← Extending the scope of augmented reality to what you CAN’T see | Main | Mediagazer becomes the reference source for the media industry →

Is 3D TV dangerous?

Ross Dawson, April 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm

This morning I bumped into neighbor and fellow futurist Mark Pesce at our local cafe. He was on interviewed on the 7pm Project last night about the dangers of 3D TV (see the video here) so we chatted about that.

Mark has been involved in 3D for close to two decades, most famously in creating Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML), and before that helping Sega to develop a head-mounted display in the 1990s. When it was sent for testing by Standord Research Institute, problems arose for users. Yet the research was never published.

In an article titled Keep doing that and you’ll go blind, (which was taken up by Boing Boing among others), Mark writes:

Virtual reality headsets use the same technique for displaying 3D as we find in movies or 3D television sets – parallax. They project a slightly different image to each one of your eyes, and from that difference, your brain creates the illusion of depth. That sounds fine, until you realize just how complicated human depth perception really is. The Wikipedia entry on depth perception (an excellent read) lists ten different cues that your brain uses to figure out exactly how far away something is. Parallax is just one of them. Since the various movie and television display technologies only offer parallax-based depth cues, your brain basically has to ignore several other cues while you’re immersed in the world of Avatar. This is why the 3D of films doesn’t feel quite right. Basically, you’re fighting with your own brain, which is getting a bit confused. It’s got some cues to give it a sense of depth, but it’s missing others. Eventually your brain just starts ignoring the other cues.

That’s the problem. When the movie’s over, and you take your glasses off, your brain is still ignoring all those depth perception cues. It’ll come back to normal, eventually. Some people will snap right back. In others, it might take a few hours. This condition, known as ‘binocular dysphoria’, is the price you pay for cheating your brain into believing the illusion of 3D. Until someone invents some other form of 3D projection (many have tried, no one has really succeeded), binocular dysphoria will be part of the experience.

Mark then notes:

None of the television manufacturers have done any health & safety testing around this.

As it happens (as Mark told me this morning), Samsung has now released a 3D TV warning, even before the product is available. It says cheery stuff like:

* If you experience any of the following symptoms, immediately stop watching 3D pictures and consult a medical specialist: (1) altered vision; (2) lightheadedness; (3) dizziness; (4) involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching; (5) confusion; (6) nausea; (7) loss of awareness; (8) convulsions; (9) cramps; and/or (10) disorientation. Parents should monitor and ask their children about the above symptoms as children and teenagers may be more likely to experience these symptoms than adults.

* Viewing in 3D mode may also cause motion sickness, perceptual after effects, disorientation, eye strain, and decreased postural stability. It is recommended that users take frequent breaks to lessen the likelihood of these effects. If you have any of the above symptoms, immediately discontinue use of this device and do not resume until the symptoms have subsided.

* We do not recommend watching 3D if you are in bad physical condition, need sleep or have been drinking alcohol.

So it seems that the 3D TV manufacturers think there’s an issue here. According to them, you shouldn’t drink a beer if you’re watching the football in 3D – that could be dangerous.

I was wondering whether there are ways to improve the technology so there is varying depth of visual field. Mark noted that this is holography, which is in development, but holographic TV is still some way from getting to consumers.

So, is the hype about 3D TV about to fall flat as we find we stumble or crash cars after watching it?

For the most current insights and trends in the living networks, follow @rossdawson on Twitter!

http://simon-dufour.blogspot.com Simon Dufour

I’d like to point out that you do give some false information here. If you actually read the Wikipedia article you pointed to, you’ll see that most depth perception can be done with only 1 eye and already work on regular TV. Motion Parallax already works on regular TV. I’ve been playing computer games for AGES and they use most of the techniques describe in the monocular cues to give their game a sense of depth.
3D TVs only add Stereopsis but keep all the others. Stuff like Peripheral Vision and Accomodation don’t work however but they also weren’t there on 2D screens. I agree however that we should study consequences of using faked Stereoscopy, especially since it’s currently pretty low in quality. I suppose that as technology continues to improve, quality will be better and effects will gradually disappear.
Anyway.. I do find your article was a bit misleading, don’t you think?
http://simon-dufour.blogspot.com Simon Dufour

I said that motion parallax work with regular TV. You have to stay still however. Moving you head won’t work (though it can using specific motion sensing technology).
If you stay still and watch the screen, motion parallax will work with the movement of the camera.
http://rossdawsonblog.com Ross Dawson

Hi Simon, what you are referring to are not my words but quotes.
However to the degree that I understand this, what you’re saying is not relevant. There are substantially different brain mechanisms involved in quasi-3D perception than those in flat screen viewing, and that is what Mark is referring to.
http://best-hd-tv.blogspot.com/ Best HD TV

Well i have heard this from many sources and i might be inclide to agree. The problem is we dont know for sure so wait and see is my opinion.
http://simon-dufour.blogspot.com Simon Dufour

I agree though that we should make studies on this. I personally wouldn’t by a 3D TV just yet, not before we get some study on the possible dangers.
I’m sorry, those are indeed quotes.
I am not an expert. From my perspective, it seemed like 3D TV only added 1 new type of depth perception that is not on regular TV. Stereoscopy. However, with normal stereoscopy, if you move your head, the image changes accordingly so you can make more inferences. That is not true with 3D TV because the content of what you see will not change depending on your head position.
I might as well be wrong. 3D projection existed for years now and no health research have been done on that? That’s kind of sad.
BTW.. excuse me if my posts were rude. I only found the post a bit alarmist. I shouldn’t have reacted that hard.
http://rossdawsonblog.com Ross Dawson

Yes I think the real point is that proper studies need to be done on the technologies that are going to market.
Mark says that the results of the studies done in the 1990s were pretty alarming. Let’s find out more.

Ross Dawson is globally recognized as a leading futurist, entrepreneur, keynote speaker, strategy advisor, and bestselling author. He is Founding Chairman of AHT Group, which consists of 3 companies: consulting, publishing, and ventures firm Advanced Human Technologies, future and strategy firm Future Exploration Network, and events company The Insight Exchange.

Ross is author most recently of Implementing Enterprise 2.0, the prescient Living Networks, which anticipated the social network revolution, and the Amazon.com bestseller Developing Knowledge-Based Client Relationships (click on the links for free chapter downloads). He is based in Sydney and San Francisco with his wife jewellery designer Victoria Buckley and two beautiful young daughters.