LCD and your eyes

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

According to The Conversation, by way of Scientific American, LED flicker can cause headaches.

Link.

People who are susceptible to such flicker would presumably also experience it on TVs, computer monitors, etc. There seems no reason to suppose that it would be restricted to tablets.

[Alohamora]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

No, it doesn't... not for me.

The old Kindle Touch with its 167 ppi (800x600 at 6 inch) was at least as good or better than most of the paperbacks I had back then. The Kindle Paperwhite with 213 ppi (1024x768 at 6 inch) was as good as a hardcover book printed on good quality normal paper. The KA1 with 300 ppi is about as good as a hardcover book printed on semigloss paper. (I dislike semi-gloss paper. My paper copy of Musashi is printed as such, as was my Dutch version of LotR).

In short, if you happily read paperbacks, especially older ones, a 167 ppi screen is enough. Everything above that makes it just better, but it's not required.

People telling me that they "can't read" anymore on anything less than 300 ppi, or "can't use a phone" with anything below FullHD on 5 inch (452 ppi) should be saying "I don't want to any longer because something better exists."

I haven't read happily read paperbacks in a very long time, probably close to 25 years. Back when I still read paper books at all, I sought out trade paperbacks, used and remaindered hardcovers and library hardcovers to avoid the fuzzy print on cheap paper of most mass market PBs.

I don't claim my preferences universally apply to every one. But I do claim consistency in strongly preferring higher resolution.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Alohamora

I don't claim my preferences universally apply to every one. But I do claim consistency in strongly preferring higher resolution.

I think the point that Katsunami is making is that there's a big difference between preferring to read on high-resolution screens (who wouldn't prefer a high-resolution screen?) and the claims that some people have made that they're unable to read on low-resolution screens. 20 years ago I was reading books on a Palm III which had about a 3" screen with a resolution of 160x160 pixels (which works out at about 50dpi), and we thought it was great, because there wasn't anything better around at the time. You make the best of what's available.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the point that Katsunami is making is that there's a big difference between preferring to read on high-resolution screens (who wouldn't prefer a high-resolution screen?) and the claims that some people have made that they're unable to read on low-resolution screens.

Yes, this.

Some people talk as if any device with a resolution lower than 300 ppi is completely unusable, even though those same people have been using such devices for 10-30 years (depending on their age).

I fully understand not wanting to use such a device because there is something better and you can afford it, but stating you can't use it is just not true.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the point that Katsunami is making is that there's a big difference between preferring to read on high-resolution screens (who wouldn't prefer a high-resolution screen?) and the claims that some people have made that they're unable to read on low-resolution screens. 20 years ago I was reading books on a Palm III which had about a 3" screen with a resolution of 160x160 pixels (which works out at about 50dpi), and we thought it was great, because there wasn't anything better around at the time. You make the best of what's available.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, this.

Some people talk as if any device with a resolution lower than 300 ppi is completely unusable, even though those same people have been using such devices for 10-30 years (depending on their age).

I fully understand not wanting to use such a device because there is something better and you can afford it, but stating you can't use it is just not true.

And when I posted "problems", I meant things like eye fatigue, blurry vision, ...

My first Eink reader was a Sony 505, and I could read for hours with no eye fatigue; with my 1st Gen IPad, my eyes would get tired after 15 minutes (and I didn't have the brightness blazing).

[maddz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the point that Katsunami is making is that there's a big difference between preferring to read on high-resolution screens (who wouldn't prefer a high-resolution screen?) and the claims that some people have made that they're unable to read on low-resolution screens. 20 years ago I was reading books on a Palm III which had about a 3" screen with a resolution of 160x160 pixels (which works out at about 50dpi), and we thought it was great, because there wasn't anything better around at the time. You make the best of what's available.

Yeah, I remember reading on my m500 on various Greek beaches. It was kept wrapped in a clear plastic bag to keep sand/salt/suntan lotion off it, and it worked very well. It was far preferable to filling my suitcase with 20+ paperbacks and still running out or reading material early in the second week. (It was about that time I downloaded the Baen Free Library...)

I suspect the m500 was one of the causes of the arthritis I have in both thumb joints...

[Alohamora]

I don't remember anyone here saying they *can't* use something less than 300 ppi.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

People who are susceptible to such flicker would presumably also experience it on TVs, computer monitors, etc. There seems no reason to suppose that it would be restricted to tablets.

Not that I said it was, of course.-)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by toddhicks209

You're really supposed to look at objects 20 feet away from your computer screen every 20 seconds.

If I'd do that, I wouldn't be able to get any work done.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Alohamora

I don't remember anyone here saying they *can't* use something less than 300 ppi.

Maybe not here, but on tech enthusiast sites (especially with regard to computers and phones) I see it all the time.

Statements such as "I can't use a 24 inch monitor at 1920x1200 anymore... it's not of this time. It should have 3840x2400 at the very least!"

Some even want it because it offers four times the working space. Yeah, but most people won't be able to read a 189 ppi computer monitor at a normal viewing distance; and if they can, they'd probably have a very hard time doing it.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Maybe not here, but on tech enthusiast sites (especially with regard to computers and phones) I see it all the time.

Statements such as "I can't use a 24 inch monitor at 1920x1200 anymore... it's not of this time. It should have 3840x2400 at the very least!"

Some even want it because it offers four times the working space. Yeah, but most people won't be able to read a 189 ppi computer monitor at a normal viewing distance; and if they can, they'd probably have a very hard time doing it.

Of course. You get used to something better and don't want to go back. I used to use a Pentium laptop with 32MB RAM, and a 800x600 screen. Sure I could "use" it but it'd be a miserable experience. I wouldn't be happy with it at all. I've already tasted better.

I can pretty happily read and use my 10" 1080p Windows tablet at 100% scaling(~200 PPI). I'd probably be okay with 3840x2400p monitor at 100% too. I'm near sighted and tiny fonts aren't a tremendous issue to me. Some people might find it too small. I even notice a sharpness difference between my 300PPI iPad and eReaders vs. My 500+ phone! Which many said was "impossible" and "pointless". Am I going to throw them out? No. But if 500PPI options become available I might consider them. It's just better.

[Question Mark]

Perhaps the levels of brightness on my computer and tablets are set too high because they tend not to be very comfortable for extended periods of reading. I would never read with the light on my ereader set that high. Certainly, I can remember times reading a paperback in the direct sunlight and then being temporarily blinded when going inside or moving into the shade.

On a somewhat similar note to the question regarding eyestrain and LCD screens, I have heard quite a number of people claim that they do a better job at catching errors when proofreading when they are reading from a printed page than staring at a computer screen. I, for one, find that to be the case. But, I've never attempted to see how proofreading on an eteader compares to proofreading on a computer vs the printed page experience.

But, perhaps it has nothing to do with the screen and more to do with the elapsed time which comes from printing off what you have written as I can usually catch even more mistakes the further away in time I am from my initial draft.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Question Mark

Perhaps the levels of brightness on my computer and tablets are set too high because they tend not to be very comfortable for extended periods of reading. I would never read with the light on my ereader set that high. Certainly, I can remember times reading a paperback in the direct sunlight and then being temporarily blinded when going inside or moving into the shade.

On a somewhat similar note to the question regarding eyestrain and LCD screens, I have heard quite a number of people claim that they do a better job at catching errors when proofreading when they are reading from a printed page than staring at a computer screen. I, for one, find that to be the case. But, I've never attempted to see how proofreading on an eteader compares to proofreading on a computer vs the printed page experience.

But, perhaps it has nothing to do with the screen and more to do with the elapsed time which comes from printing off what you have written as I can usually catch even more mistakes the further away in time I am from my initial draft.

On the light, easy way to find out if the light is too high, just turn it down a bit and see.

On proofreading on paper, you can't accidently bump the mouse when trying to reach for s highlighter.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

On the light, easy way to find out if the light is too high, just turn it down a bit and see.

On proofreading on paper, you can't accidently bump the mouse when trying to reach for s highlighter.

I prefer the traditional blue pencil as memorialized by Kelvin Throop III.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

On the light, easy way to find out if the light is too high, just turn it down a bit and see.

On proofreading on paper, you can't accidently bump the mouse when trying to reach for s highlighter.

I could try adjusting the light settings, and perhaps I would if reading on a computer or tablet gave me headaches. However, my current settings, while perhaps not optimized for reading, work well for the various uses I put such devices to.

I suspect part of the reason why reading on a dedicated ereader is more comfortable is that I can optimize the settings for reading and then more or less just leave them as is.

Battery life and being able to read in direct sunlight are added benefits.