A study from UK charity The Eyecare Trust has revealed that six million Brits cannot use 3D technology due to problems with their vision.  Dharmesh Patel, chairman of The Eyecare Trust, spoke to MCV and said,
“It’s more than you think, about 12 per cent have 3D vision problems and you’ll find a similar percentage worldwide.3D is appearing everywhere and there’s loads of people complaining that they can’t see it.”
“There will be people who have not attended an eye examination in years and are probably unaware they have a lazy eye or something like that.”
When we have discussed 3D in the past a number of comments have been made by TSA readers that they cannot use 3D due to vision problems. I am surprised the figure is as high as 12% as that will surely impact on sales of 3D TVs. You lose 12% of your market straight away but then consider a family where one member has vision problems – they are hardly going to fork out £2000 for a new TV that one person cannot watch.
Personally I am not convinced by 3D but I have a horrible feeling as soon as Killzone 3 comes out it will be time for a new telly. Sadly for gamers with vision problems 3D will have to wait until R2D2 style holographic projectors arrive.
Source: MCV
teflon
Wouldn’t R2D2 style holo-projectors be a bit limiting? The resolution sucked, there were obvious scan lines and everything had to be in Blue…. I refuse to buy holo-projectors till these things are fixed!
In the mean time, I’ll be sticking with my 3D TV with glasses
*end message from 2031*
Doddsy
I think I will be in that 12%. I haven’t tested it but I have macular degeneration in my left eye :(
amiga_dude
From rest of 56 Million people in the UK can not due to banks f-up the world.
Bilbo_bobbins
ha ha. And more people will be losing jobs this year, only about 600,000 min. Oh !
cc_star
Another headline in a parallel universe
“54m Brits can use 3D”
bunimomike
You left the other bit off
“54m Brits can use 3D… but most can’t be arsed to look like a bunch of speccy tw***”. :-) Can see why the full headline didn’t fit, though. ;-)
hazelam
speccy tw***?
really? are we back in the playground?
Roynaldo
and 51 million of those cannot afford the TVs
cc_star
But as people come to replace their TVs…
There is nothing about 3D pricing that wasn’t said a few years ago about HD.
People couldn’t see the point in more resolution, people didn’t want the high prices etc etc
Roynaldo
£2000 minimum price? I dont remember that.
cc_star
What you talking about Roy?
£850 here.
Its no different to HDTV adoption at all
Roynaldo
im looking at the article, it says “£2000 for a new TV that one person cannot watch.” I assume that means that they start at £2000.
I meant I dont remember HD TVs starting so high up. If im wrong im wrong, im just going on what this article says and my lack of knowledge from the integration of HD.
All i know is I bought my HD tv for £200 about a month after I bought my PS3. Was never much into technological advancements at that time, was neck deep in work.
What is the difference between start prices of a middle range HD and 3D tv then? or bottom of the barrel range if it makes it easier.
jimmy-google
Surely those that can’t see 3D can’t actually real items in 3D either?
Maybe I’m over simplifying it but if each eye is given one image than it works in the same way as a person seeing a 3D item normally. Surely these 6 million people can’t legally drive either as you require depth perception to drive.
Doddsy
It’s not that simple,those unable to perceive 3D images cannot perceive real 3D objects within 30 cm or so from their face. Beyond that point the brain is unable to use the two eyes finding a difference in distance so just works it out on past experiences.
This is why someone, like me, with macular degeneration on one eye, when thrown a ball can see it perfectly until the point where it switches from the point where the brain guesses to when it can work out, where the brain gets confused and you lose your ability to judge the distance.
The 3D glasses work on the eyes seeing different images and this is the close range depth perception so you are unable to percieve it correctly or at all.
m61726b
I have the same thing. My brain has trained itself to ignore my left eye now. No depth perception and no 3D.
Remember them fuzzy magic eye picture, didn’t work for me.
bajere
Wont make any difference what so ever. 3DTV’s are HDTV’s with the OPTION of viewing in 3D. If you cant view 3D, then don’t activated it o_O
Doddsy
It means that if you have a family, and one has a faulty eye, then none of you can use it with the current TVs as the image will look fuzzy to the person not wearing the glasses or unable to see it
bajere
yea, that will happen. will also happen when i have a load of mates over to watch boxing, but don’t have enough glasses for 10 people. But it wont stop 3DTV taking off, you wont have a choice to buy any other TVs in a few years time apart from 3D ready sets. Just like you wont get hold of an SDTV in Currys today.
The whole 3D thing will be purely optional, and will always be optional IMO. The only way that 3D will become standard is for the sets to be created so that you don’t need glasses to view the 3D, and then give the people who cant view 3D, glasses to cut the vision to one of the two images…All seems to much hard work, so i would say it will remain optional until some sort of hologram TV becomes available.
I do seem to think people (not directed at you, Doddsy)are trying to shoot down 3D as a gimmick, or too expensive, no content, and to much hard work with the glasses ect. People should relise, that all the same was said for HD, and now you can no longer by a TV that cant show an HD picture. 3D is going to be an optional extra that you can choose to use or not to use. just like HD is today. It will come, and it will be available, so just pop down the shop and take a look. if you like it, use it, if not forget it exists and use the HD mode.
jimmy-google
There are some TV’s that can be seen in 3D and 2D at the same time.
fps_d0minat0r
with all due respect, its bad luck.
if a family is playing football and one person is missing a leg (or both legs), they have to sit out.
or if one member is deaf, they cant listen to music, commentary, dialogue but the remaining family members wont give tv/music will they?
cc_star
Yup,
Its not like a family never bought a TV because one person is blind, or missed out on a radio because someone is deaf. The reality is different from what the well meaning charity talks about.
However, it is a point worth raising and the 12% is higher than most people would have suspected.
Charmed_Fanatic
My friend can not watch 3D as it makes her sick, so she deffo will not be buying anything 3D
bajere
active shutter glasses should remove that. The crappy 3D you get at the cinema did make my eyes hurt after the 1st scene, but with the Sony Bravia active glasses, it didn’t even feel like i was looking through them.
I would like to try a few other manufacturers, see what the picture difference is like.
cc_star
Maybe 4K 3D will help
This simultaneously displays both images at the same time…
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/09/toy-story-3-in-4k-3d-does-higher-res-equal-higher-enjoyment/
Again though as an early tech the results vary – but perhaps one day? maybe?
Bilbo_bobbins
I don’t have problems watching it at first, but my eyes get tired and I start getting headaches. So basically, I wont be buying a 3dtv if I can’t watch a film without getting a headache. Playing games will be even worse I reckon. 12% is alot more than I expected actually. I still am not convinved by it all anyway.
Apnomis
I saw a 3D TV at a Sony Centre at the weekend. The price of the TV wasn’t too bad (compared to other Sony prices in the shop) but it’s the £100 per pair of glasses that is the killer, especially if you have a big family!
To be honest I was a little disappointed with it, the glasses are actually very nicely designed and comfortable to wear even over normal glasses, but I could notice a distinct flicker in the image. The guy in the shop said some people would notice the flicker, but suggested it may just be the environment in the shop because everyone notices the flicker when looking at a normal TV and I was probably just aware of the flicker on the surrounding screens (the demo model was only a 40″ and it was surrounded by non-3D TVs)
So he told me to get a bit closer to the screen and he put on the Motorstorm 3D demo – wow! The demo of Alice In Wonderland left me luke warm, but watching your car speed along in 3D is truly game changing, the sense of depth and the awareness of how far a car is in front of you is amazing, it added so much more to the experience.
So for me it’s gaming that will drive the 3D uptake, seeing the depth in the screen is stunning. When Killzone 3 and GT5 come out in 3D I may not be able to resist getting one, I think 40″ is a tad too small to get the full effect though – it’ll need to be at least 46″ IMO…
bajere
I wasn’t impressed with the film demo, but did you see the aquarium demo? it was as real as being in the zoo! very impressive. I liked the motorstorm demo, but i didn’t like the speedos, looked blurry. but overall, i was very impressed also.
cc_star
I’m not sure what movies are shot in 3D with proper 3D cameras (like Avatar), but I do know with Alice In Wonderland & Clash of The Titans it’s just an added effect, which gives poorer results to the real thing (however it’s cheaper to do it that way, so I expect many more movies to do the post-processing 3D rather than the real thing)
Bilbo_bobbins
cc, that is the reason 3D will flop, because to be honest, when they convert it, it never looks good. Clash of The Titans was terrible and I walked out of the cinema in discuss. I agree that the gaming sounds alot more impressive and could push it.
bajere
i watched avatar and was very unimpressed. but the aquarium demo was amazing. maybe your right and they use different cameras and settings.
cc_star
Avatar isn’t available in 3D outside cinemas yet
The 3D Blu-ray will be available in time for Christmas
bajere
i meant avatar in cinema
hazelam
the new resi film is being filmed in 3d, apparently using the same cameras cameron used for avatar, so the 3d should be good at least.
i watched titans in 3d, and there were points where it just looked a little off.
and i went to see alice in 3d, and there was a bit near the beginning that was in 2d, i thought it was just the pre rabbit hole bit but some of that was 3d, and it started out 3d, i thought they’d spliced in the wrong bit of film or something but then i thought they had digital projectors in the 3d screens, mind you i read a review of another film on AICN that mentioned the same thing happening.
anyway, i think 3d is great if it’s done properly it does look good, but it’ll be a while before i get a 3d tv, only just finished paying for my hdtv.
gazzagb
On the other hand, this means that 54 million Brits /can/ use 3DTV, which is a massive market.