You can make a difference in the Apple Support Community!

When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Eye strain from LED backlighting in MacBook Pro

There is one relatively serious con of the new LED backlit displays in the new MacBook Pros that seems to not get too much mention in the media. About a month ago I bought a new MacBook Pro to replace my standard white MacBook. One feature of the MacBook Pro that I was unaware of was the introduction of the LED backlit display to replace the CCFL backlight.

Once I started using my new laptop for long periods of time, I noticed severe eye strain and minor symptoms almost similar to motion sickness. After 20 or 30 minutes of use, I felt like I had been looking at the screen all day. Much longer and I would get headaches. If I used the old white MacBook (with its CCFL display), I had no eye troubles at all. Moreover, I could detect a distinct flicker on the MacBook Pro display when I moved my eyes across it - especially over high contract areas of the screen. White text on a black background was virtually impossible for me to read without feeling sick to my stomach because of all the flickering from moving my eyes over the text.

The strangest thing about all of this was that nobody else I showed the screen to could see these flickers I was seeing. I began to question my sanity until I did a little research. Discovering that the MacBook Pro introduced a new LED backlit display started to shed some light (so to speak) on what might be going on. I had long known that I could see LED flicker in things like car taillights and christmas lights that most of my friends could not see. I also knew that I could easily see the "rainbow effect" in DLP televisions that many other people don't see.

My research into LED technology turned up the fact that it is a bit of a technological challenge to dim an LED. Varying the voltage generally doesn't work as they are essentially designed to be either on or off with a fixed brightness. To work around this limitation, designers use a technique called pulse width modulation to mimic the appearance of lower intensity light coming out of the LED. I don't claim to fully understand the concept, but it essentially seems to involve very briefly turning off the LED several times over a given time span. The dimmer the LED needs to appear, the more time it spends in the off state.

Because this all happens so very quickly, the human brain does not interpret the flickers as flickers, rather as simply dimmer light. For most people that is. Some people (myself included) are much more sensitive to these flickers. From what I can tell, the concept is called the "flicker fusion threshold" and is the frequency at which sometime that is actually flickering is interpreted by the human brain as being continuously lit. While the vast majority of people have a threshold that doesn't allow them to see the flicker in dimmed LEDs, some people have a higher threshold that causes them to see the flickering in things like LED car tail lights and, unfortunately, LED backlit displays - leading to this terrible eye strain.

The solution? I now keep my screen turned up to full brightness to eliminate the need for the flicker-inducing pulse width modulation. The screen is very bright, but there are no more flickers and I love my MacBook Pro too much to exchange it for a plain MacBook with CCFL backlighting (which will also supposedly be switching to LED backlighting in 2009 anyway.) The staff at my local Apple store was of course more than helpful and was willing to let me exchange my glossy screen for matte even though I was beyond the 14 day return period. I knew that wasn't the problem though as my old MacBook was a glossy display. I've decided to stick with my full brightness solution. Sitting in a brightly-lit room tends to help alleviate how blinding the full brightness of the screen can be. In a dimly-lit room I guess I just wear sunglasses. Either way, the extreme brightness is worlds better than the sickening flicker I saw with a lower brightness setting

I would caution anybody considering buying a product with an LED backlit display to pay careful attention to make sure you don't have this same sensitivity. Turn the screen brightness down, find a high contract area of the screen, and quickly move your eyes back and forth over the screen. If you can detect the flicker, you may end up with this same problem.

I have no idea what percentage of the population has this sensitivity. I imagine we will hear more about it as more and more displays start using this technology. Hopefully the Apple engineers will come up with a way to eliminate this flicker some of us can see.

Russ Martin

15-inch MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.4)

Posted on Aug 23, 2008 8:25 AM

Reply
2,489 replies

Apr 15, 2014 9:01 AM in response to LD150

Here is some hard science, references in this paper are from Dr.'s performing experiments with Blue light and it's effects on animal retina's including Ape's which have very similar eye's to humans. There is plenty of evidence about the adverse effects of blue light however because it can take years for these effects to be obvious many of us may not even contribute vision problems to the global increase in blue light but chalk it up to life. This is a complicated subject, there have been many studies performed on the effects of blue light. I have not read anything that points to it being the primary cause of everyone's issue on this forum, there are no facts or clear studies on eye strain related to blue light. However, when reading about Migraine there is plenty of scientific evidence people with Migraine are the most sensitive to blue/white light. If you do not have migraine then your only concern is maintaining healthy vision into your older age and blue blocking lens's can help with that.


The Effects of Blue Light on Ocular Health

Elaine Kitchel, M.Ed.

American Printing House for the Blind


Why should we care about blue light?

For years now, professionals in the fields of light energy and vision have known about the hazards ultraviolet (UV) light presents to ocular health. We are gradually having longer and more intense exposures to blue light; much of the world of commercial display and industry is lit with cool white fluorescent tubes which emit a strong spike of light in the blue and ultraviolet ranges. Indeed many homes and offices are lit with cool white fluorescent tubes. No one doubts more people are spending time in front of video display terminals (VDTs) which produce blue light. While some people find blue light irritates their eyes or causes headache, most are able to ignore it. Scientists only now are beginning to investigate its long‑term effects and offer some solutions for maintaining ocular health in the presence of blue light.


What is blue light?

Experts differ as to the exact wavelength of UV light waves, but generally speaking, UV light is defined as that part of the invisible spectrum which ranges from 380nm to 200nm. (Nm stands for nanometer which is one billionth of a meter.) This part of the spectrum is divided into UV‑A, (380nm to 315nm), UV‑B, (314nm to 280nm,) and UV‑C (279 to 200nm.)

UV‑C, the shortest wavelength for purposes of this report, is virtually absent from ordinary lamps, blacklight and sunlight within the earth's atmosphere. It is largely germicidal in nature and is used by dentists and in industry for sterilization purposes. One of the primary benefits of the ozone layer is that it filters out virtually all of UV‑C. However, UV‑B and UV‑A do manage to enter our atmosphere where UV‑B and to some degree UV‑A, have been implicated in the formation of skin cancers and cataracts and in the degeneration of retinal tissue. (Van der Leun and Gruijl, 1993). UV‑A is particularly plentiful in the light emitted from black light bulbs, so popular in "sensory stimulation" activities. However, until recently, little was said about near UV, or "blue light" and its effects upon the eye. Blue light is that light with wavelengths in the 500nm to 381nm range. Both blue light and UV‑A are sometimes referred to as "near UV," but for purposes of this report, "near UV" refers to blue light.


What about "black light?"

Of special concern is the blue light given off by "black light" tubes and bulbs. These are glass tubes/bulbs coated with special phosphors on the inside surface. When the gas in the tube is excited by an electrical current, it glows; when the light passes through the coated glass, only the wavelengths in the UV‑A and blue light range are emitted. When viewed under black light, many objects fluoresce. This fluorescence is deemed desirable by party‑goers, artists and even educators.


In 1980 the team of Poland and Doebler used black light to test eye‑contact training with children who had cerebral palsy. They found the subjects performed better under black light than under ordinary room light. In 1983 these findings were again supported by Potenski in a similar experiment with multiply handicapped, deaf‑blind children. The conclusion was that severely brain‑damaged children seemed better able to use their vision when only the task was highlighted and the rest of the environment lay in darkness. Neither study remarked about any safeguards employed to protect the practitioner or the students from the effects of UV‑A or blue light emitted by the black‑light tube. Further, neither study employed a control group which performed the same tasks in a dark room under an ordinary spot lamp, for comparison.


Review of Literature

RetinalDamage

In an early study conducted by Ham, Ruffolo, Mueller and Guerry, (1980) rhesus monkeys were exposed to high‑intensity blue light at 441nm for a duration of 1000 seconds. Two days later lesions were formed in the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE.) These lesions consisted of an "inflammatory reaction accompanied with clumping of melanosomes and some macrophage invasion with engulfment of melanosomes which produce hypopigmentation of the RPE" (Ham et al., 1980, p.1110). Since melanin, a common pigment component present in the RPE, strongly absorbs blue light, there is reason to be concerned that the retina is subject to actinic injury from blue light. However, the lens strongly absorbs blue light as well but runs a high risk of possible opacification.


Human studies have not been conducted due to the obvious ethical problems involved in deliberately subjecting humans to potentially hazardous conditions. However, Taylor et al., found an association between cataract formation and exposure to UV-B when he studied 838 watermen who worked on Chesapeake Bay. He was not, however looking for a link between near UV and retinal or lens cell anomaly. The closest studies available are ones which use animals. Among researchers and scientists who have studied blue light, many are of the opinion that blue light might be a hazard and precautions would be wise. Some researchers are more certain: Ham et al., after conducting studies on animals, suggested "long term, chronic exposure to short wavelength light is a strong contributing factor to senile macular degeneration" (p. 1110).


In 1992, Chen, a researcher at St. Erik's Eye Hospital in Sweden, sought to explore the basis to explain why blue light reactions cause retinal degeneration. Drawing on the research of E. L. Paulter, Morika and Beenley (1989), who found that a chemical chemical called cytochrome oxidase is a key enzyme in the respiration of the retina in higher mammals, Chen decided to investigate this phenomenon in rats. Cytochrome oxidase is found in the RPE and in the inner segment of the photoreceptors. Paulter's in vitro studies of bovine REP tissue showed that blue‑light exposure destroyed cytochrome oxidase and inhibited cellular respiration. This inhibition was followed by retinal degeneration. Chen then performed a similar experiment upon rats in which he exposed them to 15 minutes of 404nm blue light which was not strong enough to cause thermal damage. He then killed some rats immediately, and one for each of the next three days. Upon examining their retinas, he found the blue light exposure had indeed inhibited the production of cytochrome oxidase. This was evident in his observation of the photoreceptor cells which had been destroyed. He concluded

“inhibition of cytochrome oxidase by blue‑light exposure and the consequent suppression of the cellular metabolism is a potential cause of retinal degeneration” (1993, p. 422).


One might argue that results in laboratory rats are not necessarily indicative of human results. For this reason, primate research often follows other mammalian research. In 1980 the group of Sperling, Johnson and Harwerth irradiated the retinas of baboons and rhesus monkeys with blue light. The eye tissues of these primates are very similar to those of humans. In addition to color blindness in the blue‑to‑green range, Sperling et al. found

“extensive damage in the RPE resulting from absorption of energy by the melanin granules. It should be pointed out that the damage seen

. . . including macrophagic activity, disrupted cells and plaque formation, is characteristic of that seen by Ham et al. (1978), and others in what he calls the photochemical lesion.”


In light of findings like these, ophthalmologists are beginning to filter the blue light emitted from their ophthalmoscopes through a yellow lens. A study by Bradnam, Montgomery, Moseley and Dutton concluded: "This study has shown that the use of a yellow lens is very effective at reducing the blue‑light hazard and extends the safe operating period by a factor of approximately 20x. . . In the interests of patient safety, it is recommended that yellow lenses are considered for use for routine indirect ophthalmoscopy" (1994, p. 799).


Lens Damage

After some yellowing, by the age of 20, the lens becomes a natural, though imperfect, absorber of wavelengths between 400 and 320nm. It helps protect the retina from damage by near UV radiation. The lens also provides partial but imperfect protection to the retina from blue light. In early studies it was thought that UV‑B was the only wavelength band responsible for cataracts. However

“Most authorities now believe that the near UV radiation absorbed throughout life by the lens is a contributing factor to aging and senile cataract. Thus, by protecting the retina from near UV radiation, the lens may become cataractous. My own personal opinion is that both the retina and the lens should be protected throughout life from both blue light and near UV radiation. This would delay the onset of senescence in both lens and retina (senile cataract and senile macular degeneration)” ,(Ham, 1983, p. 101).


Youths under the age of 20, and especially very young children, have little or no yellowing of the lens. Therefore any UV or blue light which enters the eye is unfiltered and strikes the retina at full‑strength exposing not only the retina, but the lens to damage. Nancy Quinn, a registered nurse and an expert on blue light emissions from VDTs wrote:

“Blue light wavelengths and part of the blue spectrum are focused in front of the retina, while green and yellow are focused on the retina, and some red spectrum is focused behind. Thus blue light contributes little to visual acuity and visual perception loses sharpness as the blue light component adds significantly to the eye's energy expenditure for focusing, and if reduced can greatly reduce eyestrain without loss of acuity.

There is mounting medical evidence that prolonged exposure to blue light may permanently damage the eyes, contribute to the formation of cataracts and to the destruction of cells in the center of the retina (1995).


What can be done?

Ham et al. (1980) and Gorgels and van Norren (1995) pointed out that actinic, or photochemical damage to retinal tissue, is more a function of wavelength than either intensity or duration. Gorgels and van Norren, after examining rat retinas damaged by blue light, wrote "duration had no influence on damage threshold dose, nor on morphology. We conclude that wavelength (and neither irradiance nor duration) is the factor responsible for the encountered morphological differences"(p.859).


These studies suggest neither the human cornea nor lens provides sufficient protection from blue light for our modern environment. Our ancestors did not have to deal with many hours under cool white fluorescent light, nor did they spend any time looking at video display terminals at close range. Our eyes' natural filters do not provide sufficient protection from the sunlight, let alone blue light emitted by these devices nor from the blue light emitted from black‑light tubes.


As a feature of their molecular structure, many plastics have the ability to filter out UV‑A and UV‑B light. Clear polycarbonate spectacles are now available which are labeled "filters 100% UV." Clear plastic, however, will not filter out blue light. In order to accomplish this, the filter must be tinted. Yellow is the preferred color because it allows the best contrast for the most people while still offering UV and blue light protection. Bradnam, et.al. (1994) showed the yellow lens to be very effective in protecting the retinas of their patients who were being exposed to blue light during ophthalmoscopy. In the case of black light activities, yellow is the only color which gives adequate blue light and UV protection, under which fluorescent materials will still appear to fluoresce. Both Solar Shield and NoIR produce a yellow lens which filters out 100% UV and 100% blue light. Filters should always be between the light source and the eyes. For this reason, visors or spectacles work best. Acetate sheets, which are often used, offer little or no protection from blue light.


The blue light factor should be of maximum importance to persons working with young children and with individuals who may have albinism, aphakia, achromatopsia, coloboma, sub-luxated lenses and other conditions in which the light reaching the retina is unfiltered, or causes extreme light sensitivity. Professionals in the field of vision would profit by, at the very least, employing proper filtering precautions and limits of exposure to both subject and practitioner, when using black light and other sources of blue light during sensory stimulation, and visual training activities.

Apr 18, 2014 3:48 PM in response to Jessiah1

I don't know how to just make a post, so I am doing so in reply to yours, Jessiah1, although unrelated to the blue litght... (btw, I did install f.lux on my old Thinkpad and feel much better. THANK YOU!!)


It has been mentioned here before that EMF sensetivity can contribute the eye strain. This is DEFINETLY the case with me, with relation to intolerance to iPad retina and rMBP...


I have given up on all Apple products. Am about to order a Thinkpad t440s with matte FHD IPS display


Lenovo now offers Intel Dual Ban Wireless-AC 7260... I still have an option of ordering ThinkPad Wireless 2 x 2 BGN.

Has anybody noticed theire discomfort increase with shifting to more powerful wireless cards?


Thank you,

Elle

Apr 18, 2014 4:40 PM in response to ElleAle

ElleAle, you have yet another specific type of issue, one we have not covered very much here because I believe people with EMF issues are even less likely to use any computing device than people with flicker and spectrum sensitivity. It sounds like you have spectrum and EMF, I believe it is common for folks with EMF sensitivity to have sensitivity to monitors with flicker or bright blue/white spectrums. You may find this PHD's website very helpful: http://www.conradbiologic.com/articles/EMFmisconceptions.html


Have you tried eliminating all wireless and EMF creating devices from your home to see if you are symptom free without EMF? Just curious how you know your primary issue is EMF? Will you not have issues with wireless regardless of the type?


Jesse

Apr 18, 2014 5:03 PM in response to Jessiah1

I have been meaning to put this out there after speaking with a PHD about light filtration. The summary is this:


There are yellow filters that can block 100% of blue light however it depends on the type of yellow and the density.


Interestingly enough Polarized gray glasses block approx. 85% of blue light, Brown Polarized glasses can block 92-93% of blue light while plain gray lenses can block approx. 80%.


The real concern with wearing any type of tinted lense that blocks the entire spectrum of blue light is that there is GOOD blue light our body needs to set our circadian rhythms. There are a lot of side effects when you mess around with good blue light, for example: Mood, sleep, immune system function and so on. Potentially you could execrate your headache/eyestrain situation if these thing's are effected so wearing 100% blue blocking lens's all day is a bad idea. There is actually a sickness called Non-24 for people who have severe issues with blue light exposure causing circadian rhythm distortion.


So you could test with yellow lens's if spectrum is all or part of the problem however it does not sound recommendable to wear them at all times. Unfortunately we will have to wait for manufactures to correct the flicker issue because spectacles are unlikely to fix that problem. Spectrum can make flicker worse through an intensified effect essentially by being bright/blue in a wavelength our eyes are not conditioned/ or evolved to tolerate while viewing so directly, like a monitor. LED lighting is so reactive to any distortion in power, wether programmed (Hz or PWM) or through AC/DC power, I seriously have to question if an LED light could ever be flicker free?


Hope this is helpful, have a great weekend all.


Jesse

Apr 18, 2014 5:37 PM in response to Jessiah1

"Have you tried eliminating all wireless and EMF creating devices from your home to see if you are symptom free without EMF? Just curious how you know your primary issue is EMF? Will you not have issues with wireless regardless of the type?"


Hi Jesse,


never tried to take my iPad to a forest or something and see if that changes the effect of the screen on the eyes...maybe this weekend..


my EMF + apple screens sensitivity comes down to the following:


I can read off an iPad Retina with WiFi turned OFF for an hour or two without being totally tortured, although it does cause eye strain and if I keep doing it every day or several times a day I will have severe eye strain. Somewhat similar with MacBook Pro and MacBook Air. I haven't timed or measured exactly.


However, when I turn the WiFi ON- I can FEEL the EMF hitting my body as clear as some people might experience a physical touch. It makes me nauseous and my eyestrain increases exponentially. Sometimes I have to stop after 20 min. The same thing happens if I try to use 3G or 4G cell phones. I have a 6 year old pre-3G blackberry and anything newer then that has been a torture.

Gotta add, I am somewhat attuned to subtle energies, i.e. I can do hands on healing, feel earth energy, vortecies and such.


the 3G, 4G phones and for some reason Apple WiFi is really discombobulating to my body. IF you care to know, in my experience they interfere with natural electro-magnetic fields of the heart. But WiFi on my Lenovo T61 is fine. I tried a T530 with, I believe Intel Centrino Advance WiFi, six months ago it was fine too.


However, now the Lenovo offeres Intel double band AC wifi and I am worried it will be along the Apple WiFi lines... I don't understand the differences between the these two:

Intel Dual Band Wireless 7260AC with Bluetooth 4.0



Any insight is appreciated!

Elle

Apr 19, 2014 9:12 AM in response to Jessiah1

Jessiah1

In my personal experience something has been done to newer plasma monitors that has made them much worse for me to view than my 7 year old Pioneer which is the only monitor I have left I can use comfortably.


Core of technology in plasma screens in the same in all models. Every single pixel is made of three gas-filled chambers (RGB) which produce final colour of pixel. Dimming of every pixel is made only by PWM of every RGB chamber. So every pixel is always flickering. Becouse that visible flicker plasma is generally not recommended as using as monitor. The difference is that latest screens has much more enhanced brightness despite lower energy consumption. I would also like to point out that the spectrum of each model may vary, so with the same brightness one could be tolerable to users eyes and another not.




I am the person which could only use CRT techology on the long run. But every CRT is different too. On my left side is Dell P1230 22' (20' real size) with Mitsubishi Diamondtron (aperture grill techology) and on my right side is 19' Gateway EV910 (18' real) with shadow mask screen. I have used Gateway from many years without any discomfort, but Dell is giving me a little disscomfort after long use. In eyes corners I see white secretion and my right eye become litlle red.



What is the difference between them ? Dell has more vibrant colours and his white is very strong. (I play games and watch films on it)

Gateway white is more greyish. (very good to work). So even in the same very good for some users techology there are some units more comfortable then others.

Apr 19, 2014 10:33 AM in response to Kxtr73

There is certainly a trend to go brighter and more vibrant with all display tech. and it is almost like a race to see who can create the brightest most colorful screen. Obviously for some of us that just isn't good.


I would imagine if all Plasma's have PWM each would be different as well, it really is a difficult situation to find any modern day monitors that are tolerable.


One option I keep forgetting about is DLP projectors, has anyone used one of these for computer use? My local movie theater uses this technology and I do not seem to be bothered by it. It is either that or the distance from the screen is helping as well. Unfortunately a DLP projector is a really expensive option for a computer monitor....


Jesse

Apr 19, 2014 11:34 AM in response to Jessiah1

I don't recomend using DLP projectors to You becouse it's "colour PWM" even worse then in monitors. In camera You will see very fast moving stripes of RGB colours. Even the moders fastest one chip DLP is not good. Only 3 x DLP is ok, but expensive.


DLP is using or bulb + fast moving colour wheel or 3 fast flashing RGB LED + both are using (DLP chip which flashes mirrror at every pixel constantly). To me eye strain and rainbow effect is terryfic.


3xLCD projector are much better for eyes becouse steady picture and no "rainbow effect"


Projector are not good to everyday work, becouse their very big total light output. Watching movies, pictures etc is ok but only in limited time too. I have tested 2 of them. One Viewsonic Pled-w500 with 500 lumens. DLP with 3xLED. Sold, becouse tremendous eye strain. Now I have Sony VPL-DV120 with 3xLCD technology and 2600/1900/1500 lumens. Both have 1280x800 which is not so worse when watching from 4 meters at 130' screen then 1920x1080. They are rather cheap. Used (but like new) Viewsonic costed me 350 USD. New Sony in Poland: 600 USD which is very good projector at that price level.


So now I have very good shadow mask CRT to work, second bigger and brighter with magnifing fresnel lens before (it creates bigger screen with some 3D pseudo effect) to gaming and watching TV + 3xLCD projector to watching movies. And I am quite happy.

Apr 21, 2014 10:25 AM in response to RMartin111

I have posted here that the only Mac that was comfortable for my eyes was 2013 13" macbook Air.


I've tried 2011 11" macbook air. and couldn't stand more than 8 minutes.



Now i want to add another one to my list.


I have tried 2013 27" imac, 2013 13" retina macbook pro and returned it.


I now got 15" retina macbook pro. This screen does not seem to give me strain on my eyes.



Conclusion:

2013 13" Macbook Air

2013 15" Macbook Pro with discreet display

are the only Mac I can use without eyestrain so far.

Apr 21, 2014 10:40 AM in response to FloWavE

For anyone who wants to find the right Apple Mac screen that does not flicker, good Luck! The early Mac Books Pro's, had some screens made by two different manufactures.


Go into Terminal on your Mac. If the code


starts with "LP" you have an LG screen

if they start with "LSN" you have a samsung screen.


LG seems to be the problem? Samsung was so much better. Well for me anyway. Cant use modern macs and old macs......only a 2008 so far!




Try filming the screens on a slow shutter speed and watch the flicker, they all move at different speeds.


Some early ones don't really show up! : ) ( Samsung screen )


Ref below.


I look forward to Apple admitting the problem and fixing it.....Flicker free please.




http://www.eizo.com/global/library/basics/eyestrain/


http://www.benq.com/microsite/eye-care-monitors/mff.html

May 7, 2014 1:42 PM in response to GKphone

Hi all,

I just wanted to add to the forum with my experience which suggests that not all LED LCD display are bad. I happen to have owned and used Dell M1530 with LED LCD monitor for over 5 years without ever experiencing discomfort even after prolonged sessions. Then, I had to buy a new computer and I went for Mac pro 2013 with retina. I got all the symptoms described here in the forum - vertigo, severe eye strain, nausea etc. Interesting thing was that after installing f.lux and only using the computer at very dim settings (maybe 20%) I could work for couple of hours experiencing only mild discomfort. But the cumulative effect at the 3 or 4th day was almost unbearable, so I am now using a 7 years old dell laptop and I am having no problems at all. I really don't know what is causing the problems. The ease after installing f.lux confirms that blue light does add up to the problems. But the troubling part is that I could only use my Mac at the low level of brightness, hence, I don't know whether the flicker induced by the way how the LED are dimmed can be made responsible for my problems.


What I wanted to say is that maybe the problem lies not in the technology used (meaning LED backlith), I did not have any problem with my previous LED lcd display from dell after all.

May 7, 2014 2:09 PM in response to tomas_de

tomas_de wrote:


Hi all,

I happen to have owned and used Dell M1530 with LED LCD monitor for over 5 years without ever experiencing discomfort even after prolonged sessions.

Funny, I used to have that exact laptop for years and had no problems either. After switching to a non-retina Macbook I was struck down with regular migraines and pretty severe symptoms which spoiled my life for a long time! See my earlier posts - I got Apple to switch out my LCD many times to try different models - some are better than others, some give different symptoms but all give discomfort.


I decided that I wouldn't upgrade my iPhone 4 for the very reason that all screens that Apple use cause problems. However it died and I got a 5S to try out (as you can return it within 14 days). It turns out I can use this for hours with NO eyestrain whatsoever. Very strange considering the severe effects that my iPhone 4 gave me. I've had it for around 6 weeks now and no issues at all. Just for information!


To use my laptop I run my Macbook into an LCD screen (Benq G2400W) using a Minidisplayport -> VGA cable which works nicely. For some reason the Minidisplayport to HDMI gives me some bother..

May 7, 2014 3:03 PM in response to SimonStokes

This is so funny. I haven't even heard about the possibility of experiencing such symptoms from just watching at the LCD monitor until I got my lovely MacBook pro retina, which now sits nicely in my desk after it gave me a 2 days long migraine-like headache ;-) I need to be able to use my laptop as portable device Therefore, I plan to try my luck with dell xps 13 or Lenovo T440s or X1 Carbon to see whether they are able to produce usable LED lcd screen as my old Dell had. I will let you know how it went ;-) I am still using Samsung Galaxy S2 and considered to replace it since it does not work properly anymore, but now after the story with mac book, I am really afraid of buying a new phone...

May 8, 2014 7:35 PM in response to tomas_de

Has anyone tried using Shades, Shady, or another type of program to dim the monitor? You can keep the hardware settings for brightness all the way up and turn down the brightness using software. I'm not sure if this is using the LCD to decrease the brightness instead of PWM, etc. The downside seems to be increased battery use with the LED at full power. I've tried a couple and they might be helping, so far I'm not really sure. I'm going see if this type of software can help.

Eye strain from LED backlighting in MacBook Pro

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.