Slashdot Mirror

the real article

Here's a better link directly to the PDF document without the crappy HTML frames. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.full.pdf

the real article

Here's a better link directly to the PDF document without the crappy HTML frames. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.full.pdf

the real article

Perceived distance in stereoscopic imagery is determined by where your eyes cross, if they're not parallel. Infinity is when the parallax, the distance between the position on the left- and right-eye images, is 85mm apart (the distance between your eyes). On a small screen the actual number that represents infinity is going to be smaller, and thus appear at some finite distance between your eyes, and in the movie theater it could potentially be greater than 85mm, meaning... farther than infinity somehow (your eyes are looking away from each other instead of looking in parallel directions or crossing).

And I'm just now reading the article and it actually describes this, it's worth reading: http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.full

Recent increased usage of stereo displays has been accompanied by public concern about potential adverse effects associated with prolonged viewing of stereo imagery. There are numerous potential sources of adverse effects, but we focused on how vergence–accommodation conflicts in stereo displays affect visual discomfort and fatigue. In one experiment, we examined the effect of viewing distance on discomfort and fatigue. We found that conflicts of a given dioptric value were slightly less comfortable at far than at near distance. In a second experiment, we examined the effect of the sign of the vergence–accommodation conflict on discomfort and fatigue. We found that negative conflicts (stereo content behind the screen) are less comfortable at far distances and that positive conflicts (content in front of screen) are less comfortable at near distances. In a third experiment, we measured phoria and the zone of clear single binocular vision, which are clinical measurements commonly associated with correcting refractive error. Those measurements predicted susceptibility to discomfort in the first two experiments. We discuss the relevance of these findings for a wide variety of situations including the viewing of mobile devices, desktop displays, television, and cinema.
Keywords: stereopsis, depth perception, vergence, accommodation, discomfort, fatigue, displays, asthenopia Citation: Shibata, T., Kim, J., Hoffman, D. M., & Banks, M. S. (2011). The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with
stereo displays. Journal of Vision, 11(8):11, 1–29, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11, doi:10.1167/11.8.11.

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.abstract

Where am I seeing anything about 3D hurting eyes in here? This might just be the worst slashdot heading, summary, and linked article in a while.

The whole study is trying to measure specific angles and distances where 3D is uncomfortable. There's nothing about 3D actually hurting eyes.

I'm very surprised to see this article on the front page of slashdot. About 7-8 months ago, I was in the market for a new television: a panasonic plasma. Since I knew they were coming out with new 3d tv's, I decided to do some research on them. Suddenly, I started to think about all the times when I had gone to the movies and watched them on 3d, only to come out disappointed because of the headache I had acquired. I poured through hours worth of webpages and learned how we are able to see the 3d effects created in the theaters. Its kind of ridiculous to think that I have not seen any widespread front page news coverage on how your eyes are forced to move unnaturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_dysphoria It has to do with how our eyes see things. 3d makes our eyes do unnatural things. I think its safe to say that children's bodies are constantly developing, and they are more susceptible to damage than adults are. If you really want to read about how these things work, I found a great link. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/3/33.full I like my children, so personally I'd rather be safe than sorry.

http://stock-background-texture.com/

I'm very surprised to see this article on the front page of slashdot. About 7-8 months ago, I was in the market for a new television: a panasonic plasma. Since I knew they were coming out with new 3d tv's, I decided to do some research on them. Suddenly, I started to think about all the times when I had gone to the movies and watched them on 3d, only to come out disappointed because of the headache I had acquired. I poured through hours worth of webpages and learned how we are able to see the 3d effects created in the theaters. Its kind of ridiculous to think that I have not seen any widespread front page news coverage on how your eyes are forced to move unnaturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_dysphoria It has to do with how our eyes see things. 3d makes our eyes do unnatural things. I think its safe to say that children's bodies are constantly developing, and they are more susceptible to damage than adults are. If you really want to read about how these things work, I found a great link. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/3/33.full I like my children, so personally I'd rather be safe than sorry.

How is it your eye is incapable of discerning the difference between muddy and clear, but it's capable of watching a movie on the tiny iPhone screen?

Go ahead and try watching that iPhone at a distance between your couch and TV.

This guy does some good-old-fashioned book research and hand math to figure out that we can probably set a lower bound of 324MP on what the human eye can pick up across its central vision.

Caught up in the same megapixel craze as digital cameras I see. Your optics is most probably not up to par to read slashdot on home HDTV, zoom functionality has been left out and your CPU can only handle 4-8 objects at once when compressing the video for interpretation. With this constraint, wouldn't you rather focus on image composition rather than resolution?

This is another reason I am glad my WoW guild uses TeamSpeak. ;-) Unless they are guys that suck helium whenever they hit "Press to talk," there's a fair number of women in our game, and there's no quesiton about their gender. (And a fair number of them are married, and their spouses are in the guild, too.)

There's the usual assumption that someone is the same gender as their PC, if only because it's the norm, and not the exception, at least as far as I have experienced so far. If I find out differently, it just takes a moment to adjust mentally, usually for voice recogintion or in the case when it's someone I've know in Real Life for years ("Wait, Fratboy Mike's playing a chick. I hear him belch on TS, but he's got a female PC. OK, this will take getting used to..." Yes, it's a stereotype, but that's because he plays that image up on occasion in RL). The advanced sophisicaiton of games doesn't help if they are well made, as poses, body movement, etc. are signals as to what gender a person is. ( http://journalofvision.org/4/5/2/article.aspx )

The only time I find Gender Bending truly awkward in an MMO is gramatically. When a male player is playing a female character, or vice versa, it takes a moment to sort out the grammar. "She can pull, she's the tank... he? Dammit, which do you prefer?" :-)

How on earth would a bird find its nest again if it couldn't see its stationary eggs/nest structure?

Well... if the target isn't moving, and the "system" requires movement... and there are only two parts that can be moving...

The answer should be obvious where the movement occurs.

here is an article that goes a bit more in depth about the theory.

The skill of "instant counting" is called "subitizing."

According to research, playing action video games increases people's subitizing ability.

For example, a Doom player is better at instantly estimating the size up a force of imps.

Binocular disparity only works out to a few metres distance. Beyond that you use different cues. Consider some papers by my supervisor, for example: A laminar cortical model of monocular and binocular interactions in depth perception, Neural Dynamics Of 3-D Surface Perception: Figure-Ground Separation And Lightness Perception

I'm glad you're actually posting evidence now.

It seems from the link you provided that people tested using cell phones were able to keep their cars inside the lane just fine.

Now, keeping your car inside the lane is just one aspect of driving. Other studies show that using a phone markedly impairs reaction times to traffic signals and brake lights.

Even if phone use is not significantly impairing, you can't conclude that computer use is also non-impairing. Phone use mostly involves your auditory and language facilities, which are not used much in driving. Computer use requires your vision to look at the screen, and vision is essental to driving. There is mountains of evidence (like this and this) showing that while people can multitask easily between tasks using different sensory modalities, they cannot multitask efficiently between two tasks requiring the same sensory modality.

It ain't the hands which cause the problem.