Can you read complete books on an LCD screens?

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

Nope...just me making a mistake. Ok, no movies. But you watch tv, right? Sit by a fire? Look into a burning log in a fireplace?

Use a computer for hours?

And I would characterize those as different viewing habits. I don't think it bolsters your case of "demonstrably NOT "because the light is shining directly into your eyes"".

I'm not saying there is a "difference" between direct/reflected light, just that your hyperbolic arguments doesn't make it so.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by leebase

Nobody seemed to pick up the lit match in a dark room example. I could add "watching a fire in the fireplace". Direct light into your eyes. Nobody complains about it. One of the joys of life is gathering around a fire with friends and family.

I noticed it but since staring at a lit match is unlikely to harm your eyes, it was of no importance to me. We turned our fireplace off after our first born started crawling around and was fascinated by the fireplace.

Some of this discussion reminds me of one site I worked at. There were signs all over the place stating "Do not look into laser with remaining eye". Over the course of the year I was there, we had three people suffer eye damage after removing their safety goggles. These were university educated supposedly intelligent people who decided that they did not need to follow basic safety instructions.

I will admit the laser glasses were a pain to wear much like trying to work inside with class 4 sunglasses.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I noticed it but since staring at a lit match is unlikely to harm your eyes, it was of no importance to me. We turned our fireplace off after our first born started crawling around and was fascinated by the fireplace.

Some of this discussion reminds me of one site I worked at. There were signs all over the place stating "Do not look into laser with remaining eye". Over the course of the year I was there, we had three people suffer eye damage after removing their safety goggles. These were university educated supposedly intelligent people who decided that they did not need to follow basic safety instructions.

I will admit the laser glasses were a pain to wear much like trying to work inside with class 4 sunglasses.

I have to wear them whenever I have to calibrate my laser. They are a pain to wear.
Apache

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by leebase

Oh..almost forgot. While people were tripping over my (should have been obvious) hyperbole about staring into the sun...

Nobody seemed to pick up the lit match in a dark room example. I could add "watching a fire in the fireplace". Direct light into your eyes. Nobody complains about it. One of the joys of life is gathering around a fire with friends and family.

Something must be in play with so many who can't seem to find a way to read on an LCD screen comfortably. It is demonstrably NOT "because the light is shining directly into your eyes".

Cuz....I'm pretty sure 98% of the folks who can't read on an LCD screen watch tv or go to the movies...where they stare at a screen beaming light directly into their eyes for hours.

I'm not going to argue about direct vs reflected light, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do so. But watching movies is quite different from reading long text. You look at a whole picture, instead of words or sentences. Reading requires you to focus your eyes more. I can read a text on LCD, but the longer the text, the less comfortable it is. My eyes get tired. And yes, they won't get as tired as quickly while watching a movie, but even then I don't like to watch a movie in a completely dark room. The contrast hurts my eyes.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DNSB

"Do not look into laser with remaining eye".

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The contrast hurts my eyes.

I think we've established "high contrast hurts your eyes". I've even had eye strain from reading a real book out in the bright sun if the paper is white enough.

But folks here CONTINUALLY trot out the "direct light" clap trap. So even if that's not you...it's worth pounding into the ground for the rubbish that it is...time and time again.

[leebase]

Interesting that the poll to date has more than half the people able to read comfortably on LCD. And we know that some of the people who said "no" were speaking about preference.

Your honor - I move for a directed verdict of Not Guilty for LCD screens for most people.

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

...

Your honor - I move for a directed verdict of Not Guilty for LCD screens for most people.

Counselor, I don't believe you've thought this through. Motion denied. And don't waste my time with your goobly gook in my court.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

I think we've established "high contrast hurts your eyes". I've even had eye strain from reading a real book out in the bright sun if the paper is white enough.

But folks here CONTINUALLY trot out the "direct light" clap trap. So even if that's not you...it's worth pounding into the ground for the rubbish that it is...time and time again.

I don't know why you think that you've established that "high contrast hurts your eyes". (unless you are specifically talking about *your personal eyes*. In that case, never mind) For me, the more contrast the better. If I could get an e-reader with a pure white screen and pure black text, I'd be in heaven. I'm also one who reads with the light on my e-reader set to *at least* 10 or sometimes higher, and I usually read in pitch darkness.

To answer the question in the poll, yes...I *can* read a whole book on an LCD screen, and I have, many times. I prefer to use one of my e-readers, though, mostly because they're lighter and have longer battery life.

Shari

[leebase]

Originally Posted by John F

Counselor, I don't believe you've thought this through. Motion denied. And don't waste my time with your goobly gook in my court.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't know why you think that you've established that "high contrast hurts your eyes". (unless you are specifically talking about *your personal eyes*.
Shari

It's a matter of degree. You are speaking of black on white, and I'd bet in a decently lit room. A VERY bright white light in the dark...I'm gonna bet that will fry your eyes and every one else.

I'm not speaking of "I like the original eInk dark beige on light beige" low contrast scenario.

More like "when I walk into my office at night and turn on the computer monitor in a dark room"...kinda contrast.

Even with my new paper white, it doesn't have near the contrast "in the nice way" that my iPad mini has. And under regular room light, the iPad mini is easier to read on because of that -- IMHO.

Rather than blame "direct vs indirect light" - we are talking about "when your eyes pupils are dilated to see in very dim or no light --- and then you come across a very bright light". It hurts because you aren't supposed to have your pupils wide open when bright light appears.

[gmw]

As far as I can see you have "established" exactly nothing except that you have strong opinions. A little bit of credible evidence would go a long way. Anyway, I suspect there may be some confusion/talking-at-cross-purposes when it comes to contrast. Display contrast has several variations. Generally when someone is talking about issues of screen brightness they don't refer to it as contrast, even though they can be related.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by leebase

Rather than blame "direct vs indirect light" - we are talking about "when your eyes pupils are dilated to see in very dim or no light --- and then you come across a very bright light". It hurts because you aren't supposed to have your pupils wide open when bright light appears.

Yes, that's something you'll always see in those "tests" that are heavily in favour of e-ink devices. They have a dimly lit room with the tablet at full sunlight blast.... If I would turn up the indirect light of my One to 100% I know my eyes will be fried just the same as I would turn on the direct light of my tablet to 100% in that same room.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by gmw

As far as I can see you have "established" exactly nothing except that you have strong opinions.

As opposed to the "science of direct light"? Come on. Can you look at candle light directly? Yes. Does it burn your eyes? No. But the sun does. Can you look at sunlight in a mirror? No. Even though it's reflected light.

Watch tv much? Work on computers much?

But no, there's some MAGIC when it comes to reading that the physics of light are different.

[gmw]

If you look back over my earlier posts I am no supporter of the idea that there is any difference between reflected and direct photons. I was referring back to your earlier claim that:

Originally Posted by leebase

I think we've established "high contrast hurts your eyes".

The way in which "contrast" is usually used when discussing screen technology would make such a claim seem highly questionable. But now I'm wondering if it's just crossed wires.

The first pages of this thread were talking about screen brightness and whether people were smart enough to adjust it. I can't quite work out whether your use of "contrast" is actually just re-stating that earlier argument, talking about the difference (contrast) in brightness between the device and the environment. If so, it's very confusing because if you're hunting for screen adjustments the "contrast" control will give you something different to the "brightness" control, although the effects of the two are interrelated.

If, however, you really are talking about problems related to contrast-in-brightness between pixels of a display, then some credible evidence is needed rather than throw-away personal opinions.