3D Gives Me Headaches

I have to confess: something scared me. It scared me a lot. The source of my fear could be found in a recent Display Daily entitled “The Relationship Between 3D Cinema and Headaches.” What scared me were the cross-technology implications of the original Estonian study cited in this article. You see, the title could easily have been reworded in this way: “The relationship between 3D Virtual Reality and Headaches.” Given that much of the virtual reality world is also stereoscopic, I doubt the findings for a VR study would have been any different. And that’s not at all a helpful recommendation for a technology just now getting its legs in the industry.

So, I tapped into some high level expertise in order to bring a medical and scientific perspective to the table on this matter. I contacted some of the leading vision health experts in the world, asking them to respond to the Estonian research, hoping their advice would rescue us from this unwanted pseudodox. In next week's post, you will find their thoughts about this Estonian research, lest it be bruited about further. Stay tuned...

3D Dupery

It’s April Fools’ Day here in the U.S., so I wanted to pursue a topic consistent with the hoaxing season.  Yet, these unfortunate examples are no joke—or maybe the joke’s on you!

This is a test. Feel free to use your notes. Look at these exhibit hall booth pictures or videos, each featuring 3D products, which were taken at recent FETC (Orlando) and TCEA (Austin) conferences:

Exhibit 1


Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Next, look at this product:

Exhibit 4

What’s absolutely intriguing about each of these scenes is that they have nothing to do with Stereoscopic 3D. They demonstrate guerrilla marketing techniques, efforts at capturing the recent cultural fascination with all things 3D:   

• Exhibit 1 is a vendor marketing a type of 360^◦ teacher evaluation product. No stereoscopic here.
• Exhibit 2 is a media distributor advertising 3D simulations from a respected company—Cyber-Anatomy—but although the exhibitor advertises it as 3D, they only sell the rendered 3D versions (namely 2D), not their wonderful stereo 3D collection.
• Exhibit 3 shows the booth for the well-known Kid Pix software sold to elementary schools. But there is no stereoscopy here—it rendered 3D or paste-boarded 2D.
• Exhibit 4 is a new toothpaste product. ‘Nuff said.

Although truth and advertising are jokingly considered contradictory terms, let’s pause and consider what is actually happening on the exhibit hall floor. 

If I were a pessimist or a conspiracy theorist, I might call this approach misleading or beguiling, a clever ruse set up by dishonest wanglers attempting to cloak questionable marketing copy. Ignis fatuus.

On the other hand, this might be a very reasonable and benign attempt at marketing. In that case I would consider this approach to be little more than benefit by association or unintentional misbranding. Or you might consider this old-school branding—after all, rendered 3D and stereo 3D both use the ‘3D’ nomenclature.

But the more I think about it, and how ‘3D’ is hawked in person or in print in these exhibit halls or advertisements, I can see why many educators I talk with feel differently. They feel let down after visiting these booths in exhibit halls. It’s similar to the dozens of exhibitors that aim to jump on board the ‘green’ bandwagon by claiming their products are now green. The words canard, misrepresentation, or equivocation come quickly to mind. Mere semblance always frustrates educators. Remember that.

Best of Future-Talk 3D

It’s been a thriving year for the Future-Talk 3D blog, which has grown to nearly 2000 web impressions per month. As the year comes to an end, it is fitting to reflect on the most popular topical posts of 2011.  The top ten topical posts are presented below, in order of web impressions received:

1.      3D Myth Busting (most web impressions received overall)

2.      Why 3D Works

3.      BVS3D Case Study

4.      3D Myth Busting II

5.      What is eS3D?

6.      3D Content Update

7.      Research in Europe

8.      Past Research

9.      A 3D Salute

10.  What Really Matters

Actually, it’s quite thought provoking to speculate as to why these particular topics were “top of mind” for the diverse international audience that regularly follows this blog. Please let us know your hypothesis or thinking by posting a short comment.

Educational Effort

Clearly, one of the biggest challenges we face in 3D is educating the public. For example, did you know that:

• 53% of parents surveyed* believe 3D viewing is harmful to a child's vision or eyes?
• Nintendo warns in their posted health and safety information that children below the age of six should not use their 3D technology?
• Neither of the above concerns have a foundation in fact, based on past and current research?

* Based on the American Optometric Association's (AOA) 2011 American Eye-Q ® survey

As the K-12 educational advisor and member of the writing committee for the report, I am compelled to say that See Well, Learn Well is not only a significant national health report, but also an extraordinary educational tool for students, parents, schools, universities, manufacturers, and software designers alike. Not only is the main report well designed and classroom ready—Appendix C in the report offers a full range of websites, blogs, and other resources to extend your learning about the benefits of 3D in teaching and vision health. 

See Well, Learn Well is also supported by a rich and growing array of behind-the-scenes online resources. Go to 3D Eye Health for great videos and supporting information. This support site offers highly interesting treatments of 3D benefits, the 3D’s of 3D Vision, and how you know when it’s time to see an eye doctor. The site also offers a growing FAQ section with such timely topics as disinfecting glasses and how long a child should watch 3D.

Learn as much as you can. We are all a part of this important educational effort.

See Well, Learn Well

Late last week, after a year of eager anticipation, the American Optometric Association (AOA) released a new public health report “3D in the Classroom: See Well, Learn Well.” This national report recognizes a tremendous health benefit from viewing 3D and launches a two year national campaign to encourage the eye health of our nation’s youth. You can view or download the full report by clicking on the link above. 

3D Myth Busting II

Unfortunately, it’s time for another 3D myth busters posting, with the same hopes of correcting “some persistent inaccuracies, lest they lend themselves to the unfortunate role of myth-building.”

On September 7^th, I noticed an article published in the venerated Wall Street Journal: “Coming Soon to Schools: Dissecting Frogs in 3D.”  And then today, this news broadcast hit my email. I’d like to simply and briefly address three misconceptions:

“There are no health problems…as long as videos are kept to increments of 5-10 minutes.”

“No one wants to make our kids guinea pigs with new technologies”

“Financial concerns…”

So in the interest of further myth busting, here’s the truth, unembellished and straight up:

• Most educational 3D videos are already short in length (4 minutes on average—please refer to last week’s post). And classroom teachers don’t show 3D movies; they may use 3D vignettes or in-class simulations. Based on the See Well, Learn Well national health report being released in the first week of October, the only recommendation is to avoid showing 3D content for an entire class period, allowing the eyes to readjust to normal during the last ten minutes in class. There is no scientific evidence requiring such restrictive time limits (5-10 minutes) on viewing stereo 3D either in the classrooms, at the movies, or at home.

• Over my 37 year career in education, most often at the very vanguard of educational technology, I have kids have never seen kids become guinea pigs. Schools, teachers and classrooms take on the roles of pioneers, early adopters, followers, or late adopters. All is undertaken for the direct benefit of student learning.

• Costs are rapidly coming down. When I saw my first stereo 3D classroom in a community college 7 years ago, the cost of the project was $44,000 and funded by a federal grant. Three years ago, the cost fell to $15,000 per classroom in an Illinois school district. Two years ago, the cost approached $10,000 per classroom. At the start of our project in Boulder, I estimated the cost at much less than $7,500 per classroom ($4,500 without any software included). 3D glasses cost $150 a pair two years ago, and this summer I saw 3D active glasses offered in the low 30’s. Within two years, I expect the cost will approach approximately $2,500 a classroom, including software. (And remember one system was shared by 3 classrooms in one of our schools, by the way). Can you see the cost trajectory here? This happens with all cutting edge technologies, as they trace their pathway from innovation to systematic adoption. Costs come down.

Why Language Matters

“I remember sitting on a National Science Foundation panel some years ago, feverishly sorting through 10-12 semi-final proposals in a high-stakes review for a major grant award. As one particular grant came to the head of the queue for a thorough panel discussion, it was clear that the technology-based theme introduced in the grant had been misinterpreted by most of the distinguished panelists crowded into our luxurious hotel conference room. I carefully tried to explain the grant writer’s intent to my peer panelists, but lack of clarity won out. Since the theme was interpreted in completely different ways by the panelists, the result was inevitable: the grant, a quite promising technology proposal, was not recommended for funding.”

This personal experience reflects the challenges we face when we don’t subscribe to a common language—a shared understanding—of the technology we embrace. I believe that this has now become a paramount issue, one vital for claiming the hoped-for footprint of 3D technology in K-16 classrooms.

Over the last year, I’ve often experienced considerable misunderstanding about the term ‘3D’.  Some of the unfortunate negative effects I’ve observed firsthand include:

-         Customers and conference attendees don’t attend sessions offered on the topic

-         Conference organizers obscure 3D presentations by shunting them toward less desirable venues, times, or days—or they deny presentation proposals altogether.

-         National think tanks, committees, publications, or thought leaders offer only the slightest consideration of stereoscopic 3D in their thinking, planning, white papers, or initiatives

-         School technology leaders think it’s just entertainment, so it’s simply not on their radar

The above happen because decision makers (and I’ve talked to so very many) are very busy people, can’t always keep current in our constantly evolving technology landscape, and simply don’t understand what stereo 3D is (or they think S-3D is something that it is not).

If we are hoping to convince school district leaders, persuade a principal, or induce parents to encourage classroom investments in 3D technology, then we need to be sure we have the same thing in mind. If we are planning to sell to schools, persuade distributors to carry and support products, or engage integrators to make it all work, then we need to be speaking the same language. 


But is educational stereoscopic 3D somewhat different from what we think stereo 3D is? I think so. So please check back with us for a concluding blog post, as we offer a startling realization about the nature of S-3D in classrooms. Cue the mystery music…

A Common Language

Over the last year, I have overheard many 3D professionals label ‘true’ 3D as:

3D (just 3D)

Stereoscopic 3D

Stereo 3D

3D Stereo

S3D

More importantly, I have heard non-3D technologies portrayed as:

3D (just 3D)

3D-like

Monoscopic 3D

Non-stereo 3D

Virtual 3D

Pseudo 3D

Although most of the public simply uses the term ‘3D’, Chris Chinnock, president of Insight Media and publisher of Large Display Report has long fretted over the confusion our mixed-up terminology causes in the minds of consumers, educators, and decision makers. Chinnock, an expert in projection, 3D, and display technologies, suggests that we use the term “rendered 3D” to refer to CAD drawings and other animations (computer-generated imagery or CGI) that use light, shading, texture, or perspective to create a simple ‘sense’ of 3D.  He separates this type of imagery from “stereoscopic 3D” (or S-3D), which involves the use of left and right eye image pairs. Chinnock advises educators: “I strongly urge you to adopt this [terminology] in the education field to start to help differentiate the differences.  We need to start with a common language.”

In our next post, we will explain why a common language—a shared understanding—is so important. In the meanwhile, please try out this social experiment embedded below. Imagine you were planning a presentation on stereoscopic 3D, but really wanted to draw the attention of conference organizers and attendees. What terminology would you use and why? Please contribute below...

What's In a Name?

Throughout this blog, there is an ongoing debate thread about what 3D is and what it is not. You can follow that thread by reviewing any of the links below:

Olympics in 3D

3D @ ISTE 2010

TEDx DenverEd

3D Shoot

Stereo 3D Unpacked

3D @ ISTE 2011

Whether talking to parents, teachers, friends, relatives, professors, or casual acquaintances—it has become clear that the term 3D means different things to different people. Some think 3D is evidenced in Google Earth, when you zoom in to view a 3D-rendered scene; some think it is one of the 3D-like video games they play on their Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii; others think it’s nothing more than designing a 3D object using AutoCAD or SolidWorks; and still others see 3D as simply an entertaining app running on their Droid or iPhone.  Even more people feel 3D best describes an immersive virtual world such as Second Life. Sadly, none of these is what we mean by stereoscopic 3D. 

But this lack of shared understanding is now getting in the way. It’s getting in the way of teachers trying to explain it to principals; it’s standing in the way of resellers trying to sell 3D to education decision makers; and it remains a stubborn obstacle obstructing the pathway of 3D content providers trying to explain their visually rich offerings to all of the above-mentioned groups. So, in this and a short series of coming posts, we will attempt to conjure up a common language about what 3D is—with a surprise ending—how educational 3D is different, still.