Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Graphics Build Hardware

Does 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache? 281

Posted by timothy
from the ache-ache-ache dept.
MojoKid writes "Nintendo has quasi-acknowledged that its 3DS can cause headaches and should not be used by children under 7. The glasses-free 3D handheld gaming device launched this week. Meanwhile, new research commissioned by the Blu-ray Disc Association is trying to improve the health image of 3D. Its research shows that the brain is more attentive when watching a 3D movie than when watching HD or SDTV, making the movie a more pleasurable experience. The issue, doctors say, is that 3D works by tricking the brain into making you think you are physically moving in relation to your surroundings. But you aren't. So your inner ear is not experiencing the movement that corresponds to what the eyes are seeing. This doesn't normally happen in real life. No one would deny that 3D is more immersive; that's why people like it, particularly for gaming. But the question is ... does the brain love 3D or not? Answer: not really."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache?

Comments Filter:
  • by DWMorse (1816016) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:14AM (#35663474) Homepage

    I can enjoy about 15 minutes of 3D stuff, before it starts making my head hurt. Always has, across the various different technology types.

    But the worst part about 3D is the movies that have only (poorly) implemented it as a gimmick or afterthought to try to wow in more sales.

  • No one? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:15AM (#35663480)

    No one would deny that 3D is more immersive

    Oh, really?

  • 3D is a Gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBAslug (184293) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:24AM (#35663522)

    3D movies and such have been around for a very long time. It was a marketing gimmick then and it still is. There is little additional value to the entertainment experience and in general, we are willing to sacrifice quality for volume. MP3, JPG, and cellphone audio quality are perfect examples of consumer willingness for lower quality but higher convenience. 3D adds a lot of cost and complexity, but little additional benefit. And mostly, I am not going to buy my teenagers $120 glasses just so they can watch more TV.

  • 3d is less real (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johncandale (1430587) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:44AM (#35663602)
    3d in current tech is less real looking then 2d images. Sense the offset can only project images in a cone that pinpoints at your face, and the widest point at the screen distance, you become aware of the 'sides' of the world. Where a well shot 2d film sucks you in nicely. Furthermore, while not the case with 3ds, but for sure the case with blu-ray, a part of the film is always out of focus. This is not how your eyes perceive the real world! 2d films are more realistic , sorry. Not till they have real holographics will it be better. Also the films are darker due to the glasses and the overlay. The 3ds has less frames per second. In 2d mode, you get 60fps, at full 3d setting, 30fps, half for each image.
  • by c0lo (1497653) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:46AM (#35663610)

    This means we will probably be sold special earphones in the future to stimulate the ear into movement to counteract the eyes. Yet more accessories and expense to the technology.

    Earphones? Still tricking the senses? Noo... nothing below a "3D Immersion couch" to compensate for the lack of surround movement... to be supplemented by anti-inertial gizmos to keep one's beer steady (and still carbonated) and the salty chips/popcorn in the bucket, while the "3D couch" rocks. See why [filehurricane.com].

  • by AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @03:16AM (#35663740)
    Considering you admittedly watch crappy movies because they are in 3D i wouldn't rule out brain rot just yet :P
  • Re:No one? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @07:51AM (#35664962) Homepage

    There is more to how humans see in 3D than just stereoscopic images which is where the problems lie. For example in the real world your eyes need to re-focus to look at things different distances from you, but on a 3D screen they are all at the same focal point. It gets worse if something is filmed out of focus because your eyes will assume it is because they are not focused on it and strain to do so, which gives you a headache. That was the biggest problem with early 3D stuff. Newer films have reduced it quite a bit.

    3D would be brilliant if it was like the Star Trek view screen where it is just like looking out of a window. It isn't though so while it is an interesting effect at the very least it is more of a strain to watch than 2D. Some people feel the effects less than others but I don't think 3D will replace casual 2D viewing until we get to Star Trek levels.

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra

Working...