> Many factors, like light scattering and imperfections in the eye’s optics, keep light from coming into sharp focus on the retina, Buabeng said.
> The study also found that iris pigmentation influenced how far apart the two light points needed to be before viewers could distinguish them as separate points. Using a standardized iris color chart, researchers classified each participant’s eye color before analyzing the results. Participants with lighter-colored irises, particularly blue eyes, experienced greater light scatter than those with darker brown irises.
Sounds like the research took a next step beyond previous studies on the same subject. You know, basically how science is supposed to work. Something anyone giving a flippant reply here could have figured out if they actually had read the article.
I've had some light-sensitivity issues for as long as a remember. So I always get glasses with transitions. On computer though I've always been using flux [0] since it came out. I know that now a lot of OSes are supporting some kind of night mode, but I really like how there are some different parameters you can adjust in flux. And it's free.
We receive and store any information you knowingly provide to us. For example, if you use our Software to search for your location, we may collect geolocation data (including, without limitation, city names and specific addresses you provide).
We may choose to buy or sell assets. In these types of transactions, customer information is typically one of the business assets that would be transferred.
I'm trying to get my hands on some decently high wattage (100W ideally) incandescent bulbs because it's really been bugging me lately that while I can still focus just fine, I have trouble making out details and some colours in artificial lighting. I've come to the conclusion that there's really no substitute for light generated from heat.
I really like the GE Sun Filled soft white bulbs (not the daylight version). They’re pricey and only 60w equivalent but they’re the closest to incandescent I’ve found.
It hugely depends on the quality of the light. Look at CRI (and the newer, better TM-30). Low quality LED lighting is just terrible, the room appears light but colors and details are poor.
It's technically possible to achieve a 100 CRI score with a broad enough range of frequency spikes rather than the continuous range of frequencies you get from incandescent bulbs. So even the best LED bulb isn't going to match incandescent.
Philips Warm Glow A19 Medium Dimmable LED Light Bulb 479428, is something I've found. Phillips has been making more lights in the amber range. I really can't stand lights with higher kelvin ratings.
I have some LED bulbs at home but I use G9 halogens in either an E14 or an E27 adapter for the places where light quality is important to me. I tried a number of so-called "full spectrum" LED bulbs but I don't find the light they produce quite as satisfying as my halogens.
From the paper's abstract (emphasis mine): "Wavelength influences multiple aspects of visual performance, yet its role in spatial resolution remains incompletely understood due to confounding factors such as luminance differences, chromatic aberration, and intraocular scatter."
They then did some modeling to estimate how well the results could be explained by scattering, chromatic aberration and, neural sampling (the cone cell density factor that you mentioned). They concluded that none of them could completely explain the observed results, but their results seemed to suggest the bulk of the effect is due to optical effects, with neurological factors as a secondary cause.
Refining existing knowledge by examining phenomena in more detail is how science should be done. The pressure to focus on discovering entirely new things is a major cause of the replication crisis.
Well, the title here at HN implies something else than the study shows.
If blue light actually impaired vision, that would be very notable. It would mean that removing the blue 'channel' for an RGB image would improve acuity. This is not what the study showed, however.
It is mainly just the basic fewer cones bit you mentioned. Which, btw, is easily experienced if you ever look from a distance at neon or led signs that only emit blue light. They'll persistently look out of focus when compared to their surroundings.
Yeah. I worked in the optical industry to pay for college. That was decades ago and one of the Drs I worked with and I had discussions on this. It was interesting at the time as I knew very little about optics when I started.
I get that the guy needed to write a paper on something to get his PhD (in psychology, which might explain some of this as well, I thought standards were a little higher in the hard sciences), but don't know why it deserves a high profile. At least, based on merit.
I certainly thought so. I have astigmatism and I cannot for the life of me read blue LED/neon signs at any reasonable distance at night. Any other colour, no problem. Blue is just a blurry mess.
Blue light also probably has more dispersion (aka chromatic aberration) .. I wonder how the eye deals with chromatic aberration, if we just filter it out by processing or if the system doesn't really suffer from it?
Edit: or perhaps that's the reason why we don't have high resolution in blue.
Interesting, i've read in the past that blue lights are used sometimes in places where they want to dissuade people from intravenous drug use because the blue light makes it harder to find a vein. I wonder if that qualifies as fine detail.
The hospital toilets in Melbourne definitely have that setup. It was weird seeing basically every surface as just a shade of blue and nothing else.
I do wonder - now that most people have a phone with a flashlight - would not the druggies illuminate their own arms with white light and not be too bothered?
> Many factors, like light scattering and imperfections in the eye’s optics, keep light from coming into sharp focus on the retina, Buabeng said.
> The study also found that iris pigmentation influenced how far apart the two light points needed to be before viewers could distinguish them as separate points. Using a standardized iris color chart, researchers classified each participant’s eye color before analyzing the results. Participants with lighter-colored irises, particularly blue eyes, experienced greater light scatter than those with darker brown irises.
Sounds like the research took a next step beyond previous studies on the same subject. You know, basically how science is supposed to work. Something anyone giving a flippant reply here could have figured out if they actually had read the article.
I've had some light-sensitivity issues for as long as a remember. So I always get glasses with transitions. On computer though I've always been using flux [0] since it came out. I know that now a lot of OSes are supporting some kind of night mode, but I really like how there are some different parameters you can adjust in flux. And it's free.
[0] https://justgetflux.com/
Just read https://justgetflux.com/privacy/ carefully.
Still rocking Redshift on X11.I will always upvote a comment supporting f.lux given the chance to. Fantastic piece of software.
I'm trying to get my hands on some decently high wattage (100W ideally) incandescent bulbs because it's really been bugging me lately that while I can still focus just fine, I have trouble making out details and some colours in artificial lighting. I've come to the conclusion that there's really no substitute for light generated from heat.
I really like the GE Sun Filled soft white bulbs (not the daylight version). They’re pricey and only 60w equivalent but they’re the closest to incandescent I’ve found.
It hugely depends on the quality of the light. Look at CRI (and the newer, better TM-30). Low quality LED lighting is just terrible, the room appears light but colors and details are poor.
It's technically possible to achieve a 100 CRI score with a broad enough range of frequency spikes rather than the continuous range of frequencies you get from incandescent bulbs. So even the best LED bulb isn't going to match incandescent.
Philips Warm Glow A19 Medium Dimmable LED Light Bulb 479428, is something I've found. Phillips has been making more lights in the amber range. I really can't stand lights with higher kelvin ratings.
I have some LED bulbs at home but I use G9 halogens in either an E14 or an E27 adapter for the places where light quality is important to me. I tried a number of so-called "full spectrum" LED bulbs but I don't find the light they produce quite as satisfying as my halogens.
Isn't this well known? The human retina has fewer blue-sensitive cone cells, and very few in the fovea, which sees the sharpest details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell#Distribution
From the paper's abstract (emphasis mine): "Wavelength influences multiple aspects of visual performance, yet its role in spatial resolution remains incompletely understood due to confounding factors such as luminance differences, chromatic aberration, and intraocular scatter."
They then did some modeling to estimate how well the results could be explained by scattering, chromatic aberration and, neural sampling (the cone cell density factor that you mentioned). They concluded that none of them could completely explain the observed results, but their results seemed to suggest the bulk of the effect is due to optical effects, with neurological factors as a secondary cause.
Refining existing knowledge by examining phenomena in more detail is how science should be done. The pressure to focus on discovering entirely new things is a major cause of the replication crisis.
Well, the title here at HN implies something else than the study shows.
If blue light actually impaired vision, that would be very notable. It would mean that removing the blue 'channel' for an RGB image would improve acuity. This is not what the study showed, however.
It is mainly just the basic fewer cones bit you mentioned. Which, btw, is easily experienced if you ever look from a distance at neon or led signs that only emit blue light. They'll persistently look out of focus when compared to their surroundings.
Yeah. I worked in the optical industry to pay for college. That was decades ago and one of the Drs I worked with and I had discussions on this. It was interesting at the time as I knew very little about optics when I started.
I get that the guy needed to write a paper on something to get his PhD (in psychology, which might explain some of this as well, I thought standards were a little higher in the hard sciences), but don't know why it deserves a high profile. At least, based on merit.
Blue Blocker glasses were a thing since the 80s
I certainly thought so. I have astigmatism and I cannot for the life of me read blue LED/neon signs at any reasonable distance at night. Any other colour, no problem. Blue is just a blurry mess.
Blue light also probably has more dispersion (aka chromatic aberration) .. I wonder how the eye deals with chromatic aberration, if we just filter it out by processing or if the system doesn't really suffer from it? Edit: or perhaps that's the reason why we don't have high resolution in blue.
Looks like we French had the right idea with yellow headlights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_yellow
This is plain obvious, I don't know why this isn't mainstream everywhere. The new cars with white lights are often blinding.
so did John Rambo use the wrong light?
Interesting, i've read in the past that blue lights are used sometimes in places where they want to dissuade people from intravenous drug use because the blue light makes it harder to find a vein. I wonder if that qualifies as fine detail.
The hospital toilets in Melbourne definitely have that setup. It was weird seeing basically every surface as just a shade of blue and nothing else.
I do wonder - now that most people have a phone with a flashlight - would not the druggies illuminate their own arms with white light and not be too bothered?
Ils this new research ? Why is it for me common knowledge ? Everyone knows blue light looks blurry because blue retina receptors have lower definition
https://xkcd.com/2501/
https://xkcd.com/1053/