3-D Giving You a Headache? You’re Not Alone

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
A new study by the Journal of Vision offers insight into the reasons for the headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D projections. The technical name is vergence-accomodation which is a fancy way to describe the eyes trying to look at two fixed points at the same time.

"This is an area of research where basic science meets application - and we hope that the science can proceed quickly enough to keep up with the increasingly widespread use of the technology."
Click to expand...
 
schizrade said:
Instant migrane for me.
Click to expand...


Wow, that sucks man. I think this reason alone is why 3D will always be optional. I know a few other people that complain about headaches from it as well.

Does glassless 3D do the same thing to you?
 
I have a bit higher tolerance for 3D, but if I'm tired or stressed it will produce a very bad headache and what feels like a very bad hang over the next day (without stomach symptoms).
 
I live within the 11 dimensions of my universe so 3D is very primitive for beings like myself.
Live long and prosper,,,
 
I'm in the same boat since I wear glasses.

Very first 3D film I've seen, I couldn't stand watching it. I immediately got a headache and later on nausea. I ended up watching the entire movie without 3D glasses and that was much worse since the images were a blur of red and blue colors. I'm not even susceptible to motion sickness but 3D movies I can't stand. Even those 3D bluray demos in Best Buy and other stores give me headaches.

Probably the only thing that has not given me any issue is a Nintendo 3DS. My only guess is because I don't have to wear 3D glasses of any kind on top of my own glasses.
 
3d is a horrible thing imo. It looks cool until my head feels like it's going to explode.
 
I think it's this, and that the frame rate is reduced. 30 or 60 FPS per eye for a 3D movie most likely will remove these problems.
 
I noticed the 3DS wasn't stressing my eyes like movies and some movies are better then others. Avatar was the worst (yet best looking). Green Hornet being an incredible pleasure to watch, no headache and no stress, but when I got the 3D Blu-ray I noticed that the 3D effects were actually very subtle often mixing 2D and 3D images so that not everything on the screen was actually 3D (worked very well).
 
I sometimes get a headache, not sure why I only get it sometimes.
 
It never had any negative effect on me at all. I just don't like it, and don't use it.
 
Add another to the no problems list.

But my fiancee on the other hand, cant watch it for more than 20 mins or she gets a headache..
 
People with less than average intelligence experience the headaches and nausea since their brains are having a hard time processing the images.
 
I dont' get headaches from 3d, i get headaches from wearing the glasses... wince I wear glasses >.>
 
octoberasian said:
I'm in the same boat since I wear glasses.

Very first 3D film I've seen, I couldn't stand watching it. I immediately got a headache and later on nausea. I ended up watching the entire movie without 3D glasses and that was much worse since the images were a blur of red and blue colors. I'm not even susceptible to motion sickness but 3D movies I can't stand. Even those 3D bluray demos in Best Buy and other stores give me headaches.

Probably the only thing that has not given me any issue is a Nintendo 3DS. My only guess is because I don't have to wear 3D glasses of any kind on top of my own glasses.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the same thing. Real 3D glasses use LCD shutter glasses, not red blue ones, those would make me nauseus too. Before nVidia went all proprietary, *ALL* 3D cames could be viewed in 3D with off the shelf shutter glasses (It's just a simple circuit that switches sides whenever it detects a signal on the VGA's v-pin, generic 3D glasses could be had for $10). I've actually enjoyed blowing up stuff in Painkiller with gibs flying everywhere.

The thing about distance may have a point tho. Coz when the gibs get past the HUD, it felt like the pieces should now be inside my head. Makes for an odd feeling when you run through a cloud of blood. Not enough to give me a headache tho.

Spiko said:
Headache or no there still isn't any content so who cares?
Click to expand...

Every 3D game (Or most of them anyway) made since the TNT2 could be played in 3D Stereo. Battle Realms looked like you were watching a moving Diorama just behind the monitor.
 
Gives me a fucking headache having to pay another $3 per person to see a movie that already costs over $10 a god damn ticket
 
I honestly can't stand the stuttering effect that I see when I look through 3d goggles on 3D TV's but 3D effect on movie screens doesn't bother me in the least *shrug*
 
heatlesssun said:
Huh? There's plenty of games and movies out there in 3D.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Most movies just are not suited for 3D in the first place. There isn't enough content to justify a 3D only sections in most(all?) stores let alone own a 3DTV. The one shining example , Avatar, costs 100 bucks one Amazon. 100! For a movie. That's crazy town in my book. As for games there are also really only a handful that support it and all of them suffer FPS issues.

I had a Mitsubishi WD60638 and for a couple hundred bucks it would do movie theater quality 3D. Thing is I just couldn't be any less interested. Even if you can look past the price, head aches, stupid glass, and you arrive in the magical land of 3D there is still very little content to consume. I see absolutely no point.
 
"Avatar" was a 3D movie done well. "Transformers 3" was also done well. I only saw 1 other 3D movie, "Clash of the Titans", which was "eh".
 
Higher frame rates such as 48 to 60 frames should help 3D tremendously.
 
I can game in 3D for about 8 hours but after that I start getting headaches caused by eye strain.
 
Spiko said:
Ridiculous. Most movies just are not suited for 3D in the first place. There isn't enough content to justify a 3D only sections in most(all?) stores let alone own a 3DTV. The one shining example , Avatar, costs 100 bucks one Amazon. 100! For a movie. That's crazy town in my book. As for games there are also really only a handful that support it and all of them suffer FPS issues.

I had a Mitsubishi WD60638 and for a couple hundred bucks it would do movie theater quality 3D. Thing is I just couldn't be any less interested. Even if you can look past the price, head aches, stupid glass, and you arrive in the magical land of 3D there is still very little content to consume. I see absolutely no point.
Click to expand...

The bulk of new movies are in 3D now whether you think they're well done or not. Avatar is a special deal with Panasonic keeping the price artificially high for now. And there's dozens and dozens of games that work 3D well these days but yeah you need some horsepower to drive them.

You don't like 3D, that's fine. Some do like myself and finding content isn't a problem and the content library is growing steadily.
 
3D still has a long way to go. I have no idea if it's going to stick around for good this time. Perhaps the release of monitors without the need for glasses will help that along. Samsung has a prototype out already, so it's not too far off. It's just really expensive. The question is whether passive or active 3D will coexist or perhaps one would overtake the other. Movie theaters currently use passive since equipment for active would be too costly. I've also noticed passive "pops out" more whereas active "pops in", for example nvidia/home theater setups. The new 3D monitors without glasses will most likely have to be passive, so that makes me think active setups will die off eventually. Also, will 3D monitors be able to adopt the same capabilities of monitors eventually, like high resolutions and 10 bit color? IMHO, 3D monitors and lcd monitors will continue to coexist. I don't think 3D monitors will ever be as accurate as an IPS 10 bit panel.
 
They needed a study to see that a trick that fucks with your eyesight would give you headaches?
 
beowulf7 said:
"Avatar" was a 3D movie done well. "Transformers 3" was also done well. I only saw 1 other 3D movie, "Clash of the Titans", which was "eh".
Click to expand...

Clash of the titans wasn't a 3d film. It was post processed to be "3d". You could tell this because the director used depth of feild effects for some parts, and it meant that various parts of the image were blurry in weird places (depth of feild doesn't work in 3d because of the area of focus can't be that narrow etc). The only bit of the film where the 3d worked well was the kraken at the end, but thats because it was 3d CGI, so probably wasn't "fixed" afterwards. Same thing for many many movies who want to join in with the "latest thing".

But more films are being filmed natively in 3d, with proper 3d cameras. This has it's setbacks (you need more light, takes more time, different focuses have to be used etc.) but the 3d content provided by this kind of film will be much better than the post productioned 3d. I think also now that the "gimmick" phase is dying down, it will be much less things flying at your face and cliched content, and more things that add to the film.

It was kind of like this when sound first came to movies. Some old silent directors didn't know what the hell to do with it and some did things like having long silent sections in films (famous example is dracula). But then directors gained experience and the genre matured along with the techniques they used. At the moment they are mostly 2d directors playing around with 3d content.
 
There is quite allot of people with undiagnosed eye tracking and convergence problems ("lazy" eye is just one possibly more known example among others) but the fact its that unless these are debilitating any corrective actions are rarely acted on or even fully diagnosed.
Interestingly these can be diagnosed with 3d stereograms and tracking tests.
People that have discomfort while viewing this type of 3d for a period of time probably have a mild problem along these lines (there are a host of other problems also that can harm this process also - but are not as common )

So really this is not unexpected at all . .
 
3D projections also cause pregnancy according to some story which I couldn't find anymore. some woman claimed to have watched 3d pr0n with a black guy and got pregnant with a black child - while being married to a white guy. sounds legit. or maybe it was a virgin birth. after all that excuse seems to work much better.
 
You mean this? I've got to admit that mad me laugh for a while. There is no way the husband believed that, but guess so.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Clash of the titans wasn't a 3d film. It was post processed to be "3d". You could tell this because the director used depth of feild effects for some parts, and it meant that various parts of the image were blurry in weird places (depth of feild doesn't work in 3d because of the area of focus can't be that narrow etc). The only bit of the film where the 3d worked well was the kraken at the end, but thats because it was 3d CGI, so probably wasn't "fixed" afterwards. Same thing for many many movies who want to join in with the "latest thing".

But more films are being filmed natively in 3d, with proper 3d cameras. This has it's setbacks (you need more light, takes more time, different focuses have to be used etc.) but the 3d content provided by this kind of film will be much better than the post productioned 3d. I think also now that the "gimmick" phase is dying down, it will be much less things flying at your face and cliched content, and more things that add to the film.

It was kind of like this when sound first came to movies. Some old silent directors didn't know what the hell to do with it and some did things like having long silent sections in films (famous example is dracula). But then directors gained experience and the genre matured along with the techniques they used. At the moment they are mostly 2d directors playing around with 3d content.
Click to expand...

3D movies have been around for the last 90 years. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top