h a l f b a k e r y
I think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
It is recommended that computer users look away and at a distance from the PC every 20 minutes or so to reduce or eliminate headaches, blurred vision, redness in the eyes, fatigue, eye strain, dry eyes, irritated eyes, double vision, vertigo/dizziness, polyopia, and difficulty refocusing the eyes.
worked in small cubes with tall walls, and in windowless IT equipment closets, I did not have the opportunity to look at distant objects except during breaks or lunch.
I have not tried computer glasses (there seems to be disagreement on whether or not they work) that may assist in diminishing these problems, but intend to.
If the eye is fooled by 3D displays and adjusts focus to see at different perceived distances, I would like to to see 3D software that will make visual images, especially text, appear at varying distances, at changing time intervals, forcing the eyes to adjust to the perceived changes as necessary.
Edit 2014-11-23: 3D can be displayed with or without glasses. See link below. I placed a long lasting search engine link in the URL field to avoid putting in a link that may disappear tomorrow. To make the text readable at a distance, the words could be displayed in large letters on a distant billboard, for example.
3D viewing without the need for special glasses
Technology allows 3D viewing without special glasses. [Sunstone, Nov 23 2014]
Working close up and indoors may be making nearsightedness an epidemic
"There's a major lifestyle shift that's been brewing over the last 30 years," including kids and adults doing more close-up work and spending more time indoors.." [Sunstone, Dec 02 2014]
||OK, you've identified a need - but how would the eye be fooled, exactly? Would you need to wear special glasses to work with this software? (That wouldn't be a show-stopper - I'm just asking).
||Cool. This will be a thing. I'm thinking polarised lenses and a gradually changing depth of field. (/) + (\) = (+)
||I've read that one of the simplest fixes for that list of
problems is to make sure you blink your eyelids every few
||3D systems create the illusion of 3D by having a
separate image for each eye, but I've never heard
of any attempt to create a 3D system that varies
the focal length. Even Oculus Rift just has a
manual adjustment for that to get a clear picture
in each eye.
||I think that one of the primary reasons that you
need to look away from your monitor is to vary the
focal length. It would probably be possible to
create a monitor with lenses that change the focal
length without even providing a 3D effect, or you
could just have a pair of glasses with multiple
lenses that adjust occasionally to exercise your
eyes while looking at a fixed distance.
||If you want a _true_ 3D perception, even
adjusting the focal length of left and right images
dynamically is not enough because you always
have the foreground and background objects at
the same focal length. It isn't possible for the
human eye to focus on a physically close and a far
object at the same time. The only only way I can
think of to accomplish that would be to have 2D
microparallax ( I just made that term up). The
point is that normally a 3D system can take a
shortcut and provide just two images for left and
right eye. In a system using lenticular lenses, for
good quality there need to be many more images
because the position of the left and right eyes are
not known, so at any location in the viewing area,
the left and right eye need to get different
images. To make a relatively smooth transition if
the head moves left or right, there probably need
to be several images (say 4) for the distance
between eyeballs (say 2"). If you want the
viewing area to be a 16" wide, that means you
need 8*4 = 32 images. In order to require eyes to
refocus, the left and right side of the pupil need
to receive a slightly different image as well as
every point in between. In order to get a fairly
clear picture, it will need many images. I'm not
sure if we can get away with it, but let's assume
we need 16. And assume the pupil is 1/8". That
means we need 2/(1/8)*16/4 = 64 times as many
images as was required for a lenticular lens system.
(64*32 = 2048) But wait, there's more. To get the
3D perception, we only needed to worry about
left/right. But actual focus requires thinking
about the vertical size of the pupil as well, so we'll
need many images in that direction as well.
Assuming we can tolerate a much narrower
viewing angle, lets say 4 inches, then we need
16*4*8 = 512, giving is a grand total of 2048*512 = 1
||Essentially what I'm talking about is a digital lens. I
bet my assumption of 16 images across the pupil is
actually not nearly enough to avoid significant
blurring, but in any case I think such a technique
will need to wait until technology has improved
dramatically and/or will need to find some less
||Also, I'd say your link to a search engine is pretty
much useless. You might as well just say "Google
'3D without glasses'. the point of a link is that we
can discuss something specific. For example,
when I ran that search, the first hit was dromax-
3d. They use lenticular lenses which creates a 3D
effect, but doesn't change the focal length.
However, if I refer to that link, I'd bet that in less
than a year the #1 hit will change. If you link
directly to dromax-3d, in half a year, they may no
longer be the #1 hit in the search, but their web
site might still be active. In 10 years that web site
may be gone entirely, but such is life...
||If you really want to make sure a link is accessible
in the future, you can tell archive.org to save a
copy and include a link to that as well.
||I think it might be simpler to do in the hardware, a screen on wheels with motors, it would do a drunkard's walk avery once in a while.