Do you know is 3D more eye friendly than 2D ?
just wondering. stubled to this old video and in it is said looking at a screen from close causes eye damage but not in the ways you would think, it had something to do with eye not focusing onto different distances and i truly believe this as my girlfriend had to get eye training glasses pretty early after getting into office work. There is some interesting facts on this video about vision. some i know but some new. did you know 8k panels has resolution of 5 times of your eyes resolution. i hadrly believe it´s nessisery but only with super big screens. or that average people see only 45-75 fps and if you wanna go matrix and see 250 fps you should get jacked up on coke. and by coke i don´t mean the drink...LOL watch this while i go ducking bullets ... skipped the beginning https://youtu.be/VxNBiAV4UnM?t=365 edit... for got my point. i was wondering is there any study about eye behaviour when watching 3D ? i would asume ones eyes would need to adjust when watching 3D so making that more healthy for your eyes ?
just wondering. stubled to this old video and in it is said looking at a screen from close causes eye damage but not in the ways you would think, it had something to do with eye not focusing onto different distances and i truly believe this as my girlfriend had to get eye training glasses pretty early after getting into office work.
There is some interesting facts on this video about vision. some i know but some new.
did you know 8k panels has resolution of 5 times of your eyes resolution. i hadrly believe it´s nessisery but only with super big screens. or that average people see only 45-75 fps and if you wanna go matrix and see 250 fps you should get jacked up on coke. and by coke i don´t mean the drink...LOL
watch this while i go ducking bullets ...

skipped the beginning https://youtu.be/VxNBiAV4UnM?t=365

edit... for got my point. i was wondering is there any study about eye behaviour when watching 3D ?
i would asume ones eyes would need to adjust when watching 3D so making that more healthy for your eyes ?

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#1
Posted 08/27/2018 03:03 PM   
I have myopia and astigmatism, when I play without stereoscopic 3D using a monitor or a TV, I usually have issues depending on the time I spend playing. Eye muscle pain, eye focus issues and headache. When I play with stereoscopic 3D, no issues even after very long hours. But this is not the reason I'm using 3DV, it's just a very big plus of stereoscopic 3D for me. So my experience is not a scientific fact but I believe S3D is the only way for me for both enjoyment and good eye health instead of regular 2D gaming.
I have myopia and astigmatism, when I play without stereoscopic 3D using a monitor or a TV, I usually have issues depending on the time I spend playing. Eye muscle pain, eye focus issues and headache.

When I play with stereoscopic 3D, no issues even after very long hours. But this is not the reason I'm using 3DV, it's just a very big plus of stereoscopic 3D for me.

So my experience is not a scientific fact but I believe S3D is the only way for me for both enjoyment and good eye health instead of regular 2D gaming.

Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z

#2
Posted 08/27/2018 04:18 PM   
haha i watched this last night =) Youtube's click bait algorithm in operation. He missed one good point that I hoped he would cover. Something I haven't seen anyone share yet.
haha i watched this last night =)
Youtube's click bait algorithm in operation.
He missed one good point that I hoped he would cover.
Something I haven't seen anyone share yet.

#3
Posted 08/27/2018 05:55 PM   
3D Vision like we use, and any stereoscopic presentation, even including 1908 stereograms are using your eyes in a way that you don't use them in any other part of life. This is the vergence-accommodation conflict. Normally when you look at something up close, your eyes rotate inward, while also focusing the lens of your eye on that spot. When using stereoscopic, we change the focal length, but keep the rotated eyes. This causes a conflict in your brain about what the depth actually is. Some people can never separate those two pieces, and cannot see stereoscopic images. They see 3D fine in real life, but our artificial version doesn't work for them. This idea leads some people to make egregious errors in assumptions, like the video posted earlier about how everything will always be blurry. It won't be, once you adapt to viewing this way. Is it more eye friendly? Definitely not. It's harder on your eyes, making them do something they don't normally do. Once you adapt to it, it's probably not any better or worse, but the difficulty is why people need to start small, and also why people can get headaches and eyestrain. There has been a lot of discussion, especially in the VR realm about how it will damage your eyes. I think it's easily clear that while it's harder on your eye, strains muscles, there is no long term harm that comes from it. We have over 100 years of experience with stereoscopic, and there is no evidence is causes any long term problems.
3D Vision like we use, and any stereoscopic presentation, even including 1908 stereograms are using your eyes in a way that you don't use them in any other part of life.

This is the vergence-accommodation conflict. Normally when you look at something up close, your eyes rotate inward, while also focusing the lens of your eye on that spot. When using stereoscopic, we change the focal length, but keep the rotated eyes. This causes a conflict in your brain about what the depth actually is.

Some people can never separate those two pieces, and cannot see stereoscopic images. They see 3D fine in real life, but our artificial version doesn't work for them.

This idea leads some people to make egregious errors in assumptions, like the video posted earlier about how everything will always be blurry. It won't be, once you adapt to viewing this way.


Is it more eye friendly? Definitely not. It's harder on your eyes, making them do something they don't normally do. Once you adapt to it, it's probably not any better or worse, but the difficulty is why people need to start small, and also why people can get headaches and eyestrain.

There has been a lot of discussion, especially in the VR realm about how it will damage your eyes. I think it's easily clear that while it's harder on your eye, strains muscles, there is no long term harm that comes from it. We have over 100 years of experience with stereoscopic, and there is no evidence is causes any long term problems.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#4
Posted 08/28/2018 04:28 AM   
[quote="TsaebehT"]I go to kotaku every once in awhile for gaming news, usually I see sensationalist articles about sexism and things like 3D being dead, those are the reasons I don't bother going there nearly as much as I used to but today I read this article, which to me anyway has to be one of the best I've ever read and has me hoping that some how the Oculus Rift could work for someone like this the way the 3ds did. [url]http://kotaku.com/i-am-stereoblind-but-the-3ds-lets-me-see-the-world-as-484508038[/url][/quote] Quoted from https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/542335/ https://www.visiontherapy.ca/3dmediaandvision.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP2VCZzR1Ic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_therapy
TsaebehT said:I go to kotaku every once in awhile for gaming news, usually I see sensationalist articles about sexism and things like 3D being dead, those are the reasons I don't bother going there nearly as much as I used to but today I read this article, which to me anyway has to be one of the best I've ever read and has me hoping that some how the Oculus Rift could work for someone like this the way the 3ds did.
http://kotaku.com/i-am-stereoblind-but-the-3ds-lets-me-see-the-world-as-484508038


Quoted from https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/542335/




https://www.visiontherapy.ca/3dmediaandvision.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_therapy

#5
Posted 08/28/2018 04:45 AM   
Bo3b but don't you think traning the muscells would be better for the eyes than not training them ? I think the blurrines he has a point as you really can only see a super small don't once and the brain files the rest, though it somehow doesn't seem to look like the example made with camera but is it just because our brain works that. As we Also don't see the blood vessels pumping on our fov
Bo3b but don't you think traning the muscells would be better for the eyes than not training them ?

I think the blurrines he has a point as you really can only see a super small don't once and the brain files the rest, though it somehow doesn't seem to look like the example made with camera but is it just because our brain works that. As we Also don't see the blood vessels pumping on our fov

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#6
Posted 08/28/2018 05:53 AM   
[quote="bo3b"]This is the vergence-accommodation conflict. Normally when you look at something up close, your eyes rotate inward, while also focusing the lens of your eye on that spot. When using stereoscopic, we change the focal length, but keep the rotated eyes. This causes a conflict in your brain about what the depth actually is.[/quote] I have noticed that for pop out. I have to cross my eyes like when I look at a real object that is near my face, but the proper "focus" distance is... different, as if I have to focus on the screen. If I place a finger at the distance of a pop out element, I can't see both of them clearly at the same time, but the eyes position is exactly the same. I got used to it months after I started playing in 3D. Now I can see SBS screenshots crossing my eyes easily, while I never could many years ago. I never noticed anything unusual or difficult with pop in 3D, about focusing. It took me a week or two to get used to 100% separation.
bo3b said:This is the vergence-accommodation conflict. Normally when you look at something up close, your eyes rotate inward, while also focusing the lens of your eye on that spot. When using stereoscopic, we change the focal length, but keep the rotated eyes. This causes a conflict in your brain about what the depth actually is.


I have noticed that for pop out. I have to cross my eyes like when I look at a real object that is near my face, but the proper "focus" distance is... different, as if I have to focus on the screen. If I place a finger at the distance of a pop out element, I can't see both of them clearly at the same time, but the eyes position is exactly the same. I got used to it months after I started playing in 3D. Now I can see SBS screenshots crossing my eyes easily, while I never could many years ago.

I never noticed anything unusual or difficult with pop in 3D, about focusing. It took me a week or two to get used to 100% separation.

CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com

#7
Posted 08/28/2018 09:38 PM   
I wish there would be a better value for depth than procent as its really not accurate as it has too much variables. For example i usually can’t go past 30% and in 30% in my 135” screen images Are already Atleast 10cm apart or more. My point as the size of the monitor in values affects and also viewing distance and actual horizontal difference of the images it would be cool there Was a formula to calculate a value. If someone wonderers why can’t i go 100% its due to the wrong monitor size in the edid file as i use Some basic 27” asus monitors edid.
I wish there would be a better value for depth than procent as its really not accurate as it has too much variables.
For example i usually can’t go past 30% and in 30% in my 135” screen images Are already Atleast 10cm apart or more. My point as the size of the monitor in values affects and also viewing distance and actual horizontal difference of the images it would be cool there Was a formula to calculate a value.

If someone wonderers why can’t i go 100% its due to the wrong monitor size in the edid file as i use
Some basic 27” asus monitors edid.

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#8
Posted 08/29/2018 11:42 AM   
[quote="Metal-O-Holic"]did you know 8k panels has resolution of 5 times of your eyes resolution. i hadrly believe it´s nessisery but only with super big screens. or that average people see only 45-75 fps and if you wanna go matrix and see 250 fps ..... i was wondering is there any study about eye behavior when watching 3D ? i would assume ones eyes would need to adjust when watching 3D so making that more healthy for your eyes ?[/quote] Did you know that most humans tend to believe in half-truth when it somewhat seems to fit and take it for granted? You know I once tried to inform myself about vision as much as it was of interest for me, also consulted someone i knew being and oculist. Tough I myself prob. still don't know the half of it. :P It is more like 30-90 hz you can see and it rather depends because it's not only a questions of health/age (yeah that tends to go down) but also on where you look. Front eyes it's normally hardly more than 30 hz, while to the right and left it speeds up. Reason: to be able to react on any danger (like an animal back then, now more like a car). But yeah, on high stress, it can go up. If you trust that video so highly why doubting that 250fps (he says up to 240, don't trust the 10fps? Yet this part is true/at least possible)? Though it's more like "reaction on a very high adrenaline lvl to get the direction you at least need to focus" rather than see everything crystal clear. Example on the whole topic: his shaking hands test: Do that in the front of your eyes and then bit further away at 2x45% angle left/right and wider way at 2x80% and try to focus on the blurriness while still focusing on what's happening in front of you. Other way round turn your head quickly left&right shaking it and try to focus on what you see. General summary: more straight in front of you: clearer but less speedy, as vision turns to sides you can recognize movements faster but only that, it's more like a moving blur (tough that might already be just a little point, and your fingers might seem even sharper as you know how you move them yourself, the rest interpolation - our brain is WAY beyond what you think of monitor interpolation - it knows what to expect and you think it's there ... (sometimes even if it isn't, another topic) if you think so, try it on s.t. else like going on streets to see a car with the most far angle possible. ). That was one point, now the much more important point, when it comes to games: Synchronization - he left that out completely. The reason monitors/tvs etc. went to 120/144/200+ Hz is because of frame-eye synchronization - so what the monitor displays and what we are able to see. Take a 60 Hz monitor, one might see in front 35, and outside 75hz. Thinking of simple multiples, 35->70/140, 75->150, 60->120,180 won't do. You will have ... actually quite a few asyncron frames. (as already written, our brain can compensate but) .... theoretically ... the higher the fps, the higher the possible match with our eye. There is a limit, as you saw in that video due to flickering. Anyway you may now see why 60Hz vs 120Hz might make a difference. Now imagine it for 3D where you got separated image for each eye ... Once saw an article that explained that that well. A graphic between low vs. high refresh-rate and what the human eye may capture. Can't find it now, anyone may help out? I wouldn't want to post links as it's such a HUGE topic, not cover-able by that post, as well as you are not to believe me alone (besides me not finding them). But this was actually before me visiting that acquaintance of mine, asking him about it too. And that at least would be so nice, anyone? Btw, sry for ... all that ... you just seemed so ... willing except all that without further asking, I couldn't help it. Don't give up your freedom to think what's wright, take at least a second opinion. ;) (of mine too) BTT: Did you yet get a gasp of current development of biological science. I think s.t. like 3D Vision, as long we don't all go to our house doctors/some oculist, stating we do play using 3D Vision (2) and over ages our eyes are measured together in several trusted studies individual ...... one can only make a guess. Personally - I don't think it causes harm. And - now we are at that again, bo3b seems logical. Though (critic again) the way 3D Vision works isn't 100y old. If I were to take a guess: 3D Vision is quite the immersion vs 2D and you simply tend to stay inside that stunning world - yet it IS already known that breaks are essential! 2D or 3D doesn't take a matter. And ppl already tend to stay longer in games or longer in office just to have a longer break (which they won't ever will/take anyway). Hence how it is in 3D if you ... have a glass that cut's you out from everything beyond your monitor. Driven in a world in 3D that appears to be even more "plastic" than real life. Can you measure the danger? EDIT: forgot to ask: did anyone notice 13:45+ that + and o .... anyone who din't see the right circle no mater the distance - i saw it. 3D Vision training?
Metal-O-Holic said:did you know 8k panels has resolution of 5 times of your eyes resolution. i hadrly believe it´s nessisery but only with super big screens. or that average people see only 45-75 fps and if you wanna go matrix and see 250 fps
.....
i was wondering is there any study about eye behavior when watching 3D ? i would assume ones eyes would need to adjust when watching 3D so making that more healthy for your eyes ?

Did you know that most humans tend to believe in half-truth when it somewhat seems to fit and take it for granted? You know I once tried to inform myself about vision as much as it was of interest for me, also consulted someone i knew being and oculist. Tough I myself prob. still don't know the half of it. :P

It is more like 30-90 hz you can see and it rather depends because it's not only a questions of health/age (yeah that tends to go down) but also on where you look. Front eyes it's normally hardly more than 30 hz, while to the right and left it speeds up. Reason: to be able to react on any danger (like an animal back then, now more like a car). But yeah, on high stress, it can go up. If you trust that video so highly why doubting that 250fps (he says up to 240, don't trust the 10fps? Yet this part is true/at least possible)? Though it's more like "reaction on a very high adrenaline lvl to get the direction you at least need to focus" rather than see everything crystal clear.
Example on the whole topic: his shaking hands test: Do that in the front of your eyes and then bit further away at 2x45% angle left/right and wider way at 2x80% and try to focus on the blurriness while still focusing on what's happening in front of you. Other way round turn your head quickly left&right shaking it and try to focus on what you see.
General summary: more straight in front of you: clearer but less speedy, as vision turns to sides you can recognize movements faster but only that, it's more like a moving blur (tough that might already be just a little point, and your fingers might seem even sharper as you know how you move them yourself, the rest interpolation - our brain is WAY beyond what you think of monitor interpolation - it knows what to expect and you think it's there ... (sometimes even if it isn't, another topic) if you think so, try it on s.t. else like going on streets to see a car with the most far angle possible. ).

That was one point, now the much more important point, when it comes to games: Synchronization - he left that out completely. The reason monitors/tvs etc. went to 120/144/200+ Hz is because of frame-eye synchronization - so what the monitor displays and what we are able to see. Take a 60 Hz monitor, one might see in front 35, and outside 75hz. Thinking of simple multiples, 35->70/140, 75->150, 60->120,180 won't do. You will have ... actually quite a few asyncron frames. (as already written, our brain can compensate but) .... theoretically ... the higher the fps, the higher the possible match with our eye. There is a limit, as you saw in that video due to flickering. Anyway you may now see why 60Hz vs 120Hz might make a difference. Now imagine it for 3D where you got separated image for each eye ...
Once saw an article that explained that that well. A graphic between low vs. high refresh-rate and what the human eye may capture. Can't find it now, anyone may help out? I wouldn't want to post links as it's such a HUGE topic, not cover-able by that post, as well as you are not to believe me alone (besides me not finding them). But this was actually before me visiting that acquaintance of mine, asking him about it too. And that at least would be so nice, anyone? Btw, sry for ... all that ... you just seemed so ... willing except all that without further asking, I couldn't help it. Don't give up your freedom to think what's wright, take at least a second opinion. ;) (of mine too)

BTT: Did you yet get a gasp of current development of biological science. I think s.t. like 3D Vision, as long we don't all go to our house doctors/some oculist, stating we do play using 3D Vision (2) and over ages our eyes are measured together in several trusted studies individual ...... one can only make a guess. Personally - I don't think it causes harm. And - now we are at that again, bo3b seems logical. Though (critic again) the way 3D Vision works isn't 100y old. If I were to take a guess: 3D Vision is quite the immersion vs 2D and you simply tend to stay inside that stunning world - yet it IS already known that breaks are essential! 2D or 3D doesn't take a matter. And ppl already tend to stay longer in games or longer in office just to have a longer break (which they won't ever will/take anyway). Hence how it is in 3D if you ... have a glass that cut's you out from everything beyond your monitor. Driven in a world in 3D that appears to be even more "plastic" than real life. Can you measure the danger?

EDIT: forgot to ask: did anyone notice 13:45+ that + and o .... anyone who din't see the right circle no mater the distance - i saw it. 3D Vision training?

#9
Posted 09/28/2018 07:59 PM   
LOL having hard time focusing into this long post LOL i think you are nitpicking. ( or was that the word...) I did not TaKe that video that seriously or nor do i care that much if its correct or not. Yes there is difference between 60 to 120 fps but beyond that its pretty useless as the difference between 60 and 120 is there but its not that big as compared to 30 to 60. And atleast to me 60 is just fine and i think more important is the Speed of the panel it self. Damn im feeling ill....propably fever. No matter if eyes are harmed or not 3D is the only way to go
LOL having hard time focusing into this long post LOL i think you are nitpicking. ( or was that the word...)

I did not TaKe that video that seriously or nor do i care that much if its correct or not. Yes there is difference between 60 to 120 fps but beyond that its pretty useless as the difference between 60 and 120 is there but its not that big as compared to 30 to 60.
And atleast to me 60 is just fine and i think more important is the Speed of the panel it self.

Damn im feeling ill....propably fever.

No matter if eyes are harmed or not 3D is the only way to go

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#10
Posted 09/28/2018 08:17 PM   
Yeah, sry, turned out too long. Anyway, that last edited question? ... might be interesting to know. Don't worry, pls answer honest .... I don't blame anyone if he would not see the right circle. It just ... turned on my scientific side ... is it something 3D Vision positive related, or just s.t. ppl. are more related to. Like .. you sure can do s.t. better than me.
Yeah, sry, turned out too long. Anyway, that last edited question? ... might be interesting to know. Don't worry, pls answer honest .... I don't blame anyone if he would not see the right circle. It just ... turned on my scientific side ... is it something 3D Vision positive related, or just s.t. ppl. are more related to. Like .. you sure can do s.t. better than me.

#11
Posted 09/28/2018 09:04 PM   
Scroll To Top