1-in-10 can't see 3D properly - report

By Robert Purchese Published 12 July, 2010

Eyecare Trust says headaches a symptom.

UK charity The Eyecare Trust has discovered that more than one-in-ten of us cannot properly process a stereoscopic 3D image.

If you've experienced headaches or visual discomfort when watching a 3D film then you could be one of 6 million people with "poor binocular vision", the company stated on its website.

You see, 3D signals require both eyes to work together, but 12 per cent of people (in the UK) have a "visual impairment" that leads to an "inconsistency" when processing the two images and the three spatial dimensions.

"You may not have realised that you have poor binocular vision before because your brain will often try to compensate for any visual inadequacies," the website warned.

"If left untreated binocular disorders such as amblyopia can affect your ability to read well and result in a greater propensity to suffer from screen fatigue when working at a [visual display unit] or watching TV for long periods of time."

The "good news", however, is that this can be diagnosed during an eye test and fixed with a bit of visual therapy of a fetching new pair of spectacles. Maybe they sell those too.

Last week, Ubisoft told Eurogamer that a 3DTV will be in every home in three years. "We can't ignore it," UK marketing boss Murray Pannell said.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (75) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Deckard1 #1 2 years ago

    I can see it!! And its still a bit shit.

  • NotSoSlim #2 2 years ago

    All these 3D stories....bloody boring!!

  • X3Entente #3 2 years ago

    hope im part of the lucky 90%

  • Eraysor #4 2 years ago

    12% is over 1 in 9 and almost 1 in 8, rather than 10.

  • ryandsimmons #5 2 years ago

    I'm in that 10%

    When I see 3d movies I see a red image with a green tinge due to a scar on the retina from cricket practice.

    I am intrigued to see if it's different with the shutter glasses.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #6 2 years ago

    hmm wonder if this will result in a 10% return rate of the new 3DS with people claiming its faulty.

  • dfish #7 2 years ago

    so 12% of the population can't see 3d IRL? wow

  • teabagger #8 2 years ago

    But on the plus side... 3D effectively diagnoses a problem you didn't know you had. A problem which can lead to serious issues in later life, but is easily fixed now.

    3D TV for the win!

  • Slipstream #9 2 years ago

    A friend told me this months ago, seems like he was right on the ball.

  • Kenshin001 #10 2 years ago

    No wonder Avatar flopped at the cinema.

  • TeaFiend #11 2 years ago

    I sometimes get headaches watching 3D films. But it might have been the problem of Clash of the Titans being somewhat naff.

  • icematt12 #12 2 years ago

    I already wear glasses anyway, so proved humerous to me when I called myself 6 eyes watching Avatar. It shouldn't really matter if you have glasses or contacts that are up to date ie your eyes have not worsened significantly since your last test.

    Isn't technology great...

  • Dave52 #13 2 years ago

    UK Eye Charity jumps on 3D Band Wagon shocker...

  • MatMan562 #14 2 years ago

    Does this include the 3DS who is it just 3D that requires glasses? Could make the difference between Nintendo's succes or faiulre :/

  • Restart #15 2 years ago

    /Puts hand up.

    Avatar gave me the mother of all migraines, after which I vowed not to bother watching any movies in 3D again.

    However, I'll give the 3DS a go, since minus the glasses I doubt it will give me the same problems.

  • Arwin #16 2 years ago

    Heh.

    In other news, 1-in-10 guys (apparently less common in girls) can't see color! ;)

    I figure the problems with 3D would be comparable to that. Didn't stop color TVs from becoming a big succes, or help keep the original gameboy in vogue. ;)

  • ParanoidZombie #17 2 years ago

    I don't think they care: most left-handed people (= 1 human being out of ten) have lots of trouble using the wiimote properly. Nintendo never gave a shit, but it hasn't exactly hurt Wii sales.
    The almighty 3D will simply create a new breed of outsiders: "the weird friend who can't see 3D". I hope for his entertainment's sake that he's not left-handed as well.

  • Byzanite #18 2 years ago

    its like those bloody magic eye things... couldnt see them either!

  • ZuluHero #19 2 years ago

    I'm in that 10% and I’m more than happy to wear my 3D glasses over my existing glasses – doing so lets me see the 3D effect perfectly. I personally think the result is more than worth it!

    In fact I’m going to see another 3D film tonight :)




  • M_of_the_sys #20 2 years ago

    "The "good news", however, is that this can be diagnosed during an eye test and fixed with a bit of visual therapy of a fetching new pair of spectacles. Maybe they sell those too."

    Costing twent quid for the eye test and then God knows how much for the 'visual therapy'. I bet they're really hoping 3D takes off then.

  • Darren #21 2 years ago

    Unfortunately for me I'm among the 10% that can't see 3D properly and get a headache whilst straining to view movies that use it.

    I know exactly why too; I had whooping cough when I was a toddler which led to partial deafness and a bad squint. The squint has been corrected by several operations but it means my left eye is effectively undeveloped. I can see out of it but I can't read or see detail with it. This unevenness means that 3D doesn't work for me 99.9999% of the time. The only 3D I saw in Avatar for example were those floaty flowery things; everything else looked as 3D as a standard 2D movie!

    It's for this reason that I outright refuse to buy a 3DTV and why I prefer to watch the 2D version of a movie rather than the 3D one.

  • Kaminari #22 2 years ago

    Stereoscopic headaches are unrelated to the technology (glasses, fake 3D, etc) but to the inability of the brain to correctly merge both pictures. You *will* have headaches, vertigos, nauseas whatever the technology you will use. The shutter glasses themselves add another issue on top of that, which is photo-epilepsy.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #23 2 years ago

    Arwin,

    The term 'colour blind' is a misnomer. most colour blind people see a slightly smaller range of colour than normal. Only a tiny percentage of people are completely achromatopic.

    & the original gameboy beat the crap out of it's full colour competitors.
    Edited by EgbertoTheGreat at 12/07/10 @ 15:53

  • Dolly #24 2 years ago

    On the plus-side for them, I've always considered gozzy-eyed people to have an advantage in that they can see in multiple directions at the same time. Awesome for Ninja skills.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #25 2 years ago

    I love it! Strike one torpedo on the 3Dtv battleship. She's not taking on water yet, but once something likes this starts to grace certain consumer tv shows, 3Dtv will be in the dock of questionablity as it should be.

    I seriously doubt that viewing 3Dtv, has been tested to the lengths they might claim it has, especially with games, and that if the long term effects were negative, the media and tv companies would cover up the true data, in order to push sales. I don't know, perhaps Digital Foundry should do a test of 3Dtv gaming, for 8-10 hours (possibly with different 3Dtvs, while being monitored by someone) and give us gamers the results. We need to know the truth that those sellng 3Dtv aren't telling us.

    As for those who can't see 3D, Sony think maybe they can become an extras in They Live, where awesome dark 3D glasses make you a wrestling king of alien hunting.

  • Spunkweazle #26 2 years ago

    I had a squint corrected when i was about 10, and so i cannot see in true 3d.
    But it does mean that all tvs have allways been in 3D as far as i am concerened so have that!!

  • Deckard1 #27 2 years ago

    I think its pretty obvious that anyone who cannot see 3D has no soul and should be burnt as witches.

  • ronuds #28 2 years ago

    You can see it.

    Sony said so!

  • coolbritannia #29 2 years ago

    Please stop pushing this fictional 3d agenda. It's not going to happen, it's betamax and minidisc waiting to die all over again.

  • kangarootoo #30 2 years ago

    "But on the plus side... 3D effectively diagnoses a problem you didn't know you had. A problem which can lead to serious issues in later life, but is easily fixed now."

    This.

  • YourMessageHere #31 2 years ago

    Just because 90% of people can see 3D effects doesn't make it worthwhile. Until directors stop making 3D films purely so they can be in 3D, and by extension until games go beyond being made purely to sell us 3D gaming tech, and media creators actually work out a way to use 3D that enhances the audience experience (rather than, as is currently happening, standing in for a big neon arrow that says HELLO THIS IS IN 3D, LOOK AT THIS), it's not going to be remotely worth shelling out for the equipment.

    I could see it fine a year ago, but I had an eye infection and now my right eye sees slightly double at distance; anyone know a place I can look at some 3D to find out if I can still percieve it without spending a small fortune on a cinema ticket?

  • Zanuah #32 2 years ago

    I'm probably also one those people... I'm glad I watched Avatar without the 3D first and then with, because the 3D was ruined on me to a point where I simply avoid 3D movies now... Which is too bad, since it only works for me now and then but when it does it looks pretty cool.

    I wonder how much if this is related to "refresh rates" (for screens for example, or even in some lights) in regards to the shutter type glasses. Since I can clearly see a "flickering" effect for the screen (or light)when the rate is set too low... Hmm...

  • Ninja_Tino #33 2 years ago

    My mum only has proper vision out of one eye; the other eye is all blurry. 3D doesn't work for her. True story.

  • orangpelupa #34 2 years ago

    my eyes is bad, i use glasses everyday. But it seems im still lucky.

    With 3D glasses on top of my "seeing" glasses, (6 eyes? lol ) i can see Despicable Me in wonderful 3D. (the ending Credits is awesome)
    But Toy Story 3 give me headache in first 15minutes i think. (the very fast scene in train)

    3D in fast-paced game, i think i wont use it. I dont like the headache >_
    Edited by orangpelupa at 12/07/10 @ 16:16

  • Sunyavadin #35 2 years ago

    Woo! I'm SPECIAL!

    I have no trouble with three dimensional images - my problem is with artificial 3D images projected via a 2D medium like a screen (Such as in polarised and shuttered 3D)
    Basically, my eyes and brain try to treat it like a real three dimensional scene, and I end up adjusting my focal depth to look at things which are closer or more distant, which of course DOES NOT WORK when the two images I'm receiving are actually each a two-dimensional image with no objective depth.

    End result, everything keeps going blurry and out of focus, and I get a headache.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHX5ip68p4 FTW

  • Steroyd #36 2 years ago

    Those 3D adverts on normal TV's gives me a headache.

  • beastmaster #37 2 years ago

    9/10 people don't give a flying fuck.

  • DAN.E.B #38 2 years ago

    I aint the one in ten!.............

  • enfilade #39 2 years ago

    Finally, an article that draws attention to something I've been complaining about for an age. This technology is really rather discriminatory, unfortunately.

  • afghan_jones #40 2 years ago

    Im really not up for 3D.

    I can just about stomach a 2 hr film but even then my eyes feel very strained and overworked.

    The thought of a whole evening of 3DTV or 3D gaming makes me feel deeply unwell.

    I imagine no studies have been done yet but I would be surprised if prolonged repeated viewings of 3D images didnt have the potential to seriously fuck your eyes up.

  • knightmt #41 2 years ago

    Nearly 1 out of every two people are women and yet we still have comedy.

  • kangarootoo #42 2 years ago

    @Sunyavadin

    I hate to break it to you, but I think you just suffer from what is described in the article.

    What you describe regarding your brain focussing at the wrong depth would also happen to you if you watched a 2D TV image with one eye shut, it it were the true cause. The brain simply doesn't work the way you describe.

    You have the cart before the horse - the brain doesn't focus the eye for the distance it "knows" the object viewed to be at (your brain of course has no way of "knowing" how far away an object is in that way). The brain in fact applies the correct focal depth required to bring the image your eye is seeing into sharp focus, whatever that might be.

    The other way we determine depth is via our binocular vision, but that is a physical ability. If you brain is using binocular vision to gauge the distance to the viewed object (such as the simulated 3D image on a 2D screen), it will get the correct result because it is being GIVEN the correct information by the 3D glasses. In fact, that is exactly WHY 3D cinema works.

    I don't doubt that you are struggling with 3D images, but you are wrong about the reason for your problem (unless your brain and eyes have an ability everyone elses lacks - such as sonar). If the focal depth of your eye is not being set correctly, that is not because 3D has "tricked" it, it is because your eyes are not working effectively (again, as suggested in the article). Its probably worth getting them checked in any event.

  • Centrifugal #43 2 years ago

    I realised my friend suffered from this when he kept walking into a tree and didn't realise that he could just walk around it.

    ;)

  • LiamK #44 2 years ago

    @Arwin

    "Heh.

    In other news, 1-in-10 guys (apparently less common in girls) can't see color! ;)

    I figure the problems with 3D would be comparable to that. Didn't stop color TVs from becoming a big succes, or help keep the original gameboy in vogue. ;) "

    Just in case that wasn't for humorous effect... Colour blindness doesn't mean that you see in monochrome. Most colour blind people in the UK are red-green colour blind, which means they have difficulty seeing the difference between certain shades of those two colours. It doesn't mean that everything is grey to them.

    This article shows how the hacking from Bioshock 2 looks to colour-blind gamers. It's quite cool:

    "http://nukezilla.com/2010/02/11/what-bio...

    (I keep showing this to mates who think that the only reason I have trouble with some colours is that I'm not trying hard enough.)

  • Doctor_What #45 2 years ago

    If you have to wear glasses for binocular vision them I'm not interested until they can make it work without them.

  • Lusterpurge #46 2 years ago

    3D hype aside, it's amazing how that even with faulty eyes, your brain can compensate so well that you won't even know that your vision isn't in 3D. It's like that blind spot in your eyes. Amazes me every time.

  • Bander #47 2 years ago

    There are other visual cues that allow people to see depth besides stereoscopic vision. Like perspective, atmospheric light scattering and relative size and movement. And then there's awareness of focus, which is what the 3DS, 3D cinema and 3D TVs don't cater for. There are many animals that have to get by with reduced or no stereoscopic vision because their eyes are on the sides of their heads, including birds and fish who have to move in 3D, unlike us walking types! Predators typically have two forward facing eyes though. It's less laggy to process 3D that way, as it doesn't involve the ciliary muscles.

    Awareness of focus being missing from '3D' displays is the real main reason for people getting headaches. Oddly enough people with one eye or amblyopia are less likely to get headaches in this case than people with two healthy eyes, because there's nothing to trick their eye muscles into thinking they are seeing something with depth and should be adjusting focus!

    Amblyopia is not treatable unless caught in early childhood, and in some cases even that isn't enough to overcome it and it's certainly not a quick fix. Opticians do check for it because it is common, so it's completely ridiculous that something like a 3DS would inform you that you're a sufferer for the first time and that you can be made better...

    This report offends me in its wrongness. But the headline is valid, if you read 'properly' as 'ideally'.
    Edited by Bander at 12/07/10 @ 18:35

  • alcides #48 2 years ago

    1 in 10 are gay, still boobie are considered a selling argument.

  • spenner #49 2 years ago

    Why would anyone want to spend a load of money on 3d when you can just go outside and look at stuff instead?

  • Discalceaterabbit #50 2 years ago

    Interesting. I have perfect 20 - 20 vision, and can stare at a monitor for hours at a time, yet these 3d films give me a headache.

  • Sharzam #51 2 years ago

    I wear glasses and my left eye is significantly weaker than my right, makes no difference as i have the correct subscription.

    But i bet out of all those non glasses wearing people a large chunk will havce 1 eye weaker/stronger than the other which would expain the headaches and the like.

    Very few people have perfect vision in both eyes but alot claim to have perfect vision as there in denial about glasses as they can do without most of the time.

  • alcides #52 2 years ago

    Why would anyone want to spend a load of money on 3d when you can just go outside and look at stuff instead?

    Because stuff can't be shot or run over in reality. At least not if you are in your right mind.

  • starbug1978 #53 2 years ago

    "The "good news", however, is that this can be diagnosed during an eye test and fixed with a bit of visual therapy of a fetching new pair of spectacles."

    If you are over 6 years of age, this is Horse-Shit!

    After this point, reduced neural plasticity means that amblyopic supression rules supreme and 3D is not possible.

    Perhaps the 3D hardware manufacturers hope all of us with amblyopia will just fuck off and die?

  • Dave52 #54 2 years ago

    "Why would anyone want to spend a load of money on 3d when you can just go outside and look at stuff instead?"

    Because it's illegal for me to go outside dressed as a space marine and start shooting people in the face.

  • chasejamie #55 2 years ago

    Bande and Starbug speak the truth. I fucking wish someone could fix my retarded eyes!

  • Bander #56 2 years ago

    From their website:

    "The Trust is leading the way providing public advice and information on viewing 3D media."

    That's a shame. I'm not sure if their report is accidental misinformation or an outright deliberate lie.

    Edit: okay, that sounds a bit extreme, but surely whoever wrote it knew that maybe they should ask a qualified optician, or at least attempt to research eye disorders and depth perception, rather than just bluff it!
    Edited by Bander at 12/07/10 @ 21:00

  • Sunyavadin #57 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I think you may be misunderstanding me. My eye tests confirm my binocular vision is 100% fine. I have no problem which affects the ability to perfectly composite the images from them. The only flaw is the short sightedness in my left eye, which merely means part of the image is out of focus (corrected when I wear my regular glasses, although one set over another is a bit of a pain on the bridge of the nose) and a hypersensitivity to the blue end of the spectrum (which is equal across both eyes but may affect the ability to interpret the polarised images)

    Bander hits the nail quite well on the head about OTHER frames of reference we use for 3 dimensional vision, and they are likely also connected to why I can view polarised screens fine but not view through polarised lenses.

    To clarify,my problem mainly seems to come from my peripheral vision interfering. other things which I perceive to be at the same subjective depth as the images I'm seeing in 3D are NOT at the same depth, my brain develops a conflict there as it knows they cannot both be at the same depth as one image is in focus, the other is not. As long as I possess the ability to see ANYTHING but what is on the screen, my brain has an objective plane of reference.

    It's kind of like trying to do a magic eye picture and read a book at the same time.

    The only thing I can imagine working for me at all is some kind of VR headset like were popular last time this was supposedly about to take off.
    Edited by Sunyavadin at 12/07/10 @ 21:29

  • SEVQA #58 2 years ago

    I've had monocular vision since I was born, and told I would never amount to much as I wont be able to drive or see in 3D.

    To those doctors - I drive a car, I've graduated from university and I'm a 3D artist.

    Though when I've watched Avatar 3D when tired it did give me a headache and nauseia, when I'm not tired the illusion or 3D effect works just fine! And I say effect, because 3D TV's aren’t 3D (yet).

    In other words those in the percentage of suffers who want to train, do it when your fresh and awake!

  • Arwin #59 2 years ago

    ehm, yes, it was intended for comedy, my comment. I realise that color blindness is related to the various types of cones in the eye and such. Not seeing 3D is also not as clear cut, obviously - for instance, of the 1 in 10 there are plenty of people who can still see 3D if they get better glasses. People can still see 3D through parallax vision as well and some games will assist this also by incorporating head-tracking features.

    What I feel far too few articles pay attention to though is how much more information you can see if you have 3D available. Try this for instance - find a wall with structured paint, and look at it at an angle first with one eye closed, then the other eye closed, and then both eyes open. You'll see a surprising amount more detail with both eyes open, loads more smaller pieces of sand etc. There are quite some examples of this, and there is a lot of research available already also in the advantages of 'binocular' vision (as I think it's called).

  • UsernamePending #60 2 years ago

    Thanks for the most appropriate and informative article I've ever seen on a games site. I never really did understand why people wore glasses until now.

  • smelly #61 2 years ago

    I partially deaf in one ear.

    For that reason i dont think we should make stereo games..

  • Bander #62 2 years ago

    "Try this for instance - find a wall with structured paint, and look at it at an angle first with one eye closed, then the other eye closed, and then both eyes open. You'll see a surprising amount more detail with both eyes open, loads more smaller pieces of sand etc."
    That makes sense, as the light reflected from paint and sand would look different from two different points of view, making it easy to make out how rough the surface is without moving around it. This is something games developers should bear in mind when figuring out the best way to produce a stereoscopic display, because using the same lighting for both sides isn't going to reproduce this effect.

    However, I don't think it applies to something completely smooth, like a poster. I do have amblyopia, but my good eye is better than 20:20 (which is 'normal', not an upper limit) as far as reading charts go.

    This doesn't mean that I have no interest in stereoscopic games though. Video games have been proposed as a fix for this condition! If the left and right eye receive only parts of the display, the brain is encouraged to pay attention to both sides, as opposed to allowing one side to become dominant and treat the weaker eye as redundant. An example would be something like a racing game where the track is invisible to one eye and cars are invisible to the other. This should be more effective than an eyepatch, and bump the age at which amblyopia can no longer be treated up from about 5-8 years to something higher. I'm probably still too old, but my fingers are crossed (as are my eyes sometimes).

    There was something called I-BiT that was about this, but its page doesn't seem to exist anymore. I hope this didn't turn out to be a blind alley (sorry).

    And of course I will be more interested in 3D displays when they account for focus awareness, which probably won't be anytime soon.

  • FenderMaster #63 2 years ago

    I have one long sighted eye, one short sigted eye, i can force myself to use both equally if i concentrate together but, things look kind of weird, text moves around a little Because of this, I usually focus more with my short sighted eye, with the long sighted eye acting more as peripheral vision.

    I actually could see 3D in Avatar when I focused, but not with those old red/green glasses... i really don't know if 3DS brand 3D will work for me... I hope so! But I imagine I'll have to strain to see it properly.

  • man.the.king #64 2 years ago

    EG are really milking this 3D bit - any chance to garner hits and get the droves out in comments threads, eh?

  • ninjanutta #65 2 years ago

    It makes me laugh at all the people that say its going to fail,it makes me sick etc etc,I can say after trying it out that it will not fail,3D gaming is here to stay and if its not for you then your goin g to miss out on the best gaming ever,ive read alot of people saying that using the shutter glasses is far more user freindly that real 3d (cinema 3D)they say that its fine to play for hours on end with no effects yet they feal strained at the cinema.I will not be missing out on these brilliant gaming times,thats for sure.

  • TheJuriel #66 2 years ago

    Goddamn 3D. It's like the 80s called.

  • 00.00.01 #67 2 years ago

    One-in-ten women regularly fake an orgasm. [link url=http://newslite.tv/2010/03/09/oneinten-women-regularly-fake.html
    ]http://newslite.tv/2010/03/09/oneinten-w...[/link]
    One in ten surf without antivirus protection. [link url=http://www.free-av.com/en/news/77/one_in_ten_surf_without_antivirus_protection.html
    ]http://www.free-av.com/en/news/77/one_in...[/link]
    One in ten have been the victim of a scam. [link url=http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/media-centre/crime-in-the-news/february-2010-crime-in-the-news/one-in-ten-have-been-the-victim-of-a-scam
    ]http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/media-ce...[/link]
    One in ten IT professionals cheat on firewall audit. [link url=http://www.itpro.co.uk/624097/one-in-ten-it-professionals-cheat-on-firewall-audit
    ]http://www.itpro.co.uk/624097/one-in-ten...[/link]
    .
    There you go, more one-in-ten news for today.

  • FireMonkey #68 2 years ago

    "If left untreated binocular disorders such as amblyopia can affect your ability to read well and result in a greater propensity to suffer from screen fatigue when working at a [visual display unit] or watching TV for long periods of time."

    So all this 3D stuff coming out is actually really good as it will make people more aware that they are suffering from a problem they were not previously aware of and so can then get it sorted out.

  • captain_chris #69 2 years ago

    I have the same problem that sunyavadin describes. I think that part of the problem is that directors don't understand how to make 3D films yet. The other part is that if the screen action is a certain distance out from the screen (say the edge of the 'stage' area in front of the screen) the same distance from my eyes seems to require a different 'focus'. The final 3D killer for me is that I can see out / get ambient light in from the sides of the glasses and get reflection from things behind me (like the projection room).

    When I say about directors not knowing how to make 3D what I mean is... If I look around my office here I can look anywhere and it's in focus. If I look at the people near the back of the room they are in focus and if they are audible my brain does a pretty good job of filtering out other sound so that I can hear what they are talking about too. If i change who I'm looking at suddenly that's clearly in focus and I can concentrate on their conversation instead. But none of this works properly in a 3D film. I cannot change whats in focus on screen, the wrong people are talking if i look at someone else.

    Directors usually use these 'tricks' to tell the viewer where to look to see the story, and to be fair I have learned over a lifetime how to watch film/tv, they need a new bag of tricks for 3D. If they don't work them out then it's not going anything more than a gimmick and nobody is going to have enough time to learn how to watch 3D.

  • Skandalle #70 2 years ago

    Watching 3D, i can actually feel my brain cells committing suicide.

  • Dr.Mott #71 2 years ago

    The 3D effect works for me in general; it's just that when text appears on the screen, it doesn't line up properly, and I get a headache.

  • Arwin #72 2 years ago

    @Bander: indeed!

    You mean this, right?

    <a href="http://www.virart.nottingham.ac.uk/ibit/
    ">http://www.virart.nottingham.ac.uk/ibit/
    </a>

    "The aim of our research was to provide a new way to treat amblyopia, that young children would find interesting and so comply with treatment. Working as a unique collaboration our multi-displinary team involved orthoptists and ophthalmologists from the hospital and IT technologists from the university. Together we devised a novel virtual-reality based system, the I-BiT™ system, in which children play interactive computer games. The innovation here is that the game is played with both eyes open and the amblyopic eye is given additional visual stimuli to encourage the eye to be used and hence the vision to improve. Amblyopia treatment with both eyes open is a world first.
    Early clinical trials showed encouraging results, with rapid increases in vision in some children after only two hours of treatment. These results have been observed consistently in patients both under 8 and up to 12 years of age. The treatment worked in newly diagnosed children and those in whom previous occlusion therapy had failed. This means that, for the first time, it is now possible to provide treatment for older patients with amblyopia."

    @Captain Chris: if done right, 3D movies and games take out any depth of field or other 'forced focus' effect. Avatar is a good example, where it is used in the first 5 minutes (and sucks), and then never again, almost as if Cameron wanted us to show us and his peers that it shouldn't be used, ever. Uncharted 2 has a depth of field effect that focusses on whatever you are aiming on with your gun. That works great as long as you're looking at what you're aiming at, but if you aren't always, then it can be jarring as well.
    Edited by Arwin at 13/07/10 @ 12:03

  • abigsmurf #73 2 years ago

    I don't get a headache but after watching a long 3D movie, I have trouble focusing after leaving the cinema for about 10 minutes.

  • Spunkweazle #74 2 years ago

    I can see in 3D, really I can, Let me come with you

    /picks up a 3D pin off the floor

  • kangarootoo #75 2 years ago

    @Sunyavadin

    Fair do, thanks for the extra info.

    Interesting stuff. Seems I don't know as much about it as I think I do :)