Nintendo Warns 3D Games Can Ruin Children's Eyes 229
Hugh Pickens writes "Fox News reports that Nintendo has posted a cautionary note on its Japanese website that 'vision of children under the age of six has been said [to be in the] developmental stage,' adding that 3D content 'delivers 3D images with different left and right images, [which] has a potential impact on the growth of children's eyes.' The notice went to say that Nintendo recommends that all viewers take regular breaks while watching 3D video or playing stereoscopic 3D games (google translation). Dr. Michael Ehrenhaus, an ophthalmologist with New York Cornea Consultants, thinks Nintendo and Sony may be getting ahead of themselves with these disclaimers. 'It's hard to say that it'll ruin development,' says Ehrenhaus."
What I have been telling people. (Score:2)
Since a while, 3D TV is supposed to be the next big thing. I have been telling people that I doubted a 3D TV could be watched without side effects for as many hours a day that some people watch current 2D TVs.
I mean, it should be fine to watch a 3D movie in a theater once in a while but even then; some complain of headaches or at least of a "disorienting feeling" after watching the latest 3D movies such as Avatar.
I will sure wait for while before getting myself a 3D TV just to better evaluate its effects on
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:5, Informative)
It's in a similar vein to how radio enthusiasts set up their antennas unpowered at first so that they can tell "radio sensitives" where to show it.
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:4, Informative)
Nintendo pulled the Visual Boy because of this effect. I hate the feeling my eyes get while watching isometric 3d projections. It's unnatural, and I swear viewing all those 3d stills when I was a kid with the goggles didn't help.
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nintendo didn't pull the Virtual Boy because of its headache inducing red LED display, they pulled it because it was a shitty console that nobody bought.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they pulled the Virtual Boy because it was a completely terrible system both in technical and aesthetic aspects. There's no such thing as a Visual Boy, so I don't know what you're talking about, and I doubt you do either.
VisualBoyAdvance (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a Visual Boy
There is [ngemu.com], but Nintendo wants it pulled for a different reason [nintendo.com].
Reading between the lines (Score:3)
The article is missing the point here. Nintendo is making a self serving argument here. The Syndrome is question occurs only in stereoscopic 3D. it does not occur in the "point of view" 3D that the Nintendo implement with it's motion sensors. There both eyes see the same image. the 3D effect arriese because the images tracks the motion of the controller itself, as though you were looking through a window pane.
Second, I would suspect that the Wii does not have enough horse power to generate steroscopic 3
Re: (Score:2)
My bigger concern would be more related to the development of 3D perception brain structures ,like the occular dominance columns and the like. With vision , usually you have a dominant eye, which does most of the percieving, whilst the other eye provides mostly depth perception "meta-data" (for want of a better term) that helps you place things in space. This is usually accomplishe by structures in the visual cortex called occular dominance columns that sort of put all this together for you. A child deprive
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's all about lawsuit avoidance. Slap the disclaimers on as early as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the lazy eye which is the problem here.
There is a fundamental problem - the stereoscopical position of eyes and the depth perception of a child are different from those of an adult. The reasons for this are purely anatomical - the eyes are positioned differently in the skull.
So you have to generate different content for different ages and probably even take development into account. That is simply beyond the limits of today's tech.
Re: (Score:2)
"stow it" or "shove it", but not "show it".
Hehe. Sorry. In my defense that language of yours is full of similar words with similar spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
The Disoriented feeling is probably as much the camera shots in Avatar as any thing else. Its disorienting in 2D as well.
That's not to say that 3D is blameless, because the technology is still far from mature, imperfectly filmed, and reliant on uncomfortable glasses.
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic. It is, after all, our normal environment, and 2D is what should be problematic. But we have no trouble with 2D, our brain adds the third dimension easily. Even one eyed persons has e
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic. It is, after all, our normal environment, and 2D is what should be problematic.
This isn't quite correct. In our normal environment, there's a correspondence between the parallax depth of objects (their displacement in the left eye image vs. the right eye image) and their focal depth (the curvature of the cornea required to produce a sharp image on the retina). On any 3D TV/film display, no such correspondence exists.
In a cinema, the distance to the screen is far enough that this generally isn't a big deal: the rays coming from one point on the screen, by the time they hit your pupil, have diverged along such a narrow angle that they might as well be parallel (as if from an infinitely distant source.) But when you're in a living room with a screen in front of you, it's potentially a much bigger deal. We have plenty of reasons to suppose that the brain 'trains' itself on this depth-correspondence, and exposing kids to a lot of visual stimulus which lacks this correspondence could easily throw a wrench into this training process. We just don't know yet.
When we don't know, error on the side of caution (Score:2)
This is a GOOD THING. Usually corporations intentionally ignore or even fail to research the harm of their devices; not only have they found out there is potential harm but they are ACTING on it by warning people. Yes, this is likely due to lawsuits but for a change they are actively trying to avoid them instead of spending money on P.R. and fake think tanks to protect themselves after problems are found by the public like most large corporations do today. BP comes to mind as an extreme example.
oh and this is where i make fun of lolbertarians (Score:2)
Huh! Could this much-bemoaned "litigator culture" full of coffee-scalds and warning labels actually produce some sort of mysterious, unexplainable corporate incentives which compel them to (now and again) act in line with the best interests of the public? I can't imagine how! It is a mystery for the ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there's no proof the systems actually do damage, and the warning is purely a CYA move with absolutely no real-world impact (it's a warning label, rather than modifying the technology, or putting in hard limits on time use) since it relies exclusively on parents actually parenting. Odds of that? My calculations are putting them at slim-to-none.
Re: (Score:2)
You willing to bet your own kids' vision on that?
There may not be any proof as yet, as the technology is still in its nascent stages, but I'd much prefer that the companies, in covering their collective backsides, acknowledge a possible risk than try to cover it up or deny the existence of any risks whatsoever.
Re:oh and this is where i make fun of lolbertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
That's essentially false. There is proof that bad 3D can cause damage. There is no proof that the new 3D is "bad" because testing it requires subjecting children to a test that has, in the past, damaged children. It's unethical to determine if the current 3D technology will cause the same problems proven to have occurred in previous 3D technology.
So your statement is true in that not every possible combination of stereoscopic 3D has been proven to cause damage, so there's no proof that Blu-Ray 3D movies will cause damage. There's proof that 3D causes damage and no proof that this version doesn't. So, feel free to say it however you want. The technology used has been proven to cause damage, and they've not proven this one to be any better than the old versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Please point to this "Proof".
You can't go on stomping your foot like a spoiled child with out providing at least a citation.
Pictures, or it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You accuse me of being a child, then make a reference to porn from a childish forum. Obviously, it doesn't matter what I say, even if I gave you gold-plated proof, you'd just quip away and pretend I didn't say anything.
Re: (Score:2)
So no citation then.
Fuff off and run away then.
You've proven yourself a blowhard and your bluff has been called.
Re: (Score:2)
They have nothing to lose by disrecommending games for small children under six, because those kids are growing up fast.
If 3D games were found to harm people's vision at any age, you can bet they would cover that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Sega had this tech and knew the problems in 1980s.
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:4, Interesting)
In a cinema, the distance to the screen is far enough that this generally isn't a big deal: the rays coming from one point on the screen, by the time they hit your pupil, have diverged along such a narrow angle that they might as well be parallel (as if from an infinitely distant source.) But when you're in a living room with a screen in front of you,
Can't it be true in reverse as well? You appear to see an object coming very close to you, but the focal depth still says it's far away. At least in gimmicks where things would jump out at you from the screen there should be a fairly obvious difference to what the eye would see in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quite right. I hadn't considered that.
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed this in my first post above.
The fact that you are doing no eye focusing, or actual parallax adjustments with your eyeballs is not missed by the brain, and may be the source of some people's disorientation.
It certainly leads to the "fake" look of movie 3D. You are always aware that what you are seeing is an approximation, usually thrown into the story gratuitously merely to sell the technology.
Will the brain learn this? Or will this technology be quickly abandoned when multi-focal-plane technol
Re: (Score:2)
Or will this technology be quickly abandoned when multi-focal-plane technology arrives?
I'd bet money that as soon as holographic displays arrive (and they will eventually), stereoscopy will die quickly.
There are a few hurdles to holography, though. You need an insanely high definition LCD screen with three backlight lasers, all exactly tuned to the additive primary colors.
And that's just playback, recording is even harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends upon the cinema, too. Some theaters have really crappily done 3d rigs (including, unfortunately, my local IMAX).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
focal depth (the curvature of the cornea required to produce a sharp image on the retina).
No, the cornea's focus never changes. Your eye actually has two lenses, the cornea, and the crystaline lens [wikipedia.org]. The crystaline lens sits behind the iris, and is what does the actual focusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yakity Yakity and all that crotchety old shit. I was watching it on MTV when MTV was just hard rock and nothing else.
- Dan.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been around longer than that see: stereogram [wikipedia.org] my grandmother has some stills from before the turn of the century (20th) that can be viewed on an old brass unit that looks like something you would take to an opera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that some short bits of the action sequences totally overwhelmed my visual system. For a second or two I literally could not work out what was going on. It seemed to happen when there was a lot of movement and a big stereo effect.
Re:What I have been telling people. (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic.
I kinda disagree, based on the fact that technical generated 3D is simply a hack for your brain. It is designed to fool your brain into thinking that things that have no depth, have depth. I can see the possibility that it might not be good for developing eyes.
I remember watching a video in school (late 70s) about a guy who created special headset binoculars that he wore all the time for a week. They made everything upside down, which was humorous and made him have to adjust to walking, etc. He wore them every waking hour. Within a week, his brain had adjusted and flipped the image, so now with the headgear, everything was now right side up. Once he quit using them, obviously, everything was back to upside down, and it took a couple of weeks to get back to "right". This experiment is exactly parallel to what we are talking about: hacking the brain to see something differently. The experiment didn't go as far as exploring long term effects, if any, this had on the adult volunteer. What it did prove, however, is that you can force the brain to change your visual perception in a semi-permanent way. It caused a real physical change in the brain.
Any time you go hacking into things, there are unforeseen consequences. Saying to be cautious and don't let kids use it is likely a good idea until we better understand the possible side effects. It isn't like abstaining from 3D is going to hurt a 4 year old.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are three components to 3D vision -- focus, stereoscopy, and perspective. "3D" lacks focus, 2D lacks focus and stereoscopy, but 2D does in fact have perspective. Artists have used perspective for hundreds of years.
For some, 3D simply won't work; if you're blind in one eye, have strabismus, etc.
If you're old enough to need reding glasses, stereoscopy is 3D, since your eyes will no longer focus.
When I worked at Disney World I liked going to the Kodak pavillion at Epcot, sit in the back row, and watch th
Re: (Score:2)
The images projected on your eyes' retinas, whether from a real scene or images, are 2D. So "technical" 3D is just as real as "real" 3D. It is generated from real 3D data. 3D cameras capture a real scene. 3D computer graphics captures objects which are mathematically 3D. All that is lacking in generated 3D is what is lacking in 2D pictures: focal depth.
Re: (Score:2)
What it did prove, however, is that you can force the brain to change your visual perception in a semi-permanent way.
The brain actually does most of the seeing, and it is an incredibly malleable organ.
Any time you go hacking into things, there are unforeseen consequences.
Only if you don't fully understand what you're hacking. I hacked transistor radios into guitar fuzzboxes as a teenager, but then I understood how both worked. I added a real keyboard to a TS-1000, and it worked for months until it started b
Re: (Score:2)
It's not true 3D - the focus point is decided by the movie director, not the position of the eyeballs (as it is in the real world).
When the 3D camera cuts between viewpoints the depth changes and there's a moment where the brain goes "Wha? Where am I supposed to be focussing??". I'm pretty sure that's what causes most of the problems in 3D cinema.
Re: (Score:2)
So a possible warning against children who lack associative depth perception and who ten to walk in front of moving vehicles when they misinterpret the distance of the vehicle. This of course could be considered an extreme example but it is likely they distorting the visual plane to achieve 2.5d could likely produce an accident prone generation.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic. It is, after all, our normal environment
Yes, but "3D" movies aren't really 3D. See this earlier comment. [slashdot.org]
2D is what should be problematic
No, 2D is 2/3rds of 3D, and there is plenty of 2D in the real world; the ground, building walls, etc.
It seems to me that the 3D technology is a huge kludge, and probably will always be as long as it relies on trying to fool the visual system into seeing depth with images projected upon a common plane, at a common d
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking the brain?
Oh, I don't think so. There is not a SHRED of evidence to support that.
Further, there is significant difference between the view seen by the two different eyes. Same scene, different position = different image.
The exact same thing happens with two cameras shooting the same action side by side, or CGI generation of images by moving the camera position in the rendering.
http://www.stereo3d.com/img/21st3dvx3.jpg [stereo3d.com]
You are correct about the focal distance being the same even as the object appea
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. In 3D, the focus is set. The shrubs in the foreground look closer, but you can't focus on them. The trees in the background look farther away, but you can't focus on them. Thus, any attempt to look outside the focal area defined when the print was made will result in eye operation differing from "normal."
They could easily make the whole thing in focus (and for 3D, they should), but that would break 2D focus, as your eyes wouldn't know what to focus on and would
Re: (Score:2)
But that is the only flaw,
No, it isn't. In 3D, the focus is set. The shrubs in the foreground look closer, but you can't focus on them. The trees in the background look farther away, but you can't focus on them.
That is not a problem of 3D that is a limitation of cameras in general.
Further, with enough light and a small enough aperture, this is not a problem. Everything in the scene will be in focus.
There are reasons they hire professionals for this work.
Go see a well made 3D movie some time. You will see how utterly wrong you are.
Re: (Score:2)
As proven by your other responses, you are a fucktard. I've seen more than one 3D movie, but I'm sure no matter what I've seen, even if I've seen every single one, you'd say they weren't on your personal and secret "well made" list.
Re: (Score:2)
> I will sure wait for while before getting myself a 3D TV just to better evaluate its effects on the human brain.
There are certain to be some effects, the only question is how bad are they?
The fundamental problem is 3D isn't reality. In the end it is just a pair of 2D images. We get depth information via both parallax and focus and 3D images only provide one of those sources of information. So you are watching a 3D movie, an object moves closer to the viewer according to the parallax information whil
Re: (Score:2)
Our TV died on Xmas eve and we've been out looking. 10 years ago we bought a 65" rear projection HDTV and was way ahead of the curve. We didn't really pay much of a premium USD2,800, but for the first couple years the HD selection was HBO, Showtime, and the HD Preview/Demo channel. It's only been in the last 2 - 3 years we've seen much HD content on our cable provider and we really won't get all the channels we regularly watch in HD until the middle of the year.
We just bought a 60" Plasma TV today for $1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I used to watch my standard 2D television for hours on end, all I ended up with was Square-Eyes.
Now with my awesome 3D HDTV, I can watch it for a whole day and all I get is Cube-Eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it should be fine to watch a 3D movie in a theater once in a while but even then; some complain of headaches or at least of a "disorienting feeling" after watching the latest 3D movies such as Avatar.
Your eyes don't see, your brain does most of the work. When determining (percieving) distance there are a lot of cues, the three biggest are the various forms of perspective* [wikipedia.org], streoscopy, and focus. With a "3-D" movie, stereoscopy fights with focus, since your eyes are focused on the screen but the ster
Re: (Score:2)
You'll go mad I say. Maaaaaaad!
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. These disclaimers are just "cover-your-ass" disclaimers. 'Cos you just know some idiot's going to try sue. 3D is BASED on how the eyes and brain actually evolved over millions of years to work ... your eye can't even tell the difference between light rays entering it from a 3D system vs light rays entering your eyes from the real world, it's the same thing to your eyes.
The main reason some people feel disoriented is that people have variation in their interocular distance, while 3D systems must be
Re: (Score:2)
The real image would have the close parts at 10 feet, the medium parts at 50 feet, and the far away parts at 100+ feet. The 3D version has the close parts at 50 feet (assuming you are 50 feet from the screen) the medium parts at 50 feet, and the far away parts at 50 feet. The light, as it enters your eye, is different for those. T
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you haven't watched any 3D films.
The correct name for what happens in a "3D" cinema or on a "3D" TV is not "3D" - it isn't really significantly more "3D" than a normal perspective image (I'll explain why below). The correct name for the effect is "stereoscopy" and it only reproduces one part, actually a rather unimportant pa
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
3D content 'delivers 3D images with different left and right images, [which] has a potential impact on the growth of children's eyes.'
This is not only false, but illogical as well.
Which part is false? The fact that it delivers different images to each eye, or that it can impact the deelopment of children's vision?
The first part is obviously true.
The second part is not so obvious -- availability of 3D TV in the home with hours of content is just now becoming mainsteam.
Because of this, uninformed people will watch the movie and accidentally (and usually repeatedly) try to change their focus and strain their eyes because the image does not change focus at all.
Isn't this the crux of the problem with children? Their eyes are still learning how to operate - if they are trained to focus independent of perceived depth, then that could affect their eye development.
impact on the "growth of children's eyes" (Score:2)
Do they end up larger or smaller in the end?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Affected eyes end up] Larger, if eye size in anime is any indicator.
At least it's less drastic than what Pop-Tarts do to your head [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
impact on the "growth of children's eyes" - Do they end up larger or smaller in the end?
Funny you should mention that, because eye size/growth has a LOT to do with being near or far sighted.
Recent research shows that frequent exposure to strong light (like daylight) inhibits the growth of the eye so that it reaches its correct size, more or less. With too little strong light stimulus, the eye can overgrow (not sure it's spherical growth or oblong growth or what) and cause myopia, aka nearsightedness, due to the retina and lens being the incorrect distance apart. The researchers postulate that
Will anyone pay attention? (Score:2)
Doesn't Nintendo already have warning on gameboy game instruction manuals telling you to take breaks for your eyes every thirty minutes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, if you're not sitting at an appropriate distance you can cause a bit of strain as well.
There might be something to it (Score:2)
Maybe this is just over-cautiousness in an age of lawyers. But there might be something to it.
I have one eye that is much better than the other. The eye doctor told me that, as I was growing, I somehow got in the habit of mostly using one eye and not using the other much; he said that as you grow, your eyes need exercise so they will grow correctly, and one of my eyes didn't get that exercise. Had this been caught when I was younger, I might have had a bandage put over my better eye for a while, to force
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There might be something to it (Score:5, Informative)
It's not over-cautiousness. This issue has been known for some time.
Children under about 10-12 shouldn't be exposed to any artificial stereoscopy as it can cause developmental impairment. Whether it's used for games is beside the point - movies and television pose the same risk. Really, any use of stereoscopy to create the illusion of 3D. The technology imperfectly replicates real visual stimuli from a 3D environment. Exposing children to it, particularly regularly or for long sessions, can cause the brain to try and adapt to the wrong set of stimuli.
Watching Avatar in 3D once is probably okay but should probably be avoided. Watching movies in 3D every weekend is probably bad. Using a 3DS daily for several hours at a time is probably going to cause some degree of harm. Gaming tends to long sessions, frequent use, and attentive focus.
Re:There might be something to it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The plasticity of the brain means it can fairly easily re-wire how it processes input. The problem with fake 3-D is that it's not a matter of how the brain processes the images it sees, its about how the brain controls your eyes relative to the images it sees.
There's been plenty of literature suggesting the potential of developmental problems with how children end up controlling the positioning of their eyes (lazy eyes, etc). The end result could be an inability to align them properly to see depth in the *
I think the Virtual Boy had the cautionary on it (Score:2)
I think the Virtual Boy had the same cautionary notes on it
Vaguely related... (Score:2)
Wow! You really can go blind watching 3D porn?! (Score:2)
Summary Fail (Score:3, Informative)
Should be:
Seeing as how this is a Nintendo story and if you read TFA the warning was in fact posted on Nintendo's site.
Re: (Score:3)
The story also mentions a previous warning put out by Sony, so you need to read TFA a little closer yourself.
Holy Nintendo Virtual Boy, Batman! (Score:3)
Nintendo gave simlar warnings 15 years ago: Virtual Boy, Nintendo’s Big 3-D Flop, Turns 15 [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good to know (Score:2)
I also have one, still in a box and partly used... it's good to know if it's flaked out there's a fix that can be done. Being from fifteen years ago or so, I figure it should have solder joints the size of my fist I can easily re-do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that looks pretty easy to me - one of the comments even mentioned you could probably use a heat gun instead of the oven, which would be a lot safer... since all you have to do is slightly re-melt the glue and apply a clamp, it looks very doable.
I agree the whole "bit" thing looks very annoying, but I'll bet applied pressure with some other kind of bit would get the deep screw out eventually - if you're going to replace the screws anyway, it doesn't matter if they are terribly stripped (unless you
Classic CYA (Score:2)
Warning: Reading this post may result in cancer, muscular degeneration, general anxiety, increased blood pressure, warts, rectal bleeding, congestion, stomach pains, feelings of malaise, or general bad shit happening. Read at your own risk.
My TV FROM THE FUTURE (Score:2)
No kidding. Known for years. (Score:5, Informative)
This has been covered half a dozen times yet no one in the media gets it: 3D that is being popularized strains the eyes and messes with the brain. I've yet to see a movie that states you shouldn't drive for 2 hours after watching it to let your depth perception recover- because it has been hacked at with the method of presentation.
Everyone LOVES 3D that really pops- and to get that level of pop the eyes must be further and further strained outwards. While this is fine for the short term, immediate needs doing it for any length of time is a huge stressor.
Unfortunately I am at home and don't have any of the papers that were published in the late 80's and 90's about these issues. Sega (damn memory) had a unit that was going to be 3D capable but ended up canning it for a variety of issues- including the health of children. Obviously now adays that isn't a concern and money, as always, comes first.
I know of some military groups that prohibit their members from operating a vehicle for 8 hours after performing 2-4 hours of stereo work. They must be driven home by a buddy. That's not over-reacting in my opinion.
Crewmen of submarines must recover their 3D vision after spending so long cooped up with nothing 'far' available to be seen. They're also banned from operating vehicles while in port for some duration.
Why is it any surprise that a developing brain can be traumatized by seeing something that it wasn't wired to see?
Go ahead- screw your kids up. Mine won't be. I've got hundreds of other ways to mess them up :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that I was under ten years old for most of the 80s, I'd really like to see those scientific studies. Honestly, America is so sue-happy right now, practically anything and everything I see from a company's lawyers I assume is covering their company's ass, and not in any way representative of actual scientific study. I would point out that most (if not all) cellular companies have similar warnings for their cell phones absolving them of any health issue due to radio waves (despite the lack of any valid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can back this up 100%. I work in medical imaging (20+ years), where stereo (3D) viewing of radiographs and other medical images is fairly widely used in various specialties. Whether the stereo viewing is done un-aided or using various aids such as special stereo binoculars or displays, there is an effect to your vision when you have performed "synthetic" stereo viewing for even a short time. It's very taxing on your eyes and brain, because they are being forced to "work" in ways which are un-natural. This
Re: (Score:2)
Fail at basic geometry (Score:2)
Everyone LOVES 3D that really pops- and to get that level of pop the eyes must be further and further strained outwards.
You completely fail at basic geometry. Looking at something near forces to "cross" your eyes : point them closer (not further) to make your sight aim at closer object. And "at your face" objects are exactly simulated that way in 3D media.
You never point the eyes further outward. They are either point both forward parallel, when you look toward at infinity, or crossing inward when you look at closer object.
Why is it any surprise that a developing brain can be traumatized by seeing something that it wasn't wired to see?
It's not a surprise : 3D is a relatively new gimmick for the large population. Therefore, the older gen
Vaguely related... (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see what, if any, strange neurological effects early and heavy exposure to the various more-or-less-unknown-in-nature quasi-3d tricks used for "3d" media have on the visual cortexes and/or eye muscles of the humanspawn...
Lazy Eye and 3D (Score:2)
I think I'm beginning to get a handle on the damage 3D could do. Our everyday vision depends on our eyes maintaining the correct alignment (parallel I think, though I'm not absolutely sure about that). The brain then uses the differences in the images from eye to another to infer the distances to various objects, creating our sense of dimensionality. With real physical objects, if one eye goes out of alignment, the brain will immediately get a sense of this, causing the eye to go back into alignment. W
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reality delivers different left and right images. So reality must be bad for visual development also.
Focus. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2D images also lack focal depth, so let's not give books to the six and under crowds.
Re: (Score:2)
mmmm honesty from the manufacturers.. and... (Score:2)
I wonder who pays him to make such a statement. Maybe Toshiba.. or any other 3D TV vendor?
Cover your ass, or FUD? (Score:2)
Problems kids may have with 3D (Score:2)
It's well known that stereoscopic images aligned "beyond infinity", which force the eyes to cross to fuse the image, induce headaches. This can happen inadvertently when images aligned for adult eye spacing are viewed by kids.
Then there's the problem that watching a stereoscopic image with the head angled induces eye alignment problems. That's unlikely in theaters, but lie on a couch and watch a 3D TV. You will not have a pleasant experience. Maybe stereo glasses should switch to mono mode when they're
And that's not all... (Score:2)
And that it's all Obama's fault.
View-Master (Score:2)
With all this controversy about 3-D and vision, what about kids growing up watching stories on their View-Masters [fisher-price.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)