurt" for extended use until they solve vergence [wikipedia.org] and accomodation [wikipedia.org] issues. While there is some work (e.g., accommodation display at Fraunhofer [fraunhofer.de] and some work at HITlab [washington.edu] ) to resolve these, I'm afraid we might not see the results of these at Best Buy anytime soon.

Having demonstrated 3D technology to hundreds of adults and kids, my experience has been that kids below 12 _generally_ don't seem to "get" 3D. Perhaps it's their visual system, or perhaps it's because the inter-pupillary-distance (IPD) is wrong on most systems for how far apart their eyes are. I don't this they'll be missing out on too much if they skip out on the 3D games until their visual systems catch up with the tech.

All this aside, I'm personally thrilled that all this 3D technology is becoming mainstream, but I wouldn't (and wouldn't recommend for anyone to) use the 3D technology for more than a couple of hours a day at most. Still, the fear-mongering articles and the 3-D bashing that accompanies them (probably by people who can't see the 3D effect) kind of ticks me off..

Warning! Walking and chewing gum... (1, Funny)

UttBuggly (871776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706510)

...may be hazardous to your health.

Apparently, EVERY damn thing that is fun,entertaining, or otherwise distracts us from reality is DANGEROUS.

And you know what? I'm pushing 60 and simply don't give a shit if it kills me anymore.

So, I think I'll pour a drink of good bourbon, load the bong, and watch 3D movies until my eyes explode or the Surgeon General kicks in my door...whichever comes first.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?