Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Displays Hardware

3D Nausea Solved By Eye-Tracking 116

An anonymous reader writes "If you are like me, then the slightest disparity in those 3D movies causes nausea — and I know it does with thousands of others too. LG claims to have solved the problem with a new technology that uses eye-tracking, similar to those red-eye detectors in digital cameras, adjusting the 3D display so that you don't get sick. Due to be available in LG's glasses-free 3D computer monitor it also displays normal 2D stuff, so even if you don't use the 3D much it might be worth a try. I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.) If it works as advertised great; if not, at least I can still use it as a regular monitor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D Nausea Solved By Eye-Tracking

Comments Filter:
  • Or... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2011 @04:06PM (#36912972)

    Or you can just stop trying to push this gimmicky, useless 3d garbage on everyone.
    What a concept.

    • Exactly. Besides, until that eye tracker tracks where the eye is focusing and adjusts the image focus to compensate (this is actually technically possible - they use a similar system to check your vision at some eye doctors now) you're still going to get eyestrain and headaches as you sit there unconsciously trying to bring an out of focus element of the image into focus, which of course you can't do because it was shot out of focus.

      • by Tr3vin ( 1220548 )
        That sounds great, but would only be possible with realtime rendered 3D environments. Movies are done with only one focal point, so it wouldn't be possible there.
      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Just a friendly reminder, the bulk of the population are not introverted computer geeks and often watch TV in groups. So you get one happy viewer, well relatively, being covered in every other viewers else's technicolour burps wont be all that pleasant.

      • The majority of us don't get eyestrain and headaches from watching 3-D TV or movies. If you don't like it, leave everyone else in peace and stop whining.
    • Eye tracking is about as accurate as imagination. I hope people realize that. Head tracking, moderately accurate.

      Eye tracking requires that you sit in a specific location in order to be accurate. Moving your head around and this shit won't keep track of anything. Nor will it accurately track your eyes if it's tracking your head in any fashion.

      This isn't a solution, it's a farce. I'm so tired of the 3d hype.

      • eye tracking, it's easy. sit right here. look right there. bam! my system knows exactly where you are looking!
      • This looks to be embedded in the glasses - so as long as they're relatively secure on your head, moving your head shouldn't move your eyes relative to the sensors much at all. Also, it would have no reason to track your head.

      • It only needs to tracking the location of the eyes, not their gaze.
    • by wdef ( 1050680 )
      Yeah and please stop all this nonsense about movies that talk and horseless carriages. They were crap to begin with also. Seriously - there is no way the industry is not going to find a way to improve this technology. They have invested too heavily. It will get better.
      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Yeah I mean 3D type crap. It's not like we weren't there 120 years ago either, and people said "fuck this" or words to that effect. In a cycle that repeats every oh 10-20 years or so.

    • Speaking of useless garbage, this is from the article:

      R. Colin Johnson has been writing non-stop daily stories about next-generation electronics and related technologies for 20+ years. His unique perspective has prompted coverage of his articles by a diverse range of major media outlets--from the ultra-liberal National Public Radio to the ultra-conservative Rush Limbaugh Show.

      If you try to frame NPR as "ultra-liberal" and try to create some sort of false equivalence to Rush Limbaugh, you are disqualified fr

    • Um... some of us actually like 3D. Personally I don't care for it in movies, but in gaming it's great.

      And yeah, sure it's gimmicky... for now. But that's because it hasn't matured yet. I think once the play-stage is over, then people will have found lots of industrial uses for it as well.

    • by MikeUW ( 999162 )

      I wonder how many people made similar comments when colour TV was first marketed?

    • I feel that way about many 3D movies, but I've really enjoyed OoT on the 3DS. I often switch it on and off to see the difference in different areas, and I am truly glad to have it.
  • Wake me up when they create the holodeck and holochicks that think I'm funny. Otherwise I'm fine with the piece of $hit Samsung tv that I'm not watching right now.
  • And how well does this work when you have more than one pair of eyes to track...? Some of us have friends...

  • by rjune ( 123157 ) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @04:20PM (#36913160)

    I'm sure those monitors will be very expensive when they first come out. Why not try it in a store first? If it doesn't work, you won't have spent your money on a product that is only partially functional for you. Or you can purchase a regular monitor and have some money left over for something else.

    • In a store it is you and your spouse sitting in the perfectly aligned roomed they have already prepared.
      At home with 2 kids, and 2 of their friends over, sitting on the floor, in a room that is to shallow, narrow, angled funny, it is a different story.

      Current 3D tv's have an optimum viewing angle that can barely fit a 3 person couch. you put a recliner off to the side and the person in the recliner will always have problems. If you don't have a theater size watching room, then you might as well not bother

      • as for me I am going to lay down and fondle a pretty girl to watch movies.

        There, I made you sound like less of a vagina.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          wtf? Either fondle a girl, or watch a movie. I'm a man, I can't focus on both at once.

          Cuddling with a pretty girl while watching a movie on the other hand.. that just improves both.

          Sex: It's only part of a relationship.

          Anyway, we're both assuming peragrin has amorous intentions towards this pretty girl. He might well have no such intent. Hell, it might be his daughter - every father I know cuddles his daughter while watching TV/films, and most of them wouldn't call her anything other than 'pretty' while she

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Cool story, bro. Have any more boring personal stories you want to share with us?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Met a jerk on the internet...

  • Ok, I'll bite... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ArcadeNut ( 85398 )

    So if this adjusts the picture based on your eyes, what does it do if multiple people are watching? Especially when they go to the "Glass-less" version?

    • It doesn't work for multiple people hence why they mention that in TFA.

      The only major limitation is that it can only track the location of a single user's eyes. Thus the technology is not appropriate for TVs where multiple users may be watching from different angles.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Heck "Glass-less" 3D doesn't work with multiple viewers (unless they are stacked vertically) so the point is rather mute.

  • ...compared to the crushing headaches many people get from so-called "3D".

  • Hey Hollywood, It's not the technology of 3d. It's the content that's ON the 3d.
    • It's a combination of both. The technology fails because good or bad movies still hurt many people's eyes, the content fails because 1. Too many movies are trying too hard to overdo 3D, Reminds me a bit of that comercial for the phone that can do video in 3-d, where the dad is forcing the kids to hit harder for the sake of making better use of the 3-D while they play ping pong, completely taking all the fun away from the kids. But even with both of those problems solved, the idea of 3-D is just flawed beyon
      • Well stereo is now widely used and it definitely adds to the quality of music. If 3D's going the way of stereo I foresee a bright future for it.

  • If you are like me, you wouldn't post this article.

    You wouldn't wear a rubber chicken suit either.
  • No wonder 3D TVs are not selling well, people know all too well it's too early and that their new set will be an obsolete design next month.

  • by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 ) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @05:16PM (#36913850)

    I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.)

    Um, good for you? Who cares? Anything else you would like tell us? Keep the inane commentary out of the summaries please.

  • and it will be using mouth tracking to determine when it has failed and vomiting ensues.

  • by dinther ( 738910 ) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @05:41PM (#36914138) Homepage

    As I wrote on Gizmag:

    As an armchair scientist, I have been experimenting with screens for quite a while. Trying to plot out what factors are involved for 3D display and depth perception.

    I have been following this whole 3D craze with dismay because TV builders have failed to address the fundamentals.

    Stereo vision is only one aspect of 3D vision and in fact not even nearly as powerful as some other effects. Although there are many causing discomfort the light ray divergence is most relevant.

    Your eye also tells you how far away something is by the amount of work it needs to do to bring it into focus. The lens in your eye bends incoming light rays so they focus on your retina similar to how a photo camera works. To get the best possible 3D effect in commercial flight simulators, they make use of collimated displays.

    Consider the pixels on your LCD screen a light sources. Take a pixel and you can consider it to be a light point that radiates light in all directions. After all you want to see the screen at many viewing angles. So the light rays diverge and the lens in your eye needs to bring the rays that hit the eye together to focus on your retina.

    A collimated display emits light rays that are more or less parallel. Your eyes can relax more in order to focus which is an very powerful depth suggestion.

    Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.

    The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch. Added benefit is that displays like this can be adjusted for your eyes so you can watch TV without your glasses. They would make really good computer monitors.

    A pixel worth of imagery normally only contains R, G and B channels for Red, Green and Blue light that combine to any color. In addition each pixel needs a fourth channel indicating the depth of the pixel. You may find the focal depth powerful enough without the need for stereo vision. You can try this simply by closing one eye and look around and notice how your eye adjusts to things nearby and far away.

    • Parallax. When you shift your head, objects in the front appear to move more than objects further away. This matters even in a more or less stationary position because you change your head position and the scene should change, but doesn't.

      I'm not sure why this aspect has been so ignored because it is a big cue, and one you can do on existing screens, at least with video games. You just need something to track the head position and orientation of the viewer, then adjust the screen accordingly.

      Now that has li

      • by dinther ( 738910 )

        Yes, that is another important one. I have been doing some experiments on that as you can see in this video on my youtube channel: []

        • Yep, seems to work great. I saw it done with a Wiimote (they have an IR camera in the end) and a couple of LEDs taped to glasses. Regardless, this is the kind of product I think would be good for 3D gaming. No it isn't "real 3D" but given how well it works, and that all you'd need is the tracking hardware, I think it would be great.

          However it would seem the people who make gaming hardware don't agree, they are all in on the 3D shutter glasses stuff which I want not at all.

        • by strack ( 1051390 )
          the thing that bugs me about that sort of thing is you havent properly implemented perspective. if you have the locations of both eyes, the location of the screen, and the location of the object behind the screen, you should be tracing a line from the vectors of the object to your eye location through the screen, and intersecting it with the plane of the screen to get your polygon coordinates, in a version of proper 'fisheye' perspective. as it is, your just using the traditional system used in games that j
    • by Jmc23 ( 2353706 )
      actually the main problem seems to be the same as the problems caused by dlp projectors and general motion sickness in general. People who focus on details (most wearers of glasses) lose context for the movement and are more likely to focus on areas that aren't even in focus. Those who see the whole bigger picture at once actually track the area of film that is in focus, doing anything else in 3d displays is just murdering your eyes.
  • To allow for correct depth focus and parralax from tracking eyes you need to render the image for each user. It is not enough to just tweak it.
    This means you can't *film* a movie in 3D, you have to create it and have it rendered in real time.
    It will happen, just not quite yet...
    • by dinther ( 738910 )

      Bouncing light off a screen is ok to deliver a moving painting but very ill equipped to deliver a personalized realistic 3D visualization. A personal viewer makes much more sense. Here is hoping personal video googles will take off after all. Now people are "trained" to watch 3D TV with shutter goggles this might not be such a stretch.

      • First off, I never said they would be able to do this via screens.
        Secondly, peopel are already moving away from shutterglasses. Polarized glasses give just as good a experience but at a fraction of the cost allowing larger audiences.
        You are ofcource right though. Every user needs custom content and as such delivery will probably have to be a personal viewer.
        • by dinther ( 738910 )

          Well, I believe that normal flat TV screens are a great and social way to share visual information. A moving painting. I think it is much easier to have personal Head Mounted Displays for the full 3D immersion.

          After doing some searching today I could only find Sensics that makes high resolution HMD's the prices are just a little prohibitive. 20k and up.
          But like with anything scaling technology can bring the price down well under $500 I imagine.


          If accurate head-t

  • Yeah, I suppose most people haven't thought of this. But I came up with the same idea 2 years ago, researched to see if I could patent it, and saw two were already filed as far back as 1996. I wonder if they bought the patents or are going to get sued.
  • If yes, please tell me where in the article does it say that whatever LG did had anything to do with getting sick while watching 3D movies. The article is a bit too technical for me and I don't really see the connections. Any geeks to my rescue?

  • Eye tracking built into a display so it can adjust the image? Sounds like a great way to keep the ads right in front of you.

    No thanks!

    • I want eye tracking built into a display so I can have eye tracking. I'm not going to buy any of these displays since I already have two monitors on my PC but I have long wanted eye tracking. Actually, I want it a lot more in the car...

  • by strack ( 1051390 )
    to all the people complaining about 3d, quit whining, you can still go see the 2d version of everything, and the majority of us, i think its fair to say, quite enjoy 3d and I think that when properly done, it adds to the experience. if the 3d in a movie is done badly, thats not 3ds fault, thats the dumbass directors fault. widespread adoption of 3d is a new thing, and itll take some time for the directors to settle down and learn to use 3d in a intelligent manner.
    • Thank you. I like 3d. I pretty much only pay to see movies now that are 3d. I get it that people don't like 3d and that's fine so then don't see them. To me when they are don properly it adds a lot to the movie. Makes you feel a like you are a part of it. When I see a move in 2d these days it feels like something is missing.
  • Does the eye-tracking technology involve lasers scanning pupil position? Because this will create a brand new way for fiction writers to kill/enslave their characters. Let's not worry about the power/modulation issues right now. Someone will figure out a somewhat plausible hack for it.

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky