Reflective displays vs Emissive displays

[leebase]

Don't forget....LCD screens send light DIRECTLY INTO YOUR EYES...like lasers. Instead of bouncing off something first which TOTALLY changes things.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You keep doing this, implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be being paid off. ?

Only when people wilfully ignore facts and are obviously taking a line that ONLY supports a powerful commercial interest.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by leebase

Don't forget....LCD screens send light DIRECTLY INTO YOUR EYES...like lasers. Instead of bouncing off something first which TOTALLY changes things.

Not remotely like lasers.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Only when people wilfully ignore facts and are obviously taking a line that ONLY supports a powerful commercial interest.

That doesn't describe this conversation at all.
There is no reliable scientific basis for claiming that using tablets damages your retinas. You are spreading FUD, and people are calling you out for it.
In order to have ignored facts, you would first have had to present any.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That doesn't describe this conversation at all.
There is no reliable scientific basis for claiming that using tablets damages your retinas. You are spreading FUD, and people are calling you out for it.
In order to have ignored facts, you would first have had to present any.

I'd only quibble with "no reliable scientific basis". Yes...it's unreliable...but there are studies that if you only read the headline...would give SOME people concern.

But when you actually look at what was studied...you'll find that there are SO FEW people involved that one couldn't POSSIBLY claim a scientific ANYTHING had been established.

Let's look at one such headline: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/healt...ns-eye-damage/

Digital Screens May Cause Long-Term Eye Damage, Study Says

>>Lee commentary: OMG....Eye Damage from digital screens, I must stop

"While anyone with a desk job knows that screens can cause eyestrain, most clinical resources maintain that daily use, even if temporarily uncomfortable, does not lead to long-term damage. UCM’s study, however, suggests the opposite—though more research is needed to say that for sure."

>>Lee commentary: Well...MOST clinical resources say everything's OK. But UCM studay says JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Just...The...Opposite. OMG....the opposite of ok is total eye destruction!

It's a SCIENTIFIC study by a UNIVERSITY. What more does one need to know?

Well...further in the article...

"The UCM team tested the effects of LED exposure on rats, placing six tablets emitting white LED light around the animals’ cages. Tablets were turned on for 16 hours, then turned off for eight. After three months of this pattern, the exposed rats showed 23 percent more retina cell death than the control group. Gene expression that promotes cell death was also heightened in the tablet group."

>>Lee commentary: WTF? This was a study on some rats? Rats they put in constant 16 hour exposure to light (and you know it had to be max light)...for three months. Um....anybody hear reading their tablets for a constant 16 hours a day for months on end? Anybody? Well, if you are a rat...I suggest you don't do this.

But wait....there is MORE...

"Researchers did find that rats looking at tablets equipped with an LED-blocking filter called Reticare (which was developed by a team from UCM) did not experience greater eye cell death."

>>Lee commentary: Well....looky here. the same university has ANOTHER team that's developed a "LED-blocking filter" they are selling. And just coinky-dinky, here's a "scientific study" letting you know you REALLY need to buy their product!

FUD FUD FUD FUD

Update: I forgot to tacke the "23% more retina death". 23% more than what? The control group. Is that bad? Is that a level of "retina death" that one would ever notice? Who knows...it's never defined.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

The LED lighting inherently has blue which is bad for the retina...

I won't bother pulling your whole thread to pieces but will just limit myself to your first claim. Apart from clarifying that point my doing so will demonstrate the ease with which much of the rest of your peddled claims can be dismissed as being very misleading.

It is absolute foolishness to claim that the blue in LED lighting is bad for the retina; if that was so then one had best never go outside because there the levels of the blue end of the spectrum are many times higher; Zeiss, for example, claim blue exposure from an outdoor overcast sky is around 30 times that from a typical LCD display. So, if using that estimate, thirty hours outside exposure to an overcast sky equates to 1 hour exposure to a typical LCD display. If there were to be macular damage from LCD/LED lighting then it pales into insignificance compared to that from normal environmental exposures.

Furthermore, exposure to natural light from the sky exposes one to UV levels which really are high enough to cause tissue damage as many suffers of prematurely aged skin or of skin cancer will tell you. Those high levels of UV are also implicated in eye diseases such as macular degeneration, cataracts and pinguecula, all of which are common especially in low latitudes and areas where skies are clear (such as in much of the Southern hemisphere). {EDIT: we know that UV levels in LCD/LED lighting are very low in comparison to that in natural outside light - we do not get sunburnt faces, or even a hint of that reading on tablets, phones, using PCs, watching TV, using LED light bulbs, etc.}

So if you are peddling fear of LCD/LED lighting because you have a fear of macular degeneration from it, and you were honest with yourself you would never go outside and allow yourself to be exposed to natural light from the sky. If you were honest to others you would also be telling them to stay out of natural outside light.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by leebase

Don't forget....LCD screens send light DIRECTLY INTO YOUR EYES...like lasers. Instead of bouncing off something first which TOTALLY changes things.

I think they get muddled up between their phone's flashlight and reading app.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by leebase

...Well...further in the article...

"The UCM team tested the effects of LED exposure on rats, placing six tablets emitting white LED light around the animals’ cages. Tablets were turned on for 16 hours, then turned off for eight. After three months of this pattern, the exposed rats showed 23 percent more retina cell death than the control group. Gene expression that promotes cell death was also heightened in the tablet group."

>>Lee commentary: WTF? This was a study on some rats? Rats they put in constant 16 hour exposure to light (and you know it had to be max light)...for three months. Um....anybody hear reading their tablets for a constant 16 hours a day for months on end? Anybody? Well, if you are a rat...I suggest you don't do this.

But wait....there is MORE...

"Researchers did find that rats looking at tablets equipped with an LED-blocking filter called Reticare (which was developed by a team from UCM) did not experience greater eye cell death."

>>Lee commentary: Well....looky here. the same university has ANOTHER team that's developed a "LED-blocking filter" they are selling. And just coinky-dinky, here's a "scientific study" letting you know you REALLY need to buy their product!

FUD FUD FUD FUD

Update: I forgot to tacke the "23% more retina death". 23% more than what? The control group. Is that bad? Is that a level of "retina death" that one would ever notice? Who knows...it's never defined.

Furthermore, rats are nocturnal or otherwise keep to the dark with eye physiology to suit that environment. I would think it a reasonable assumption that if the rats were exposed to natural light if caged outside under the sky for 16 hours a day with no cover (well, lets say just 12 hours a day as the sun is pretty weak in high latitudes where one can easily get 16 hours) they would likely suffer retina and other eye damage very much more quickly than if there were to be any if exposed to LCD displays. I would not be surprised if they also displayed behavioural problems too. I wonder if any study has been done .

[DuckieTigger]

@AnotherCat: You are forgetting that the human eye has an iris that regulates how much light hits the retina. Outdoors does not necessarily mean more light hits the retina, only because it is brighter.

[viceant]

Sorry, I didn't mean to start these "E-ink wars".

In fact, I like E-ink mostly because I'm afraid light-emitting screens could damage our eyesight, but people have argued with me and now I doubt whether it is true or not.

[Quoth]

There isn't much risk with light emitting screens, but then outside isn't much risk either, though some places (hot or snow) it's better to have UV blocking sunglasses, or at least glasses that block UV. The cornea does block a lot of UV.

Certainly eink without the front light is more pleasant for many and whatever risk there might be gazing at LEDs with blue/UV content in near full field of vision and relatively close there is none with ambient lit eink. Cheaper and more efficient so called "white" LEDs are the worst as they have a much higher blue & UV content. Also there is less risk (whatever that risk might be) from LED room lights as you don't stare at them, you are looking at reflected light which reduces the blue and especially UV more than the rest of the spectrum.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

@AnotherCat: You are forgetting that the human eye has an iris that regulates how much light hits the retina. Outdoors does not necessarily mean more light hits the retina, only because it is brighter.

No I did not and I wonder what makes you so determinedly claim so when you haven't yet asked if I had forgotten it or not ?

The pupillary response is only capable of regulating some of the range of light intensities that we normally encounter. I am not going to tell you why because you will only want to pick holes in what I say rather than ask for clarifications if needed. So I will set you a little task which I am sure you will undertake if you have a genuine interest. All information needed for the task will be found on the internet.

1. Get the typical human eye diameters for maximum and minimum dilation. Calculate the ratio of the areas (light intensity passed is in the same ratio). Let's call that A.

2. Get the typical values for the ends of the easily comfortable range of light intensities the eye can manage (e.g. compare a lit room with a bright sunny day) and calculate the ratio of the intensities. Let's call that R.

Now investigate and report back as to whether or not R is very much different to A. Comment on what this means with respect to how much the pupil can control the intensity of light entering the eye when going between differing light intensity environments. If you find that the pupil cannot effectively manage the light intensities identify the other mechanisms that are used.

Also investigate and report back why the pupil response differs between individuals and according to situations, and the significance of those things when going between differing light intensity environments.

Then report back as to the veracity of your claim that I had "forgotten that the human eye has an iris that regulates how much light hits the retina". State whether or not what you have found means that it is safe to assume that the pupil will contract sufficient to alleviate the much higher intensity of blue light outside in comparison to that from a typical device.

As can be seen, if I had to explain all of that stuff (even just to the limits of my very small knowledge of a complicated subject that crosses several sciences) it will be fairly lengthy and tiresome. So it seems to me it is fair enough for me to just give you the leads into being able to explain it to yourself and ask you to report back your conclusions.

{For others, DuckieTigger is likely to find that A typically equals around 15 or so and R in excess of 250. So the pupil can control light intensities over a ratio of around 15:1 whereas the change in environmental light levels we regularly traverse is in the ratio in excess of 250:1}

[leebase]

If you are experiencing “light intensities” reading on your tablet....turn the brightness down. Pick a nice comfortable color scheme (I am partial to light grey over a green tinted dark grey).

It can and should be very comfortable reading on a tablet. You have so much control over the light level than reading a book by lamplight or sunlight.

If your pupils are stressed trying to make themselves small....you have the brightness set too high.

The advantage of eInk and paper is that the light level is equal to the ambient light level. You can adjust your tablets light to ALSO be in balance with the room light.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you are experiencing “light intensities” reading on your tablet....turn the brightness down. Pick a nice comfortable color scheme (I am partial to light grey over a green tinted dark grey).

It can and should be very comfortable reading on a tablet. You have so much control over the light level than reading a book by lamplight or sunlight.

If your pupils are stressed trying to make themselves small....you have the brightness set too high.

The advantage of eInk and paper is that the light level is equal to the ambient light level. You can adjust your tablets light to ALSO be in balance with the room light.

I know that many people can read comfortably on LCD tablets or phones. If it works for you, great.

I've tried to read on my phone and no matter how I adjusted the settings I had eyestrain issues if I read for more than a short time. It's ok for a few minutes but if I want to spend several hours on the weekend reading I just can't do it on LCD. I know there are a few others on Mobileread who have reported the same thing. Everyone's eyes are different.

If reading on a tablet works for you, fine, but please don't assume that tweaking the settings will make it work for everyone.

[leebase]

Reading can be tiring for any bodies eyes. I’m debunking the myth that poeple's eyes are being damaged due to the mysteries of a tablet or a phones light.

Not a single one of the studies I’ve read has ever mentioned that they tuned the tablet light to have the best chance for comfortable reading. Not one. The tests are DESIGNED to find a problem....and even then they fail or their technique is obviously flawed as in the study AI just presented.

Really...16 hours of light per day for rats for 3 months? Tell me that researcher really thought such a study would shed any light (pun intended) on whether humans should avoid reading on devices.

Do I believe some people have issues? Yes. Do I believe SOME of those people might have a better experience if they learned how to turn down the light? Yes. Everyone? No.

EInk readers have added lights...why? To make it easier to read in the dark. Reading a lighted device in darker scenarios is less straining on the eye than reading a book in the dark.

BUT - is that any different than a device at that point? I’d like to see a study about that. Compare a lighted eInk device to a tablet who’s brightness is set to the same level. There is nothing magical about “bounced light”. If you see .... then light hit your retina.