5 ms·

There is zero evidence -- I mean literally, none, go look for yourself -- that emissive screens are better for your eyes in any way than reflective one. Shining

There is zero evidence -- I mean literally, none, go look for yourself -- that emissive screens are better for your eyes in any way than reflective one. Shining a lightbulb directly into your eyes isn't any worse than shining a lightbulb at a mirror with dark spots on it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
marvindanig 5y ago
100%. The nature of light that falls on the retina doesn’t change whether it’s reflected off of a surface or shine directly via an incandescent bulb. What matters to the eye is the flux of light (i.e. intensity) and for that, the emissive screens are better since they are not dependent on ambient lighting. Great point!
II2II 5y ago
While I agree in the sense that I have not seen evidence that reflective is better than emissive, I would rather see studies than depend upon ad hoc comparisons. The properties of a light source are typically different, the properties of surface reflecting or transmitting (for the lack of a better word) the light are different, and how the screen brightness responds to ambient light is different. There are many reasons why one type of screen may be better than another. The lack of compelling evidence simply means that there is a lack of research and certainly does not imply they are equivalent.
AlanYx 5y ago
The underlying issue may not be reflective vs. emissive, but rather luminance/contrast ratios. Here's one paper on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169814199000402 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01698... Basically their finding is that a very modest amount of luminance contrast (8:1) is optimal for reading, after which readability actually decreases. Which actually isn’t that surprising when you think about it. If you had a display where the whites were as bright as the sun, and the blacks were perfectly, totally non-reflectively black, it would be hard to read. This is probably consistent with people’s experience with e-readers. E-ink doesn’t have a particularly good contrast ratio, but it is adequate and roughly in the sweet spot for reading. Whereas today’s 200:1 IPS displays score well on spec charts and are great for video and games but are arguably not that good for reading, at least for some people.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  A "200:1" IPS display can't really provide that 200:1 contrast at e-paper-like luminance. In fact, it probably can't even provide the same contrast as e-paper itself. The technologies are too different for a direct comparison.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

marvindanig 5y ago

100%. The nature of light that falls on the retina doesn’t change whether it’s reflected off of a surface or shine directly via an incandescent bulb. What matters to the eye is the flux of light (i.e. intensity) and for that, the emissive screens are better since they are not dependent on ambient lighting. Great point!

II2II 5y ago

While I agree in the sense that I have not seen evidence that reflective is better than emissive, I would rather see studies than depend upon ad hoc comparisons. The properties of a light source are typically different, the properties of surface reflecting or transmitting (for the lack of a better word) the light are different, and how the screen brightness responds to ambient light is different. There are many reasons why one type of screen may be better than another. The lack of compelling evidence simply means that there is a lack of research and certainly does not imply they are equivalent.

AlanYx 5y ago

The underlying issue may not be reflective vs. emissive, but rather luminance/contrast ratios. Here's one paper on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169814199000402 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01698... Basically their finding is that a very modest amount of luminance contrast (8:1) is optimal for reading, after which readability actually decreases. Which actually isn’t that surprising when you think about it. If you had a display where the whites were as bright as the sun, and the blacks were perfectly, totally non-reflectively black, it would be hard to read. This is probably consistent with people’s experience with e-readers. E-ink doesn’t have a particularly good contrast ratio, but it is adequate and roughly in the sweet spot for reading. Whereas today’s 200:1 IPS displays score well on spec charts and are great for video and games but are arguably not that good for reading, at least for some people.

zozbot234 5y ago
A "200:1" IPS display can't really provide that 200:1 contrast at e-paper-like luminance. In fact, it probably can't even provide the same contrast as e-paper itself. The technologies are too different for a direct comparison.