Description

Stereoscopic 3D viewing can be achieved by projecting images to the two eyes with shuttering and filtered polarization. One important difference between these two methods is that shutter glasses require a flat frontal surface whereas filtered polarizing glasses do not. They each pose different challenges to spectacle wearers who require both prescribed optical correction and 3D glasses to see 3D content. To investigate the effect of prescribed 3D glasses on viewing experiences, habitual spectacle wearers were recruited from Pacific University (n=45, age range 18-40), USA, and Eulji University (n=145, age 18-60), South Korea, to test two types of 3D glasses: shutter glasses with stacked curved spectacle correction (SG), and single lens unit film patterned retarding glasses (polarized) with curved frontal surfaces (cFPR). Participants’ viewing symptoms, perceived immersion, and subjective evaluation of display quality were measured after 90-minute movie viewing. Participants were randomly seated at three different positions: the 2.1m and 25 degree viewing angle from the center of the display, the 2.6m and 0 degree, or the 3.1m and 25 degree. Prescribed cFPR glasses were more comfortable to wear and less visually intrusive than SG glasses. As a result, wearing cFPR glasses was less tiring visually and physically. Curved FPR glasses with incorporated optical correction afford better resultant display quality than SG glasses with stacked optical correction. Low powered optically prescribed 3D spectacle wearers perceived better display quality at the center and closer positions. Elder group (n=51, age 41-60) perceived less visual discomfort and better immersion after the 3D movie experiences. In conclusion, optically corrected 3D spectacle designs should incorporate the corrective power into the curve of the lens and avoid clip-on or stacked lens systems, which are less comfortable and can impede the view.

Included in

Optometry Commons

Share

COinS
 
Jun 7th, 4:15 PM Jun 7th, 4:45 PM

Experiences and preferences with prescribed 3D glasses

Stereoscopic 3D viewing can be achieved by projecting images to the two eyes with shuttering and filtered polarization. One important difference between these two methods is that shutter glasses require a flat frontal surface whereas filtered polarizing glasses do not. They each pose different challenges to spectacle wearers who require both prescribed optical correction and 3D glasses to see 3D content. To investigate the effect of prescribed 3D glasses on viewing experiences, habitual spectacle wearers were recruited from Pacific University (n=45, age range 18-40), USA, and Eulji University (n=145, age 18-60), South Korea, to test two types of 3D glasses: shutter glasses with stacked curved spectacle correction (SG), and single lens unit film patterned retarding glasses (polarized) with curved frontal surfaces (cFPR). Participants’ viewing symptoms, perceived immersion, and subjective evaluation of display quality were measured after 90-minute movie viewing. Participants were randomly seated at three different positions: the 2.1m and 25 degree viewing angle from the center of the display, the 2.6m and 0 degree, or the 3.1m and 25 degree. Prescribed cFPR glasses were more comfortable to wear and less visually intrusive than SG glasses. As a result, wearing cFPR glasses was less tiring visually and physically. Curved FPR glasses with incorporated optical correction afford better resultant display quality than SG glasses with stacked optical correction. Low powered optically prescribed 3D spectacle wearers perceived better display quality at the center and closer positions. Elder group (n=51, age 41-60) perceived less visual discomfort and better immersion after the 3D movie experiences. In conclusion, optically corrected 3D spectacle designs should incorporate the corrective power into the curve of the lens and avoid clip-on or stacked lens systems, which are less comfortable and can impede the view.