Sorry, I don't know what 'trolling' is. I am commenting on a story that has dubious motives. Thanks.
Your comment is fine, this site is overwhelmed by trolls of various types and post counts who will argue with you the fact that the sun doesn't rise just to get their kicks.
Quote:
Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions (a.k.a. "trolling"), attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy.
Just as I've always maintained (and been criticised for saying here a few times), there is really no evidence that "eye strain" is caused by reading from a screen as opposed to paper, or that ePaper is any easier on the eyes than an LCD. It's basically a popular misconception.
I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.
Even for hardcore Mac users iWorks can't even come close to cutting into Office for Mac.
For uses where the extreme feature set of Office isn't needed, iWork is just dandy.
But, Office has over 95% of the Office software market. There are businesses who need various features iWork doesn't support, for them, having a lighter form of Office on this could be a deal maker.
Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.
I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.
I'm just glad this is finally coming to a head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.
Office is such a profitable suite for MS that I have no doubt that the rumour they are considering building Office for iPad is true.
Backlighting is my biggest peeve with LCD displays, I'm looking straight at a light source rather than reflected light (which is how we usually see).
It doesn't matter what you're "looking into". Your eyes and brain don't care where the light comes from. A photon is the same whether it's reflected, or transmitted. It's also not entirely true that everything we see is from reflected light. The sky itself is illuminated by transmitted light, and that's what you're seeing. It's not how the light gets to your eyes, but the amount of light, the contrast, the color, etc. Just look at a bright snowfall right after coming out of a dim building, or a bright summer sky, see how the light hurts your eyes. This reflected light is better thing is a myth, that's all. It's promoted by the maker of the technology, E-ink, and the manufacturers who use its technology. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't choose it because they thought it was easier on the eyes, though they say that publicly, but because of the longer battery life.
Agreed. If the iPad such an unremarkable device then why spend significant resources to develop a whole new UI for Office. If the iPad takes off even half as well as the iPhone you'll have millions of folks using iWorks and some of them may even like it better than what they use back in the office. People may start to learn that there are better alternatives to Microsoft products.
So far, its just interest on the part of the MBU at MS.
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Having used an iPod Touch for over a year, now owning an iPhone and played with several eInk devices, I can testify to the fact that the backlight on any LCD equipped device held quite close to the eye causes eye strain, as does the fact the screen is not really '1D' (one dimensional) like paper or eInk displays.
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
There is also the issue of resolution. The iPad (sadly) is at 135 or similar DPI, while print on good paper offers 200 to 300.
All said, the iPad uses a new technology, so only time will tell whether it will also cause eye strain.
This has nothing to do with Apple. As you can see from a bunch of posts here, reading on an LCD is no problem at all. I keep telling people that they have to turn the brightness on their monitors down! Also turn the contrast down.
What's interesting is that while monitor manufacturers advertise their machines as having high brightness, when calibrating our monitors with a calibration device, the brightness is set much lower, and the excessive blue is removed. The monitor is not just much more accurate for photos, graphics and publishing, but for reading as well.
Book and magazine resolution has little to do with resolution from a screen, because the characters are generated so differently.
Do you think the strain is related to the LCD, the backlight, the screen size, or the viewing distance?
If I had to hazzard a guess, the eyestrain from reading on your Touch is a result of screen size, short focal distance, and perhaps too high of contrast. If that's the case, the iPad won't exhibit the same strain. The screen is larger, it will be held farther away, and all these backlit screens have adjustable brightness.
I'm leaning toward the theory that "e-ink is easier on the eyes" is entirely marketing propaganda by the manufacturers of products which feature e-ink displays. Granted, it might be true, e-ink might be easier on the eyes. But it could very easily be the opposite, e-ink could be worse on the eyes.
The whole backlighting thing seems like a red-herring. Backlighting in handheld devices is mostly LED. LEDs are easier on the eyes than most fluorescents even. (less flicker) So backlit devices will have less flicker than those being lit by ambient florescent lighting.
So what about the fact that backlighting passes through more layers? Well forelighting also passes through layers. Passively lit screens use ambient lighting that must pass through the display's front, reflect off of something, and pass back out.
What i'd really like to see is empirical data. Until then, its all marketing propaganda to me, and no more reliable than personal experience and anecdotes.
"Headaches" are actually subjectively experienced phenomena, they can be caused by all kinds of physical stimuli, but more importantly they can be caused by nothing physical at all. If a person expects to get a headache from reading a screen for instance, they can get one regardless of any physical stimuli.
Millions of people around the world also believe that wearing a copper bracelet alleviates their arthritis symptoms. They "feel it work" in a very real way and actually gain better physical health because of that belief. They have greater range of movement and feel a great deal less pain. That doesn't mean however that anything is actually happening with the copper bracelet or that it's physically doing anything at all.
Many more people believe in the existence of ghosts, spirits and other religious phenomena. They directly "feel" their presence, they are cured of various diseases by same etc. But that doesn't make goblins, saints or angels any more real either.
I find this thread kind of amazing. Paraphrased it goes like this:
science: "There is no basis for believing that eyestrain is caused by LCD screens."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: "But that's the point, you may *think* you have, but I've proven it isn't true."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: "but that's just what you *experience,* the reality is quite different. I'm telling you your perception is off."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: argghhhh!!!!
welcome to the modern day flat earth society.
It's called the placebo effect. About one in three people will believe what they think is correct even if it can be shown that it's not.
Since there's been so much propaganda coming from E-ink and its partners over the past few years, there are those people who have come to believe it.
Tell them what they want to hear, that the Kindle and others have less eyestrain, something they want, and miraculously, they have less. Not everyone is fooled, but enough are, especially as they've invested in it.
But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.
What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.
It's the backlighting they're concerned about. It's a problem if it's set too high, as it often is. Putting the monitor up too high also causes fatigue, neck pain, and eyestrain.
I have an e-book reader with an e-ink display. I also spend a lot of time using LCDs.
I don't get eye strain, head aches or any other problems from LCDs. However, I still prefer reading from e-ink display. I find it much closer to the experience of reading from paper. It also doesn't have the problems of reflections often found on LCDs especially when it is sunny.
That's different. It's perfectly feasible to prefer the look of it.
Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.
You can review all these links at this site to form your own opinion....
True.
As the study itself noted, eyestrain is a real thing, but it's caused by real stimuli like the old flickering CRT screens with the low refresh rate, and the focus switching caused by the glossy screens as you point out above. It's just that eyestrain is not a quality of LCD screens per se. The study notes that you can get it from reading a crappily designed book for too long also.
I was mostly making fun of people who think that just because you see something "with your own eyes" or experience something directly yourself, that this somehow makes it obviously real or true.
The reality is that human beings are animals. Very high order animals, but animals just the same and our perceptions are not objective facts but coloured by our brains and our expectations. Intelligent normal people see and experience things all the time that just aren't real or true at all.
I've personally heard ghosts in my basement for instance and I once saw a giant bird the size of a small truck flying through the air. Even though I'm sure I heard and saw these things, I'm not stupid enough to believe that ghosts actually exist or that giant birds fly over my house.
Misperceptions abound. It's a totally normal part of the human experience.
I know for a fact that at least 3 of the big four accounting firms still uses Lotus Notes. My firm's IT people always said that the iPhone wasnt "secure enough" for them to tether it to their network. From what I really understand is that Lotus Notes just wasn't supporting the iPhone. Maybe now E&Y will let us use the iPhone now instead of those crappy Blackberrys.
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on paper at close range in low light and you will get a headache. Low (room) light is bad for reading on *any* medium. I laugh at the movies when they show the 'kool kid' hackers in their dark caves with all the monitors. No wonder they wear specs!
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
Try reading a book "at close range in low light" .... you will still, in all likelihood, get a headache. Anytime we create a situation where we have to concentrate extra hard, particularly in an inter-active situation you will find we blink less, probably because we think we can't afford to "miss the action". This causes less eyeball lubrication, and therefore more eye irritation.
There's another reason why LCDs may cause more eyestrain than e-ink that the article briefly mentions but glosses over.
From the article: “The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”
It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.
It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
I do believe those effects are not zero, but they are completely negligible, and will not cause any perceivable eye strain beyond what you would get from the "flickering" of incandescent, fluorescent or LED light sources. Are you saying that the light bulb in your reading area doesn't flicker as much as an LCD display? Maybe not as much now with low power fluorescent bulbs, but damn, those incandescent light bulbs were awful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein
There's another reason why LCDs may cause more eyestrain than e-ink that the article briefly mentions but glosses over.
From the article: ?The new LCDs don?t affect your eyes,? Mr. Taussig said. ?Today?s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.?
It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.
It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.
.......
It will be interesting to see how a third party matte film applied to the iPad would work.
Yeah, if there was a sturdy enough matte film to easily apply onto your iPad or MacBook Pro, that didn't scratch easily, and reduced the mirror effect, it might become a great hit.
However each time I'm annoyed by this I start thinking that the primary reason Apple does this is probably to offer more environmentally friendly machines. At least that is how they want to appear. And after all, if I can be friendlier with the environment by using a glass display over a plastic, then heck, why not?
I remember when CRTs were dominant and one of the selling points about LCDs was less eyestrain.
Considering I have no problems with eye strain from my various LCDs ? at all ? I find it kind of comical that in the past few years, now LCDs are SOOOO BAAAAD for your eyes compared to ePaper. And God forbid if the LCD is glossy, too.
Glossy screens aro really bad. At least for my eyes and (some other persons). I have eye strain and headache after 2 hours of working on the screen of HP Pavilion dv7. My eyes are tired then 2 more days, and it is difficult to have everything in sharp focus.
While on the normal non-glossy panel I can work for 12-14 hours per day without any problems (only get normally tired).
I do not wear eye glasses. My sight is still very good. But I doubt it would take long to worsen it if I work on this sh&ty glossy monitor from HP. Maybe other glossy monitors would have had other effect, but I have my opinion about them based on this experience and those 20-30 monitors/notebooks which I looked on in various shops.
This differs from person to person as well. But to claim that it is a myth or not true in general is wrong. Don't judge only based on your 'non-failure' experience with glossy. It is like smoking in the same room with other person - for some one it is acceptable, for others it is an insult to their person/health. Please, do not insult me saying that it is ok, while I have health problems with it (smoking and glossy).
P.S. And it was God sent, when we replaced CRTs with LCDs. It become so much better. I do not have problems with non-glossy LCDs.
Additionally, glossy is bad for any graphical professional. Ask any of them (if they say that it is ok, they are either paid for having (Apple), or try to convince themselves not to regret the purchase, or are not very good at what they are doing).
From all glossy, Apple's makes the best glossy. But it is still worse than non-glossy overall.
I do believe those effects are not zero, but they are completely negligible, and will not cause any perceivable eye strain beyond what you would get from the "flickering" of incandescent, fluorescent or LED light sources. Are you saying that the light bulb in your reading area doesn't flicker as much as an LCD display? Maybe not as much now with low power fluorescent bulbs, but damn, those incandescent light bulbs were awful.
I bet that normal bulb (Incandescent light bulb/Tungsten/Wolfram filament) is better for eyes than day light lamps (Fluorescent lamp/gas-discharge lamp).
So, explain me how incandescent light bulbs were they awful?
Fluorescent lamps has only advantage that they require less energy, however, many of them have really poisonous parts (all fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of elemental mercury (Hg) - mercury vapour is a highly toxic substance, with an "extreme" rating as a poison. It is a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage).
P.S. Amounts of Mercury in each fluorescent lamp:
The amount is tiny ? about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen ? but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as ?low-mercury? can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
Comments
Sorry, I don't know what 'trolling' is. I am commenting on a story that has dubious motives. Thanks.
Your comment is fine, this site is overwhelmed by trolls of various types and post counts who will argue with you the fact that the sun doesn't rise just to get their kicks.
Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions (a.k.a. "trolling"), attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy.
Just as I've always maintained (and been criticised for saying here a few times), there is really no evidence that "eye strain" is caused by reading from a screen as opposed to paper, or that ePaper is any easier on the eyes than an LCD. It's basically a popular misconception.
I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.
Even for hardcore Mac users iWorks can't even come close to cutting into Office for Mac.
For uses where the extreme feature set of Office isn't needed, iWork is just dandy.
But, Office has over 95% of the Office software market. There are businesses who need various features iWork doesn't support, for them, having a lighter form of Office on this could be a deal maker.
Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.
I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.
I'm just glad this is finally coming to a head.
Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.
Office is such a profitable suite for MS that I have no doubt that the rumour they are considering building Office for iPad is true.
Backlighting is my biggest peeve with LCD displays, I'm looking straight at a light source rather than reflected light (which is how we usually see).
It doesn't matter what you're "looking into". Your eyes and brain don't care where the light comes from. A photon is the same whether it's reflected, or transmitted. It's also not entirely true that everything we see is from reflected light. The sky itself is illuminated by transmitted light, and that's what you're seeing. It's not how the light gets to your eyes, but the amount of light, the contrast, the color, etc. Just look at a bright snowfall right after coming out of a dim building, or a bright summer sky, see how the light hurts your eyes. This reflected light is better thing is a myth, that's all. It's promoted by the maker of the technology, E-ink, and the manufacturers who use its technology. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't choose it because they thought it was easier on the eyes, though they say that publicly, but because of the longer battery life.
Agreed. If the iPad such an unremarkable device then why spend significant resources to develop a whole new UI for Office. If the iPad takes off even half as well as the iPhone you'll have millions of folks using iWorks and some of them may even like it better than what they use back in the office. People may start to learn that there are better alternatives to Microsoft products.
So far, its just interest on the part of the MBU at MS.
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Having used an iPod Touch for over a year, now owning an iPhone and played with several eInk devices, I can testify to the fact that the backlight on any LCD equipped device held quite close to the eye causes eye strain, as does the fact the screen is not really '1D' (one dimensional) like paper or eInk displays.
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
There is also the issue of resolution. The iPad (sadly) is at 135 or similar DPI, while print on good paper offers 200 to 300.
All said, the iPad uses a new technology, so only time will tell whether it will also cause eye strain.
This has nothing to do with Apple. As you can see from a bunch of posts here, reading on an LCD is no problem at all. I keep telling people that they have to turn the brightness on their monitors down! Also turn the contrast down.
What's interesting is that while monitor manufacturers advertise their machines as having high brightness, when calibrating our monitors with a calibration device, the brightness is set much lower, and the excessive blue is removed. The monitor is not just much more accurate for photos, graphics and publishing, but for reading as well.
Book and magazine resolution has little to do with resolution from a screen, because the characters are generated so differently.
Do you think the strain is related to the LCD, the backlight, the screen size, or the viewing distance?
If I had to hazzard a guess, the eyestrain from reading on your Touch is a result of screen size, short focal distance, and perhaps too high of contrast. If that's the case, the iPad won't exhibit the same strain. The screen is larger, it will be held farther away, and all these backlit screens have adjustable brightness.
I'm leaning toward the theory that "e-ink is easier on the eyes" is entirely marketing propaganda by the manufacturers of products which feature e-ink displays. Granted, it might be true, e-ink might be easier on the eyes. But it could very easily be the opposite, e-ink could be worse on the eyes.
The whole backlighting thing seems like a red-herring. Backlighting in handheld devices is mostly LED. LEDs are easier on the eyes than most fluorescents even. (less flicker) So backlit devices will have less flicker than those being lit by ambient florescent lighting.
So what about the fact that backlighting passes through more layers? Well forelighting also passes through layers. Passively lit screens use ambient lighting that must pass through the display's front, reflect off of something, and pass back out.
What i'd really like to see is empirical data. Until then, its all marketing propaganda to me, and no more reliable than personal experience and anecdotes.
We agree completely on this one.
This is just the worst argument.
"Headaches" are actually subjectively experienced phenomena, they can be caused by all kinds of physical stimuli, but more importantly they can be caused by nothing physical at all. If a person expects to get a headache from reading a screen for instance, they can get one regardless of any physical stimuli.
Millions of people around the world also believe that wearing a copper bracelet alleviates their arthritis symptoms. They "feel it work" in a very real way and actually gain better physical health because of that belief. They have greater range of movement and feel a great deal less pain. That doesn't mean however that anything is actually happening with the copper bracelet or that it's physically doing anything at all.
Many more people believe in the existence of ghosts, spirits and other religious phenomena. They directly "feel" their presence, they are cured of various diseases by same etc. But that doesn't make goblins, saints or angels any more real either.
I find this thread kind of amazing. Paraphrased it goes like this:
science: "There is no basis for believing that eyestrain is caused by LCD screens."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: "But that's the point, you may *think* you have, but I've proven it isn't true."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: "but that's just what you *experience,* the reality is quite different. I'm telling you your perception is off."
response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."
science: argghhhh!!!!
welcome to the modern day flat earth society.
It's called the placebo effect. About one in three people will believe what they think is correct even if it can be shown that it's not.
Since there's been so much propaganda coming from E-ink and its partners over the past few years, there are those people who have come to believe it.
Tell them what they want to hear, that the Kindle and others have less eyestrain, something they want, and miraculously, they have less. Not everyone is fooled, but enough are, especially as they've invested in it.
lol, Gazoobee. Quite true.
But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.
What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.
It's the backlighting they're concerned about. It's a problem if it's set too high, as it often is. Putting the monitor up too high also causes fatigue, neck pain, and eyestrain.
I have an e-book reader with an e-ink display. I also spend a lot of time using LCDs.
I don't get eye strain, head aches or any other problems from LCDs. However, I still prefer reading from e-ink display. I find it much closer to the experience of reading from paper. It also doesn't have the problems of reflections often found on LCDs especially when it is sunny.
That's different. It's perfectly feasible to prefer the look of it.
Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.
You can review all these links at this site to form your own opinion....
True.
As the study itself noted, eyestrain is a real thing, but it's caused by real stimuli like the old flickering CRT screens with the low refresh rate, and the focus switching caused by the glossy screens as you point out above. It's just that eyestrain is not a quality of LCD screens per se. The study notes that you can get it from reading a crappily designed book for too long also.
I was mostly making fun of people who think that just because you see something "with your own eyes" or experience something directly yourself, that this somehow makes it obviously real or true.
The reality is that human beings are animals. Very high order animals, but animals just the same and our perceptions are not objective facts but coloured by our brains and our expectations. Intelligent normal people see and experience things all the time that just aren't real or true at all.
I've personally heard ghosts in my basement for instance and I once saw a giant bird the size of a small truck flying through the air. Even though I'm sure I heard and saw these things, I'm not stupid enough to believe that ghosts actually exist or that giant birds fly over my house.
Misperceptions abound. It's a totally normal part of the human experience.
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on paper at close range in low light and you will get a headache. Low (room) light is bad for reading on *any* medium. I laugh at the movies when they show the 'kool kid' hackers in their dark caves with all the monitors. No wonder they wear specs!
Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)
Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.
Try reading a book "at close range in low light" .... you will still, in all likelihood, get a headache. Anytime we create a situation where we have to concentrate extra hard, particularly in an inter-active situation you will find we blink less, probably because we think we can't afford to "miss the action". This causes less eyeball lubrication, and therefore more eye irritation.
From the article: “The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”
It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.
It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
There's another reason why LCDs may cause more eyestrain than e-ink that the article briefly mentions but glosses over.
From the article: ?The new LCDs don?t affect your eyes,? Mr. Taussig said. ?Today?s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.?
It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.
It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.
.......
It will be interesting to see how a third party matte film applied to the iPad would work.
Yeah, if there was a sturdy enough matte film to easily apply onto your iPad or MacBook Pro, that didn't scratch easily, and reduced the mirror effect, it might become a great hit.
However each time I'm annoyed by this I start thinking that the primary reason Apple does this is probably to offer more environmentally friendly machines. At least that is how they want to appear. And after all, if I can be friendlier with the environment by using a glass display over a plastic, then heck, why not?
I remember when CRTs were dominant and one of the selling points about LCDs was less eyestrain.
Considering I have no problems with eye strain from my various LCDs ? at all ? I find it kind of comical that in the past few years, now LCDs are SOOOO BAAAAD for your eyes compared to ePaper. And God forbid if the LCD is glossy, too.
Glossy screens aro really bad. At least for my eyes and (some other persons). I have eye strain and headache after 2 hours of working on the screen of HP Pavilion dv7. My eyes are tired then 2 more days, and it is difficult to have everything in sharp focus.
While on the normal non-glossy panel I can work for 12-14 hours per day without any problems (only get normally tired).
I do not wear eye glasses. My sight is still very good. But I doubt it would take long to worsen it if I work on this sh&ty glossy monitor from HP. Maybe other glossy monitors would have had other effect, but I have my opinion about them based on this experience and those 20-30 monitors/notebooks which I looked on in various shops.
This differs from person to person as well. But to claim that it is a myth or not true in general is wrong. Don't judge only based on your 'non-failure' experience with glossy. It is like smoking in the same room with other person - for some one it is acceptable, for others it is an insult to their person/health. Please, do not insult me saying that it is ok, while I have health problems with it (smoking and glossy).
P.S. And it was God sent, when we replaced CRTs with LCDs. It become so much better. I do not have problems with non-glossy LCDs.
Additionally, glossy is bad for any graphical professional. Ask any of them (if they say that it is ok, they are either paid for having (Apple), or try to convince themselves not to regret the purchase, or are not very good at what they are doing).
From all glossy, Apple's makes the best glossy. But it is still worse than non-glossy overall.
I do believe those effects are not zero, but they are completely negligible, and will not cause any perceivable eye strain beyond what you would get from the "flickering" of incandescent, fluorescent or LED light sources. Are you saying that the light bulb in your reading area doesn't flicker as much as an LCD display? Maybe not as much now with low power fluorescent bulbs, but damn, those incandescent light bulbs were awful.
I bet that normal bulb (Incandescent light bulb/Tungsten/Wolfram filament) is better for eyes than day light lamps (Fluorescent lamp/gas-discharge lamp).
So, explain me how incandescent light bulbs were they awful?
Fluorescent lamps has only advantage that they require less energy, however, many of them have really poisonous parts (all fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of elemental mercury (Hg) - mercury vapour is a highly toxic substance, with an "extreme" rating as a poison. It is a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage).
P.S. Amounts of Mercury in each fluorescent lamp:
The amount is tiny ? about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen ? but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as ?low-mercury? can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.