Eyecare Trust: "3D not causing problems"

By Robert Purchese Published 13 July, 2010

But even 3DS will exacerbate them.

The Eyecare Trust has told Eurogamer this afternoon that stereoscopic 3D will not "cause" eye problems.

"It's an existing disorder you have with your vision that means you're unable to view the 3D properly," charity spokesperson Rachel Robson clarified. "It's not the 3D causing a problem with your eyesight."

Yesterday, The Eyecare Trust charity revealed that more than one-in-10 people suffer from a binocular disorder that prevents comfortable 3D viewing. For those people, headaches and nausea await.

And it's not just stereoscopic 3D from a telly: Nintendo's 3DS will present users with the same problem.

"The 3D technology used in the 3DS still relies on the eyes working as a team and therefore will still present viewing problems for people with poor binocular vision," Robson revealed.

As for a remedy, "It depends on what it is you suffer from," she added. "There are a number of different conditions that lead to poor binocular vision."

"These include amblyopia, stabismus, diplopia, astigmatism and hyperopia, and treatment will vary from individual to individual."

Should you suffer from any of those and notice a headache or feeling of sickness then you should "stop using [the 3D equipment]" and "give your eyes a rest". Your next stop should be the opticians for an eye-test, said Robson.

Cautiously, Robson said she and The Eyecare Trust "don't know" about the effects of 3D on children. "We're not sure if there are any issues," she admitted, but explained that tests had been conducted, and results and conclusions were expected.

So, how worried should Sony and Nintendo and 3D television manufacturers be? 10 per cent of their audience potentially missing out should be a number for consideration.

"We couldn't comment on that at all, I'm afraid," answered Robson. "It's not our position. All we're able to say is that you have an existing problem then it poses a barrier to viewing 3D properly."

Robson also couldn't comment on whether there's scope for 3D technology to improve and pose eyes and brains with a less strenuous signal to decipher.

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 (21) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Skooch #1 2 years ago

    I wonder what % of people have poor eyesight such that they can't really tell the difference between SD and HD?

  • SteelPriest #2 2 years ago

    astigmatism? did they just list all the eye conditions they could think of?

    Surely if you have an astigmatism you wear contacts to correct it anyway? :S

  • teabagger #3 2 years ago

    A sensible, balanced view on the effects on health of 3D?

    I have just fallen out of my chair!

    And put my tin foil hat back in the drawer.


    @ Steel - depends on how bad the astigmatism is. Most people have some degree but so slight it doesn't really make a difference. I have a bit, not enough to require glasses lenses specifically to correct it and standard non-astigmatism contact lenses correct small amounts of it automatically. I have no probs viewing 3D for the record...

    Edited by teabagger at 13/07/10 @ 16:43

  • the_sas_man #4 2 years ago

    I'm still waiting for when the time comes of the first 3D "violent/sex" scene in a videogame.

    The Daily Mail will have a field day.

  • Darren #5 2 years ago

    @Skooch - That condition is called "blindness"! ;)

  • crickson #6 2 years ago

    Erm... Don't almost all of us see in 3D all the time? I don't understand why a screen presenting slightly different images to each eye is so different from just... seeing? Why does it present special problems to some individuals that they wouldn't get just by having both their eyes open?

  • insincere_dave #7 2 years ago

    If Sony were selling hats for TVs which read "I'm a fucking cunt", some of you would still buy them.

  • monty2k #8 2 years ago

    @crickson:

    I believe it has something to do with the short distance between the glasses and the eye. My understanding is that most people with these conditions can see and perceive depth at distance (I dunno, say over half a metre) but anything closer than that is blurred/obscured and the brain has to "best guess" an objects position from previous memory and experience.

    Since the glasses are only a few centimetres from the eyes, the brain can't compensate for or process the two separate images correctly and the individual won't see 3D. That's why hyperopia (long sightedness) is one of the conditions they listed but myopia (short sightedness) isn't.

    EDIT: To make it read better. That's not a joke.
    Edited by monty2k at 13/07/10 @ 18:22

  • paulf #9 2 years ago

    gimmick

  • SilentNinja92 #10 2 years ago

    @Skooch

    I have glasses but my eyesight isnt too bad so I never bother with them.

    I can easily tell between HD and SD but wearing glasses does make a sizable difference actually especially when shading is used for depth. So its things like trees look very different which is why i used glasses for uncharted, but not really Killzone 2.

  • crickson #11 2 years ago

    @monty2k
    Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail! However, surely that only works if you are actually trying to focus on the glasses themselves, not the screen at the other end of the room... Maybe it would apply to the 3DS if you hold it very close to your face?

  • ronuds #12 2 years ago

    "Cautiously, Robson said she and The Eyecare Trust "don't know" about the effects of 3D on children. "We're not sure if there are any issues," she admitted, but explained that tests had been conducted,

    and results and conclusions were expected."

    Really? Well that's nice. I should hope that when you conduct tests that would end up with some kind of result.

  • Sunyavadin #13 2 years ago

    Screw 3D TV.

    I want a decent OLED AR display in my glasses, then every television set can go to hell.

    Hell, wire it right into my BRAIN please.

    Screw this 20th century tech - it's the 21st century - we should have all the cool stuff they told me in the 80s that we'd have by now!
    Edited by Sunyavadin at 13/07/10 @ 22:08

  • alcides #14 2 years ago

    Daltonism doesn't prevent people to drive.
    Homosexuality does not render you barren.
    Eye problems can be treated, and the technology may adapt. This is a market for eye doctors, perhaps? And if one has a lazy eye but 3D forces eyes to work as a team, isn't that a good thing?

  • Bander #15 2 years ago

    "I want a decent OLED AR display in my glasses, then every television set can go to hell."

    There's your "scope for 3D technology to improve" right there.

  • Arwin #16 2 years ago

    Maybe, but it was precisely this 3D tech in glasses system that did cause problems previously, because it forced you to slightly cross your eyes. I think if they go that route again, they may need to create glasses that can turn very slightly but very precisely along with your focus.

    Going back to the article, hopefully it won't be long now before research on how 3D technology can be used to actually treat problems with binocular vision gets more attention and more importantly, funding.
    Edited by Arwin at 14/07/10 @ 09:00

  • kangarootoo #17 2 years ago

    "Maybe, but it was precisely this 3D tech in glasses system that did cause problems previously, because it forced you to slightly cross your eyes"

    Surely that was because the old tech meant the left and right images couldn't be drawn in the same place. The current selective method of doing 3D means the images you are viewing CAN be in the same location, can't they? I don't see why there would be any need to return to any cross eyed type high jinks.


    I like these discussions. I learned a new word today (Daltonism).

  • Bander #18 2 years ago

    Did old video glasses really make people cross their eyes? I assumed the lenses between the eyes and the screens took care of that.

    Anyway, make those lenses software adjustable with some kind of eye tracking, and you have the beginning of a solution to the depth of focus problem. I've no doubt that it would be complicated, but I'm sure it's more viable than it would be with HDTVs.

  • kangarootoo #19 2 years ago

    @Bander

    Oh hang on, how far back are we going? I thought we were on about the red/green glasses. I believe with those, the red and green images were drawn next to each other on the screen, so your eyes would be crossed ever so slightly.

  • Bander #20 2 years ago

    I was thinking about the VR headsets of arcade machines in the early '90s, or the Virtual Boy, or something like Tomytronic 3D or Viewmaster. Arwin might be talking about something else. I'm not sure as I'm not aware of the cross eyed thing, maybe because one of my eyes is buggered.

    I'm pretty sure the red-green way of doing it works if the images occupy the same space though, as mixing colours to make brown or yellow should still work appropriately with the filters. It's just really weird to have one eye seeing things in different colours to the other (I would imagine).

  • Arwin #21 2 years ago

    I think the system referred to was a Sega system, that had a low framerate and projected things closely in front of your eyes. But other similar 3D through having two displays in front of your eyes have had similar problems.