INHERENT INSTABILITY
Here is the problem I see with current 3D technology. Human eyes are evolved
to work in perfect spacial syncronicity. They move in unison. They focus in
unison. They unfocus in unison. They ACT AS ONE. Depth perception is
accomplished by each eye mechanically changing it's focal length in syncronicity
with the other eye.
But what happens with 'simulated' 3D? What appears on the monitor screen is
two offset images. When one puts the 3D glasses on each eye only sees one of
those two images. They are no longer focusing as one, they are each focusing
on a slightly different image. This is an unnatural state and creates an inherent
instability in the eye/brain visual system. The brain resolving that instability is
what simulates the perception of depth where none physically exists. But there is
a cost to this, the reported queasiness, headaches and fatigue, worsening over
time.
But what actually physically happens? The eyes normally change their focal
length to perceive depth, but a monitor screen is flat, it has no depth (in practical
terms). If the eyes actually changed their physical focal length to resolve the
simulated 3D image the entire screen would go out of focus. Therefore 'focusing'
while looking at the simulated 3D image must be accomplished by other means.
The eyes are reflexively trying to bring those disseparate images together while
the brain is trying to make sense of it all and fit it into existing visual paradigms.
This problem is inherent to any 3D system using offset images and any such
system will always generate negative word of mouth over time and a percentage
of the population will be unable to tolerate it at all.
INHERENT LAG
Here are the problems I see with 3D multiple monitor gaming. When looking at a
monitor in 2D the eyes are able to transverse the screen and access the
information contained therein very fast ... in biomechanical time. Hardwired fast
as it were. With 3D there is an added 'software' layer added in. Accessing
information now requires the eye/brain system to FIRST percieve and then
'focus' at the depth information is at (otherwise it will be out of 'focus') and
THEN perceive and process the information pertinent to the gaming action. It
introduces a time lag to information retrieval and processing. In a twitchy shooter
that inherent time lag is likely to be fatal. The gaming penalty would, of course,
be proportional to the reflex speed required to successfully play a game.
With multiple monitors, the situation worsens. The inherent advantage of wing
monitors, peripheral vision heads up and the ability to glance over to access
additional information, is largely negated. There is a physial impediment to
peripheral vision, the glasses themselves curtail the ability to 'glance' over at the
screens without moving the head, it is necessary to physically move the head
and then go through the focusing software layer to access the information
contained in the side screens, and there is an attention impediment, that artificial
focusing software layer is creating a tunnel vision effect, absorbing available
attention units as it were. When one is looking at the main screen continually
sorting through the depth layers to see vital information, information coming in
from the periphery, from the side screens, is likely to get short shrift. And always
the headache/fatigue factor, increasing over time, inherent in 3D itself and
exacerbated by the NEED to continually focus in to access gaming information.
In a fast moving 3D game that NEED will drive the eye/brain system to work very
very hard, in an unnatural way, without a break and for lengthy periods of time.
ACTIVE vs PASSIVE
When watching movies, the effect is minimized as it is a relatively passive experience (although even then the effect can be very unpleasant). But in a game one is actively participating and interacting, there are immediate and unpleasant consequences if one is not focusing and gathering information one NEEDS to.
In terms of eyestrain, when watching a movie one has the luxury of allowing the eyes to relax, wander about, focus on whatever, albiet at the penalty of missing some of the 'action', but in a game there is a constant press to keep focusing, keep looking, there is no time for the eyes to relax, unfocus.This exacerbates the already inherent problems of 3D viewing.
HARDCORE vs CASUAL vs COST
What is the demographic composition of those willing to put out the money it
would take to create a 3D multiple monitor system? Three 3D capable screen
plus what is likely 2 Fermi cards in SLI in a high end gaming system = $4000
and up.
'Hardcore' gamers, those willing to buy cutting edge systems and graphic cards
because they provide an advantage in the games they play, are those least likely
to gain a gaming advantage from a 3D multi-monitor setup for the reasons
delineated above. Bragging about your new $6000 3D multimonitor setup and
then having your ass repeatedly handed to you by your peers, followed by their
hoots and derision, isn't going to be a pleasant experience. The casual gamers
might like the 3D surround experience, and would probably most benefit from it,
but how many will pay the price to have it in their homes?
So what exactly is the demographic for a very pricey 3D multi-monitor setup?
There's always that tiny sliver of the market with money to burn and who want
the cutting edge experience, no matter what, but that ain't gonna pay the bills.
Here is the problem I see with current 3D technology. Human eyes are evolved
to work in perfect spacial syncronicity. They move in unison. They focus in
unison. They unfocus in unison. They ACT AS ONE. Depth perception is
accomplished by each eye mechanically changing it's focal length in syncronicity
with the other eye.
But what happens with 'simulated' 3D? What appears on the monitor screen is
two offset images. When one puts the 3D glasses on each eye only sees one of
those two images. They are no longer focusing as one, they are each focusing
on a slightly different image. This is an unnatural state and creates an inherent
instability in the eye/brain visual system. The brain resolving that instability is
what simulates the perception of depth where none physically exists. But there is
a cost to this, the reported queasiness, headaches and fatigue, worsening over
time.
But what actually physically happens? The eyes normally change their focal
length to perceive depth, but a monitor screen is flat, it has no depth (in practical
terms). If the eyes actually changed their physical focal length to resolve the
simulated 3D image the entire screen would go out of focus. Therefore 'focusing'
while looking at the simulated 3D image must be accomplished by other means.
The eyes are reflexively trying to bring those disseparate images together while
the brain is trying to make sense of it all and fit it into existing visual paradigms.
This problem is inherent to any 3D system using offset images and any such
system will always generate negative word of mouth over time and a percentage
of the population will be unable to tolerate it at all.
INHERENT LAG
Here are the problems I see with 3D multiple monitor gaming. When looking at a
monitor in 2D the eyes are able to transverse the screen and access the
information contained therein very fast ... in biomechanical time. Hardwired fast
as it were. With 3D there is an added 'software' layer added in. Accessing
information now requires the eye/brain system to FIRST percieve and then
'focus' at the depth information is at (otherwise it will be out of 'focus') and
THEN perceive and process the information pertinent to the gaming action. It
introduces a time lag to information retrieval and processing. In a twitchy shooter
that inherent time lag is likely to be fatal. The gaming penalty would, of course,
be proportional to the reflex speed required to successfully play a game.
With multiple monitors, the situation worsens. The inherent advantage of wing
monitors, peripheral vision heads up and the ability to glance over to access
additional information, is largely negated. There is a physial impediment to
peripheral vision, the glasses themselves curtail the ability to 'glance' over at the
screens without moving the head, it is necessary to physically move the head
and then go through the focusing software layer to access the information
contained in the side screens, and there is an attention impediment, that artificial
focusing software layer is creating a tunnel vision effect, absorbing available
attention units as it were. When one is looking at the main screen continually
sorting through the depth layers to see vital information, information coming in
from the periphery, from the side screens, is likely to get short shrift. And always
the headache/fatigue factor, increasing over time, inherent in 3D itself and
exacerbated by the NEED to continually focus in to access gaming information.
In a fast moving 3D game that NEED will drive the eye/brain system to work very
very hard, in an unnatural way, without a break and for lengthy periods of time.
ACTIVE vs PASSIVE
When watching movies, the effect is minimized as it is a relatively passive experience (although even then the effect can be very unpleasant). But in a game one is actively participating and interacting, there are immediate and unpleasant consequences if one is not focusing and gathering information one NEEDS to.
In terms of eyestrain, when watching a movie one has the luxury of allowing the eyes to relax, wander about, focus on whatever, albiet at the penalty of missing some of the 'action', but in a game there is a constant press to keep focusing, keep looking, there is no time for the eyes to relax, unfocus.This exacerbates the already inherent problems of 3D viewing.
HARDCORE vs CASUAL vs COST
What is the demographic composition of those willing to put out the money it
would take to create a 3D multiple monitor system? Three 3D capable screen
plus what is likely 2 Fermi cards in SLI in a high end gaming system = $4000
and up.
'Hardcore' gamers, those willing to buy cutting edge systems and graphic cards
because they provide an advantage in the games they play, are those least likely
to gain a gaming advantage from a 3D multi-monitor setup for the reasons
delineated above. Bragging about your new $6000 3D multimonitor setup and
then having your ass repeatedly handed to you by your peers, followed by their
hoots and derision, isn't going to be a pleasant experience. The casual gamers
might like the 3D surround experience, and would probably most benefit from it,
but how many will pay the price to have it in their homes?
So what exactly is the demographic for a very pricey 3D multi-monitor setup?
There's always that tiny sliver of the market with money to burn and who want
the cutting edge experience, no matter what, but that ain't gonna pay the bills.
Last edited by a moderator:
