3D Gaming and 3D Vision: Curse or Cure?

[Arwin]

There's a tonne of articles appearing these days about warnings for young children who watch 3D movies or games, how many people can't see 3D, etc. Most of these refer to the umbrella condition called Amblyopia, which has various causes most of which are at least initially physical.

There is currently however no evidence that 3D gaming would worsen the condition. I would like to use this thread to compile some actual information on this topic.

I'll start it off with this one:
http://www.virart.nottingham.ac.uk/ibit/index.htm

Particularly, check out what they've done here:
http://www.virart.nottingham.ac.uk/ibit/Games.htm

The link to a more recent NHS page on this research gives a good overview:

Improved performance:

Outstanding performance was demonstrated on the experimental system with 22 patients at this centre and a further 12 at another centre being treated. Increases in vision were rapid, sometimes following the first treatment. Most of the improvement occurred after 2 hours of treatment. Two hours is often the daily recommended amount of patching, which can be continued for several months. To date the children have had a 60% improvement in their vision. Traditional thinking within our profession is that vision cannot be improved in children over the age of 8 years. We have treated children older than this; one was over the age of 11 years.

Other data collected from the usability studies have enabled us to create an impressive manufactured system, which now looks like a piece of state of the art ophthalmic equipment, from a basic in-house produced system.

Reflecting diversity:

This system has been developed for use by children of differing ages and for future use by adults. Modifications to the game include automated and semi-automated 'play' mode to allow for diverse gaming skills of children. We also aimed to have a user-friendly clinician interface to enable ease of treatment mode selection.

Outstanding features:

This represents a novel innovative idea to treat amblyopia with both eyes open and using virtual reality (VR). Using both eyes open for amblyopia treatment and VR is something that has not been previously used. To treat amblyopia in a fun and interactive way for children and we have taken into consideration children's views when developing the prototype. We are also treated children who were thought to be too old for treatment. Energy has been required to keep this project going for 4 years, despite non-continuous funding and no member of the team has been able to work full time on the project. We are currently in a funding gap but hope our energy will enable us to apply for more money from appropriate grant bodies.

I remembered reading about this some time ago in our newspaper's science section, so I'm glad I found this again. Ironically this research seems to have trouble finding sufficient funding and has no full-time researchers working on it. With 3D movies, games and handhelds coming up, you'd think that these kinds of projects would get more attention. Instead all the money is going towards lawyers setting up legal disclaimers ... lol.

 

[Arwin]

Some more 'less negative' news on 3D (found on Gaf):

3DTV poses no extra health risk: expert

It may burn a hole in your wallet, but a 3D television should not have a negative effect on your eyeballs, an Australian vision expert says.

The latest technology in TVs posed no more risk than a conventional flat screen TV, said Professor Colin Clifford, an authority on how the brain interprets signals from the eyes.

Fear over the introduction of 3D TVs was misplaced, he said, and a carry-over from worries about an early version of interactive home entertainment.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"The concern about 3DTV originates with the development, a couple of years ago, of virtual reality goggles which have tiny screens right in front of both eyes which present a slightly different image to each eye," he said.

Prof Clifford, of The Vision Centre and the University of Sydney, said these goggles forced each eye to focus on a point that was very close, while a user's brain received images of objects that appeared to be far away.

This was not the natural orientation for the eyes when looking into the distance, he said, and this process raised the potential for "confusing the brain's processing system".

"As 3DTV is usually watched from a longer distance it is unlikely to affect how the eyes and brain perceive depth of field," Prof Clifford said.

"The human visual system responds to a great many different cues in order to interpret the depth of what it is seeing.

"It is not likely to be confused by a single cue - a 3D picture which is in fact being projected on a flat screen."

Prof Clifford said there was an argument that 3D television actually created less of a conflict for the brain's vision interpretation processes than ordinary 2D television.

He said all televisions should be watched from a distance of two to three metres and within recommended daily time limits.

Children in particular should not watch excessive amounts as their brain and eyes were still developing, and it could affect their sense of depth.

For budget conscious TV viewers, Prof Clifford also said a "poor man's 3DTV" experience was at hand - viewers could simply cover one eye when watching ordinary television.

"By covering the second eye, you lose the cue from that eye that tells you the screen is in fact flat and so the image appears more in-depth and realistic," Prof Clifford said.

"You could say it's a kind of poor man's 3DTV."

The Vision Centre is funded by the Australian Research Council as the ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...o-extra-health-risk-expert-20100707-zzs0.html

 

[DeadlyNinja]

To me, 3D is a useless gimmick out the impress the same people who jumped the HD bandwagon. At least HD won't ruin your eyes... unless you spend 24/7 in front of one. That's why I'm very glad the 3DS has the option to turn off 3D. I'll try it out for the novelty, but not using it for long game sessions.

 

[Arwin]

To me, 3D is a useless gimmick out the impress the same people who jumped the HD bandwagon. At least HD won't ruin your eyes... unless you spend 24/7 in front of one. That's why I'm very glad the 3DS has the option to turn off 3D. I'll try it out for the novelty, but not using it for long game sessions.

You don't like reading much, do you?

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I read the second article, but that doesn't mean I'll trust it. How many times have we seen scientific research that says one thing today, and something else tomorrow? How long have people been studying the effects of 3D on a person's eyes? I'd rather not take the risk on 3D TV or 3DS.

 

[Neb]

I read the second article, but that doesn't mean I'll trust it. How many times have we seen scientific research that says one thing today, and something else tomorrow? How long have people been studying the effects of 3D on a person's eyes? I'd rather not take the risk on 3D TV or 3DS.

Agreed. To many are to eager to jump onto 'flashy bandwagons' either out of curiosity or just fanboyism/fanatism. Anyone remember the smoke commercials and "scientific" studies back in the old days?

 

[dragonelite]

I read the second article, but that doesn't mean I'll trust it. How many times have we seen scientific research that says one thing today, and something else tomorrow? How long have people been studying the effects of 3D on a person's eyes? I'd rather not take the risk on 3D TV or 3DS.

Aah scientist are so influenced by money or at least the result are.
One day milk gives you cancer the other day it lets you loss weight and a week later it makes you gain weight. Those kind of contradicting articles make me think a lot of money is spend on those researches to make a product seems positive.

"As 3DTV is usually watched from a longer distance it is unlikely to affect how the eyes and brain perceive depth of field," Prof Clifford said.

He said all televisions should be watched from a distance of two to three metres and within recommended daily time limits.

Dont know but people are already making a big fuss about kinect 1.3 meter minimal distance so i assume people dont watch their tv on a distance of 2~3 meters. So does this mean asia has to stock up glasses because of small rooms and houses. could be off he also says that 3D is even less heavy on the eyes then 2D is.

 

[Arwin]

Well I'm not going to blame anyone for being skeptical. But I've now read a fair bit on this and so far, I only see very big advantages. I think the combination of 3D motion controls and 3D vision is going to create an amazingly immersive experience, and a few impressions of games that combined both (in the case of EyeToy even with augmented reality), like Garnett Lee's experience with EyePet using 3D TV and the Move controller, or even impressions of more intuitive platforming on the 3DS are very promising.

But anyway, this thread is about if it's bad for your eyes or not. So far there have been lots of warnings and worries, but it now seems more and more the case that most of the scare is based on Sega's early 3D attempts, which I think is what is referred to in the Autralian Research Centre.

Sure, perhaps we'll find some hidden dangerous side-effects. Who knows the transmission of radio signals that synchronise your 3D glasses gives you cancer after all. Who knows the batteries in your shutter glasses will mass-explode and make everyone blind.

However, I'd like at the very least an attempt at some scientific underpinnings of the suggested risks, and all I've seen so far in that regard seems complete nonsense.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I just subscribe to the whole "better safe than sorry" philosophy. I value my eyes because they allow me to enjoy video games, so if they damage me doing exactly what I love, I wouldn't be very happy. I mean, I wouldn't mind embracing 3D on any platform as long as we have an option or know 100% without a doubt that it wouldn't be anymore harmful than a regular TV. I am genuinely concerned with my eye sight that I don't want to take the risk. So you know... better safe than sorry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I just subscribe to the whole "better safe than sorry" philosophy. I value my eyes because they allow me to enjoy video games, so if they damage me doing exactly what I love, I wouldn't be very happy.

Ironically playing video games damages your eyes. That's why the nerd achetype is spectacle wearers, which includes me. (or rather, ).

FWIW I too am a techno-skeptic, neo-luddite. Still don't have a mobile as IMO splashing the atmosphere with radiation that life didn't develop with is likely going to have consequences somewhere along the line. A current suggestion is it's messing bees up, but research is utter rubbish 90% of the time with quack results from poor experiments. I read the government report on mobile communcations a decade or so ago and it was laughable what some scientists were willing to call relevant research, with practically no investigations being meaningful and yet lots of absolutel conclusions being drawn.

I'll do a McCoy and take the shuttle until all those willing to get their atoms rearranged have helped iron out the shortcomings.

 

[catisfit]

It's unfortunately difficult to be 100% sure with a lot of these investigations without knowing why they are being conducted or by whom. All I know is I've spent my entire life viewing a different image in each eye, and decades playing videogames which try to provide a sense of depth to a 2D image, that the idea of combining the two excites me as (IMO) it should any gamer.

As long as there is some calibration - you can adjust the spacing of the two viewpoints to match the separation of your own eyes - then the effect is entirely realistic. It's the movie and sports 3D effects which I have more doubts over as the two cameras are much wider apart, which exaggerates the depth effect at close range and causes the "pop-up book" effect people often mention. Whether or not this (viewing the scene from an exaggerated "eye" separation) could tire your eyes I don't know.

Unfortunately there's also a lot of FUD reporting over 3D - witness the spate of news articles about the new PS terms of service where standard legal ass-covering has taken on a "Sony admit 3D damages your eyes!" slant on some websites, but similar disclaimers exist for normal TV (take a break every hour, don't sit too close, if you have an epileptic fit it's not our fault, you already had it and this just sparked it off etc).

So who knows. I can't wait for 3D, if only to be able to edge round corners without a ridiculously overblown depth of field effect kicking in and stopping you seeing anything except the bricks in front of your face...

 

[Arwin]

I'll do a McCoy and take the shuttle until all those willing to get their atoms rearranged have helped iron out the shortcomings.

Well, yes, for that technology I wouldn't like to be the first to do it as a commute to work, or maybe even just once. But 3D technology is transparent enough, imho, to know that it can't do any serious damage. More importantly for me, I'm pretty sure it won't do any damage I won't notice build up. I'm also right now of the opinion that it's more like normal vision and probably less tiring than looking at a 2D screen after a short period of getting used to. Finally, there's a good chance that it will actually improve my eyesight, contrary to, say, looking at a page of a small book or my iPhone.

 

[_phil_]

To me, 3D is a useless gimmick out the impress the same people who jumped the HD bandwagon. At least HD won't ruin your eyes... unless you spend 24/7 in front of one. That's why I'm very glad the 3DS has the option to turn off 3D. I'll try it out for the novelty, but not using it for long game sessions.

3D isn't a gimmick.
I spent enough time in it and as a professionnal game developer to understand that very well .It's very clear that it's not a gimmick at all,even if you can patch-in 3d in a gimmick way.
It's has the intrinsic potential to be much more important than color.
It's a whole new dimension.Everything based on perception benefits of it.

To my ears, you really just sound like Flat earth people.But i bet you'll love 3d soon enough,like anybody that can see it.

 

[Neb]

Btw how is it that there was barely any interest when Nvidia introduced stereoscopic 3D several years ago. Though now it is the "shit", "the juice, the OMFG!" when SONY is "introduicng" it!

OK I see the flags and pitch forks waving at the horisont.

 

[upnorthsox]

Btw how is it that there was barely any interest when Nvidia introduced stereoscopic 3D several years ago. Though now it is the "shit", "the juice, the OMFG!" when SONY is "introduicng" it!

OK I see the flags and pitch forks waving at the horisont.

My pitch fork is in the shop, so I'll just say that being able to see it on a 55" display goes a long way to making it the "shit, the "juice, the "OMFG".

 

[Neb]

My pitch fork is in the shop, so I'll just say that being able to see it on a 55" display goes a long way to making it the "shit, the "juice, the "OMFG".

Soooo a PC has been able to be connected to TV for serious gaming since... ohhhhhh 1998?

Since last-gen it's just to plug it to TV and thats it, the rest is auto configured!

 

[patsu]

Btw how is it that there was barely any interest when Nvidia introduced stereoscopic 3D several years ago. Though now it is the "shit", "the juice, the OMFG!" when SONY is "introduicng" it!

OK I see the flags and pitch forks waving at the horisont.

Because...

(1) Sony is a major content provider. Without content, 3D vision is meaningless.

(2) Sony is not the only party, major manufacturers, studios, broadcasters, and even pr0n people are involved. Remember Avatar ? All the cartoons in the cinema are available in 3D also.

(3) Because you and I can be involved if 3D camera goes cheap.

Why are you focusing on Sony when so many other companies are going into 3D. Even MS has partnered with LG to investigate 3D content.

Nintendo is obviously going there too.

Can 3D fail ? It's possible.

 

[liolio]

It's curse and I feel like it's obvious glasses are an unacceptable constraint, that's all folks.
I can barely accept glasses for a two hour for a impressive movie but that's all. I hate them I even hate sun glasses, no matter my clear eyes... I'm not alone.
And how about people already wearing glasses? They go for a stack? Custom glasses for optician?
And for the people in the room no playing? they have to use glasses no matter they don't care for game? They have to suffer some weird images on a big television?

Sorry I understand people have to sell tv but at this point in technology it's a niche market. It's more adapt to PC use which is more "private" even within a house than the TV. Betting the house on it is ridiculous, even launch is somehow successful the constrains will soon outshine the hype... It looks pretty obvious to me, it's a bit like an elephant in the room.
Once coolness/new factor wears out (and quickly once people have the thing at home) overbearing drawbacks will backslash strongly.

EDIT and I'm passing on ~10% that can't "sense" 3D effect, how the effect on children will back slash, lawsuit etc. in this regard epilepsy law suits will look like a joke...

 

[ERP]

I've liked the idea of stereoscopic 3d for a long time.
I've owned various VR headsets, and I currently own a 3d vision setup, I've always considered it something of a gimmick. Although I think the current solutions are getting beyond that. The effect certainly adds to gaming, obviously whether that addition is worth wearing glasses for is up to the individuals.

I think the cost of active glasses mean it'll be a niche for a while yet.

I doubt there is any real health risk, and as in the first article I think there is a good chance that it can improve some convergence problems. I see an opthamologist every 6 months for unrelated issues, so I'd notice any measurable change relatively quickly.

 

[patsu]

Not cure nor curse. Immersion.

Victoria Secrets should be in 3D.

Mars exploration should be in 3D.