Is the inverted text better for your eyes?

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by BenG

As mentioned in a General Discussions thread, floaters are a lot less noticeable on a screen with a dark background.

Hmmmm. Now that's an interesting point.

[Pjama]

I’ve spent all week since Monday reading with the inverted text, and I’ve made it to Friday with 31% battery left over, I might even make it to Saturday, which would be a first for me with the Oasis. So it does seem to make the Oasis last longer. A large part of this is likely due to the fact that I’m not fiddling about with the light all the time, as in inverted mode I can just set it and forget it (at 2 brightness). I need to make the font super big to read it in the dark, but that’s fine.

I’ve been reading it all over the place this week, as I’ve had lots of doctor and dentist visits with my kids, and I have attracted interested glances, not sure if that’s because of the Oasis itself, or because of the white on black.

[HLS]

I do not like it but it improves battery life a great deal staying in that mode

[Tarana]

White on black is generally hard on the eyes than the normal black on white. However, if you have certain vision problems, the black background is beneficial. I have visual problems and had to end my membership at several sites because they took a fancy to a black background format that I simply could not read above 5 minutes. The slight greyed background here on Mobile reads is pretty easy to read. I can even read the small text, which is pretty amazing. Good type choice, IMHO.

[PGrace]

Please don't get too freaked out about blue light. Anyone that can see the sky is being irradiated by blue light. Your eyes are the product of 3 billion years of adaptation.

Blue light does interfere with sleeping - 3 billion years has not taken blue light at sunset into account.

UV light is a more serious problem, but white LED backlights are usually UV filtered except in really cheap hardware.

[Futuregrace]

Originally Posted by PGrace

Please don't get too freaked out about blue light. Anyone that can see the sky is being irradiated by blue light. Your eyes are the product of 3 billion years of adaptation.

Blue light does interfere with sleeping - 3 billion years has not taken blue light at sunset into account.

UV light is a more serious problem, but white LED backlights are usually UV filtered except in really cheap hardware.

It’s not that blue light harms eyes, but many studies have shown it to surpress making melatonin which is how our bodies prepare for sleep.

[hank]

I use my old Palm (Sony Clie TH55) when I want to read without blue light issues (older people have poor sleep at best). Amber text on black background and a yellow plastic film overlay blocks all the blue. That is reading close without glasses.
The Nook amber seems to be pure amber LEDs not the RGB mix other devices use. But I really miss being able to invert screen by choice

I know it should be possible on the nook since it inverts when the screen blinks.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Tarana

White on black is generally hard on the eyes than the normal black on white. However, if you have certain vision problems, the black background is beneficial. I have visual problems and had to end my membership at several sites because they took a fancy to a black background format that I simply could not read above 5 minutes. The slight greyed background here on Mobile reads is pretty easy to read. I can even read the small text, which is pretty amazing. Good type choice, IMHO.

I'm not at home, but I downloaded a "scriptlet" that converts black-background websites to white-background (with black font) sites because the black ones give me headaches. (Of course, TOO MUCH white background does the same thing to me :-) ). Let me know if you're interested, and I'll see if I can find where I got it.

[hank]

Originally Posted by PGrace

Please don't get too freaked out about blue light. Anyone that can see the sky is being irradiated by blue light. Your eyes are the product of 3 billion years of adaptation.

Yeah, but evolution only selects for the capacity to live to be old enough to reproduce, not to live longer and prosper into old age.
http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/wh...tion-is-ageist
===========
“Nature doesn’t give a damn about us after we make our babies. Natural selection is pretty much gone around age 40—and that’s where aging begins.”
===========

https://www.dogonews.com/2018/10/15/...rate-blindness

[j.p.s]

(Wrong thread)