Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
No it didn't. Maybe you think it did for you. But it didn't for me.
|
Sure it did. You just didn't like the answer. There's a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
I thought you said you didn't have anything else to say. 
|
As did you, I seem to recall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
I don't consider it an "Apple to oranges" comparison. They both have lights. There are comparable sizes now. I could see discomfort due to weight or form factor, but there seems to be an abundance of reports of eye fatigue from LCD. Is it refresh rates? Light level? ...
|
The question you asked IS an "Apples to Oranges" comparison (as at least 2 other posters have commented upon).
You asked no questions about eye fatigue, or its causes, and I offered no answers in that regard. But only because I don't really care who does or doesn't get it, or why they do or don't. Your question was:
Quote:
Why don't those same people have the same problem when they switch to lit eink?
|
Which my reply answered (and others have already grasped).
I'm not one who prescribes to the notion that--lumen for lumen--direct light affects the eye any differently than indirect light does. I DO, however, prescribe to the notion the dimmer control on backlit devices has to be moved much, much farther to the negative in order to match the intensity of indirect, side-lit screens. Hence my Apples to Oranges answer. LCD needs more of an intensity
range to cover all conditions than side-lit eink does.
The same people don't have the same problem when they switch to lit eink, because they simply can't generate the same levels of intensity with the indirect lighting technology used by side-lit eink devices as they can with backlit LCD devices. Mostly because it's not needed. LCD needs
more intense backlighting for text to be legible in very bright ambient conditions. Eink requires
less indirect side-lighting in bright ambient conditions in order to be legible. Apples to oranges.