Developer warns VR headset damaged eyesight

[Arika]

12 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Basically, being glued to Facebook at a young age causes increased stupidity and reduced cognitive ability. Who knew

i think that's more the fault of facebook as opposed to phones though

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, porina said:

The screen might be physically close, but the optics correct for that and make it appear further away. You can see it as like wearing glasses.

Except the problem may still be in the fact that the brain is telling the eyes the object is further away than the actual focal point is (poor VR visual implementation as opposed to across the board VR issue), which causes the muscles to in the eye to reset to a different focal length.   I remember old jewelers complaining of weak eyesight in the eye they use the monocle/magnifier in all the time.  I don't know how much is like an old wives tail and how much is genuine, suffice to say with something like this it is definitely worth being aware of and discussing until decent evidence is presented.

 

 

 

[porina]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except the problem may still be in the fact that the brain is telling the eyes the object is further away than the actual focal point is (poor VR visual implementation as opposed to across the board VR issue), which causes the muscles to in the eye to reset to a different focal length.   I remember old jewelers complaining of weak eyesight in the eye they use the monocle/magnifier in all the time.  I don't know how much is like an old wives tail and how much is genuine, suffice to say with something like this it is definitely worth being aware of and discussing until decent evidence is presented.

I mentioned it twice in this thread already, there is a mismatch between apparent distance and focus distance, because there is a single fixed focus distance in VR regardless how far whatever you're looking at is. It is probably less of a problem for more distant objects, but might be more of a problem for objects relatively close to you. I'm not medically up to talk about what impact that might or might not have longer term with regular exposure to this. The same concern was raised when 3D cinema became a thing. 

[Kisai]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:13 AM, MageTank said:

Take it for what you will, but my brother has been using VR since its release and has used every VR headset out on the market for what I would consider "unhealthy" amounts of gameplay and still has perfect vision, the only person in my immediate family that does not need glasses. 

 

Now it's entirely possible that different people react differently, but I'd hesitate to automatically attribute VR headsets to failing vision without a larger sample size to test with. My vision failed me long before I got into computers and I hardly watched TV as a kid, so genetics likely screwed me more than anything I could have done to harm my vision. My same brother was the one that had his face inches away from the TV during Pokemon and to this day has near perfect vision despite sitting in front of a large ultrawide monitor coding throughout the day.

Your brother has been using VR since the 90's? I don't think so.

 

The problem with VR is that it's an immature technology, and it goes away for a while until something improves that makes the tech less bulky, but it's still bulky now. You have three competing problems with HMD's, Eyes, Ears and the vestibular system. VR messes with all three, with Eyes not being able to see depth, Ears not hearing things from where they should, and the vestibular system believing you've swallowed poison and trying to make you vomit.

 

There's also the weight of the HMD, which is not , and likely never will get to a point where it's wearable by everyone. 

 

People need enough space to use VR, and most people who do not own their own home, do not have a space for it. And what happens if you trip over something like a ottoman or a cat. A completely opaque VR experience, though more immersive is also super dangerous. So what if you trip and face plant into the VR HMD and cut up your eyes in the process?

 

There's a lot that can go wrong with just casual use of VR, right now the recommended thing is what, 20 minutes at most? And HMD's aren't really capable of the frame rate necessary (With most not hitting the necessary 90fps, and many barely hitting 45, instead using tricks like ASW to smooth out the frame rate.) This results in a hodgepodge of experiences where one person's good experience is another's nightmare. Aiming for 95% of people who don't experience a problem still leaves 5% who do, and that's like having allergies to a food. 

 

Back before LCD systems were common, the "don't sit so close to the TV, it will ruin your eyes" was a common refrain for CRT's, and CRT's had x-rays to deal with, and emitted heat and static electricity if you managed to have your head close enough to feel it. I don't believe VR is "bad" in that way, but it's still another form of putting things too close to your hear for comfort, and it's very likely that some people will damage their eyes from overuse of the kit. People do that now with LCD screens, they sit in front of the computer or TV for 16 hour gaming sessions, and don't get up and stretch.

[colonel_mortis]

@Strider1974 your topic has been moved to General Discussion because, as explained earlier, it doesn't meet the Tech News posting guidelines

 

[Kilrah]

On 6/11/2020 at 10:07 PM, 5x5 said:

The proximity of the light emitting diodes to the eyes and retina is a definite concern.

Makes no sense at all.

 

And your eyes have no idea "they're looking at VR", they receive the exact same image they would when looking outside an a nice green healthy pasture...

Only additional strain would be if you deliberately misadjusted the IPD adjustment, but you don't do that since it feels incomfortable.

[5x5]

2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Makes no sense at all.

 

And your eyes have no idea "they're looking at VR", they receive the exact same image they would when looking outside an a nice green healthy pasture...

Only additional strain would be if you deliberately misadjusted the IPD adjustment, but you don't do that since it feels incomfortable.

Artificial strong light beaming directly into your eyes at close proximity is not a green pasture at all....

[Kilrah]

7 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Artificial strong light beaming directly into your eyes at close proximity is not a green pasture at all....

Light is light, there's no such thing as natural or artificial. It's orders of magnitude less strong than daylight, and distance is completely irrelevant. 

If anything sunlight is more "dangerous" because of the UVs it contains...

[5x5]

41 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Light is light, there's no such thing as natural or artificial. It's orders of magnitude less strong than daylight, and distance is completely irrelevant. 

If anything sunlight is more "dangerous" because of the UVs it contains...

If you truly believe that, I won't even bother explaining why a VR headset would be bad for one's eyes. Have fun destroying your eyesight if you use a VR headset extensively. It's the primary reason I have not invested in one until the tech reaches a point where it's actually safe for prolonged use.

[5x5]

8 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

According to every eye doctor I ask they say no to screens doing eye damage, and that's an old wise tale that parents say to kids for other reasons.   The most screens typically do is what they refer to as computer vision syndrome which is basically just eye strain.

That's the thing - at normal viewing distance (50-100cm) it's mostly fine. At 5cm distance, it's going to be detrimental if you spent hours using it each day. You'll have trouble focusing on objects or reading small text at minimum and you are likely to feel extensive fatigue or pain in worse cases.

[Kilrah]

But it IS NOT at 5cm distance. 

Physically yes, but optically it is at an average distance everyone's eyes are focusing comfortably at around 2-3m. 

You don't understand lenses.

 

 

[MageTank]

On 6/14/2020 at 5:07 AM, Kisai said:

Your brother has been using VR since the 90's? I don't think so.

The context of the thread was about VR gaming headsets, you knew exactly what I was referencing. If you want to be petty about the specifics, then yes, he actually has used them "since the 90's" if we count those awful Sega VR racing arcade systems at Magic Mountain and other family arcade joints here in Ohio.

 

My point is that time can't be the only correlation because my brother has been using every modern VR gaming headset for the past 4 years for several hours a day and experienced no ill side effects. 

[Kisai]

17 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Light is light, there's no such thing as natural or artificial. It's orders of magnitude less strong than daylight, and distance is completely irrelevant. 

If anything sunlight is more "dangerous" because of the UVs it contains...

You do realize that "white" and "blue" LED's are from UV right? They absolutely do emit UV, and that's primarily why it took forever to get white and blue LED's in the first place. We've had red/amber/yellow/green LED's for a good 20 years before blue became commercially available (in 2001.)

 

Also why LED backlit screens are now destroying retina's due to the blue light. This is why many new screens have blue-light reduction settings, and even operating systems have options to reduce blue light.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

The context of the thread was about VR gaming headsets, you knew exactly what I was referencing. If you want to be petty about the specifics, then yes, he actually has used them "since the 90's" if we count those awful Sega VR racing arcade systems at Magic Mountain and other family arcade joints here in Ohio.

 

My point is that time can't be the only correlation because my brother has been using every modern VR gaming headset for the past 4 years for several hours a day and experienced no ill side effects. 

That's great for your brother, but your brother isn't everyone. It's the same kind of ignorance one has when they don't have food allergies and think everyone who does is just a picky eater instead of it being deadly.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's great for your brother, but your brother isn't everyone. It's the same kind of ignorance one has when they don't have food allergies and think everyone who does is just a picky eater instead of it being deadly.

It's no more ignorant to blame an unrelated coincidence for an underlying issue. Take a look at my post again.

On 6/11/2020 at 9:13 AM, MageTank said:

Take it for what you will, but my brother has been using VR since its release and has used every VR headset out on the market for what I would consider "unhealthy" amounts of gameplay and still has perfect vision, the only person in my immediate family that does not need glasses. 

 

Now it's entirely possible that different people react differently, but I'd hesitate to automatically attribute VR headsets to failing vision without a larger sample size to test with. My vision failed me long before I got into computers and I hardly watched TV as a kid, so genetics likely screwed me more than anything I could have done to harm my vision. My same brother was the one that had his face inches away from the TV during Pokemon and to this day has near perfect vision despite sitting in front of a large ultrawide monitor coding throughout the day.

It's not wise to ignore context when it is convenient to your point. I addressed that this might impact people differently, but also expressed my hesitation to consider this an absolute fact without a larger sample size to test against. This is applicable both to the person claiming VR negatively impacting his vision as well as my brother being unaffected.

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

You do realize that "white" and "blue" LED's are from UV right? They absolutely do emit UV

Sure, but nowhere near what daylight contains... If we can't look at a screen then we absolutely should never go outside. 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Also why LED backlit screens are now destroying retina's due to the blue light. This is why many new screens have blue-light reduction settings, and even operating systems have options to reduce blue light.

You realize that several studies have since pretty much disproven that, and it's at most been a convenient marketing bullet point and cash grab for sellers of "anti blue light glasses", right?

And ths issue was never about "blue light is bad for the eyes", it was "blue light before bed time might cause poor sleep".

[MageTank]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

One thing people tend to ignore is that some people are just screwed genetically, or have some other issue related to health, that can actually impact their vision.   However, as you mentioned, because the VR headset is there they associate it as the causation rather than consulting a doctor on the matter at hand.   This is actually far more common than not, and annoys most actual doctors.   I've been guilty of that with concerns over medication, and it turns out what I was reading was old news that has been discredited in the past 5 years.   Or, I was blowing it of proportion which non-doctors tend to do.   Fun fact, diet can actually impact your vision.

Yeah I pretty much lost the genetic lottery with vision taking after my mothers side of the family, all of whom required glasses at an early age, while my brothers took after my father and all of them still have great eyesight. My father is in his mid-50's and just now required some basic reading glasses as he started to find it difficult to focus on text while programming.

 

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

You realize that several studies have since pretty much disproven that, and it's at most been a convenient marketing bullet point and cash grab for sellers of "anti blue light glasses", right?

And ths issue was never about "blue light is bad for the eyes", it was "blue light before bed time might cause poor sleep".

I have several friends that swear by those amber tinted lenses, but I just can't tell a difference in "eye fatigue" when I tried a pair. Now transition lenses and anti-glare coatings, I can definitely get behind those, lol. Grew up my entire childhood without transition lenses and when I got a job I sprung for the tinting and that was a major improvement.

[Kisai]

22 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Sure, but nowhere near what daylight contains... If we can't look at a screen then we absolutely should never go outside. 

 

You realize that several studies have since pretty much disproven that, and it's at most been a convenient marketing bullet point and cash grab for sellers of "anti blue light glasses", right?

And ths issue was never about "blue light is bad for the eyes", it was "blue light before bed time might cause poor sleep".

Hmm

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365

Quote

Risks from blue light

It all comes down to this: consumer electronics are not harmful to the retina because of the amount of light emitted. For example, recent iPhones have a maximum brightness of around 625 candelas per square meter (cd/m²). Brighter still, many retail stores have an ambient illumination twice as great. However, these sources pale in comparison to the sun, which yields an ambient illumination more than 10 times greater!

 

High-intensity blue light from any source is potentially hazardous to the eye. Industry sources of blue light are purposely filtered or shielded to protect users. However, it may be harmful to look directly at many high-power consumer LEDs simply because they are very bright. These include “military grade” flashlights and other handheld lights.

 

Furthermore, although an LED bulb and an incandescent lamp might both be rated at the same brightness, the light energy from the LED might come from a source the size of the head of a pin compared to the significantly larger surface of the incandescent source. Looking directly at the point of the LED is dangerous for the very same reason it is unwise to look directly at the sun in the sky.

 

Compared to the risk from aging, smoking, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and being overweight, exposure to typical levels of blue light from consumer electronics is negligible in terms of increased risk of macular degeneration or blindness. Furthermore, the current evidence does not support the use of blue light-blocking lenses to protect the health of the retina, and advertisers have even been fined for misleading claims about these types of lenses.

 

I'll certainly believe that those blue light blocking lenses are a scam, but it's not without merit. Anti-reflective coatings on glasses have a very light yellow tint to them, likewise, setting the blue-light filter on the monitor down one notch gives the screen a slightly warm color to it. Less eye strain is the result of the "anti-reflective" property of the lenses and the matte screen. Your smartphone and tv have mirror-polish surfaces and lack that kind of filtering, so you would get more eye strain from that.

 

A VR HMD however is so close to your face that the bolded part of the quoted article still holds true. What may even be necessary for a VR HMD to not cause long lasting damage is to have purposely-built screens, not repurposed smartphone screens.

 

 

[Kilrah]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

A VR HMD however is so close to your face that the bolded part of the quoted article still holds true.

Not at all, you're not looking at an insanely bright source at all... it's actually less bright than your typical screen. Again the distance is completely irrelevant.

 

As your quote says it's talking ot sources so bright you literally cannot stand staring at them. Since when did that happen in a VR HMD, and if it did why wouldn't you turn the brightness down to something you can stand?

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Not at all, you're not looking at an insanely bright source at all... it's actually less bright than your typical screen.

 

As your quote says it's talking ot sources so bright you literally cannot stand staring at them. Since when did that happen in a VR HMD, and if it did why wouldn't you turn the brightness down to something you can stand?

You shouldn't need to manually adjust a device every time you go to use it. Your own EYES dilate, and if it hurts to look at something, it's because your eyes reached the minimum they can dilate. Hence you can't simply go "just adjust it".

 

For the sake of argument let's assume the problem is eye strain and not "white light containing UV rays is focused by lenses into your eyes to burn your retina", because the latter is likely hard to prove.

 

[Kilrah]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You shouldn't need to manually adjust a device every time you go to use it. Your own EYES dilate, and if it hurts to look at something, it's because your eyes reached the minimum they can dilate. Hence you can't simply go "just adjust it".

What the...

 

It's the opposite, if it hurts it's becasue your iris can't contract enough to block enough of the light... but no digital display and certainly no VR headset is able to put out that much light, and obviously nobody would design a screen so bright you can't stand it in the first place? And yes, brightness adjustment is a thing on pretty much every display...