Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
why would your eyes not adapt back after you are finished.

Proof by contradiction: if they always fully adapted back, eye exercise treatment for strabismus would be wholly ineffective (which is not the case, even for adults).

Quote: Our eyes have been doing it the right way a lot longer than the hour and a half they'd do it the wrong way watching a 3D movie.

Nothing wrong with watching a 3D movie. Myself, I have used 3D glasses for over a decade. My point is, however, that without using the still rare technologies that provide matching accommodation rather than just convergence, use should be intermittent.

Quote: it hurts your credibility.

I guess I'm not as insecure as is fashionable these days lol

Quote: I'd agree it's worth researching more, but the extremism of your stance and tone makes me less than sympathetic to your cause.

This is why I am willing to take a hit to defend important points.

Throw it in the bucket of technology risks people don't care about.


* Cell phones may cause brain cancer. I still use them.
* Broken CFLs may require a HazMat team to clean up after the toxic chemicals, mercury, and other crap, and if you breath it the gasses can kill. When they die naturally I will throw them in the trash, not a specialized recycle system. If one breaks I'll still just clean up, vacuum, and throw the hazardous materials in the trash.
* Food additives may cause long-term problems. I'll still have no difficulty eating 'fortified' food or feeding it to my kids.
* Microwaved food can cause health problems. But I will still use them almost every day.


Even fire causes problems, but we've been using it since prehistoric times. People die, people get hurt. Even now we have carbon monoxide poisonings and house fires. But used responsibly it is very low risk.



Every new technology has brought added risks to our lives. I'm pretty sure we can survive the dangers of stereoscopic entertainment.

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil
your claim is that your eyes will adapt to the simulated version but for some reason won't correctly adapt back to real life, but you don't provide any justification for this.

As I pointed out in another reply, if they always fully adapted, then the eye exercises treatment for strabismus would not work. However, it does work, even in adults. QED

Quote: Also, I'd like to point out that plenty of other things, such as wearing glasses, adjust the accommodation of one's eyes (though by a constant factor relative to what is expected from stereopsis) without, obviously, any effect on the convergence of one's eyes.

You are so very wrong that I don't know where to begin.
In fact, it is a concern. Dark (resting) vergence is a common research topic in optometry. Also, see here: Primary Care Optometry, p.310
And in there note the following:

Quote: Fortunately, the effects due to increased (or decreased) accommodation often combine with the effects due to the lack of induced prism by decentration to cause the fusuional vergence demand to change little.

In other words, the eye is close enough to the lens that there is an induced prism effect (since we are dealing with a real lens that has thickness, not the idealized thin lens from highschool optics) that counteracts the change in convergence.
Seriously, do you think I'm stupid to have made this thread without doing my research?

Quote: Original post by ddn3

Regarding your whole post: the concern is about prolonged exposure, such as multihour non-stop gaming binges--and you know very well there's a shitload of people that are going to do this. Over the years, I am willing to bet a bunch of them will develop some measure of strabismus.

Prune, you might have a point, but you being a total dick about it does not make anyone want to listen to what you have to say. I don't know what you want people to do, bow at your ability to sort of relate ideas to one another? Who cares?

It seems to me that while 3D-induced eye problems are a concern, most people should be fine, especially if people are smart about it at all (take off the glasses, focus on something else for a minute). Hell, people have to use the bathroom sometime- for guys at least, it usually involves using some binocular vision. If it was as bad as you seem to be claiming it is, we would've seen more significant results before now.

Also: My eyes have a hard time focusing after reading a book fo too long, ipso ergo blah blah books are bad for you. Case closed. Forever.

Quote: Original post by Prune

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil
your claim is that your eyes will adapt to the simulated version but for some reason won't correctly adapt back to real life, but you don't provide any justification for this.

As I pointed out in another reply, if they always fully adapted, then the eye exercises treatment for strabismus would not work. However, it does work, even in adults. QED

Well, no, because for one thing it's obvious that the treatment doesn't work nearly as well in adults from your own links, and the end result of treatment is a convergence of eyes that is, you know, correct, which is probably one of the principle reasons why the treatment lasts (because from then on depth perception actually works better). As pretty much everyone else in the thread except for you has already said, there is no reason your eyes should permanently adapt to the incorrect signals from the 3D displays because quite frankly it isn't that similar to the strabismus treatments that sometimes work in adults.

Quote: You are so very wrong that I don't know where to begin.
In fact, it is a concern. Dark (resting) vergence is a common research topic in optometry. Also, see here: Primary Care Optometry, p.310
And in there note the following:

Quote: Fortunately, the effects due to increased (or decreased) accommodation often combine with the effects due to the lack of induced prism by decentration to cause the fusuional vergence demand to change little.

In other words, the eye is close enough to the lens that there is an induced prism effect (since we are dealing with a real lens that has thickness, not the idealized thin lens from highschool optics) that counteracts the change in convergence.

Seriously, do you think I'm stupid to have made this thread without doing my research?

So what you're saying is that often the change is little in corrective lenses that people wear all the time. And, like I said, the actual change is constant, which is much more consistent with the treatments you keep flailing on about. On the other hand, these 3D displays, which people only use sometimes and have a mismatch between angle and focus that is not constant, are similar enough that you have proven that the displays are a health hazard.

At this point it looks like you've done a lot of reading, a little bit of thinking, then immediately tried to start a health scare. Cool.

I'll let you continue to smugly say absolutely nothing with someone else before you give me a real health problem like high blood pressure.

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil
it's obvious that the treatment doesn't work nearly as well in adults from your own links

It does not work as well, but the point is that it does work, as was established by research to the surprise of traditionalist ophthalmologists.

Quote: which is probably one of the principle reasons why the treatment lasts (because from then on depth perception actually works better).

And I'm the one accused of wild conjecture!

Quote: there is no reason your eyes should permanently adapt to the incorrect signals from the 3D displays because quite frankly it isn't that similar to the strabismus treatments that sometimes work in adults.

They adapt for the same reason they adapt to different convergence permanently when prism lenses glasses are used continuously for a long period.

Quote: So what you're saying is that often the change is little in corrective lenses that people wear all the time.

Because the vergence change the glasses cause is small! That was the whole point of that textbook excerpt!

Quote: And, like I said, the actual change is constant, which is much more consistent with the treatments you keep flailing on about.

Again, it's constant, but the coerced vergence change is very small.

Quote: On the other hand, these 3D displays, which people only use sometimes and have a mismatch between angle and focus that is not constant, are similar enough that you have proven that the displays are a health hazard.

The vergence change forced by stereo is much larger. It is comparable to prism glasses (which are also the ones that correct for strabismus!) Which is the original point. I don't see what there is to not understand here, seriously.

Quote: I'll let you continue to smugly say absolutely nothing with someone else before you give me a real health problem like high blood pressure.

Cute.

The first link you posted says that strabismus is "an abnormal alignment of the eyes in which the eyes don’t focus on the same object and depth perception is compromised." Before I consider saying any more I would like to verify that you agree with this.