42 ms·
They're saying that the visual performance is indirectly affected by invisible wavelengths somehow. Not that you can see the difference between two types.
by orbital-decay 9mo ago
They're saying that the visual performance is indirectly affected by invisible wavelengths somehow. Not that you can see the difference between two types.
- siffin 9mo agoThey are saying that, and most real world LED lighting uses very cheap diodes, like, 99.9999% of them, which create very poor colour compared with incandescent bulbs, which create perfect colour representation. It's a big thing and you can buy LEDs which produce a better colour range, but they're much more expensive and not as energy efficient, because creating bold reds costs hard energy that no diode trick will ever get around that.
- orbital-decay 9mo ago>They are saying that, and most real world LED lighting uses very cheap diodes, like, 99.9999% of them, which create very poor colour compared with incandescent bulbs, which create perfect colour representation. Have you actually read the study? It's about infrared and has nothing to do with color rendering and visible spectrum. They're vaguely speculating about some mitochondrial mechanism of action not related to vision at all.
- AlanYx 9mo agoThat's the interesting thing about this study. A lot of people here are speculating around explanations connected to metamerism, but the control (Figs 7 and 9) partly rules that out.
- schiffern 9mo agoIt's a poorly controlled experiment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46764382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46764382