3D Displays May Be Hazardous to Young Children
Could this be a problem with the 3DS?
3D is all the rage right now, with cinemas and home theatre equipment both beefing up with glasses-mandatory viewing. Even gaming on-the-go is heading that way too with Nintendo's upcoming 3DS handheld.
While 3D gives us a neat effect while watching Toy Story 3, taking the kids to see that one over and over again, and eventually when it's on Blu-ray Disc, isn't a good idea at all.
According researchers who have been examining 3D video for years, the exposing children under the age of seven could affect their vision in a bad way. You see, our 3D human vision relies on our two eyes sending an image to our brains, which then makes stereoscopic sense out of it. This gives us depth perception – something that our brains only fully develop by the time we hit six years old.
Some of us aren't able to fully develop stereoscopic vision due to malaise in children called strabismus, sometimes known as lazy eye. This condition is treatable by training the nervous system to 'learn' stereopsis.
More than 15 years ago, Sega was toying with a VR headset that would give the wearer 3D images near the eye; but following a test by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) at Palo Alto California, Sega was warned that the peripheral should not be given to kids – a tough order given that the video game market at the time was catered to a younger audience. The project was ditched, and 3D VR headsets slowly disappeared from the market.
Now that 3D is back, bigger than ever, the risk is even greater for young viewers. Adults are believed to be mostly safe from 3D effects, though most will likely find that they reach a point of fatigue before long anyway.

Its not generating a true stereoscopic image as the brain would normally see. If your brain is still learning how to interpret stereoscopic images and it starts seeing unrealistic ones then it will start creating neurological paths for these special instances as if they were real. This could harm your normal visions interpretations.
So if your brains pathways are already set, it won't bother you. If you're young and still building them then you could risk building ones tuned to movies and not real life.
But in the meantime, has everyone forgotten that the 3DS' effect can be turned off?
With active shutter, you actually prevent an eye from seeing the image it's not meant to see, so it doesn't really use the brain's stereoscopic function "properly". But other technologies send images to both eyes at the same time... is it because it causes the eye to focus on some "fake" focal point?
Its not generating a true stereoscopic image as the brain would normally see. If your brain is still learning how to interpret stereoscopic images and it starts seeing unrealistic ones then it will start creating neurological paths for these special instances as if they were real. This could harm your normal visions interpretations.
So if your brains pathways are already set, it won't bother you. If you're young and still building them then you could risk building ones tuned to movies and not real life.
With polarized lenses, only 1 eye is seeing at any given time just like shutter glasses. That's why 3D movies has to be twice as bright as regular movies to gave you the effective brightness of regular movie.
It's effectively adding density filters to the image, thereby reducing its overall brightness, requiring significantly brighter lamphouses to compensate.
Look into RealD Cinema before comment please
Interesting how you bash the opinion of another without even knowing the facts yourself.
The cinema 3D technology uses passive glasses, each lens is polarized in opposite directions blocking the light which is polarized in the wrong direction. Thus you end up with only half the actual light getting to your eyes. So yes the source has to be brighter.
With the nVidia technology the image gets darker because half the time you see the image, the other half of the time you see black when the lcd blocks the light.
So yes, both 3D technologies DO actually reduce the light getting to you, having a brighter source makes the darkening effect less noticeable. Probably the number one complaint about 3D vision is that you need to bump up your brightness and gamma values to compensate for the loss of brightness in your image...
Too bad when it comes from people who might otherwise have something useful to offer when they behave so boorishly.
1. If you weren't "rude" originally you certainly are now (seriously, appalled vs. rude on a forum post is not a great distinction).
2. Your first post was incorrect and did misunderstand the technology -- as your focus was on what the eye sees and not on the effect of the various filters between the screen and the eye.
3. Instead of stepping up and apologizing you've chosen the decidedly immature course of doubling down on your original, wrong statement and engaging in transparent semantics to redefine what you originally said.