Science Finally Proves 3D is Awful for Your Eyes, Fad Puts Fingers In Ears, Sings “Lalalala”

Funny thing, I am reading this article that is on a back-lit lcd screen which numerous articles have been published about how bad these things are for the eyes.

this could be a problem if Hollywood actually released full 3D features, instead of 2D movies with random 3D scenes that if you blink you miss them…

I don’t see how they can be bad for your eyes. Each eye gets its own viewpoint and should be thoroughly fooled into believing it’s fully and completely three dimensional. Unless real life hurts the eyes, neither should these.

I don’t see how they can be bad for your eyes. Each eye gets its own viewpoint and should be thoroughly fooled into believing it’s fully and completely three dimensional. Unless real life hurts the eyes, neither should these.

It’s strange that a 2d movie has a higher chance of triggering a head splitting migraine in me but a 3d movie has yet to do that.  In fact I try to seek out the 3d for just that reason.  I could care less about the novelty, I just don’t want to waste the rest of the day in bed just because I wanted to see something on a big screen.

For some reason, I’m inclined to take the conclusion of the University of California over yours.

Not doubting the University of California but why doesn’t the brain get similarly taxed when looking at a 2D image trying to represent three-dimensional space (which all 2D images are)?

Maybe because we’re all used to looking at 2D images, and perhaps our brains will get used to looking at 3D.

Maybe ’3D’ was backed by Opticans?  “You guys sell more TV’s, we sell more glasses”.

Maybe ’3D’ was backed by Opticans?  “You guys sell more TV’s, we sell more glasses”.

Excuse the ad hominem rant, but the reason is quite simple — you have more faith in authority than in logic.

It’s not the University of California, but rather some researcher there who needed to publish something to justify some grant. There is no guarantee that the study is correct.

I agree with Jackbondnj. Three dimensional video is only harmful if done wrong.

But he knooooows someone, too!  His mom said it’s fine!

Real like, however, is tangible, containing actual three dimensional objects, not fake 3D objects. 

Because scientists NEVER use logic!
And “It’s not the University of California” …what?  of course not.  Who thinks an actual college says stuff?  It’s always someone at.  Use some logic when you’re reading comments.

Excuse the ad hominem rant but it seems you have more faith in your internal narcissistic beliefs than the logical workings of the outside world.

Hmm, I don’t think so.  I think it’s that 2-D* images exist in nature – color patterns on animals or plants, for example.  The television is just a bit like that.  These are patterns we can put into context.

There are 3-D things in nature, too, however when we naturally see them they have form and function.  If we tilt our heads a bit our brain instinctively expects the shadows, etc. to change and, in nature, they do.  When we force that onto a screen, this doesn’t happen.  All that is on the screen is what has been put there. If you tilt your head it might just look weird – the shadow and perspective doesn’t change accordingly.  Going back to 2-D, again, it’s okay, because we don’t get the option of seeing it from another angle.  There’s nothing unexpected for our brains.  Not in an “oh, don’t make the viewer think!” way, but in an unconscious way similar to the way the uncanny valley works.

*and I of course mean 2-D to the naked human eye.

the problem is that the way your eyes naturally focus, and the close to real but not quite way that 3D movies and handhelds project 3D images are different. The gradient of focus (including the “blurring” as well as the distance) is not soft enough for our eyes, so we end up trying to focus on several planes at once. Hopefully professionals will keep pushing forward to bridge this gap. But the fact is its not “real” 3D. When you move your head left and right, the images slide, but you don’t end up seeing more or less of the sides of the 3D objects like you would in real life. Its close, but not close enough to make it healthy for our eyesight.

If we follow the rules of real life, if something is closer to you and you focus on it, the things behind it will go out of focus and if you focus on the things behind the closer object goes out of focus.  3D movies can NOT mimic that.  So it appears to have dimension but it doesn’t follow the true rules so your mind keeps trying to focus on more than one thing.  I like how the author put it… “eye-ADD”.  That’s just one example of how the fake 3D COULD potentially hurt your eyes, where real life does not.  Your eye is a lot more complicated than you are giving it credit for.

You see. It’s not real 3D, it’s a forced 3D effect created by the “imaginary” viewpoint of the screen. Your eyes will try to focus on something that doesn’t exists and because the effect is exagerated, this will strin the muscle of your eyes and the pupil quite alot.