Reflective displays vs Emissive displays

[mdp]

Originally Posted by viceant

Reduction to absurd is for maths issues and this is not maths. You're, also, making a straw man. Placebo effect is real and too much people thinks homeopathy works

Absurd is a logical argument, which of course can be used outside formulas.
I cannot see where where would be the strawman: maybe (I suspect) you are not seeing that I am stating that what is important is elsewhere (not the scientific demonstration of eye damage but the empirical feedback of comfort or discomfort, which should be enough), and you are calling that a strawman.
I do not see the stretch between placebo and the idea, in synthesis, "if you have to squint it is "probably" not good for you - do not wait for an article".

* "Probably", there, was an understatement, rhetorically put there to simulate what the "first person" would think on the spot.

I think my point should be clear, but Viceant, can I friendly suggest that while you from time to time check an article built on lab results, you strictly avoid disregarding your bodily feedbacks - I hope you do not, but you write as if? Yes I know that sugar does fool your appetite and that some substances create fake hunger etc., but really, the perception of discomfort has a purpose.

[viceant]

I don't like to argue because too many people do it in order to win a battle and feel well/superior to someone. I dislike feeling vanity and self pitty.

Enviado desde mi Redmi 3S mediante Tapatalk

[leebase]

People spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. When you do, someone is going to call you on it. "I like eInk, I find reading on devices uncomfortable". No debate. Personal preference is what it is.

"eInk is better for your eyes as reading on devices, science says, is bad for your eyes". This is bunk. Not that there aren't studies that make such claims....and are repeated uncritically in many publications. But they have ALL been TERRIBLE "science" so far.

I just put one such study through the ringer. If you have a really GOOD study, then please link to it and lets take a look at their methodology.

I do believe that some people can have problems that most people do not. I am just such a person when it comes to these first person, immersive video games. They make me literally sick. I get motion sickness playing them the same as if I were stuffed into the back seat of a car on a sunny day and tried to read a book. I will throw up if I don't stop.

Most people do not have the same reaction to these games as I do. But just because most don't -- what I experience is very real.

I do know that SOME people have formed their opinion of reading "on devices" from reading on their computer monitor screen. They haven't adjusted the brightness. They are not reading at a comfortable "book distance". Some have tried all the tricks and it's still not a good experience for them.

Some have tried to make the case that there is something special about "reflected light" verses "direct light". That is laughable. If you are SEEING....then light is hitting your retina.

The reason why reflected light feels more comfortable (not always true in extreme brightness or dimness)....is that reflected light is always in balance with the ambient light of the room. It is the extra contrast of a too bright device that makes reading uncomfortable for most every body who tries to read a too bright device.

But, one can turn down the tablet light to make it balance with the ambient light. For most people, this will indeed result in a comfortable reading experience. YMMV.

In fact, there are more options with a phone or tablet. When I'm reading an actual book, I have to have a lamp for a good deal of my reading time. You can get tired reading more quickly if your lamp is too bright. But with my devices, I can read in MUCH lower room light without discomfort because I can pick a dark background with only slightly lighter text. Very low contrast, very comfortable in dim lighting. Very marriage friendly when reading in bed with a sleeping spouse.

That's personal preference. True. The debate isn't "is your way more comfortable than my way". It's "your way is damaging your eyes, science says". That's just bunk.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by viceant

I don't like to argue because too many people do it in order to win a battle and feel well/superior to someone. I dislike feeling vanity and self pitty

But that on this side was not intended. You are invited to re-read my post #31 - you apparently replied before I finished editing it.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by leebase

Most people do not have the same reaction to these games as I do. But just because most don't -- what I experience is very real.

This is another point in my argument that maybe was not that explicit. Not only you should check for dis/comfort (and as stated I know that very many people do not - do not regulate position, which is also relevant to on-screen reflections, screen brightness, environmental light etc.), that is also valid for /your/ dis/comfort, which may be different for other individuals. This, assuming that the different individuals actually check instead of just being passive and unaware.

I point this out because I have seen people react very strongly to set-ups of mine, surprisingly to me.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

Some have tried to make the case that there is something special about "reflected light" verses "direct light". That is laughable. If you are SEEING....then light is hitting your retina.

I believe I have shown that it is scientifically proven that light before and after reflection is different, or rather can be different. No, not everything you are seeing is created equal - not quite as simple as "if you see, light hits the retina." It is even possible too fool your brain into seeing colors that are not there, and other optical illusions. And that starts at the retina, as the retina itself is part of your brain. Or more specifically from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina

In vertebrate embryonic development, the retina and the optic nerve originate as outgrowths of the developing brain, specifically the embryonic diencephalon; thus, the retina is considered part of the central nervous system (CNS) and is actually brain tissue. It is the only part of the CNS that can be visualized non-invasively.

Wikipedia is telling the truth there, but you would have to verify that with a scientifically acceptable source.

I prefer my lighted eink reader, because no matter how hard I try, my tablets never quite look the same to my eyes. And I tried to see if a bigger tablet is more comfortable to read on, not to prove or disprove a point.

[MGlitch]

If I prick myself with a thorn, I don't need a doctor to write a paper on why pricking yourself with a thorn hurts. Nor do I need them to write a paper on why I shouldn't prick myself with a thorn.

If reading on a LCD screen hurts your eyes, don't do it. If it doesn't, then go ahead.

[leebase]

Duckie....what? Nothing in what you wrote addressed whether light that bounces is different than Light that is “direct”....when intensities are the same.

Have you seen the size of your pupil? Just how big of a slant do you think that reflected light is reaching your retina. Quick tip...it’s just as direct else you wouldn’t be seeing it.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

...as the retina itself is part of your brain. Or more specifically from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina

Wikipedia is telling the truth there, but you would have to verify that with a scientifically acceptable source...

I am not going to get involved any further with your misleading superficial expertise with respect to optics and electromagnetism but will venture a little into biology and point out that the retina is not part of the brain. It, like the spinal cord is actually part of the central nervous system.

You may want to claim that the central nervous system is part of the brain but you might like to consider that such a claim would mean that your brain then extends from the inside of your skull right down to your ass.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

People spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. When you do, someone is going to call you on it. "I like eInk, I find reading on devices uncomfortable". No debate. Personal preference is what it is.

"eInk is better for your eyes as reading on devices, science says, is bad for your eyes". This is bunk. Not that there aren't studies that make such claims....and are repeated uncritically in many publications. But they have ALL been TERRIBLE "science" so far.

I don't know the science, but I know from experience that LED screens cause "dry-eye" in my right eye (if I use my laptop, tablet or desktop too long I have to lubricate my eye with drops). Probably because I had Bell's Palsy. Front lit readers don't do this. I can read for hours without this issue. That's basically all the "science" I need on this subject. I don't know the "hows or whys" what I know is the results in my case.
...

Originally Posted by leebase

That's personal preference. True. The debate isn't "is your way more comfortable than my way". It's "your way is damaging your eyes, science says". That's just bunk.

I don't know if "dry-eye" is permanently damaging or not, but I DO know that the fact that it is very uncomfortable is not bunk. And that this is one of several reasons why I prefer an eInk Reader.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I am not going to get involved any further with your misleading superficial expertise with respect to optics and electromagnetism but will venture a little into biology and point out that the retina is not part of the brain. It, like the spinal cord is actually part of the central nervous system.

You may want to claim that the central nervous system is part of the brain but you might like to consider that such a claim would mean that your brain then extends from the inside of your skull right down to your ass.

The spinal cord is simply transmitting signals to and from the brain. The spinal cord doesn't think, it just does. The retina, on the other hand, has actual thinking cells inside, five layers of them. Those five layers of signal processing should impress you by the sheer amount of processing that can be done.

And thanks for the insult about my brain reaching my arse. It means you are drawing the wrong conclusions based on outdated information, specifically about the retina.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I am not going to get involved any further with your misleading superficial expertise with respect to optics and electromagnetism but will venture a little into biology and point out that the retina is not part of the brain. It, like the spinal cord is actually part of the central nervous system.

You may want to claim that the central nervous system is part of the brain but you might like to consider that such a claim would mean that your brain then extends from the inside of your skull right down to your ass.

Looking at the quote in @DuckieTigger's message which I have taken the liberty of re-quoting above, your response seems a bit unnecessary. Though one might wonder what our old buddy the apatosaurus with the enlarged portion of the spinal cord near the tail that was actually larger than the brain would have to say about this.

Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The spinal cord is simply transmitting signals to and from the brain. The spinal cord doesn't think, it just does. The retina, on the other hand, has actual thinking cells inside, five layers of them. Those five layers of signal processing should impress you by the sheer amount of processing that can be done...

Technically the brain comprises of the brain stem (the smallest part of the brain, located beneath it), the cerebellum (located lower rear of the brain) and cerebrum (the main mass of the brain). It does not include the retina, but you can add any part of your anatomy to it that you like.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DNSB

...Though one might wonder what our old buddy the apatosaurus with the enlarged portion of the spinal cord near the tail that was actually larger than the brain would have to say about this.

Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Perhaps the spelling should have been apatoasssaurus .

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I don't know the science, but I know from experience that LED screens cause "dry-eye" in my right eye (if I use my laptop, tablet or desktop too long I have to lubricate my eye with drops). Probably because I had Bell's Palsy. Front lit readers don't do this. I can read for hours without this issue. That's basically all the "science" I need on this subject. I don't know the "hows or whys" what I know is the results in my case.
...

Turn the brightness way down. LCD/OLED displays have orders of magnitudes better contrast than E Ink so one can have the screen brightness much lower than that from a reflective screen. Don't use your eye issue as an excuse.

The better reading apps (PocketBook and Moon+ Reader, for example) allow one to reduce the brightness to very low levels. In a lit room they will reduce the brightness to a level where the screen background is basically dark but which in a dark room provides a very low level glow. Again, because of their contrast abilities one can read on them with much lower illumination than reflective displays.

The main issue with LCD/OLED is that people just do not know how to set them up and so blame the display, whereas E Ink works out of the box but that within the limits of its less capable display. One can see something similar in the threads on the recent upgrade of Calibre Viewer, people cannot work out even the most basic things for themselves and then claim the upgrade is rubbish . Similar applies to PC displays, people complain of headaches, eye discomfort, etc. and when investigated it is because of too bright a display; it is not unusual to find that the display brightness is set as high as 100%.

But I know, one will never convince E Ink fans that any of that is so, psychological capture and promotion of the "wonders" of their reflective displays by ereader manufacturers. I am not married to either of transmissive or reflective, I use both transmissive and reflective displays but choose that which is most technically competent for the task - in the case of reading transmissive is the most competent when set up properly.