HDTV Expert - Is 3DTV Hazardous to Your Health?

[720pete]

A study from Strategy Analytics reveals that a surprising number of consumers think so.

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/08/hdtv-expert-is-3dtv-hazardous-to-your-health.php]Read Column[/url]

[Rodolfo]

This is another interesting use of research numbers.

The companies that originated their conclusions chose to view the glass as 72% negative (17% + 55%) rather than just as 17% (or 83% positive because of the uncertainty). They built their 72% just by using the “not sure” 55% group as a negative response.

When people are “not sure” it means they DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN because a) they did not experience it themselves but may know others could have, or b) they ignore the problem even exists, or c) they may have heard about it but they honestly declared they are not sure because they have to confirm it on their own experience to declare otherwise, etc.

Apparently the planned objective for the publication needed juicy numbers to justify the point they wanted to make anyway and 17% was considered insufficient to support it so they added the other 55%, when the reality is that 83% “do not believe” so, and the 17% of believers are not necessarily made of respondents that said “we positively know there is a problem because we experienced eye problems ourselves”.

Until a serious study is made numbers should not be manipulated that way.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[ccclvib]

Congratulations, Rodolfo. You've definitely got a better answer from the same data. Anyone who thinks "uncertain" is a negative really isn't paying attention.

[Roger Halstead]

A small, but not insignificant portion of the population is sensitive to "flicker" induced seizures and also vertigo.
The brain tries to make sense of the image from both eyes. It expects them to be pretty much the same, but when you get alternating images *some* people have a problem reconciling the images. These are from non 3DTV research. OTOH the "flicker effect" seizures and vertigo are well documented and typically are triggered by a flicker in the 15 to 30 cps range. It can be a serious problem for some people when looking toward the setting sun through the propeller on a landing aircraft. Still most people are highly adaptable. In one experiment subjects were fitted with glasses that *inverted* the image. After about two days the images suddenly righted, but then taking the glasses off gave an inverted image and the mind had to again go through a period of adjustment. (Doesn't that sound like a fun two days?<:-)) )

Myself, the "Old" two color glasses and images to produce stereo gave me a whale of a headache. I can just barely discern a 30 cycle flicker, while some gamers are able to still see it at higher frequencies.

I would not say these are "health issues", or dangers created by 3DTV. They are existing issues, or conditions to which some people are predisposed, that 3DTV *may* or might trigger. OTOH eye strain seems like a good possibility for *some* individuals. Just ask most eyeglass wearers what it was like getting used to bifocals. However all but a few survived the experience to the point where they don't even notice the bifocal. OTOH going down stairs does take some getting used to. <:-))

[Rodolfo]

Sorry that you experienced 3D problems, my comments were only addressing the way some manipulate numbers to create a panic piece based on "believes", rather than real cases of people actually having those problems. The industry is still working on that.

The uniqueness of the experience reminds me of some people seeing the famous rainbow effect with 1-chip DLP color-wheel designs. Like those, there will be people that had and will have problems with 3D. I am not negating that unfortunate fact. I am criticizing the way numbers are misused, and intentionally obtained from an audience that may not even have problems, if they even experienced 3D yet.

The survey could have more value if it started with a statistical set of individuals that experienced 3D; at home with active-shutter glasses, and at the theater with passive polarization glasses; then ask to those groups how many of them had problems; temporary discomfort during the viewing, and/or after the viewing, or became actual health problems, etc.

Instead, the survey is based on "believe" or "not believe", and the data is obviously manipulated to support a prearranged agenda. Unfortunately, copy-cat journalism replicates the information to create their own "panic" pieces for a profit from the ads revenue around the sensationalist piece, rather than putting a professional/responsible stop there and wait for hard data from real cases to properly serve the public and the industry.

I personally (and most people I know) did not have one single eye/discomfort/health problem with any of the 3D technology I experienced out there (active, passive, auto-stereoscopic, dual/single front projection, holographic, etc). Having said that, I do have concerns with the image quality/distribution systems/ display compromises of 3D as it is being implemented, but that is a subject I will discuss in a few articles that are coming out soon.


Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Roger Halstead]

I agree with you wholeheartedly and understood your point. <:-))
It's much like a study that asks if you'd "like" to purchase a new HD set next year, instead of do you "plan" on purchasing a new set. Often what we want and what we purchase or don't purchase are quite different, let alone taking into account interference by the economy.

Roger

[720pete]

It should be noted that Strategy Analytics is not a "publication." They are a market research firm. And I don't see this as a "panic piece" at all.

Their statement was “…with 72% of the market either convinced of or unsure about potential 3DTV health and safety risks, the number one priority for 3DTV vendors and service providers needs to be messaging.”

I don't disagree. The #1 priority of 3D TV manufacturers should be messaging. 3D is largely misunderstood by much of the population.

Not long ago, I watched a fellow sit in a lounge area at Best Buy for 5 minutes watching a Samsung LCD TV show the 2D version of Monsters vs. Aliens while wearing 3D glasses. When I finally informed him that the 3D mode was switched off, he tore the glasses off, cursed Samsung under his breath, and walked away.

In the world of public relations, there are three groups of people - (1) those who agree with your position, (2) those who are opposed to your position, and (3) those who aren't sure. Usually group 3 is the largest. Group 1 is already on your side, and there's little you can do to change the opinions of group 2.

Clearly, there is a large "Group 3" out there when it comes to 3D. And it makes sense for TV manufacturers to set the record straight and not let perceived health issues dissuade consumers from buying 3D TVs. You will recall that earlier this year, Samsung in Australia published a substantial warning of potential health issues when watching 3D TVs. That is the sort of thing that rumors feed from if not clarified.

I would suggest that you check out the work done by Dr. Martin Banks at the University of California - Berkeley Human Vision Lab with respect to stereoscopic vision and 3D viewing. He has done extensive research in this area and came up with some very interesting conclusions about the limitations of vergence vs. accommodation (Percival's Zone of Comfort) and just how critical it is to format 3D correctly so as to minimize eyestrain.

In his presentation at the 2010 Tech retreat, he postulated that better than 15% of the population cannot see 3D correctly at all, due to various eye disorders or problems such as vertigo, seizures, etc. And the number may be higher.

17% of respondents thinking 3D creates health issues is not an insignificant number, particularly if they can influence some of the 55% of fence-sitters. So better communication and even some studies to settle the issue should be conducted by 3D TV manufacturers.

[Rodolfo]

I know some studies are being performed and I know of the one you mentioned.

The matter is that numbers were gathered, consolidated, and published, as far as I am concern that is a “publication” act. Others copy-cat the numbers and the analysis without any further added value and perpetuate the intention.

We see this differently because I was not the one reusing the material.

The firm obtained the numbers from “believe, or, do not know” type of responses and consolidated them as an issue to make their point, they could have instead consolidated them as 83% neutral of “do not believe, or, do not know” and still make a valid point of “needing public education” with even a 17% of “believe” (which is not “actually experienced health problems”).

Although I agree education is needed, I would not recommend for manufacturers to do the study, not even a consortium, it has to be independent to be neutral.

Until that study is done there is nothing to educate, other than a non-responsibility disclaimer like the Australian conpany preferred to do, obviously the company estimated that the losses in law-suits could be higher than lower profits selling less sets.

[Roger Halstead]

Looking at the figures between the study and the article there appears to be a correlation between those believing there is possible harm and the % of the population who are sensitive to the flicker in one form or another. Although it could likely be coincidence the 15% and 17% are a bit too close to dismiss off hand. It's certainly high enough for companies to issue statements as a CYA and it's high enough to call for some independent, legitimate studies to be done with a sampling large enough to statistically valid.

[ccclvib]

it's high enough to call for some independent, legitimate studies to be done with a sampling large enough to statistically valid.

Them you're going to get! Statistically valid, maybe, but there are "sue machine" attorneys out there who will probably be able to fund those studies with the intention of finding those folks who are affected - real or not. Not that I have any mistrust of those kinds of attorneys, mind you.