Slashdot Mirror
Does 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache?
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."
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.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
No one would deny that 3D is more immersive
Oh, really?
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.
@neonux
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.
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.
The more you scare people.....the more they will pay.
How does this work in the first place? Is it one of those lenticular lens dealies?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
It gives me a photo-epileptic seizure, so no thanks.
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 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 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.
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....
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
"It's research shows that the brain is more attentive when..."
ugh
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.
Holy hell this is a good idea.
Anonymous Coward
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, 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.
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.
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
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.
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.
In this article 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".
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.
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/.
The Nerd Blurb - If a Nerd Doesn't Know, No One Knows!
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...
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.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
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...)
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.
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.
I guess if that continues to be the case I'll have to invest in an eyepatch.
Actually, would that help?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
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 :-(
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
alert("okkkkkkkkkkk")
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
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.
No, that's not the worst issue. Walter Murch describes in an entry on Roger Ebert's blog, 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 the problem with stereoscopic 3D is essentially that it's too realistic? I don't really find that much of a problem.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
"No one would deny that 3D is more immersive, that's why people like it, particularly for gaming." So much assumptions in one sentence.
Jicehix
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.
So the problem is that the inner ear feels something else than the eyes see? But this isn't really new is it? Go into a train and look out of the window. If the train is on a straight stretch, your inner ear isn't moving, but (gasp!), the outer 3D is! The reverse effect also exists: Go into a boat, and you'll have your inner ear telling you you move, while the surroundings are stopped. How come we haven't all died of the horrible effects of the not physically moving movement?
Sorry but 3D TV sucks. It simply makes everything look like it's been animated in the style of Ivor The Engine.
Epic fail.
3D would be better if the camera was kept (relatively) still. It's all these battle helicopter effects that are making me nauseous -- just like a real helicopter flight would.
Have the people and objects move on the screen but don't move the camera, you know, 1920's style, and 3D might become an enjoyable reality-enhancing tool.
The first few minutes were just like normal such as "Alice In Wonderland (2010 film)". Then, I've got dizzy when I saw Alice faliing down in a special rabbit hole, where all kinds of stuff keep bouncing on and off and spinning around. Advise to directors: don't film spinning scenes in 3D. I almost got nauseous.
I can easily become completely immersed in a black-and-white movie, IF the plot and characters are believable; my mind can fill in or ignore everything else. Even old-fashioned cartoons can be immersive if the story and characters are good enough. 3-D can distract from characters and plot, even aside from being a headache.
It seems to me that Big Cinema has been evolving for decades in ways that have little to do with story and characters, and more to do with gimmicks to distract from those things: from silent films to talkies, black-and-white to color, SFX to CGI... and 2-D to 3-D. Perhaps eventually movies will all be primarily gimmickry?
Peter Pedant says it is not 3D: it is pseudo-3D, but I guess that does not sound good on the box !
Let's remember that the Blue Ray Disk Association exists for one purpose: to further the commercial success of its members. Period.
-Styopa
I tried the 3-D display at a store one time and watched a short snippet of a movie. It not only made my head hurt, but it gave me problems focusing for a half-hour or more.
should not be used by children under 7
Why?
I'm not interested in meaningless answers like deference to authority "because they said so" or simplified to moron-ness like "it hurts them" or pointless fearmongering like "think of the children".
I'm looking for a medical condition I can google for. Or at least a semi-technical explanation so I can behave appropriately.
For example, if my 5 yr old relative glances over my shoulder at a DS, will he turn to stone like medusa? Or is it indirect like it won't hurt them but the odds of projectile vomiting due to motion sickness approach 100% below age 7, so you don't technically have to keep it away from them, if you don't mind a major cleanup job, or maybe as long as they haven't eaten an entire bag of gummi worms within the last hour. Etc etc etc.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3d done "right" in a movie theater would seat everyone past the hyperfocal distance for the typical human eye and never use a stereo image that breaks the plane of the screen. This would allow viewers to relax their eyes during the entire film.
The result: The best technique is using polarized glasses, as those are the lightest and thus best to wear (i.e. a non-technical reason) while tester subjects found the shutter glasses to be too heavy and in some cases unbearable. Furthermore the reduced resolution of the polarization technique did not matter (most of the test subjects did not even notice). They also point out, however, that one of the main argument commonly heard against shutter glasses - flickering - was not a problem reported by any of the test subjects.
I would love to see a scientific study with a greater number of subjects...
There are lots of factors here. - our eyes usually focus and converge for the same distance; stereo has the convergence change while the focus distance (to screen) is constant - the illusion of movement leads to inner-ear saying "no you're not" when your eyes think you are - on the other hand, if you DO move, your viewpoint does NOT change (for stereo, it does for auto-stereo) - we're only just beginning to understand production values in stereo (e.g. you can't cross-fade, don't switch camera rapidly, when switching be careful with the distance to the object of interest, be very careful with overlays like credits, and so on) Obviously some of these can be dealt with under some circumstances, some not. It may well be that if your brain develops while being exposed to some of these, it will be much more accommodating. Exposure to stereo or auto-stereo might be good for children, who knows?
WEll done 3d? I am very tolerant of. The real3d stuff that is actually shot in 3d for imax is FANTASTIC... Medicore 3d like Avatar, and utter crap 3d like Tron3d.. less tolerant.
I always have the same feeling though and my mind knows it's all fake because when I look at something my eyes want to focus on it and then return to the focus plane of the screen, this instantly gives my brain a "it's fake" signal. Some people, like my wife, are highly bothered by that "it's a fake" signal although the best imax 3d films she can tolerate... Probably because they are so tack sharp and completely fill her field of view compared to the out of focus tiny slit crap in regular theaters.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
From the summary, "IT IS research shows..."
Bloody illiterates.
The inner ear feels just the accelerations and the rotations - those are what makes one sick, not uniform speed (that may make you scared though). I had really bad experiences with 3D movies and also I have simulator sickness. Not real life sickness though - no problem flying planes or doing crazy stuff - when the image and the accelerations are synchronized. Can't watch handheld camera movies or FPS games for more than about 5'. I also don't enjoy most "spatial movies" based on moving the camera around - my brain firmly believes the surface of the screen is flat and just the image moves. Moderate success if I cover or close one eye depriving the brain of the main source of spatial information and having it to rely on alternatives.
Hello /.
Late comment not sure anyone will see but oh well here we go.....
I am in the group of 10% that does not see 3d the way the rest of you do. My eyes are of different strengths leading to having one very dominate eye and one lazy one (not wonky it looks like a normal eye). This results me really only seeing One image when I watch the film instead of my brain trying to use the 2 images to create depth. So when everyone in a 3d film is going being amazed by the images jumping out I just see one flat image with some discoloured overlay image that looks out of place because I am only seeing it from one side. At present i have been to 3-4 3d films and wont be going to any more, even watching the film the way i do it still gives me a headache after 30 or so minutes, the crappy picture overlay which everyone else uses to create depth just looks bad and the whole experiences i feel is rather pointless.
So where am i going with this? 3D is a nice concept however currently I personally have not experienced it like 90% of people have, not that this is a bad thing but for someone that has been playing games since he was 5? owned most consoles (I am a PC gamer) there is a slight worry now that the market is going in a direction that I can not follow. I am hoping that it is an option that can be disabled and you can still play games 'the old fashion way' (anyone know if 3d on the 3DS can be disabled?)
I picked up the 3DS on launch day along with Super Street Fighter 4, Pilot Wings and Super Monkey Ball. For myself I have no issue sitting down for 45 minutes+ with any of these titles and feeling fine afterwards. I will note that in both Pilot Wings and Super Monkey Ball I can't have the 3D slider all the way up. If I do the images start to cross and it messes with my eyes. This doesn't happen in Super Street Fighter 4, so I am not 100% sure what the 3D slider is doing differently between these titles.
I will also note that I have no issues with headaches or motion sickness from 3D movies at a theater or in home with active shutter glasses.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
No, they didn't. They attached a disclaimer warning as a legal CYA. It's more equivalent to a "Warning: Toy cape does not allow the wearer to fly" warning than an acknowledgement of a flaw. Stop spreading the FUD.
In fact, "Nintendo 3DS could help spot kids' vision problems, according to optometrists":http://www2.newsadvance.com/business/2011/mar/18/nintendo-3ds-could-help-spot-kids-vision-problems--ar-914736//.
This submission is horrible. Yes, it's so bad I'm ranting about bad editors on /. At least -I- will feel better.
Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
I went to see Tron at the imax 3d... never laid eyes on anything 3d since the red and green glasses in the 80's to read comics.
I was so disappointed. It felt unnatural, the mechanics involved were unnatural, it was extremely uncomfortable, and I was not impressed because I could barely watch the movie. Thank god the soundtrack was good....
From "magic pictures" to Alice in Wonderland, I can not see 3D. I've read about 15 percent of the population can't, due to an eye condition. To paraphrase Patches O'Houlihan, "3D is about has useful as a poopy flavored lolly pop."
I have myself a nice big shiny 46" 3DTV in my living room hooked up to a gaming PC.
3D blu rays are a PITA to get these days thanks to all those manufacturer exclusives (nice way to shoot your new technology in the foot industry guys) and I'm still not willing to pay the extortionate prices to get them from ebay. Depending on the quality of the film you'll get headaches or not.
So, my main content is 3D gaming from the PC. With a 3D monitor I could run at 1080 at 60hz, on my 3DTV I'm limited to 1080 at 24hz or 720 60Hz.
This works pretty well for me in some cases. World of Warcraft running smoothly with 24 FPS and max settings and 8X AA. Get a little eye strain from having to refocus my eyes repeatedly from to the HUD to the field in a complicated situation (like a raid or dungeon) but overall it's easy on the brain and I don't suffer headaches even after a couple of hours of straight play. SC2 is a little more processor intensive and slows down too much for me in 3D mode.
For a FPS, I'm addicted to high frame-rates. This means I'm set to having the 720p resolution which looks fairly ugly. Not only that but in choppy times where it dips below that, things get mixed up things as the frame rate stutters, things get very out of focus and I can start to feel a migraine coming on. Some better hardware on my end would probably improve things but even then the resolution limits keep things ugly until they improve the technology. As such I stick to 2D for those games.
So depends on content you watch and how you watch it for me.
If you look around the scene, the effect is not real and there will be subtle differences which explains the nausea for a lot of people.
I've seen 3d movies since the mod 90's and played 3d games since the geforce 256. For games, I've noticed that it's only good for racing games where the eyeball angle is fixed mostly at a very far point down the road. With shooters, I look around the scene too much and feel that things aren't right, it seems to add latency to my reactions. After about a month of Quake 2 and a few others I had stopped.
What we really need for games is cameras in the glasses that look at where our eyes are looking and adjust the view angles accordingly. For movies, nothing is to be done because not everyone is looking at the same thing.
Advice for people with sensitive reactions to subtle changes in the world that is presented towards them, when watching a 3d movie, try not moving your head and always look where the scene is focussed on. You may be able to watch a little longer.
Cheers
This post is begging for a 3D image of Goatse!
All 3D TV's on sale now! Quick, go buy one!
My head isn't happy with 3D. My head is ache.
I'm one of the people that 3D is absolutely painful for (take THAT grammar nazis!). I'm already prone to migraines and the 3D just makes it worse. When I went to see Avatar in 3D I preemptively popped 2 Excedrin and still ended up with a mild headache by the end.
This space for rent...
I can be attentive to things that stress me out or even terrify me. Don't conclude that I'm having a pleasurable experience.
Worse yet, a pleasurable experience isn't necessarily good. Crack cocaine is pleasurable, but is it good?
Reading between the lines, I'm seeing TV with extra-horrible enhanced addictiveness. No thanks.
Isn't it the same brain-bending exercise to look into a Concave Mirror on the passenger side of a car? Your eyes focus on the mirror, but converge at a point further than expected... takes a few milliseconds to adjust but it doesn't cause any problems.
I've only seen 1 movie in 3D at the theaters and I left there with a headache. I don't get headaches often and never had a problem with any other movie so I'm assuming it was because of the 3D. It was cool and everything but frankly nothing to be excited over. I like my movies large and in 2D.
Any movie or game in which the point of view is moving "tricks your brain" into thinking that you are moving when you actually or not. This includes most movies and all "first person" video games. A 3D game may or may not do this. In many 3D games, the point of view is static, so all it does is "trick your brain" into thinking that you are seeing 3D objects moving around while you are sitting still--which you actually are. I'm fairly sensitive to motion sickness, and occasionally have experienced mild motion sickness from "first person" games. Just like motion sickness from riding in a vehicle, it goes away pretty rapidly when I stop. So far, I've had no ill effects from playing 3DS games for a couple of hours or so. I ignored Nintendo's "take a rest every half hour" warning--if I start to feel uncomfortable, I'll stop for a while, just like any sensible person. So far, it hasn't happened. The warning about children is not based on any actual science, and it is unlikely that there is any actual risk. It's a bit like the warning that video games can cause seizures--it gives Nintendo some legal protection against the inevitable eventuality that somebody will blame Nintendo because his kid needs glasses.
Sad for me since I can't see 3D effects due to my compound eyes. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The future of holodecks is looking grim.
The 3DS is truly awesome and the 3D works well. The biggest problem with it (or any glassesless 3D) is that it is sensitive to positioning. It does take some getting used to find out how you need to position it and if you're in an office or somewhere with annoying overhead lights trying to fight with the glare from lights and the right position can be a pain.
I find my eyes have adjusted and they're not so sensitive to movement and losing the 3D effect. I think a lot of the headaches are from people not holding it right or trying to concentrate to hard. It'll go away but there are still some instances where 3D is a no-no. One being waking up after a night of heavy drinking and trying to play. That's a good way to make your stomach feel like shit.
Nintendo was wise to put a slider and allow people to remove the effect and the games are just as fun without (the ones I have anyway) but the system is well suited for 3D because it's really only going to be looked at by one person staring straight into it. The reason why 3D TV will fail, imo, is no one wants to sit in a specific area through a whole movie or two.
They need to find a way to get the effect to work from any angle and then it'll take off because yes the 3D effects are really nice to look at.
Solving the motion problem does not make the symptoms go away.
3D like Shrek, and lots of Avatar, do not try to make you think you're moving. While it does happen, the motion issue is only a minor part of the 3D problem. In fact, if you watch 2D films in Imax, they limit the amount of first-person flight segments precisely to prevent this sort of thing, which obviously means it's not a 3D-only effect.
3D combined with motion-enabled seating can give a very realistic feel, which I experienced at the Back to the Future movie/ride a decade ago a theme park.
Crap reporting, I say. Someone who didn't understand what they were being told wrote an article.
I own a Virtual Boy and don't have problems with that, saw Avatar in 3D and was fine with it, and I've watched DVDs in anaglyph and that was fine for me as well. I did feel my eyes straining about halfway through Avatar, since my eyes wanted to adjust focus, but I didn't get a headache.
They also point out, however, that one of the main argument commonly heard against shutter glasses - flickering - was not a problem reported by any of the test subjects.
If I had been tested, I would have reported it.
I have no idea of the longer term implications for this but would it be possible to become adaptable to this disconnect? Eyes Vs inner ear? If a child were to use this from an early age could they just simply build up a tolerance?