Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-with-feeling-but-not-depth dept.

dryriver (1010635) writes with this clipping from the BBC: A French health watchdog has recommended that children under the age of six should not be allowed access to 3D content. The Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) added that access for those up to the age of 13 should be 'moderate'. It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage. According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image. 'In children, and particularly before the age of six, the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe given the active development of the visual system at this time,' it said in a statement.

99 comments

  1. ANSES by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    The Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety

    Isn't this agency a little too spread out in various domains? Shouldn't there be three agencies for those?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:ANSES by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      In France, those are all things that have wine pairings.

    2. Re:ANSES by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, wine is the domain of L'agence des vins, fromages et pain baguette.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:ANSES by sabri · · Score: 0

      In France

      where the same guys ban wi-fi.

      Yes, those flat-earthers...

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. I'm not a scientist... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

    Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

    1. Re:I'm not a scientist... by PacoSuarez · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      That's why France doesn't allow children under the age of six to open both eyes at the same time.

    2. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

    3. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. They should have added this: Normal 3d vision from natural surroundings has the eyes converge at the same distance that they focus. Artificial 3D technology has the eyes do something they never did before. That is focusing at a near distance while converging at a farther distance.

    4. Re:I'm not a scientist... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      Yes, but there is a difference between displaying a 3D image on a screen and having depth perception in the real world. In the real world your eyes changes focus to switch between near and far objects. With a fixed screen you end up being some fixed focus distance away from the screen and your eyes won't need to change focus looking at different parts of the screen which are displaying 3D objects that are meant to be a different distances away from the viewer. Even though your brain is registering something as being nearer or farther away depending where you look on the screen. A 3d screen is not the same as looking through a window at a real 3D world.

      So for example you have two objects on the 3D screen and one is perceptually further away than the other in 3D space, but if it is already in focus, then you don't have to change your eye focus to focus on the further away object. That is a bit of a difference between the way perception of distance to an object is supposed to work together with the way your eye changes focus.

    5. Re:I'm not a scientist... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

      And it gives me a headache. (Which I took as a cue that it probably doesn't do me any good)

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:I'm not a scientist... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      You are correct, so stereoscopic 3D could potentially cause problems for a developing brain, but so can TV and video-devices in general. It's probably a good idea to wait until someone is at least 6 before feeding them any kind of media. Let them get started playing in the real world.

    7. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Basically, bigpat is agreeing with the other posters that it's something a human eye doesn't normally do. But he wanted to sound smart and reread his post 10 times.

    8. Re:I'm not a scientist... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

      But that doesn't mean it causes any permanent (or even temporary) damage to your eyesight. TFA claims that there is evidence that it does, but doesn't provide any citation. I did a Google search, and found research conducted on adults (none on children) that showed it causes "eyestrain", which could lead to damage, but none of the studies found any damage at all. In summary, I found NO evidence that 3D viewing causes any damage, and I found NO evidence that it affects children differently than adults. If anyone can find any research that says otherwise, please post a citation. I think the basic problem is that France has too many bureaucrats, and they don't have enough real work to do.

    9. Re:I'm not a scientist... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      But it's not a problem today because nobody watches their 3d tvs in 3d. It was an over-hyped selling point.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:I'm not a scientist... by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      sure, but modern 3d tech, as good as it is, is still a bit of a kludge. the screen is still a fixed distance away from your eyes. the image doesn't move when you move your eyes. the interpupilary distance used to render the two images may not match your own. Having viewed a 3d world our whole lives we are impressed by the reproduction in an occulus rift. However we are also blissfully unaware how much work went into our brain building up a database of how to interpret what is coming in from our eyes.

      for example: When i scan about my desk, my eyes converge on various things. My brain is getting the two images, but unlike the images from a vr headset, the projection matrices are along different normals, the subject may be closer to one eye than another and that eye is at a different focal distance, all of that means something to your brain. It's not just cruft. The lack of a lot of this contributes to the disorientation most people feel when they first strap on an occulus. Your eye is being fed an image that is generated from a crude eye that is not quite doing what your eye is doing.

      that said, it's unlikely that a kid who grows up with too much vr is going to die. they just might feel a bit dizzy walking around the real world. is that horrible? or is it like how my teachers didn't like me relying on a computer to do math. maybe i'm not as good at head math, but knowing how to do it with the tool sure has been beneficial to me.

    11. Re:I'm not a scientist... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Normal vision works by looking at the same image(or item) from two different angles.

      --
      XDInd
    12. Re:I'm not a scientist... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      It's a potentially great selling point, just poorly implemented.

      --
      XDInd
    13. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, about 25% of all humans have neurologically impared depth perception, ranging from mild to complete disability.

      I have mild problems with it, and stereographic imaging(3D glasses, VR HMD's) gives me eyestrain within 5-10 minutes and a blistering headache at 20-30min....

    14. Re:I'm not a scientist... by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

      You're thinking too much. This is France. Think of the children! Don't bring logic into this.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    15. Re: I'm not a scientist... by Threni · · Score: 1

      But is there any evidence whatsoever that this is harmful?

    16. Re:I'm not a scientist... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      No, that's the UK, as leaving one eye protected at all times is deemed safer.

    17. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello acdickshit, if you look at the timestamps you might conclude that these people all basically responded at the same general time, offset by the amount of time they spent elaborating on the answer. you picked on the one long response but not the ones that came before or after. you have some sort of hardon for bigpat? then just say so. please be more upfront about these sort of things in the future, thank you.

    18. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eyesight is probably the most important sense you have to interact with the world. It's precious and even a slight chance off affecting it is enough to not take the risk. It's not like we're depriving kids of something important anyway.

      I don't see what's wrong with the recommandation and the fact that an agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety studies the effect of 3D viewing on people and kids. Sounds to me they are doing their job.

    19. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question I responded to was how is viewing a 3D image different, not an explanation of how it is harmful or any claim that it was or was not harmful. However there is flawed logic in your response.

      " and found research conducted on adults (none on children) " ...and there you go. The lack of evidence doesn't prove/disprove anything. Although it's probably more a lack of diligent reporting on the journalist's part combined with the research may be in journals that aren't freely available(and abstracts with technical wording that don't turn up in a google). It sounds like to me you've pointed out why there SHOULD be such a study.

      Additionally, studies where you hypothesize that subjects will come to significant irreparable harm are usually considered unethical. You have to instead observe those who already engage in those behaviors, and because they don't all engage in them in a consistent manner, then it's difficult to prove something. This is exactly why no one has proven cigarettes cause cancer. When a scientist talks about proving something, it's much more rigorous than what the average person thinks of. In the absence of a controlled experiment, you instead make statistical observations. Even if they found extreme statistics, such as 94% of people who smoke get cancer within a week of smoking, it still wouldn't prove anything cause you could have a correlation with some other variable out of your control. It is statistically significant however, and for these kind of things, it is the closest thing to proof you will get. That aside from rubbing cigarette tar on an animal and seeing cancer form. But that's usually not enough for people who like to argue.

    20. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      that said, it's unlikely that a kid who grows up with too much vr is going to die. they just might feel a bit dizzy walking around the real world. is that horrible?

      Um... yeah. Actually, being dizzy as you walk around in the real world sounds pretty awful. That's where most of us spend the bulk of their time, after all.

      As with all things, including 3D VR, moderation is probably best, especially with young children. Not that we need to panic about each new technology that comes along, but rather, it seems reasonable to take a "prove to me it's safe over the long term" rather than "jump in immediately and wait to see if it's harmful later" with younger kids, who turn out to be particularly susceptible to all sorts of things that adults are a bit more resistant to.

      I'm pretty sure I screwed up my eyes by doing silly things like designing videogame sprites on 20 square-per-inch engineering graph paper when I was a youngster, and of course, being a voracious reader. No one else in my family wears glasses. It makes perfect sense to me that children's eyes would well be more susceptible to aberrations if 3D viewing is done excessively.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    21. Re:I'm not a scientist... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      yeah, i think it's easy for us to miss the importance of all the data our brains gather in childhood. Neuroplasticity be damned, i don't think it's the kind of database your brain is able to set up later either. I think best case scenario, a person who spent too much VR time in their formative years would experience the outside world much as we experience VR; not quite right. I think worst case scenario could go off the charts. At the very least, i don't think i would trust such a person behind the wheel of a car.

    22. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Nope. There is no way to get round the convergence-accomodation problem, except when the image is both logically and physically so far away that 3D is irrelevant.

      3D is a bad idea. It makes your head hurt because you are experiencing the impossible. If it does not make your head hurt, then it is doing you harm.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    23. Re: I'm not a scientist... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Not that I've heard of. To make this even more complicated, I think the odds that it will cause adaptive changes are high, but whether those changes are 'harm' is up for interpretation.

      I remember reading somewhere that when the original star trek series aired, significant numbers of people couldn't do the vulcan greeting. However, the percentage is nearly 100% today due to changes in how we use our hands training our brains differently. Secondly, modern humans tend to be more able to independently move our hands due to using keyboards with mice.

      A young child exposed to 3D viewing early may instead develop a vision mode that's 'used' to it, causing no noticeable harm otherwise, but not suffering from the headaches and eye strain current adults often have.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re:I'm not a scientist... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Thing is, they are missing the research and citations...
      For all we know, it could actually put kids who use both early at an advantage. They might not get dizzy in any situations. They might have better abilities to judge distances both real and virtual. They may have better hand eye coordination from "touching" things that aren't actually there. It might take a while to develop those skills just as a bilingual child takes longer developing language skills, but ultimately can get both languages to a near mastery level.
      I'm not saying this is the case, but that there is no proof one way or the other.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    25. Re:I'm not a scientist... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that the French were Republicans!

    26. Re:I'm not a scientist... by erlkonig · · Score: 1

      Well... optically would probably could make it focussing at a far distance while looking at a converging at a nearer distance (flipped from above), but the point is that no accomodation (focus change) is required for for 3D screens, and that could impact kids' brains learning how to integrate focus into the set of cues used for depth perception.

      Othewise said, Anses is an idiot in this area and has no idea what the real issue is, though there might be one: "three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image" is flawed in almost every respect except for "three-dimensional" and "eyes". He shouldn't be involved in policy in this area.

    27. Re:I'm not a scientist... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I've found that 3D TV doesn't give me as much of a headache the closer I am to the position where the 3D looks natural, ie along the line perpendicular to the center of the TV and at an appropriate distance. Having the hardware directly attached to my face like with Google Glasses would mean I could be in the ideal position where the two images are correct for where I am.

      Besides this, it might be possible to focus the light of different objects differently, so that they come into focus when my eye's lens is set for the appropriate distance. This seems like it should be possible but incredibly obnoxious to implement.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    28. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      This same problem with artificial 3-D vision was announced a LONG time ago. Like 7-8 years ago.

    29. Re:I'm not a scientist... by marciot · · Score: 1

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

      Interestingly, artificial 3D is the only 3D I've experienced. I've been stereo-blind for as long as I remember, but recently I read Sue Barry's book and found out my eyes converged properly within four inches of my face. So I was able to experience depth by using anaglyph glasses and an iPhone held really close to my nose. I began converting 3D movies to anaglyph and watching them on my iPhone, gradually moving it away from my face. Now I can see 3D at about a foot away, on a laptop screen.

      When I am finally able to diverge my eyes properly at a distance, I hope real world 3D doesn't give me headaches like normal people do when they watch "artificial" 3D movies!

    30. Re:I'm not a scientist... by swamp_ig · · Score: 0

      Eyesight is probably the most important sense you have to interact with the world. It's precious and even a slight chance off affecting it is enough to not take the risk. It's not like we're depriving kids of something important anyway.

      I don't see what's wrong with the recommandation and the fact that an agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety studies the effect of 3D viewing on people and kids. Sounds to me they are doing their job.

      But there's no evidence.

      Does that mean we should recommend against everything else where there's no evidence of damage too?

      Funny how incidence of myopia and use of mobile phones are both increasing...

      Quick! Ban mobile phones - won't anyone think of the children?

    31. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario."

      Have you ever gone out in nature, before? Quite often you will find yourself fixed on a single focal point, and you might look at it for a long time. It could be far away, it could be up close.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re:I'm not a scientist... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      French are indeed republicans, but the word does not have the same meaning as in the US: the whole political spectrum claim to be republican, even the communists.

    33. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being able to have your eyes focus and converge on different points is not 'something they never did before.' As a boring child I learned to do just that, I can now rack the focus of my eye in and out as easily as I can blink or type with no ill effects. If a child was exposed to excessive amounts of 3D tv or games (more than 50%) they might learn to interpret depth cues incorrectly BUT so would an adult given enough prolonged exposure. There was a study done where participants had their view flipped vertically for a week, most of them became adapted quickly and were able to continue their lives like normal, there is no reason that adaptation to excessive 3D viewing would not be just as reverable.
       
      Moar Research! Less 'think of les children.'

    34. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get around it by doing fancy tricks with wavefronts, but there's no point: those same tricks will let you do realtime holograms.

    35. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Prune · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely false. Lightfield displays (for example, microlens array based ones) recreate proper focal depth variation throughout the image, as do volumetric displays. Examples of both have been around for years, and in the case of the latter, at least a decade.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    36. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Yep. The main concern at the time was the possibility for development of strabismus if 3D (that does not recreate variable focal distance) was overused, especially in children.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    37. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      In normal vision, we look at the same place from two slightly different directions. Furthermore, it is well-established that the neural 'wiring' for assimilating these two views into a single stereo image develops during childhood, in response to the stimuli. (I am not so sure about this, but I think this is also true for the wiring that controls the eye muscles and therefore the convergence of vision.) I am not a biologist, but I think there are grounds for concern here.

    38. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point convergence will be fixed as well, meaning there is no discrepancy in your vision center. There's also the issue of parallax from physical movement of your eyes (head tracking offers a far more convincing illusion of 3D than stereograms), but that's something monographic displays cannot offer either.

    39. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 3d screen is not the same as looking through a window at a real 3D world.

      Of course it is, we just have the unfortunate situation of widespread and unchecked false advertising trying to sell off stereo displays as 3D. Blame it all on sales.

  3. 3d products already come with these warnings by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    You can put a password lock on 3d mode on the 3DS, the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning, and I wouldn't be surprised if 3d movies include warnings(but who buys those?)

    People were already aware of this risk, but thanks France.

    1. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by omnichad · · Score: 2

      And Nintendo already recommended an age of 6 before using 3D mode.

    2. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      This would indicate to me that France is not off base here. If the game manufacturers are willing to harm their sales with a recommendation like that, there's likely a real issue.

    3. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Or it's likely that a lawsuit regarding the issue could be a real issue

      --
      XDInd
    4. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      n=1, but I wasn't aware of this.. I thought that (rift withstanding) only kids were interested in gimmicky 3d effects.

    5. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be emotionally older than 6 years to use them. Just physiologically.

    6. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning

      Interesting. What's different about the Oculus that makes it less safe than a Viewmaster? (FWIW, it seems that Fisher-Price still markets Viewmaster to young children)

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    7. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Nothing that I can think of, technically. However, Viewmaster was something that I remember using for maybe 2-3 hours over my entire life. I'd believe hearing about a kid using a 3DS for 2-3 hours per day for long periods (and longer, if their parents allow it). If Oculus were more widespread, I'd expect something similar to happen there.

      The next question would be how much exposure it takes to damage a child's visual development.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By making them go outside and play instead of sitting in front of the TV/computer/tablet.

    1. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The real world is in 2D so it won't damage their vision.

    2. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Funny

      The resolution is incredible.

    3. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem is that going outside and playing people tend to use a lot of cheats anyway. It's better to just build your own playground from scratch. The sooner the kids learn, the better.

    4. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by aaron4801 · · Score: 2

      Remember, the real world used to be in black and white, too:
      Calvin & Hobbes

    5. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dynamic range and tactile function are also unmatched!

    6. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      One of my favourites. It's up there with the sun setting in Arizona.

    7. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caution: There's no undo button.

    8. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      Watch out - alcohol can really hit your framerate hard.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    9. Re: I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by marciot · · Score: 1

      Won't work. People are too shallow now a days. We might as well be living in Abbott's Flatland.

    10. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resolution is incredible.

      Yeah, but holy shit some of the NPCs are ugly, like the ones on the Wal-Mart level. The modelers need to be fired for releasing that shit.

  5. Details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is so wishy-washy it suggests that "something" will happen to children's eyesight, but that it has never actually occured.

    Could someone tell me what + actual likelyhood?

    1. Re:Details? by psergiu · · Score: 1

      See here for the gruesome truth :)

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...

      Try reading the text on the box on panel 2.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    2. Re:Details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing that happens when you sit too close to the TV ....

    3. Re:Details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Static shocks?

      Yeah. That old.

  6. A/C Phil Drudd On Trial for Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News at ... whenever news in NZ is on.

  7. It's kinda like The Jerk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now everyone will be cross-eyed and it's all Steve Martin's fault.... again!

  8. yeah now those claims start again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no sir, its perfectly safe to travel with speeds larger than 30 mph!

  9. pp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    premieer post que mange le fromage et se rendes.

  10. Research by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage.

    And what research is this referring to? The article gives no information about the alleged research, though it does mention Nintendo's warning on the 3DS which just happens to say the 3D feature should only be used by children 7 years or older.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  11. I blame the VirtualBoy for my needing glasses by preaction · · Score: 1

    My eyes are very slightly near-sighted, and have remained exactly this near-sighted since I was 14. I blame 11-year-old me's extensive use of the VirtualBoy (and my barely following through with its programmed 5-minute breaks between 30-minute sessions). It's nice to see confirmation that this kind of thing is bad (though the screens being very close probably contributed as much as the screens being 3d).

    1. Re:I blame the VirtualBoy for my needing glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll score: 6/10.

      No one "extensively used" a VirtualBoy.

    2. Re:I blame the VirtualBoy for my needing glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame the VirtualBoy for my needing glasses

      If you must, but your parents are probably equally nearsighted and didn't grow up with a VirtualBoy.

      It's nice to see confirmation that this kind of thing is bad

      No, this is not confirmation, because the problem mentioned in this article has nothing to do with nearsightedness.

  12. e:I'm not a scientist... by houssine+bilal · · Score: 1

    Normally, your convergence and focus operate together. With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario. www.alamnisaa.com

  13. Don't stare at the 3D TV for too long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will give you CUBED eyes.

  14. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not how the brain or eyes work. As long as they spend significantly more time outside than inside watching 3D content they will be just fine.

  15. OMG! I LOOKED AT VIEWMASTERS AS A KID by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    I'm blind now!

    Oh wait... No I'm not...

    I had a pile of viewmaster reels and a viewer that I'd spend hours looking at when I was between 4-6 and I made my own 3D pictures and posters using red/blue markers as a pre-teen.

    I'll agree that back to back marathon viewings of 3D content probably isn't good but I think that's just basic common sense and just as bad as watching back to back marathon viewings of 2D content... which I also did as a child on Saturday Mornings... :/

  16. Re:How do you prevent seeing 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does it feel to be so clueless and self-assured when you're completely missing the point? People are not kidding about the Dunning-Kruger problem here.

  17. So should we make them wear an eye patch? by gurps_npc · · Score: 0
    Because kids view in 3d all the time. The entire world is in 3d.

    If the study had some claim about BAD 3d, that would be a different thing. but my brain and eyes are constantly "assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image."

    Most likely this article was written by a moron. That's not an insult against developmentally challenged people by using the clinical term as insult. I believe the "journalist" was an actual moron with an IQ between the range of 51 and 70.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:So should we make them wear an eye patch? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      > If the study had some claim about BAD 3d, that would be a different thing.

      I saw Spacehunter Adventures in the Forbidden Zone in 3D as a kid and suffered horrible brain damage.

      I don't think it was the 3D tech though...

    2. Re:So should we make them wear an eye patch? by Prune · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? The key issue even made it into the Slashdot summary: "the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe". This is the defining characteristic of bad 3D. Let's hope microlens array-based lightfield displays make it to the mass market sooner than later so we can leave this issue behind.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  18. It depends on the content and resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But mostly on the content. If we're talking about the 3DS screen, then yes, absolutely, because Nintendo made it as cheaply as possible. The complete lack of anti-aliasing guarantees that the edges of every polygon will have an undefined 3D space; every pixel of those edges resolve differently to the eyes, which is a huge strain and absolutely damaging. Furthermore, the extremely narrow "sweet spot" for the screen means that both eyes get a little bit of non-conformity on the edges of the screen - a problem not shared by other 3D solutions.

    Content on the upcoming (1440p) Oculus Rift will be quite a bit more tolerable even if there is no anti-aliasing, because of the comparatively higher pixel density, even taking the field of view into account.

    Finally, content that is not being rendered in realtime (a 3D movie, for example) could theoretically be just fine to watch, especially the closer to "retina" the display is.

  19. Papers please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprise! The REAL WORLD is 3D.

    "Research shows", "could be would be might be bad"...
    Show me the research papers conclusively showing that artificial 3D is worse than actual 3D or GTFO.

  20. Old Fashioned 3D by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    I went through a big "red/blue glasses" 3D phase when I was a kid. I'm now 37 and to this day I have a slightly different color balance between my two eyes: if I look with only my right eye everything is slightly reddish and is I look with only my left eye everything is slightly bluish (this is, IIRC, the opposite of the lens). It's only noticeable if I specifically pay attention to it, but it appears to be permanent.

  21. Autostereogram - hidden 3d art by shafty · · Score: 0

    Autostereogram art hit pop culture some decades ago, with people having fun trying to spot the hidden image by changing where their eyes converge. I wonder if this form of art will be restricted in France.

  22. 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this whole "children under 6 shouldn't watch 3d content" being an issue way back during the Virtual Boy days. It's not really a new finding, but it looks like more people are confirming this result.

    1. Re:3d by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      The reality is that TV, 3D or not, is unsuitable for people of any age. Have you watched Cartoon Network? That stuff MUST cause brain damage for sure!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  23. Nintendo was right...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... three years before this article...

    3DS page notes, "the use of the 3D feature by children aged six and under may cause vision damage."

    The reason I say 3 years ago is looking at this article from 2011. "we do not know what happens to children, whose visual systems are still developing." I remember reading quite a few articles at the time where the press (multiple different reviews at the time) basically questioned Nintendo, indicating that Nintendo was probably over-estimating the potential risk. The American Optometric Association made a statement disagreeing with Nintendo. It was actually rather interesting (and pleasant) to see a company as large as Nintendo risking harm to sales on their latest product, by being more cautious than what seemed warranted.

    1. Re:Nintendo was right...? by towermac · · Score: 1

      Well, Nintendo is a good company. They always have been.

      But there is something to it, and it doesn't have to be a new 3D screen. I'm not sure I've even seen one yet. On a regular old 2D screen, intensively watching a 3D world that you're walking around in eventually does this damage. I'm talking about Warcraft, which I had to quit playing. It got to where I couldn't converge my eyes, which gives double vision. That's a real bitch when driving.

      Anyway, I had gotten good enough for rated battlegrounds (#1 team on server for a few minutes..) so I am really intensively staring at the screen, getting into it as much as possible. Tricking my brain to accept this 1920x1080 square as reality. You begin to accept that the tree or flag or whatever, is really 30 or 80 yards away.

      I quit, it got better, I went back; it came back much quicker with a vengence... I can't play; it's like a disability now. I'm older - I'm sure younger eyes recover quicker, etc. And I'm not 100% over it, it's got a long tail, and the remnants of it may well be permanent.

  24. I thought the 3D fad... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... was all but dead anyway. Replaced by the (OMG! it costs how much?) 4K fad.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  25. Mark Pesce warned us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    says so right here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-11/32814

  26. Re:OMG! I LOOKED AT VIEWMASTERS AS A KID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People.
    Basic common sense.

    Do you see the flaw in your summary ?

  27. Watch more TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just an attempt to protect TV stations by getting people to watch more TV. No, little Timmy, you can't turn off the TV and go outside to play with your soccer ball, you aren't old enough for more than 2D.

    Or did they mean "3D" as in false advertising for the re-re-re-re-introduction of the stereoscopy fad, invented in 1838 and re-appearing about every 20 years? In that case: I do not read Slashdot for false advertising disguised as articles.

  28. Is 2D any different? by tomek.bury · · Score: 1

    Comming to think of it, a plain old 2D display has the same issues.

    The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees. On top of that the camera FOV creates permanently blurry areas that can't be fixed by the viewer changing focus. Blue tint on the picture of supposedly far mointains lies about the real distance and the focal point of the viewer is, again, in conflict colour shift preceived by retina. Moving viewers head doesn't show the scene from a slightly different perspective, as it should. A film watched from an angle looks really awkward. Camera movement isn't backed up by the inner ear receptors and that may lead to motion sicknes. Depth usually isn't essential for the story telling, but colour isn't either, and picture (radio anyone?) and sound for that matter (books existed long before movies).

    The panic on the Lumiere Brothers train film shows clearly that cinema is in opposition to the natural human capabilities and a mere century certainly didn't change much in that respect - evolution doesn't work that fast.

    Think how weird a person wearing early stereophonic headphones looked to people not too long ago. Almost as weird as a person wearing stereoscopic googles looks to many of us today. Think of all the issues with stereophonc audio, compared to the real world experience - stereo audio is not even close to real, just like stereoscopic video. To make it slightly closet, the 3D covers of BluRay discs use shots from 8 angles to mimic 3D picture, just like 7+1 audio systems do to mimic 3D sound.

    The stereoscopic 3D is no that different from other techmologies. It's not perfect, but what is?

    1. Re:Is 2D any different? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees.

      I hope, for humanity's sake, that you're either being wilfully obtuse or you're very unfunny but don't know it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  29. WOW by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    WOW! I was NOT aware the French could not see in 3D!

    VERY INTERESTING

    Suddenly makes the game 'Saboteur' make sense. IF they just recently upgraded their vision from black and white to color. It's no surprise they can't see in 3d yet.

    Give them time. They will understand it aint damaging.