LG OLED and 84″ Ultra Definition 3D TV at CES 2012 from Dave the Gadget Guy on Vimeo.

Yes, there are a few articles out there about this research.  Some of the writers actually read the paper while others merely read the article about the paper to write their article.  Most of them missed the point of the paper completely.

Long paper short – the focus of the study was not to discover that 3D causes headaches and eyestrain (which we already knew) but to figure out why it caused them.  We can now blame “vergence–accommodation conflicts” for the problem.  When we watch a 3D image on a screen our eyes do not resolve on a single focal point like in normal viewing but have at least two focal points  – the screen and the image that appears either behind or in front of the screen.  These two focal points are at different distances and therein lies the problem.  

They also discovered that  there is a relation bewteen the viewing distance from the screen and headaches, eye strain and dizziness.  If you are watching a 3D movie at a theater and get a headache or dizzy, move closer to the screen.  That will reduce the problem.

The hope is now that there is hard data on why some people get headaches and dizzy watching 3d content, film makers, theater designers and engineers will figure out a way to reduce or even solve that problem.

Stephen Hopkins over at CEPro.com feels that Mitchell is blaspheming and counters with the article “Ten Reasons Why 3d Will Succeed.”  He argues each of Mitchell’s points such as stating that 3-D glasses are temporary until auto-stereoscopic technologies develop, but he does not really say why  3-D will succeed.  Hopkins subtitled his article “Why 3D will find an important niche in the home theater experience” but fails to address this at all.

Take a moment to read through the articles.  Both Mitchell and Hopkins make good arguments, but they missed a few.  Here are my top 5 reasons why 3d could go either way.

1.  Avatar looked amazing in 3-D on a giant screen. It was very realistic and totally immersive.  At times I had physical reactions like motion sickness and vertigo because of what was happening on the big screen.  I do not think the move is going to look the same or even come close to achieving the same effect on my 47″ TV.  So how big a TV do you need to have until a 3-D movie or program gives you the same feeling it did in the theater – 50″, 65″, 80″, 100″? 

2.  I already wear glasses to watch TV as do millions of people.  I hate having to put on a second pair to watch a movie in the theater.   Doing that at home just to watch TV?  No way!  If I only had to wear one pair?  Maybe. 

3.  Right now content is limited but that will change.  The bigger question is will 3-D strive to be the standard format or is it going to become a feature used for special events and movies?  Is everything I watch like the local news eventually going to be in 3-D or will only programs like the Super Bowl or the Olympics be broadcast in 3-D?  I think 3-D will be adopted more quickly if only certain programs are in 3-D.   

4.  Gamers will be among the earliest adopters and will become the biggest proponents for 3-D technology.  Gaming, even more so than movies, is all about achieving an immersive experience.  Gamers want to lose themselves in the Game and that is what 3-D does the best. 

5.  The novelty might wear off quickly.  3-D movies have come and gone for decades.  We stand at the cusp where 3-D moves from being a gimmick to a legitimate story telling tool, but for every “Avatar” there will be a dozen “Clash of the Titans.”  Home technology fads come and go – it is too early to tell if 3-D will work in the home.