Good news, fans of ... things popping out of your television screen and totally flying at your face! L.A. ophthalmologist Dr. Mark Borchert, member of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, recently told Gamasutra that prolonged exposure to 3D displays is "not likely to cause any permanent harm to vision." Unless, of course, you're watching on Bravia's controversial new set, the Eye-Poker 3D 5000.
Borchert explained that 3D displays aren't completely without risks, stating "there are people who get uncomfortable with it, and get eye strain or headaches, or on much rarer occasions, a sense of imbalance or nausea, but there's no evidence it can cause permanent harm to your vision or use of both eyes together or anything like that." So, there you go. It probably won't make you blind, but it may make you feel like vomiting every time you use it. Man, the future's gonna be awesome.
Reader Comments (45)
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 1:06PM Wiizer said
@Foetoid
Actually, I was watching Dr. Oz and the nausea from 3-D is caused by damage to an inner ear bone.
If people are getting sick at the movies, it's a symptom of something broken inside their ear which helps with equilibrium. Here's the link:
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/symptoms/Dizziness/hic_What_is_Dizziness.aspx
Reply
Actually, I was watching Dr. Oz and the nausea from 3-D is caused by damage to an inner ear bone.
If people are getting sick at the movies, it's a symptom of something broken inside their ear which helps with equilibrium. Here's the link:
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/symptoms/Dizziness/hic_What_is_Dizziness.aspx
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:32PM PeterPanana said
@Foetoid My eyes must be damaged already...I'm having a hard time reading that first comment...
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:20AM Puertoricarious said
i like how "there's no evidence that it would" translates to "it probably doesn't." that's good science, alright.
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:40AM lSpam said
@Puertoricarious
Actually, yes it is, assuming they ran tests.
For instance: there's no evidence that eating chocolate would cause brain hemorrhages, so it can be reasonably deduced that eating chocolate probably doesn't.
The problem is that you can't prove a negative - you can't PROVE that something DOESN'T do something, because you can't really record the lack of a reaction. So the 'probably' acts as a qualifier.
Reply
Actually, yes it is, assuming they ran tests.
For instance: there's no evidence that eating chocolate would cause brain hemorrhages, so it can be reasonably deduced that eating chocolate probably doesn't.
The problem is that you can't prove a negative - you can't PROVE that something DOESN'T do something, because you can't really record the lack of a reaction. So the 'probably' acts as a qualifier.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:17AM Fhaze said
@lSpam
It does nothing to say where the supposed "myth" comes from, how the initial findings were flawed and how his are better. I would be cool if somewhere in the article it said "to protect against lawsuits, nothing more" or something to that affect but there is not even that. I assume you read the article where it states that younger kids should not be playing at all as it could really hurt their eyesite.
As for your example about chocolate is so flawed that it is ridiculous. Nobody eats a piece of chocolate and thinks, wow that is causing some bad things to happen in my brain. However people do view 3D movies and games and think "wow, this hurts my eyes" or "this gives me a headache". So you can record a reaction, 3D is perfected and most likely safe for everyone when the same person says "wow, this is totally enjoyable".
Reply
It does nothing to say where the supposed "myth" comes from, how the initial findings were flawed and how his are better. I would be cool if somewhere in the article it said "to protect against lawsuits, nothing more" or something to that affect but there is not even that. I assume you read the article where it states that younger kids should not be playing at all as it could really hurt their eyesite.
As for your example about chocolate is so flawed that it is ridiculous. Nobody eats a piece of chocolate and thinks, wow that is causing some bad things to happen in my brain. However people do view 3D movies and games and think "wow, this hurts my eyes" or "this gives me a headache". So you can record a reaction, 3D is perfected and most likely safe for everyone when the same person says "wow, this is totally enjoyable".
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:38AM Chibi Chaingun said
@Fhaze
People get headaches, eye fatigue, and headaches from staring at 2D screens too. It's also not advised to let youngsters stare at TV screens for long periods while their eyes are still developing. What makes this any different?
Reply
People get headaches, eye fatigue, and headaches from staring at 2D screens too. It's also not advised to let youngsters stare at TV screens for long periods while their eyes are still developing. What makes this any different?
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:32PM Chibi Chaingun said
@Chibi Chaingun
Apparently they get 2x headaches according to my last post. :P
Reply
Apparently they get 2x headaches according to my last post. :P
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 2:07PM Fhaze said
@Chibi Chaingun
From the article:
""Children are not born with the ability to use both eyes together, they do not have any true binocularity at birth, and they certainly do not have stereoscopic vision." It is possible that 3D could harm developing eye muscles.""
AND
"the expert pegged the appropriate 3D viewing age even lower than Nintendo."
The article doesn't talk about any studies, just a respected doctor giving his opinion. I assume you read the article right?
Reply
From the article:
""Children are not born with the ability to use both eyes together, they do not have any true binocularity at birth, and they certainly do not have stereoscopic vision." It is possible that 3D could harm developing eye muscles.""
AND
"the expert pegged the appropriate 3D viewing age even lower than Nintendo."
The article doesn't talk about any studies, just a respected doctor giving his opinion. I assume you read the article right?
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:11PM Chibi Chaingun said
@Fhaze
I assume you read my comment. You'd see that I didn't discount the idea that watching 3D for young children may cause eye development problems, I only reminded that the same has been said about 2D TV screens and monitors for small children's eyes that are still developing. I also addressed that the feeling of eye fatigue or headaches is not limited to 3D. It can happen with a book, a TV, or anything where your eye muscles are working to focus. I have no idea why you pasted a bunch of quotes.
Reply
I assume you read my comment. You'd see that I didn't discount the idea that watching 3D for young children may cause eye development problems, I only reminded that the same has been said about 2D TV screens and monitors for small children's eyes that are still developing. I also addressed that the feeling of eye fatigue or headaches is not limited to 3D. It can happen with a book, a TV, or anything where your eye muscles are working to focus. I have no idea why you pasted a bunch of quotes.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 5:37PM Puertoricarious said
@lSpam
uh....if they ran tests, then they'd have evidence, right? did you even read my comment? my entire point was that drawing conclusions (positive OR negative) within a vacuum of evidence is stupid, and your reply is "but it's smart if they run tests!" you don't say.......
Reply
uh....if they ran tests, then they'd have evidence, right? did you even read my comment? my entire point was that drawing conclusions (positive OR negative) within a vacuum of evidence is stupid, and your reply is "but it's smart if they run tests!" you don't say.......
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 7:21AM LaughingTarget said
I think there's a link between being uncomfortable with 3D and motion sickness. It's purely anecdotal, but everyone I know that has problems with 3D also easily get motion sickness.
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:44AM Chibi Chaingun said
@LaughingTarget
I agree. My parents couldn't stomach (2D) movies like Cloverfield, it made them nauseous. They tend to complain about 3D slightly too, but more of a dizzy complaint. Video games also bother them. None of the above bother me at all.
Reply
I agree. My parents couldn't stomach (2D) movies like Cloverfield, it made them nauseous. They tend to complain about 3D slightly too, but more of a dizzy complaint. Video games also bother them. None of the above bother me at all.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:22PM liquidsoap89 said
@Chibi Chaingun
Great, now I want to go watch Cloverfield AGAIN!
THANKS!
Reply
Great, now I want to go watch Cloverfield AGAIN!
THANKS!
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:06AM Jacksy said
Eye strain and headaches are a clear sign that its also likely 3D could be eye damaging because its causing something rather than no symptoms at all. 3D is considered old technology to some, but even then it really hasn't been in the market for long or sold in mass quantities. With that said, I'm more than 100% sure someone will suffer from something because of 3D tech, after all, "not likely", is like saying its not 100% safe, someone somewhere will die....hehe ...well, not likely.
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:30AM Chibi Chaingun said
@Jacksy
...and fast flashy games can cause seizures for some, 2d screens can cause eye strain, and sitting for prolonged gaming sessions can technically cause blood clots. I'm not worried about those, I'm not worried about 3D.
Reply
...and fast flashy games can cause seizures for some, 2d screens can cause eye strain, and sitting for prolonged gaming sessions can technically cause blood clots. I'm not worried about those, I'm not worried about 3D.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:31PM Chibi Chaingun said
@harusame
Wireless controllers also zaps your sperm. Tru story
Reply
Wireless controllers also zaps your sperm. Tru story
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:22PM liquidsoap89 said
@harusame
Dear god those Mario Party memories....
The tug of war still haunts me...
YOU CAN'T BEAT IT WITHOUT GETTING BLISTERS!
Reply
Dear god those Mario Party memories....
The tug of war still haunts me...
YOU CAN'T BEAT IT WITHOUT GETTING BLISTERS!
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:32AM Cap Morgan said
Ahhh, my eyes!!
"but there's no evidence it can cause permanent harm "
I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry said this line a few times........
Reply
"but there's no evidence it can cause permanent harm "
I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry said this line a few times........
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:42AM Evil Pikachu said
I don't care if I vomit or get eye strain, its worth it!
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:22AM HasteMakesWaste said
pre order bonus: The 3ds comes with pills for being nauseous in a cool mario flavor.....
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 10:44AM greyseal said
Other than looking at exceptionally bright light, there's really nothing that does "long term" damage to your eyes. Reading in the dark, staring at computers... it can cause eye strain and fatigue, but that's related to the muscles around the eye, and exhaustion of the iris. Your lens and retina are fine, and once the muscles recover, you're normal again.
Even ophthalmologists will lie (perhaps unintentionally) to people, and tell them that they need glasses because of all the reading they did, and so on. It's just not true.
Reply
Even ophthalmologists will lie (perhaps unintentionally) to people, and tell them that they need glasses because of all the reading they did, and so on. It's just not true.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:29PM Chibi Chaingun said
@greyseal
I even asked my eye doctor about it and she said if anything, 3D is good for your eyes as it strengthens the muscles and coordination between your eyes and your brain. She said some people lack that coordination and can't see 3D in real life and it requires working on that coordination to fix the problem.
Reply
I even asked my eye doctor about it and she said if anything, 3D is good for your eyes as it strengthens the muscles and coordination between your eyes and your brain. She said some people lack that coordination and can't see 3D in real life and it requires working on that coordination to fix the problem.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:10AM Tezz said
some people can barely play games because they have a type of motion sickness, where their brain can't accept that it sees you moving but you remain stationary.
feeling motion sickness symptoms while using 3D is not proof that it is causing your body long term damage, its just your brain going "woah, woah, woah, this cant be right".
Reply
feeling motion sickness symptoms while using 3D is not proof that it is causing your body long term damage, its just your brain going "woah, woah, woah, this cant be right".
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:21AM jynxycat said
I think I've sat and watched half a dozen 3D movies so far, including Avatar (which was fairly lengthly in run time), and I've had no issues with discomfort or whatever. Heck, if anything, it ruins the experience when I watch it home on regular DVD :|
I must be the only one though.
Reply
I must be the only one though.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 12:21PM Chibi Chaingun said
@jynxycat
I'm with you! I even have a 3D projector at home. I never experience discomfort even with long 3D gaming sessions. I have Avatar on Blu-Ray, but MAN I really have a hard time not seeing that movie in 3D! I have the 3D trailer at least...
Reply
I'm with you! I even have a 3D projector at home. I never experience discomfort even with long 3D gaming sessions. I have Avatar on Blu-Ray, but MAN I really have a hard time not seeing that movie in 3D! I have the 3D trailer at least...
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 11:52AM Cheusi said
I doubt any tests have been done to prove it's safe, nevermind long-term use. He wasn't even that certain; "not likely." Besides, there have been many examples where scientists/doctors have paraded something as fine to be proven wrong later.
Guess time will tell. Either way, if it takes off, I'd hope better content would be made for it rather than the cheesy 'things flying at you.' Like sunglasses...
Reply
Guess time will tell. Either way, if it takes off, I'd hope better content would be made for it rather than the cheesy 'things flying at you.' Like sunglasses...
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 3:24PM liquidsoap89 said
All this 3D talk keeps making me mad that I don't have a 3D TV/video card yet...
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:16PM liquidsoap89 said
@Thrasher666
Have you tried any 3d games yet? I played Batman AA on pc with a 3d monitor and video card a week ago... It was one of the coolest advancements I have seen in a LONG time in regards to gaming!
Reply
Have you tried any 3d games yet? I played Batman AA on pc with a 3d monitor and video card a week ago... It was one of the coolest advancements I have seen in a LONG time in regards to gaming!
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 4:17PM Chibi Chaingun said
@Thrasher666
As much as I love 3D, 3D on the PC is a pain in the ass. I have a 3D projector and nVidia 3D Vision. It's a pain updating the 3D Vision drivers. ALSO, my PJ isn't compatible with Sony's 3D on the PS3. GRRRR. I'm waiting for a cheap HDMI 1.4 3D PJ to upgrade to.
Reply
As much as I love 3D, 3D on the PC is a pain in the ass. I have a 3D projector and nVidia 3D Vision. It's a pain updating the 3D Vision drivers. ALSO, my PJ isn't compatible with Sony's 3D on the PS3. GRRRR. I'm waiting for a cheap HDMI 1.4 3D PJ to upgrade to.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 5:52PM JCDoe said
Here's what I don't get: if simulated 3d (via polarized glasses, shuttered glasses, parallax barrier, or whatever) causes nausea, why doesn't "real life 3d" (aka "looking around in the real friggin world") cause nausea?
I mean, they work the same: two slightly different images are presented to each eye, and the brain puts those images together to create a "3d" picture.
Is there something about the techniques used for 3d that causes nausea? Is it the frame rate? Do shuttered glasses do it? If so, shouldn't some techniques not cause nausea?
/em just doesn't get it.
Reply
I mean, they work the same: two slightly different images are presented to each eye, and the brain puts those images together to create a "3d" picture.
Is there something about the techniques used for 3d that causes nausea? Is it the frame rate? Do shuttered glasses do it? If so, shouldn't some techniques not cause nausea?
/em just doesn't get it.
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 8:28PM Tezz said
@JCDoe real life, different objects are different distances away from you, but cinema 3d tries to trick your brain into thinking a 2d surface has areas which are further away from each other, my understanding is that your brain has problems adjusting to that, not all people experience this though, only some.
Reply
Posted: Aug 13th 2010 9:46PM JCDoe said
@Tezz
I think you missed the point of my question.
I'm aware that everything on a computer or video game screen is equidistant from the eyes, compared with reality where there really is depth. But we aren't talking about true 3d, we're talking about the "perception" of 3d. The reality here is irrelevant; only the perception is meaningful.
3d is perceived through because the eyes are side-by-side, which means that each takes in a slightly different picture of what is in front of them. You can test this for yourself by looking at something with one eye closed, and then the other eye closed. The object shifts slightly back and forth, right?
These two images are sent to the visual lobe in the brain, where the images are combined into a 3d representation.
So, my question remains, how can someone "perceive" 3d when it is real, but not when it is simulated?
Reply
I think you missed the point of my question.
I'm aware that everything on a computer or video game screen is equidistant from the eyes, compared with reality where there really is depth. But we aren't talking about true 3d, we're talking about the "perception" of 3d. The reality here is irrelevant; only the perception is meaningful.
3d is perceived through because the eyes are side-by-side, which means that each takes in a slightly different picture of what is in front of them. You can test this for yourself by looking at something with one eye closed, and then the other eye closed. The object shifts slightly back and forth, right?
These two images are sent to the visual lobe in the brain, where the images are combined into a 3d representation.
So, my question remains, how can someone "perceive" 3d when it is real, but not when it is simulated?
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 100 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments










