Whats wrong with this picture?

[cybereality]

Ok, who's bright idea was this?

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/10/nintendo-3ds-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've mentioned it on the site before, but amblyopia prevents me from seeing stereoscopic 3D effects.

So you are telling me out of all the writers/reviewers they have on one of the largest gaming blogs on the internet, they find some dude WHO'S FRIGGIN' HALF-BLIND to review a 3D portable console. Why not get a quadriplegic to review the Xbox Kinect and Playstation MOVE while you're at it. I mean, I have nothing against people with disabilities. But I also wouldn't trust a review for a surround sound speaker system from a deaf guy. Give me a friggin' break. Totally unprofessional. I don't even know what to say. Are they doing this on purpose?

[Likay]

Lol! At least he mention that his wife sees s-3d without problems and that it works. He's just jealous which is understandable.

[cybereality]

You know, I was thinking about it and maybe this review wasn't the worst thing. Because I take it there is probably a good percentage of people with some sort of vision problems (maybe that they are unaware of). Some numbers claim that as much as 10% of people can't see in 3D (for whatever reason). So maybe it is actually good to have these issues out in the open, so people aren't confused when the system doesn't work for them. Especially with kids, they might not even know they have a vision problem unless they went to a eye-doctor and got checked (which maybe not everyone does). But I am not sure that was what the editors were aiming for when they published that review, but I guess its not that bad really.

[Fredz]

I also thought that deficiency in stereoscopic vision was quite frequent because most web sites were saying that it was affecting between 5% and 15% of the population, so I've been searching for quite a long time for more precise and scientific numbers about this condition.

I've only found two research studies relevant to the question, the first one by Whitman Richards in 1970 and the second one by Ben E. Coutant and Gerald Westheimer in 1993, and they obtained exactly the same percentage of 2,7% of people having a deficiency in stereopsis. It corresponds to a stereoacuity superior to 2 minutes of arc whereas the norm is 1 minute of arc, which is the same than for a normal visual acuity of 20/20.

If you have a look at the page about blindness on Wikipedia, you'll see that 2,6% of the population is either visually impaired or legally blind, which is the same order of magnitude than stereoblind people.

So I find it quite amusing to see a review of a stereoscopic device being done by a stereoblind journalist, it's exactly has if a blind journalist had to write a review about a display device like a TV or a projector and asked his wife to tell him how it looks like. Very weird indeed.

Btw, if anyone has any link to relevant scientific studies about the proportion of stereoblind people in the population, I would be quite grateful.

[cybereality]

Well I haven't seen many large-scale scientific studies, but there is a lot of press around this 10% number. For example, this UK study found that 12% of people had poor stereoscopic vision, resulting in the inability to properly view 3D content:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... s-properly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a video with doctors claiming that 10% can't see 3D:
http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entry/1 ... -t-See-3D/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an extended video with the same doctors:
http://www.qualityhealth.com/dental-hea ... ant-see-3d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This site claims 5% of people have serious vision problems (strabismus, etc.) and that 12% of people have some issues:
http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't seem to find much else in terms of solid published studies. But I was hearing that 10% figure from many years ago, so this is not something that cropped up recently. Clearly there must be some truth here, but without hard facts its difficult to say either way. But if we take this 10% figure at face value, that is pretty significant. That could easily account for a "vocal minority" proliferating this conception that 3D is a "gimmick" or that it gives people headaches. Not to mention that the other 90% don't exactly see 3D equally. I'll admit, that I actually have some issues seeing extreme "out-of-screen" effects. Depth is not problem, but once it gets to a certain separation in front of the screen, my mind just won't accept it. At home I don't have much problems, but I notice this more in the theater. There will be parts where the audience is ooohinh and aaahing and i will just see a double image. Granted, I do not have a serious vision problem like strabismus or amblyopia. But I do have to wear glasses, so I don't have perfect vision. And about 2/3rds (66%) of people wear (or need) glasses. So we are probably talking about a large chunk of the population that can't see 3D perfectly. I am not even going to claim I have any figures to back this up, but we could be talking about as much as 20% of people that either can't see 3D at all, or can't see it optimally. That is pretty significant and requires some serious study. Maybe my estimate is wrong. But given the amount of people speaking negative about 3D on the internet, this wouldn't be too surprising, would it?

And maybe even more alarming than one of the biggest gaming blogs having a stereo-blind writer review the 3DS, the is *other* biggest gaming blog publishing an article by the editor claiming he's ditching the 3D on the 3DS and only playing with the slider turned off. He claims it gives him a headache, and does bring up some valid points, but its concerning. I only got to play the 3DS for a half hour, and I am already pretty experienced with 3D, so I did not notice any headaches or ill effects. But is this response normal? Are all these famous bloggers just in that 10%? Something's clearly going on here, but what is it? Is it all a propaganda media blitz paid for by the illumina-2-D, or is there a serious public health issue about to be exposed? I'd really like to know.

[Fredz]

Well I haven't seen many large-scale scientific studies, but there is a lot of press around this 10% number. For example, this UK study found that 12% of people had poor stereoscopic vision, resulting in the inability to properly view 3D content

The problem with studies like this is that they are not scientific, there has been no publication of their claims in a peer-reviewed international conference and the numbers they give are quite vague (between 10% and 12%), which indicates that they have in fact not conducted a real study but have only made an approximate evaluation or used a survey.

There is also an evident conflict of interest in their approach because they are sponsored by the biggest optical companies in the UK and they specifically prescribe remedies such as pair of new glasses and vision therapy that their sponsors provide. It's not exactly the kind of reliable sources I'm after, the several videos of doctors claiming the exact same thing are in the same league to me.

I've tried to find reliable scientific sources for a long time that could back up any of the claims I've seen on the Web, but as I said I only found two studies conducted with a scientific protocol, and both said that deficiencies in stereoscopic vision in the population were quite marginal. I'm afraid most of the claims of higher percentages come from people with a vested financial interest on this subject, as it as been impossible to find anything tangible about their claims.

But I was hearing that 10% figure from many years ago, so this is not something that cropped up recently. Clearly there must be some truth here, but without hard facts its difficult to say either way.

The fact that we frequently hear about a 10% value doesn't indicate in any way that it does have any factual basis. And I saw the 5% or 15% values equally represented on the web, so it looks more like people are making up numbers which look believable when talking about a small percentage of the population.

About the vocal minority, be it 1%, 5% or 10% of the population, you'll always hear them talking a lot more loudly than the rest of the crop. Do you remember the many reports about the fragility of the iPhone 4 glass screen (yes, the iPhone again ) ? We heard a lot of people about this when the iPhone 4 was released, but a study conducted by SquareTrade on 20,000 iPhone owners showed that only 3.9% on them actually were damaged in the first 4 months of use (771 reports on the 20,000 users). Much ado about nothing...

I'll admit, that I actually have some issues seeing extreme "out-of-screen" effects. Depth is not problem, but once it gets to a certain separation in front of the screen, my mind just won't accept it.

I guess it has a lot more to do with the vergence-accommodation conflict which has been shown to prevent good stereo fusion why high separation values than with a problem with your eyes. In the study I posted here it is shown in experiment 3 that almost half the people which have an otherwise perfectly good stereopsis and among which some wore prescription glasses couldn't fuse images when there was a large vergence-focal conflict. So it's probably not a problem with your stereoscopic vision but with the vergence-accommodation conflict inherent to current stereoscopic displays, ie. you shouldn't be experiencing this with an hologram for example, or in other situations like in your living room as you said.

And maybe even more alarming than one of the biggest gaming blogs having a stereo-blind writer review the 3DS, the is *other* biggest gaming blog publishing an article by the editor claiming he's ditching the 3D on the 3DS and only playing with the slider turned off. He claims it gives him a headache, and does bring up some valid points, but its concerning.

The problem in this case may have a lot more to do with the technique employed (autostereoscopic parallax barrier) than with a problem with stereoscopic vision. I also felt dizzyness and problems focusing on objects after having playing a few hours with the 3DeeSlide as I've already reported. But I'm pretty sure it's due to this kind of displays because, I've been watching stereo 3D content for more than 15 years without any problems till now. Problems with journalists is that they are quite fast at drawing conclusion even when they don't allocate enough time for a test, and even more when they have preconceptions about a particular subject.

All in all, I still think the 2,7% value is the more reliable one until I find other serious studies contradicting this and I'll keep on thinking that most naysayers about 3D have either an agenda or didn't even try it.

[cybereality]

In terms of the vergence-accommodation problem, would an HMD w/ fresnel lens optics solve this issue?

I am not sure those 12%, 10% numbers are accurate, or even remotely true. And just cause its in the news or the internet, doesn't make it a fact. Sure. But I still feel there has got to be some truth here. Clearly some people do actually get headaches when viewing 3D (as I have read on the internet and have been told by people in real-life). Is this a permanent condition? I don't know? Maybe it goes away after time. I certainly don't get headaches, and I doubt many people in this forum do. And a great deal of people did watch Avatar in 3D, and that movie was like 4 hours long. I did not hear a lot of complaints about the 3D in Avatar, so maybe it is just an issue with badly authored content. But again, we just don't know.

I'll keep on thinking that most naysayers about 3D have either an agenda or didn't even try it.

I agree that many people hating on 3D seem to be misinformed. But you get this with a lot of things. Reading the comments on those popular blogs (aside from making you become dumber) can be pretty depressing at times. I have come to the conclusion that most of the comments are from young kids with absolutely no idea what they are talking about (although some adults can be pretty dumb as well). So this falls into the "didn't even try it" category. But then there are other people, who seem to be older and a little more intelligent, but still hate on 3D just the same. And these people seem to be in the "have an agenda" category. Maybe they just spent $20,000 on a 2D home theater setup and have a vested interest in not upgrading all their hardware (or something along those lines). The rest of the people are just mindless followers, and think its "cool" to bash whatever is trending but not quite mainstream yet (social validation). These are the same people bashing the PS3 when it first came out, and have a lot of overlap with the other groups. For example, they just bought an Xbox, and now they want to protect their investment by making sure PS3 doesn't succeed (agenda). They never tried the PS3 and never watched a Blu-Ray movie (didn't try). They want to be "cool" like all the other people in the first 2 groups (social validation).

What is good about this is that these are people with weak minds, who's thoughts are easily swayed by public opinion or even just a good media campaign. For example, if the Nintendo 3DS becomes popular, then a lot of people will try it (those that buy it, and their friends and family). Now enough people will have seen it, to overcome the minority of people that haven't tried it. The people that haven't tried it will be more easily identified and labeled as "trolls", etc. so honest users will be able to mostly ignore what they are saying. Once a critical mass is reached, the people with the agenda will, at some point, have to give up. I've known huge Apple fanboys that finally ditched the iPhone and got an Android, so it does happen. Then the third group, the people that just jump on the bandwagon, will act like they always loved 3D and that its the greatest thing since sliced bread. So this perception could change very quick. But it requires people to actually try 3D for themselves, and do so with an open mind. And having popular bloggers try it for a couple of days and just give up certainly doesn't set a great example.

[Fredz]

In terms of the vergence-accommodation problem, would an HMD w/ fresnel lens optics solve this issue?

I've read that some devices like HMD or specific technologies used in 3D displays (not available for the consumer market) can produce an infinite focus distance using some sort of defocusing screens that may alleviate the vergence-accommodation conflict, but I would need to do some more research about this to be sure.

I am not sure those 12%, 10% numbers are accurate, or even remotely true. And just cause its in the news or the internet, doesn't make it a fact. Sure. But I still feel there has got to be some truth here.

Yes, that's a frequent trait in Human psychology. Someone says something without giving the slightest bit of evidence, some people repeat it because they lack basic critical sense, and then everybody start to believe it because it's said everywhere. That's how rumor propagation has been working for centuries.

If you were a journalist today, what would you do ? Try to look for reliable numbers in scientific publications or repeat what you've seen on websites ?

Clearly some people do actually get headaches when viewing 3D (as I have read on the internet and have been told by people in real-life).

As I already said headaches have nothing to do with stereopsis, but with the vergence-accomodation conflict. These same people wouldn't have any problem with holography, the problem lies in current stereoscopic displays, as I've been saying here for some months now.

For example, if the Nintendo 3DS becomes popular, then a lot of people will try it (those that buy it, and their friends and family). Now enough people will have seen it, to overcome the minority of people that haven't tried it.
[...]
So this perception could change very quick. But it requires people to actually try 3D for themselves, and do so with an open mind. And having popular bloggers try it for a couple of days and just give up certainly doesn't set a great example.

I'm not sure the Nintendo 3DS will necessarily help in this regard.

First, from the references I gave 2,7% of people can't see 3D, so those won't be convinced.

Then a significant part of people who have an otherwise correct stereoscopic vision still have problems with the vergence-accommodation conflict for high separation values. I don't know which percentage of the population is concerned, but the study I talked about gives around 40% for a non-representative population (5 out of 11 people).

I guess the several reports from reviewers saying that they needed to lower the 3D effect by using the depth slider show that it should still concern a more important percentage than stereoblind people. The problem is the same at the cinema, and probably the reason why filmmakers gradually lowered depth effects in many recent movies, as you seemed to imply in another post.

Next the stereoscopic technique used in the Nintendo 3DS is autostereoscopic, and it has already been known to produce even more problems than current active and passive 3D solutions available at home or in theaters. There is already the need to keep the head perfectly still and centered in regard to the screen, which is a big limitation considering it's quite hard to do that when playing a video game.

And there have also been several reports talking about dizziness and focusing problems after use, which I've been experimenting myself with lenticular screens, and that is probably related to the fact that the eyes are solicited in an unatural way when the observer is not exactly in the sweet spot.

So I think that the launch (and possible success) of the Nintendo 3DS won't necessarily change the regard people have towards S3D in general, because it will create problems for a larger part of the population than current 3D technologies. I still hope I'll be wrong though...

[cybereality]

Yeah, you're right. The 3DS is still far from perfect in terms of the 3D screen. And the dizziness/headaches may turn into a issue for a significant portion of people (even if it is the minority). But I think this is why Nintendo came up with the depth slider, which actually works really well. Not everyone listens to music at the full 100% volume of the speakers, so why would we expect everyone to watch 3D at the 100% maximum value. Even at the lowest value, the 3D still adds something to the game and is pretty comfortable to look at. So I think Nintendo has accounted for this already.

I have high hopes for the Nintendo 3DS as the mainstream "Trojan horse" for stereo 3d. Is it going to work for everybody? The answer is no. But I think it will work for a large percentage of people, and this will also contribute to sales for other S3D technologies like 3D HDTVs, 3D Blu-Ray players, Nvidia 3D Vision, etc. And it should be enough for 3D to reach a critical mass in the holiday season of 2012. By that time there should be a good deal of commercial content built up, in both gaming and movies, not to mention amateur content from the consumer 3D cameras either out or coming out. Then you have 3D smart-phones, like from LG, that can also take 3D photos and videos (and upload straight to YT3D). 3D tablets, etc. Its not just going to be the Nintendo 3DS.