Quote:
Originally Posted by NullNix
Sure, though it'll do no good. Attached: one in lighted room with light at 13; one in a darker (but still lit) room, light at 8. No shots in full sunlight (because it's night here), none in a dark room (because the camera canna handle it without flash).
Note: shadow cones are clearly visible in the dark shot, but they're visible only to the camera: the same is true of the apparent brightness variation/shadow cone on the right of the light shot. To my eyes, both are entirely invisible and the screens are unvarying brightness fields: a clear consequence of the human eye's logarithmic intensity response versus a CCD's more nearly linear one.
This effect in particular is one reason why all such pictures should be more or less totally ignored, and posting them is a waste of time: the light you're seeing when you look at those images is the light from an almost-certainly-uncalibrated LCD screen with brightness response that depends mostly on screen age and manufacturing variation, after being picked up by a camera CCD with completely different optical properties to the human eye; the result bears little to no resemblance to the light being emitted by the actual Kindle and which your eye will thus see completely differently. To my eye, and I believe to any normally functioning human eye, the dark shot of my particular Kindle screen would look like an unvarying colour plane. I have extremely good night vision (perhaps to compensate for my crazy myopia!), normally go around with the house lights off, and routinely read on intensity zero on the PW1 after only a few minutes of adaptation time. If anyone can spot light intensity variations on this Kindle, it should be me. I can't. Amazon did not optimize their Kindle screens and lighting systems for cameras: it optimized them for human eyes. Unfortunately I have no way of detaching your eyes and transporting them here to see what I see... ah well!
As with all of biology, the degree of logarithmic response varies between individuals and can even vary between eyes in one individual (it is in part a property of both the neural architecture in each eye, and of the neural architecture of the visual cortex). It is quite possible that the people perennially dissatisfied with lighted Kindle screens simply have a less intense logarithmic response than those who are satisfied. I wonder if people who are dissatisfied have relatively poor night vision and are easily dazzled in bright sunlight? (Though this is also influenced by factors varying from rate and degree of iris dilation through to things in the higher levels of the visual cortex, so again shouldn't be taken as any sort of real evidence of anything. Vision is *complicated*.)
|
It does look like you have a small hair in the lower right hand corner. But I couldn't see lights.