If that were true people with only one eye would be nauseous all of the time.
As I understand it (which I may not) -- this paper (which purports to be the only paper to have tested this effect), says that they test divergence by having the images displayed at various distances to replicate varying levels of divergence.
They see that the closer it is to a realistic vergence/accommodation match the more comfortable the eyes.
However -- it should obviously be easier to tune a 3D image which is at a realistic distance than one which is not.
It seems to me, they may very well just be showing that effect, just showing that it is easier to adjust the illusion to render realistically at distance. This would make perfect sense.
As I understand it (which I may not) -- this paper (which purports to be the only paper to have tested this effect), says that they test divergence by having the images displayed at various distances to replicate varying levels of divergence.
They see that the closer it is to a realistic vergence/accommodation match the more comfortable the eyes.
However -- it should obviously be easier to tune a 3D image which is at a realistic distance than one which is not.
It seems to me, they may very well just be showing that effect, just showing that it is easier to adjust the illusion to render realistically at distance. This would make perfect sense.
This would then just argue for better tuning.