Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

neuroai.science

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 257 posts

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#191

Post by disillusioned »

simoncion wrote: post #188
aethrum wrote: post #9

They absolutely help my eyes not be so strained. If its placebo, its a working placebo. >Are people actually using Night Shift? >Aggravatingly, yes. What is the authors problem lol? It feels a lot better on eyeballs to use warm light things. Why does he care?

> What is the authors problem lol? I'm not the author, but every time I've seen Night Shift (and things like it) being used, they've done a grand job of royally fucking up the colors of whatever's on screen. > It feels a lot better on eyeballs to use warm light things. That's, like, your opinion, man. The lights in my house are all 5000K lights, and I love it. I expect you'd get way more out of reducing the brightnes…

I respect that other people have the right to their opinion, but 5000K lights 24/7 is so completely insane to me. How? How do you get by with "dentist office mall kiosk" lighting blaring every hour of the day?

I have an adaptive Lifx bulb that changes from 5000K during the day and then shifts down to 3000K at night, before tapering down to 2700K for overnight and it's amazing. 5000K in the corner of a dark room is just so disjointed and intense and upsetting to me, if I stay at an Airbnb for more than a night or two and there are daylight bulbs installed, I'll literally buy replacement bulbs and change them out.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#192

Post by KaiserPro »

mikkupikku wrote: post #69
KaiserPro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't paying for them, so it was very much accidental.

You should go back and demand they be replaced. Such a mistake isn't something you should tolerate.

I don't go to that optician anymore.

The list of mistakes were as follows:

1) it corrected my eye with a slight astigmatism, but over corrected my other eye, so the agregate was pretty much the same

2) the aformentioned blue filter, which is part of the anti-glare coating.

3) my non-astigmatic eye was incorrectly marked with a prescription

4) I don't actually need glasses because I can see to the bottom of the eye chart without them. Its just as I'm now older, my vision is not as good as they used to be.

5) these were designed for "close work" but actually don't really help me focus closer to me.

However, arguing that, as a non-proffesional with only a passing understanding of optics (non-biological) with a large multinational company doesn't seem like a good use of time.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#194

Post by duttish »

This is just my own anecdotal experience but I usually get tired around 2130-22 but a few times I've turned off the red filter for various reasons (photo editing etc) and suddenly I'm still there at 0030-01.

I'm not saying it's like this for everyone, but it seems to work very well for me at least.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#195

Post by daneel_w »

MBCook wrote: post #146
daneel_w wrote: post #144

In summary blue light filters actually do work, through the indirect action of reducing overall light output, but the author has a larger axe to grind about the "technical details" (it's worth reading the article). The warmer color temperature reduces strain on my eyes, which I find both soothing and invaluable.

The author showed that Apple‘s implementation only cuts two colors by roughly 50%. And given we perceived light non-linearly aren’t they right that that really doesn’t make much of a difference? If someone put up an article saying “Turning down your headphones 1% will help stop hearing loss!“ most people are going to ignore it. OK yeah technically it will, but not to any meaningful amount.

So which do you think it really is? Cutting two wavelengths' outputs in half, or reducing them by a mere 1% as per your trifling comparison?

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#196

Post by accidentallfact »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #141

I found the basic premise of this blog post to be incredibly flawed. The author seems very sure of himself that blue light filters don't work, but making arguments related to cell types and emissions spectra and circadian rhythms is not the way to make a conclusive argument in a topic like this. Science is littered with recommendations about things that "plausibly" made sense, but that turned out to be flawed or just…

Even the premise of the idea is wrong, as evenings are either blue from the blue sky, or white from the clouds. It takes exceptional circumstances to have a reddish evening, and even then it's just around the sunset.

I guess that it may help people with undercorrected myopia due to the chromatic aberration, but, I don't know.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#197

Post by 7bit »

disillusioned wrote: post #190
storus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Gunnars give me immediate eye relief after a day of work looking at a display. Are you sure it's a scam?

To the extent that there's some sort of clinical statistically significant lift over, say, however you might control for a placebo here, who knows? To the extent that it's working for you in a meaningful way, placebo or not... does it even matter? If they're working for you, they're tautologically not a scam, except insofar as you find yourself missing out on benefits promised that aren't being realized, or you feel…

The same could be said about homeopathy, but homeopathy is a scam.

The problem is, how do you define "if there's an effect"? A placebo can not have an effect, yet, it has.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#198

Post by gurkenkram »

accidentallfact wrote: post #196
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #141

I found the basic premise of this blog post to be incredibly flawed. The author seems very sure of himself that blue light filters don't work, but making arguments related to cell types and emissions spectra and circadian rhythms is not the way to make a conclusive argument in a topic like this. Science is littered with recommendations about things that "plausibly" made sense, but that turned out to be flawed or just…

Even the premise of the idea is wrong, as evenings are either blue from the blue sky, or white from the clouds. It takes exceptional circumstances to have a reddish evening, and even then it's just around the sunset. I guess that it may help people with undercorrected myopia due to the chromatic aberration, but, I don't know.

It is indeed about the sunset and especially the last phases of it. It's also why red light is recommended for night feeding when breastfeeding.

Works for me, both reducing the blue light and worked for my baby, too, using only deep orange and red light of a cheap LED color change lamp. Apparently works for many, since red nursing lights are suddenly sold everywhere.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#199

Post by whateverboat »

stuckonempty wrote: post #164
UlisesAC4 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can absolutely confirm that night mode works wonders. Since ten years ago I discovered them I no longer have dry eye like problems.

This is great it works for you but hopefully you realize the weakness of anecdotal evidence when it comes to declaring something is universally effective. Your n of 1 argument is the equivalent of “my grandpa smoked until he was 95 so smoking clearly can’t be bad for your health”.

I love redshift as well. I actually keep it 24x7, and my eyes don't get tired at all even after 12 hours of programming. Nowadays, turning off redshift feels like an attack on the eyes.

And no, reducing brightness on monitors doesn't have the same effect. I recently upgraded my monitors to 600nits brightness from 350nits and there has been no change in comfort level with redshift but without the redshift, the old monitors (and the new) stil feel very hostile to eyes.

Re: Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet

#200

Post by cpburns2009 »

RupertSalt wrote: post #153
cpburns2009 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue light filtering lenses come at a premium. You don't accidentally get them.

Let me explain how many times I went back-and-forth with the opticians about "is this coating/feature optional?"

My optician's office charges an extra $100 for blue light filtering. They at least make it clear it's optional but recommended for frequent screen use.
Post reply on HN