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!

Does 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ache-ache-ache dept.

Displays 281

MojoKid writes "Nintendo has quasi-acknowledged that its 3DS can cause headaches and should not be used by children under 7. The glasses-free 3D handheld gaming device launched this week. Meanwhile, new research commissioned by the Blu-ray Disc Association is trying to improve the health image of 3D. Its research shows that the brain is more attentive when watching a 3D movie than when watching HD or SDTV, making the movie a more pleasurable experience. The issue, doctors say, is that 3D works by tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving in relation to your surroundings. But you aren't. So your inner ear is not experiencing the movement that corresponds to what the eyes are seeing. This doesn't normally happen in real life. No one would deny that 3D is more immersive; that's why people like it, particularly for gaming. But the question is ... does the brain love 3D or not? Answer: not really."

cancel ×

281 comments

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

Has always made my head hurt. (4, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663474)

I can enjoy about 15 minutes of 3D stuff, before it starts making my head hurt. Always has, across the various different technology types.

But the worst part about 3D is the movies that have only (poorly) implemented it as a gimmick or afterthought to try to wow in more sales.

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663598)

Just to offer my contrary experience, 3D has never made my heard hurt.

To be fair, there was just an article recently describing how some people have a very slight problem with their eyes and perspective, small enough that it doesn't effect their day-to-day life, but enough such that they cannot enjoy any 3D movies. Perhaps you're one of those folks?

All I know is, I have been absolutely floored by 3D effects in movies and video games. I've gone out to the movie theater to see movies I know are going to be pretty crap, that I would never watch in 2D, because its so much more entertaining in 3D. I'll agree that most movies have a crappy implementation where the characters are just billboarded flat at different levels of the scene, and they aren't really using the right depth. But that said, I find it exhilarating and a ton more fun than 2D movies. I can't wait to get a 3DS.

Some people can't read a book in a car without getting a headache. I can. Some people say reading a book in low-light will ruin your eyesight. My eyesight is still fine. People said TV would rot your brain; I'm pretty sure it hasn't yet, and I watch a good amount. I feel like this is just the next response to something that is slightly new, so inherently slightly uncomfortable.

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (4, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663740)

Considering you admittedly watch crappy movies because they are in 3D i wouldn't rule out brain rot just yet :P

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664118)

Yarr. 3D doesn't hurt my head, nor do I usually get a sore head when I read in a car (it has happened once or twice, but it's definitely the exception). I dislike 3D because they charge extra for the tickets, yet a few minutes into the film I tend to forget it's even in 3D apart from on the odd "wave something toward the camera" moment.

I think 3D gaming on a proper home theater setup could be pretty cool (though I haven't tried it yet so I don't know how good it would be), but these days I kind of cringe when I hear an ad mentioning that a movie will be 3D. It should be irrelevant, yet it usually makes me think the movie will be some half-assed rush job with too much focus on waving things at the camera..

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663722)

I don't get headaches, but i get disoriented, i never really got the whole '3D' thing really, i find it quite distracting in a movie. As for games, never tried a game with 3D/Steriovision.

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663842)

I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas on an iz3d monitor. Awesome.

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (2)

TuringCheck (1989202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663870)

The only 3D movies that didn't made me sick were Avatar and some russian ones I've seen some 25 years ago. Exagerated commercial shit got so bad these days that I refuse to see 3D movies anymore.

Re:Has always made my head hurt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663952)

Whether it's the old style red/blue anaglyph, manual eye focus stereograms, LCD shutter glasses, LCD stereo glasses or parallax barrier, I've never had a problem with 3D making my head hurt. You probably have some kind of disorder if you experience head pains because of it.

No one? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663480)

No one would deny that 3D is more immersive

Oh, really?

Re:No one? (-1, Flamebait)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663496)

Noone except unwashed geeks with a lazy eye and a luddite streak.

Re:No one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663948)

We can all throw down strawmen arguments, but some people genuinely do feel it's less immersive. The fact that, for 3D to properly work in movies, you have to have a forced perspective and looking at anything outside the small area the producer wants you to look at is physically painful means you can absorb far less of the visuals in the movie than you can with 2D. I wonder if that's the main difference - when I watch a movie I want to be taking in all the details around the edges, really absorbing what's on the screen, but after a while that gives me a headache and I have to go back to just focusing on the main action.

Re:No one? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663958)

unwashed geeks with a lazy eye and a luddite streak.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:No one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663976)

Noone except unwashed geeks with a lazy eye and a luddite streak.

Or people who think its a pointless gimmick to green-light overcharging for cinema tickets.

Avatar was far better (in colour) on Bluray than it was on a flickering, washed-out cinema screen, seen from behind stupid glasses in stereoscopic 2D - let's not kid ourselves here "3D" isn't. You can't get up and walk round it, or even lean to one side and see a different angle, it's just stereo 2D. A re-hash of what 1950's cinema-goers got with "Creature from the black lagoon" - at least back then it added something.

Come back with something that works, but I'm boycotting so-called "3D" until they drop it and go back to colour films.

Re:No one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663528)

I guess you just have to be stupid enough to let yourself believe it's more immersive.
Personally I fucking hate it and hope it dies upside-down in a fire while contracting aids.

Re:No one? (5, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663540)

If 3D were perfect, then I think no one would deny that 3D had >= the immersiveness of traditional 2D.

As it is, I certainly think it's less immersive to me in every incarnation I've encountered. It's kind of cool -- but that's not the same thing. The technical limitations and the sheer sense of "unreality" constantly remind me that this is a game, in a way looking at a 2D surface does not. Maybe it's because I've looked at 2D surfaces for many years? Or maybe it's simply because when I close one eye I see 2D everywhere in real life. Or the "sweet spot" issue.

That said, all of this motion sickness fluff sounds exactly like things people say about truly 2D media. Is 3D just moreso, or is there actually a qualitative difference in the inner-ear confusion between 2D and 3D?

Re:No one? (4, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663668)

There are two reasons IMO for why you find 3D less immersive. The first is the current need for 3D glasses, which you're not used to and thus reminds you that you're watching something fake that's not really in 3D. The other is that most (though it's getting better) 3D has been the lame "Oooh, it's coming out of the screen to get you!" type as opposed to the newer ones that simply use 3D to add depth perception and a realistic sense of scale. There was an interview with the head of the 3DS dev team where he talked about this very thing - that the 3DS isn't about making games pop out of the screen, but about allowing a realistic sense of distance and size.

Re:No one? (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664012)

If 3D were perfect, then I think no one would deny that 3D had >= the immersiveness of traditional 2D.

Not to disagree for the sake of disagreeing (although this is /., of course) but I disagree :-p. I find good books more immersive than any 2D films I've seen, and because of that I don't believe (well implemented) 3D will automatically be more immersive than 2D.

Re:No one? (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664232)

I have got a 3DS and SSF4 and the 3D effect is amazing. It really looks like the characters have taken on a solid form and are wandering around behind the screen. It requires no glasses and i have had no trouble playing it for half hour straight (one round of arcade). Frankly if they could scale the size of the screen up to monitor size it would be great. Just think if your fave FPS was in 3D. The HUD would sit on the front of the screen and the other players would be running around behind the screen. It would add a whole new level of realism. 2D is always going to look like watching something on TV. Of course it's not true 3D as you cant peer round the back of things on screen but it really does add to the experience.

Re:No one? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663564)

It's only immersive if you don't even notice it's there.

Re:No one? (0, Troll)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663608)

No one would deny that 3D is more immersive

Oh, really?

My everyday reality is still 3D (and not only visually) and hell of a lot more immersive than any movie/game. Yours?

And your point is? (1)

ZmeiGorynych (1229722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663930)

Yeah, but '3D' as in the movie technology is not immersive at all, have to strain my eyes continuously to even see 3D instead of 2 images, and makes my head hurt llike shit. Saw 3D Avatar in an IMAX, so it wasn't a cheapo implementation, but still fucking torture. You like it, you're welcome to it - I'm staying away.

Re:And your point is? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664076)

but '3D' as in the movie technology is not immersive at all

Is '3D as in movie" your world, dragon?

You like it, you're welcome to it - I'm staying away.

And asking for my point? Here's my point: you don't like the "movie 3D" experience, welcome to the real world - not only "immersive" but also highly interactive (to the point that someone may even shit on you... but no risk, no gain).

Re:And your point is? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664082)

IMAX 3d is actually the worst implementation by far. it's still physically on film, so it gets scratched and bobs around in the gate. that alone is puke-making.

twin-lens DCI is the best currently.

reason - IMAX is pushed right up on your face, but the cinematography is done with a normal viewing distance in mind. if you want to shoot IMAX you have to shoot WIDE, but action movies are all shot close-in-handheld these days to cover the fact that the actors aren't as athletic as they'd like.

so the 3d image would work just fine if you were much much further back from the screen, or if it was a native IMAX film, not an upconvert from 35mm or digital.

it's the equivalent of trying to browse the web with a 52" plasma right up in your face instead of a laptop.

Re:And your point is? (1)

Bowdie (11884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664126)

That's odd. I saw Avatar in Real3D and got an eyestrain headache that lasted for 48 hours.

I saw Tron Legacy in IMAX3D as was A1, no after effects or weird eye spoogleyness at all.

Re:No one? (2)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663970)

My everyday reality is still 3D (and not only visually) and hell of a lot more immersive than any movie/game. Yours?

You... you do realise that reality is a world away from 3D movies, right? In my reality I can move around and the 3D effect doesn't get better or worse depending on my perspective to the object I'm viewing, I don't have to wear glasses or carry a device to experience it, I can walk fully around objects and see them from all sides, not just a couple of perspectives. 3D movies are still a lot closer to 2D movies than they are to reality - to say 3D movies must be immersive because reality is immersive is comparing apples and orangutans.

Re:No one? (-1, Troll)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664114)

My everyday reality is still 3D (and not only visually) and hell of a lot more immersive than any movie/game. Yours?

You... you do realise that reality is a world away from 3D movies, right?

Glad to see that your real world is as real and 3D as mine.
Now, my advice: fuck "3d movie" as entertainment and use the real 3D world more often. You know? A good theatrical play with real actors, dance shows, rock concerts, food-wine-and-jazz festivals, Burning-Man etc... your pick... might, just might, be more satisfying for you and, besides, more of your money will reach the artists.

Unfortunately, it is a 3d from ~15meters (1)

art6217 (757847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664216)

The 3d cues convey the size of the objects seen in the screen. So, if the people in the movie would be of a right size, you would hardly see them. It would be suitable for the artitsic expression provided by a traditional theatre, i. e. dance, exaggerated faces, but likely not suitable for the expression used in movies. For the latter, you would need people 5 meters tall in a typical large cinema, hardly immersive, unless you can somehow get used to it.
A 3d on a small scene, with the viewers being only a few meters away, would be probably very immersive. But such a small distance would probably require something near a true 3d hologram or the eyestrain would be even worse.

YES! (5, Funny)

neonux (1000992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663484)

This 3D world makes me sick! 3D trees, 3D people, 3D buildings...
That's why I just prefer to spend my whole time staring at my 2D computer screen in my parents basement.

Earphones as well as glasses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663498)

This means we will probably be sold special earphones in the future to stimulate the ear into movement to counteract the eyes. Yet more accessories and expense to the technology.

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663568)

You would need to stimulate the vestibular system, which means you'd need electrodes, not earphones. Even if you were to put electrodes into your central nervous system for the sake of a better movie watching experience, you would be moving your eyes to compensate, so you'd also need to inject modified rabies virus into the nucleus abducens and use arch or halorhodopsin and implant an optrode, so that you can reversibly inactivate the vestibulo-ocular reflex while you watch movies. This would be interesting, to say the least.

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663982)

You make it sound almost bad. It just needs marketing to give it a catchy name or TLA and people will eat it up.

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664102)

when I grow up, I wanna talk like you.

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663610)

This means we will probably be sold special earphones in the future to stimulate the ear into movement to counteract the eyes. Yet more accessories and expense to the technology.

Earphones? Still tricking the senses? Noo... nothing below a "3D Immersion couch" to compensate for the lack of surround movement... to be supplemented by anti-inertial gizmos to keep one's beer steady (and still carbonated) and the salty chips/popcorn in the bucket, while the "3D couch" rocks. See why [filehurricane.com] .

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663766)

You want immersive 3D? Invent a holodeck.

Re:Earphones as well as glasses. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663814)

Can't. There are some [patents.com] patents [freepatentsonline.com] .

So, back to the couch. Just... dude... where's my beer?

3D is a Gimmick (5, Insightful)

MBAslug (184293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663522)

3D movies and such have been around for a very long time. It was a marketing gimmick then and it still is. There is little additional value to the entertainment experience and in general, we are willing to sacrifice quality for volume. MP3, JPG, and cellphone audio quality are perfect examples of consumer willingness for lower quality but higher convenience. 3D adds a lot of cost and complexity, but little additional benefit. And mostly, I am not going to buy my teenagers $120 glasses just so they can watch more TV.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663580)

And mostly, I am not going to buy my teenagers $120 glasses just so they can watch more TV.

But... but... this is bad for the movies and game industries, won't you think of them?

Re:3D is a Gimmick (4, Funny)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664048)

not buying into 3D is like piracy. you're robbing the MPAA of revenue by not buying their 3D blu-rays.

you must buy a 3d telly today, and as many glasses as there are people living in your street.

or the MPAA will sue to recover lost revenue.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663682)

No, bad films use it as a gimmick. Good implementations of it (such as Tron: Legacy) use it to provide depth perception. How is making something MORE realistic a gimmick? That's like saying that improving the graphics in a horror game from NES to PS3 levels is a "gimmick".

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663782)

Better graphics aren't a guarantee for a better game.I find most current day games to be quite horrible, sure they look great, but they lack something we used to have loads of in the 8 bit & 16 bit era, playability. It all started to go downhill with the advent of Wolfenstein 3D.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663892)

*WOOSH*

I specifically mentioned a horror game, which is going to be more focused on visuals than other elements (not saying other elements don't look good). I'm the first person to say that gameplay is more important than graphics - which is why I still routinely games that are 20 years old. However, all else held equal, better graphics DO make a game better.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664036)

which is why I still routinely games that are 20 years old

I still accidentally games that are 20 years old

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664038)

That's a fine argument when the prices are roughly in line. If you're going to watch the typical poorly scripted, badly acted Hollywood movie then I can see how watching it in 3D for the same price gives slightly better value than watching it in 2D (discounting all the people who gets headaches from 3D and would probably prefer the convenience of 2D). The other big issue of course is that this generally isn't the case, it's often much more expensive to experience 3D (3DS is way more expensive than DS, 3D glasses for the home are stupidly expensive, 3D movies in the cinemas I've been to are generally around 50% more expensive). Then it comes down to a value proposition - are you getting enough added value from 3D to justify the cost. Having watched a handful of 3D movies (including their showcase bit Avatar) for me I'd say no, but it's highly subjective and clearly some people love it.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664110)

However, all else held equal, better graphics DO make a game better.

"all else" is generally never equal though. I recently started playing through StarCraft II since my wife bought it for me when I told her I liked the original StarCraft. While the graphics are MUCH better, I find them distracting and it isn't as easy to "very very quickly" distinguish the enemies on the battlefield as it is in the original. I'm still playing through it since the storyline really interests me, but once I'm done, I'll probably go back to original StarCraft.

Additionally, I'm a big Nethack fan, and while I do generally play with "tiles" rather than the classic ASCII mode, I avoid things like Falcon's Eye since I can't see the whole map at once and get a real feel for what's going on.

So, "all else being equal" itself is often a myth, as the improved graphics can be a detriment in unexpected ways.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664132)

Don't buy your teenagers anything. I worked, earned money, and bought the things *I* wanted when I was a teenager.

If you like 3D, go buy it, for yourself. If you don't like it, then shush up. Nobody's making you buy anything. Thats how capitalism works.

I know I love the added perspective, and think everybody is complaining over nothing. IMO, 3D is a big move, like going from B&W to Color. Once the technology is good enough, we're going to move almost all displays to 3D. Maybe parallax barrier / lenticular lens isn't the right solution, and maybe this will fade out. The earlier 3D movies were a "gimmick" because the 3D effect was pretty lame, and the movies had to be rendered in RED and BLUE, which made them look like a terrible mix of brown. Now, 3D movies are becoming popular again because they have better glasses, that allow color. Maybe people will get tired of that too, but in time we'll have a better solution that works for everybody without any glasses.

There will always be a few who have vision problems who do not want to watch things in 3D, but tough. It'll still be around. But you can't hold back the public because of a few people's desires. I'm sure blind people would greatly prefer it if radio dramas had lived on and movies had never become popular. Is that a reason to ban movies?

But... How? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663542)

How does this work in the first place? Is it one of those lenticular lens dealies?

Re:But... How? (4, Informative)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663590)

It's a parallax barrier display. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier [wikipedia.org]

It's possible because Nintendo have a very good idea at what range and angle you'll be viewing the display.

Re:But... How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35664084)

The principle is the same as lenticular lens, in essence thats what it is, yeah. You're right on.

Re:But... How? (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664140)

The principle is very similar to lenticular lens, and some 3D TVs use that method exactly I believe. However, the 3DS seems to use Parallax Barrier, which uses small slits in order to create the different eye angles, where lenticular uses rounded transparent surfaces in order to refract the light into different eye angles.

People get motion sick. (3, Interesting)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663544)

Not much else is new. It's happened before the advent of 3D screens. More interesting is the eyestrain issue. It seems less severe when the 3DS is used in the dark, but I wonder if people will adjust to it eventually? Much like how someone has to adjust to their first pair of glasses? I haven't used a 3DS personally yet, but it sounds like a similar sensation people are experiencing..

*disclaimer: The important part of my post has been marked bold

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663572)

Unless I'm mistaken, I think the same thing happened with the very first movies; people got motion sick at first, then they got used to the effect.
p.s. I always need a few days to adjust to a new pair of prescription glasses; not so much a headache as a mild "uneasyness".

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663934)

>>Unless I'm mistaken, I think the same thing happened with the very first movies; people got motion sick at first, then they got used to the effect.

I used to write VR arcade games (with the motion tracking headsets and everything).

If you screwed up the filtering on the motion trackers, even a little bit, you'd get sick. The kicker was that you'd actually have to predict where the next frame should be drawn, due to lag from the trackers, and so people developed a lot of slick tricks to try to avoid people spewing inside of their VR worlds.

Interestingly enough, the people that got the most sick were those most in tune with their inner ear - a pole jumper couldn't have it on for more than a few seconds without wanting to puke. The human brain is very sensitive to differences between the eye and inner ear, and the people that trained this system the most were the most unable to be deceived by the computer.

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

dizzuncan (1997588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663716)

I have a 3DS, and the first day that I played it, I only played it for about 10-20 mins at a time, and the first several times I felt a bit uneasy, as if I had just forced myself to be cross-eyed for a while, but as time went on, it got easier and easier, so you might be right about it just taking time to adjust. After the first few times, I was like "wow, maybe I shouldn't have purchased this thing," but now, I don't even think about it anymore. One thing that can help is adjusting the 3D slider to your liking. I feel like the general misconception about the device is something like "the higher the 3D effect, the cooler my game will be," but I've found greater pleasure adjusting the slider on a case-by-case basis, depending on angle, distance, lighting, etc.

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

zalas (682627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663780)

If I remember correctly, one of the issues with current three-dimensional displays is that there's a disparity between vergence and accomodation in the eye. That is, normally, you point your eyes inwards to look at something closer, and you focus your lens closer as well. With 3D displays, what happens is that you have to focus at a different distance (i.e. where the actual display is) than what your eyes are verging on (i.e. the apparent depth of the image)... I guess you'll get used to it when you lose accomodation in your eyes as you age... :p

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663856)

Accommodation and vergence is handled by separate subcortical subsystems. If the mismatch causes eye strain - and I've only seen anecdotal speculation - then the brain will most likely readily adapt over time. It'll simply learn that the inputs can vary independently from each other at times.

After all, you have a similar kind of mismatch when you use stereoscopic close-up lenses (for fine mechanical work, say) and people adapt to them as well.

Re:People get motion sick. (2)

jandersen (462034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663800)

... but I wonder if people will adjust to it eventually?

I doubt it. I think it is a misunderstanding to think that what people want is total immersion in a story - personally, I prefer books to movies, exactly because they seem less real; a book allows you to concentrate your attention at the level that suits you, and you can read it at your own pace. Watching a movie is, in a sense, more stressful, and deeper immersion will only make it worse.

Compare this to pictures: a photo can be brilliant, rich in beautiful detail and stunning colour, but somehow the cruder, less realistic paintings of Monet or Picasso appeal more to people in general. I think this is the same thing: a photo ties to in, paintings give you the freedom to use you own imagination.

Re:People get motion sick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663880)

> Much like how someone has to adjust to their first pair of glasses?

I guess you don't wear glasses? Actually, you have to adapt to each pair of glasses (unless your prescription doesn't change, but even then, it usually changes enough). It's true that you get used to it and there's no permanent harm, even though it causes a bad headache, but the adaptation for glasses is only temporary. I still get a headache every time I put on my sunglasses which theoretically have the same prescription as my current glasses. You can't easily go back to an old pair, either. It tends to wear off after an hour or two, but I'm not sure how well that works for playing a game.

Then again, I don't have a 3DS. Though I did look at one in a store and it did give me a headache a lot like the ones I get from a new pair of glasses.

Re:People get motion sick. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663922)

Dunno. I don't get motion sickness, but I do get violently ill with migraines from anything related to 3d. The old style vr helmets in the 90's same deal. My first pair of glasses went swimmingly well, no problems with that either. Probably doesn't help that I've had a serious head injury since I was a kid and there's scaring in my occipital lobe, but unless there's some type of neural implant I doubt they'll ever get 3d to the point where I can use it without having uncontrollable fits of nausea in under 5mins when I see it.

Seizures (2)

android.dreamer (1948792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663574)

It gives me a photo-epileptic seizure, so no thanks.

Re:Seizures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663592)

Marketing spin: So awesome you'll have a seizure!

Re:Seizures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663614)

Wii Fit 3D

Mod parent up (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663704)

Holy hell this is a good idea.

Different Issue (2)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663582)

The article implies that part of the reason for headaches is the 3D video causing your brain to believe you're moving about, while your inner ear does not agree. However, the source [childrensh...alblog.org] the article cites says that this causes nausea, not headaches. I would think this is similar to getting car sick.

Knowing what I know through common sense, I think that headaches from 3D video are caused by your eyes crossing in order to line up the disparate images, as they do in a true 3D world, yet not changing their focus, since all objects on the screen are at the same distance and therefore same focus.

3d is less real (3, Insightful)

johncandale (1430587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663602)

3d in current tech is less real looking then 2d images. Sense the offset can only project images in a cone that pinpoints at your face, and the widest point at the screen distance, you become aware of the 'sides' of the world. Where a well shot 2d film sucks you in nicely. Furthermore, while not the case with 3ds, but for sure the case with blu-ray, a part of the film is always out of focus. This is not how your eyes perceive the real world! 2d films are more realistic , sorry. Not till they have real holographics will it be better. Also the films are darker due to the glasses and the overlay. The 3ds has less frames per second. In 2d mode, you get 60fps, at full 3d setting, 30fps, half for each image.

Real life equivalents to 3D viewing (2)

ktappe (747125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663606)

your inner ear is not experiencing the movement that corresponds to what the eyes are seeing

It's possible for something pretty close to this to occur in real life. The two that come to mind from personal experience are bicycling on a very flat/smooth road and skiing in deep fresh powder. Both give your inner ear very little movement to detect and so you have lots of visual stimulation with very little corresponding motion feel. And that's what I equate my 3D movie watching experiences to--a "floating" feeling. I wonder if those who get sick have fewer real-life experiences to equate it to and their brains haven't been "trained" in the disconnected feelings? Just conjecture....

Typos make my head ache (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663642)

"It's research shows that the brain is more attentive when..."

ugh

Re:Typos make my head ache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35664242)

Whereas lack of proper capitalisation or punctuation are fine?

No Thank You to 3D. (4, Interesting)

ethicalcannibal (1632871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663644)

I have Graves Disease. I get nausea a lot. I have meds that suppress the disease, and the side effects are more nausea. Surprise!

On a good day, with little amounts of 3D, I'm fine. One a bad day, I can't even watch my Netflix queue on my xbox queue scroll sideways. I hate it when the only version of a movie that is available is in 3D. These days I'll wait until I can find a regular version, or not watch it.

I won't even attempt the Nintendo 3DS.

Re:No Thank You to 3D. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663726)

The Nintendo 3DS has a slider so you can use it like normal anyway. At least give that a try.

Re:No Thank You to 3D. (4, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663736)

I won't even attempt the Nintendo 3DS.

Luckily Nintendo did things right, and provide a very convenient way to adjust the amount of 3D effect, or turn it off completely.

[That's what sucks about the current 3D-movie craze: often the only version of a movie playing in a given location will be the 3D version, meaning those who don't enjoy the 3D effect must suffer an inferior viewing experience (dimmer image, awkward and uncomfortable glasses), and end up paying extra for the privilege!]

Arrr, me hearties! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664016)

I guess if that continues to be the case I'll have to invest in an eyepatch.

Actually, would that help?

Re:Arrr, me hearties! (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664180)

Yes, that would actually work perfectly, though then you could only see out of one eye, obviously.

An even better solution, the way 3D movie glasses work is each lens is polarized perpendicular to the other lens. That way, light can be directed to only be seen by one eye, and completely filtered out by the other. If you had a pair of movie glasses where both lenses were of the same orientation of polarizing filter, then you would only see the left or the right image in both of your eyes, effectively getting the movie in 2D.

As an experiment, you could try just wearing sunglasses into a theater! If they're polarized (good ones definitely are) and in the same orientation (I'm not sure why sunglasses would rotate the orientation, so they're probably the same) then they should work perfectly! The only problem would be that it might also be dark, haha.

But yes, if you're ever nauseated by a 3D movie, you can always watch it in 2D by closing one eye. Maybe you could switch of which eye is closed?

Re:Arrr, me hearties! (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664182)

Or, I don't know why I didn't think of this, you could just get a pair of 3D movie glasses, remove one lens, rotate it 90 degrees, and then put it / tape it back into the glasses. Whala!

Re:No Thank You to 3D. (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664072)

maybe the fact that you can just turn of the "3D effect" means its not really 3D! When you cant convert 3D display to 2D, thats when 3D is here. Also I agree that its stupid that you cant see a 2D version of a movie if you dont like 3D or if you get sick from it.

Re:No Thank You to 3D. (1)

Laser Dan (707106) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664190)

One possible, though not perfect, solution would be to provide a choice between 3D and non-3D glasses at the theatre. The non-3D version would be the same glasses but with the blanking/polarisation the same on both eyes instead of opposite. You still have to wear the glasses, but at least those who don't want 3D wouldn't have to have it.

Re:No Thank You to 3D. (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664162)

Actually, Nintendo thought of you, and many other people, already. There is a built in slider that turns down or off the 3D effect. You can turn it off, and never have to worry about seeing 3D, and still enjoy EVERY SINGLE game or app on the 3DS. You don't even have to worry about which developers support you; the hardware already allows you to play all games in 2D. Nintendo is already advising that all young children should only play in 2D in case of eye strain. Its very unlikely that some developer is going to require you to judge a distance in the game based on the 3D perspective; its not accurate or dramatic enough for that. So those who use it will just get an extra "neato", but you can still enjoy the new hardware and new games.

So feel free to attempt it.

Bogus neuroscience (5, Interesting)

SiMac (409541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663746)

Even if you watch a movie without 3D, you are "tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving in relation to your surroundings." There is a large overlap in the neural circuitry that processes motion parallax (the 3D effect that you get when you have a moving camera) and stereopsis (the 3D effect that you get when you have two different images projected onto your two retinas). This is the mechanism behind 3D animated GIFs [flickr.com] , and one of the major depth cues in a 2D movie. Motion parallax is even more intricately linked to the vestibular system, since you need to know whether the image on your retina is changing because your head is moving or because the object you are looking at is in motion. (This is probably part of the reason that an ordinary movie is not an immersive 3D experience.) In contrast, stereopsis does not require motion to work as a depth cue, although all of these depth cues are ultimately integrated.

The potential for motion parallax without vestibular signals to alter the development of visual areas dedicated to depth perception seems at least as great as the potential for moving stereoscopic images without vestibular signals to alter the development of these areas. No one knew about this when the motion picture was invented, and kids who grew up with a TV are still perfectly capable of making use of vestibular signals.

Overall, that 3D is somehow "bad for the brain" is highly speculative. You don't get a headache or nausea when viewing 3D movies from very close up because you are damaging your brain. The malaise doesn't even necessarily have to do with the lack of a vestibular signal, and quite possibly doesn't, since you don't get nausea from simulated camera movement without associated head movement even though you have conflicting cues there as well. It can come from the visual system alone. If you are close enough to the screen, you are viewing 3D images with such high disparity that you can't fuse them. The brain interprets this as a sign that there is a problem with your visual system. You might even feel sick to your stomach, since in the environment in which we evolved, this kind of problem with your visual system would most likely have been caused by ingesting some kind of harmful psychotropic substance. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any permanent damage to or alteration of the brain itself.

If someone can show that there is any change in cortical thickness in the visual areas of children exposed to 3D movies from a very young age, or that these children exhibit significantly different performance in some set of psychophysical paradigms, I might reconsider, but the "evidence" presented in this article is complete bullshit.

Motion sickness (3, Interesting)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663850)

I personally cant play any 3D FPS games displayed even on regular 2D screen. I get motion sickness... I cant even imagine how fast I would get sick playing something like this 3DS...

Re:Motion sickness (2)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664196)

Probably equally fast. If you get sick playing a 3D first person shooter even on a 2D display, then you've got a deeper problem, something about how your brain handles animation or perspective. Its possible your eyes just need to adjust. But what the parent was getting at, was that these are actually entirely different parts of the brain; they're not related necessarily. You might be fine with stereoscopic perspective, although the 3DS is still going to be using an LCD screen to display images in perspective, and its still going to trigger whatever bothers you about 2D games.

Re:Bogus neuroscience (2)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664210)

Thanks so much for posting this, I cannot agree enough. People are complaining about 3D left and right, and it sounds like so much "TV will rot your brain". Its the same old fear-mongering about something new. People just aren't comfortable with change.

It is *possible* that something could be bad for your brain / eyes with 3D movies, but I seriously doubt it, and TFA certainly doesn't give me reasons to think so. You already explained why very succinctly.

Won't get in our house (2)

aaaurgh (455697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663760)

My wife cannot watch 3D, old tech. or new, it always gives her a headache and/or makes her nauseous so we won't be getting a 3D tv. When faced with a 3D movie or nothing option at the cinema (usually when taking the kids), she either doesn't wear the glasses or blanks out one len with a piece of paper or card.

We did manage to get a couple of pairs of glasses for our regular cinema and "adapted" them to have two right-hand lenses (doesn't look great but so what) so she can use both eyes but only gets one perspective which means a clear image but no headache. However, as different cinemas use different technologies, we can't use these at all outlets.

We consider 3D to be a gimmick and nothing more - if the movie can't hold its own without having to resort to cheap (or not so cheap) 3D special effects then we're not interested. Case in point - Avatar, nothing more than Dances With Wolves In Space and, just like Dances With Wolves, a thin story line dragged out about an hour too long but with an overdose of animation instead of long wilderness panoramas.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35663764)

Of course it is more immersive! You are glued to the screen either by means of ugly glasses with long wires connected to the television or a tiny screen which becomes unviewable when tilted even slightly. There is no room to move around or do anything else than watch the movie.

Low 3D ? (1)

KingofSpades (874684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663772)

The "3D" effect isn't binary: it can be adjusted. It would be interesting to study how headaches change when the 3D effect is increased from zero to max by increments. Maybe a small 3D effect can be immersive without the headaches.

Re:Low 3D ? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664002)

the 3DS has a little slider to control that.

3d movies these days have their depth planned out to enhance the storytelling value. i guess they're trying like mad to make it seem less gimmicky and more like yet another tool in the vast toolbox of cinema.

of course it is both right now... and will remain so as long as the multiplexes are attracting people solely because of 3d. when 3d TVs have full penetration we'll start seeing 3d mature as filmmakers spend more time communicating and less time showing off.

In other news 3D harder to watch (2)

mlush (620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663792)

In this article [pocket-lint.com] researchers claim that "3D makes the brain 12% more attentive" .... Depending on agenda this could be easily respun as "3D makes the brain work 12% harder".

Good 3D works fine for me (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663844)

If it's a good implementation, I don't have a problem.

I once tried Quake 3 in anaglyph mode and that was painful. But anaglyph always was a bad way of doing it. Now well done 3D with good hardware? No problem at all. I've watched about 5 hours worth of 3D movies without a problem, and played fast paced games for about that long in 3D on a Zalman monitor.

HECK YES! (2)

masterjere (2029646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663848)

I can't believe how bad it makes my eyes hurt then in turn, my head hurt as well, I mean it's like being hit in the head with a sledgehammer or something. Jere http://www.thenerdblurb.com/ [thenerdblurb.com] .

Good training for space travel? (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663884)

The issue, doctors say, is that 3D works by tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving in relation to your surroundings. But you aren't. So your inner ear is not experiencing the movement that corresponds to what the eyes are seeing.

Seems like learning to handle confusion between what your eyes see and your inner ear experiences would be good training for space travel and free fall...maybe even for boating on the rollickin' ocean waves.

Or for traveling via lysergic acid diethylamide.

Re:Good training for space travel? (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664264)

Seems like learning to handle confusion between what your eyes see and your inner ear experiences would be good training for space travel and free fall...maybe even for boating on the rollickin' ocean waves.

Or for traveling via lysergic acid diethylamide.

Space travel, free fall, maybe boating... sure. LSD - nope. While I do sometimes feel slightly disoriented when tripping very hard (upwards of 4 moderate to strong tabs at once), it's nowhere near the level of bad I feel when I'm sea-sick, or watching something in fake-3D (which for me are sadly similar experiences). The thing with LSD is that while yes, your brain will be getting conflicting signals from your inner ear and what you see, the "what you see" part isn't coming from your eyes, but from your brain itself. I think that tends to remove a lot of the potential for sea-sickness type feelings.

Typical (2)

Plammox (717738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663926)

Billions of $ are spent to upgrade entertainment technology in the hunt for corporate profit. Cinema 3D films with odd colors and flickering 3D glasses are being hyped.
Whatever happened to the immersive story line? The acting?

(Where is that darn Kurosawa DVD collection...? I had it here somewhere...)

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35664060)

immersive story line? The acting?

That's crazy talk! You can't charge more for a good story or acting!

technology. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35663968)

boo hoo. some stimuli that are normally coupled are uncoupled.

i'm sure people said the same with every stage in cinema:

- the lack of colour where colour normally exists
- the presence of focused and unfocused objects on the same plane
- the lack of high and low frequencies in early cinema sound

now...

let's not confuse the 3d systems currently in theatres.

the single-lens system (the one with LCD specs) is far inferiour to the twin-lens (polarized) system.

with a 48Hz refresh,on the single-lens system, camera pans cause depth to increase in one direction and decrease in another. this means cameras have to be either fixed, or moved very slowly, or the actual film (if CG) needs to be rendered specially to take this into account. it's worth adding that the latter has never happened.

the single-lens system is also prone to going out of phase, meaning the 3d effect shows the background in front with the action "punched out" of it. flip the glases upside down and you're back to normal.

Car analogy (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664062)

People used to think 15 mph in a car was too fricken fast.

You have to get used to it. It really helps to practice with stereograms

And the problem isn't the 3d movies, its the 3d tech in the movie theaters and the ignorant morons who run them. (At least) one of the regal theaters where I live plays their 3d movies with left-eye right-eye synchronously instead of simultaneously. It also had an IMAX where I watched avatar with the first reel 1 frame out of sync between the eyes

I'm moving? (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664068)

tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving

I think you'll find it's the people in the little rectangle a few feet in front of me who are doing all the moving o_O

Also, the 3DS has the most immersive 3D I've seen so far, to the point that I was instinctively dodging when things came out of the screen towards me (something that 3D movie makers seem to advertise, but I've never remotely felt); the 5 minute demo did make my eyes feel weird for about 15 minutes after though :-(

asdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35664070)

alert("okkkkkkkkkkk")

It sucks for c.20% of people (1)

Monty_Lovering (842499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664146)

The research shows that c. 20% of people suffer ill-effects from 3D meida:

http://w3.tue.nl/en/news/news_article/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=9099&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=58898&cHash=9c1f2ae250 [w3.tue.nl]

I have little binocular vision, so 3D is a bit ho-hum for me. Makes my girlfriend sick within minutes.

As already commented, there are various extremely good reasons why it does this with some people, just like there are good reasons why motion sickness effects some people. They boil down to the fact '3D' is a fake effect (it is NOT 3D) and some people's brains are more sensitive to the fakery.

So, 3D will wither on the tree and die, again. Unless the tech gets better and doesn't alienate (or rather, nauseate) 20% of the audience.

3D is a nice way to charge more money for tickets, and makes screen-cap bootlegs useless. This doesn't stop piracy, but I bet you the delay in availability of 'flat' screen-cap bootlegs and the 3D hoo-ha pushes more people to the cinema, which means more bums on seats and more dollars per seat than an equivalent 2D movie.

It's just a marketing ploy.

Convergence/focus (2)

Rakarra (112805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664174)

The issue, doctors say, is that 3D works by tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving in relation to your surroundings

No, that's not the worst issue. Walter Murch describes in an entry on Roger Ebert's blog, [suntimes.com] the convergence/focus issue, where the eye is expected to work in a way that millions of years of evolution never designed it to, where your eyes are asked to focus on an image very close, yet converge very far away. A quote from the article:

"But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point. ...
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust."

The latter part being bad news now that quick cuts are all the rage.

So... (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664198)

So the problem with stereoscopic 3D is essentially that it's too realistic? I don't really find that much of a problem.

Who is this "no one" ? (1)

Jicehix (778864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35664258)

"No one would deny that 3D is more immersive, that's why people like it, particularly for gaming." So much assumptions in one sentence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?