Previous 1 100 101 102 103 104 Next 2,338 Replies Latest reply: Nov 14, 2015 9:51 AM by Technarch Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)

    Sometimes it's not about the smarthpones, but the display itself.


    I have an HTC One, my previous was fine, but i had to sent it to warranty and they change the screen among other things. This screen is really, really, really bad for my eyes. It's really the worst screen i ever seen. Much worst then big monitors... Smartphones companies, HTC, Apple, Sony have different manufacters supplying their phones.


    This is a Sharp display, my previous was an Samsung or JDI (Japan Display) i didn't see it.


    This one is strongly polarised, much stronger then the other one. I can see the polarization (rainbow colors) at naked eye, if i see the phone at near 90º degrees.


    I have seen on forums that Sony Xperia Z1 also has different screens manufacters...

  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)

    That's what i am talking about:




    It's just a question of luck, of what display you get. If you tried some other phone maybe you had eye strain and other with different display dont.

  • mvanier Level 1 (0 points)



    You may know this, but I use a Dell U2410 as my primary monitor.  With old hardware (5 year old Mac Pro with ATI graphics card running Snow Leopard) it is absolutely comfortable for as long as I want to use it.  I do use f.lux with it, which helps, but I could live without it.  So even if the U2410 can do temporal dithering by itself, it isn't a problem for me.  I still think it's the video card + driver that decides if dithering is needed.  In the Linux kernel you can see the code that makes these decisions, and I would imagine that closed-source drivers do something similar.  Maybe when these drivers instruct the card to dither, the card tells the monitor to dither if it can; this would certainly have the effect of saving a lot of bandwidth.  OTOH I fail to see how the monitor can know about all possible dithering algorithms.

  • EyePain20_20 Level 1 (0 points)

    " I still think it's the video card + driver that decides..."


    I have to agree.


    I complained (discussed) that I got eyestrain from certain iDevices, yet other iDevices were much better with little or no eyestrain. I had two iPads (both 3rd generation) - One hurts my eyes, one didn't.


    Also, I got eye strain from switching from windows xp to windows 7. Of course, I quickly switched back to windows xp and have no problems now. Using windows xp as I am typing this post.


    I always purchased Sony BluRay players, and the earlier, older units were fine. Now...all recent, newer models kill my eyes, head, brain etc...


    I also got pain from playing PS3, but for some reason not our 5 year old xbox360. Unfortunately the xbox360 died, so we purchased a new xbox360. we hooked up the newest, smaller "boxier" model of an xbox360 and viola my eyes were feeling that pull/pain/strain. (Both xbox360s were connected to the same tv, same hdmi cable, and same input, same settings.)


    The newer PS4 also hurts my eyes too. I did return it to the store.

    We were going to try the xbox one, but don't know what to do.


    My options are running out.

  • ElleAle Level 1 (10 points)

    Hello everyone,

    I am not very technical, so it is a little hard for me to follow ALL the details discussed here. I undertood that some of you had found an individual workable set up for now, and are working on figuring out what precisely is the the cause of eye-strain so you can nail down a general solution...


    I really want to get a Mac. I tried a macbookpro Retina 15 and had to return it. My iPad 4 with Retina is destroying my eyes and my vision.  I am open to trying a combination of macbookpro with an external display, or a macmini, or an iMac, or ????


    My question is, which ones of you figured a working solution for yourself for a current model of Mac - either Macbook Air or macbook pro Retina/non-retina, or iMac, or MacMini.


    Could you please let me know what works for YOU and your Mac, either with the external display or whatever other tricks you found... I know that for kvoth grayscale seems to save the day.


    Which of the options above is working for you?   And if you tried them all and gave up and went back to Windows, please let me know too.


    Thank you so much


  • kvoth Level 1 (0 points)

    ElleS --


    I've been following this thread closely for awhile. If you want a Mac laptop, some people say f.lux helps. It doesn't work at all for me.


    As you said, if I'm going to use my laptop screen I have to use grayscale. For macs, I haven't read anyone else's suggestions for using the actual laptop screen successfully.


    The popular opinion here is that if you want to use a mac, get an external display. There's a few that have been listed in this thread -- I use a Dell U2410 and it works.


    As for iPad and iPhone, some people have mentioned that older versions worked for them. No one can pin down the models, though, because screens have changed along the way. The best best is to craigslist an iPhone 4 and hope it had an old screen. Other than that, no one has any solutions for iPad/iPhone.


    More generally, Jessiah1 and I have bought Crizal Prevencia coating for our glasses, in addition to prism. I can say that the coating and prism help me, though it's unclear which is helping more.


    Good luck.

  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)



    What do you mean by prism?



  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)



    About the IPad 3, it should be the display manufacter. There are different suppliers so displays are not always alike.


    If you want to update the windows version, Windows 8.1 can be good for your eyes, since Windows 8 uses grey anti-aliasing. But just for trying. If XP works for you, stick for it while you can.


    You can use a program like Macrium Backup to backup and restore.

  • kvoth Level 1 (0 points)

    tfouto wrote:




    What do you mean by prism?



    Prism is a correction applied to glasses that is for treating strabismus.


    After many eye appointments, I learned that when they ask me to focus on something, I have no (or very little) strabismus -- in the sense that both of my eyes point the correct direction. But, when I relax my eyes, I have a fairly large strabismus in just one eye. Jessiah1 noticed the same thing -- except he has it in two eyes.


    I theorized that this strabismus could make it harder for us to deal with flicker. It apparently helped Jessiah1, and I can say that it has helped me as well.

  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)



    interesting. My eyes are not 100% aligned, but i dont think it might have a correlation, i have a perfection vision in medical tests... but who knows...

  • tfouto Level 1 (0 points)

    I will talk on this post about polarization:


    The most visible and immediate difference from my actual eye-killer display to the old gentle-eye-display on the same phone, is the birefringent visual effects on the new display.



  rce=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=P2m7UsrTN4PA0QXYnIHADw&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1469& bih=1311


    I can see them at naked eye when I watch my display at near 45ºC or more, especially on white screen.


    I had played recently with an Iphone 5. You could see the colors with polarized sunglasses, but at a much much less extent, and the strain on the eyes was much less evident, if at all. I didn't have too much time to be sure, but seems much easier on eyes. At least this specific display of this Iphone 5. Also an ipad 3 didn't have any color effect with my sunglasses seemed better for my eyes.


    This led me to a brief investigation on Polarization...


    The quoted text it’s not mine. It’s from the following link (bold my emphasis):


    “The eyes of men (AND women) are not designed to distinguish between different types of polarization, contrary to insects, cephalopods, many amphibians, fish, and other animals, for which nature possesses a different class of "colors" (but even common colors do not mean the same to everyone). However, a small quirk in the structure of the human eye gives us (by accident) the ability to tell apart different states of polarization. Thanks to this small aberration or "defect" of the eye we are not completely polarization-blind.

    Yes !!! With some effort you can learn to see what remains invisible to most people! Without the help of any instrument you will be able to tell not only if the light you look at is strongly polarized or not, but also if it is linearly polarized or circularly polarized and, moreover, in which direction it vibrates or rotates. Any time that you raise your eyes to the blue sky you will be rewarded by the same clues that guide bees in their flight.  Acquire P-Ray Vision !


    Wilhelm K. von Haidinger's (1795-1871), an Austrian mineralogist and geologist, long time director of the Imperial Institute of Vienna, made several important contributions to the science of optics, including an interferometer that produces fringes in thick plates and the first report of dichroism for circular polarization (in amethysts). (…) That stain is now known as the Haidinger's brush, and he can be credited with the unique discovery of an extra "sense". However, more that a century and a half later, this phenomenon remains little known (even by scientists working in optics!).


    Observers generally describe the Haidinger's brush as a diffuse elongated yellowish pattern, pinched at the center. Bluish leaves, generally shorter, cross it at 90 degrees. This pattern is created by the eye and therefore cannot be photographed and it actually changes somewhat between observers. Some people see the yellow continuous until color fatigue makes the blue continuous, while others claim that the continuous color is whichever is perpendicular to the line joining the eyes. Some only see the yellow part (but I generally notice the blue first). The pattern is considerably more diffuse and fainter than shown in the drawings and requires some practice to recognize it. Some people see it more clearly, others with more difficulty, and some may not be able to see it at all.




    The effect is weak and to perceive it the light should have a good degree of polarization (at least of 60%). Because it is faint the background should be uniform with no distracting patterns. In addition, the effect only happens towards the blue side of the spectrum and is missing altogether in the red (interestingly, bees only detect polarization in the ultraviolet, although they can also see the green and blue colors). It just happens that the skylight at 90 degrees from the sun is highly polarized, uniform, and blue, making it an ideal place to see the Haidinger's brush in Nature.




    Although the brush is centered on the center of the visual field, its size is much larger than the fovea (the region of the retina where we see images with higher resolution) and thus must originate in the surrounding macular area of the retina. The fact that it has color means that the cones (and not the rods) are involved. The brush is invisible in the red, a region where the macula pigment is transparent.” - End of quote


    This ability to watch polarization/states (Haidinger's brush) happens only towards blue spectrum of light, as we all know W-LED’s, have an intense energy peak on blue spectrum. So clearly W-LED light is a strong candidate here. If humans are able of this feat (are not completely polarization-blind) visually/consciously, then maybe the brain/eye can be affected by polarization, particularly in the blue spectrum, by some people the same way PWM does.


    One thing about PWM. There are people affected by it. But for those people affected, there are for sure different levels. People who are intensely affected, other mildly, and others lightly. If polarization plays a role here, there are for sure different levels.


    Polarization is used for necessity for LCD’s. Polarization is required for one to see images. If no polarization layer was used on LCD’s we would only see a white image. But extra layers of polarization can be added to increase things like brightness, contrast, color saturation and angle of view, among other things. If some kind of polarization is hugely used, it might be noticed by some eye/brain, the same PWM is for some people.


    Interesting reading, and a good Christmas gift

  olarizers&source=bl&ots=t7UpPYmBzO&sig=uZKWCfEzELD8H15dtbtMKr4thPc&hl=en&sa=X&ei =_ly7UsjHKoeW0AX_3IDYDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=lcd%20Crossed%20Polarizers&f =false


    Also one simpler explanation, could be, human eye is not prepared, perfectly adapted from evolution to look to strong polarized light directly to our eyes from such near source. It might not be from the proper light itself, but some effects it might produce. It can also increase the negative effects of blue-light, eye-fatigue, etc. Also the high contrast, brightness and color saturation this new displays are increasingly having, might not be too kindly for our cones/retinas.


    Or it might just this excessive color effects have a negative on my eyes...


    Once more, this is highly speculative

  • ElleAle Level 1 (10 points)



    thank you for your reply.  Interesting reference to prism. I will try that, and also probably a Macbook Air with an HP or Dell u2413 display and see how it works

  • peter_watt Level 3 (905 points)

    Very interesting discussion on polarization tfouto, what are your qualifications, by the way?

  • kvoth Level 1 (0 points)

    ElleAle wrote:




    thank you for your reply.  Interesting reference to prism. I will try that, and also probably a Macbook Air with an HP or Dell u2413 display and see how it works

    ElleAle --


    I don't recommend you do the u2413. If you read through this thread, you'll see a lot of recommendations against current-day monitors. The short of it is that LED technology changed in a harmful way (to us) about 3-4 years ago. There is lots of discussion here about what actually changed and what is harmful, but again the main thing I think we agree on is that most current display are difficult on the eyes.


    That is why I recommend the u2410. It's older and uses older LED technology. On ebay, they are pretty cheap. Alternatively, you can find other recommendations in this thread. But I don't believe the u2413 is one of them.





    In other news, I think I have a premonition why grayscale is good for me. The Crizal Prevencia +prism glasses make a large difference in the appearance of my grayscale screen. Anyone on here that has Crizal Prevencia (Jessiah1), give grayscale a shot and let me know how it feels!

  • dmendel Level 1 (0 points)

    Does anyone have experience using a Dell u2410 with a new Mac Mini with Intel Graphics HD 4000 running Mavericks? I bought a new late-2013 iMac running Mountain Lion and had to return it because of the eye strain/headache/fuzziness/nausea. I currently use an iMac 4,1 (20" TFT Active Matrix LCD (1680x1050 native) display with ATI Radeon X1600). I want to buy a new Mac Mini but need to know what monitor will not give ill effects. I am concerned about the interaction of the driver/OS. Reports here of people plugging in old strain-free monitors into new Macs only to experience ill effects has me worried.