Question about sunlight and monitorlight

A LCD monitor actually uses frequencies within the spectrum of colors that we can supposedly see and does not give us the ones we cannot supposedly see. The trouble is that concentrating just these frequencies is hard on the eyes, those frequencies isolated do not exist in nature and our eyes are not used to them. Digital signal also just sends those specific frequencies to lessen power needs.

I wonder if everyone will be blind by the time they are sixty in the future?

Or, maybe people will adapt and will not be able to go outside in the sun.

a reply to: rickymouse

A LCD monitor actually uses frequencies within the spectrum of colors that we can supposedly see and does not give us the ones we cannot supposedly see. The trouble is that concentrating just these frequencies is hard on the eyes, those frequencies isolated do not exist in nature and our eyes are not used to them.

Sounds reasonable to me. But it are still tiny monocromatic lightsources right ? I'm inclined to say that monitors emit discrete light and a the sun a continuum.

I wonder if everyone will be blind by the time they are sixty in the future?

Well good point ,for as good as I know now the colors that the monitor produced are not 'real' only 3 or in best case four are. on the new RGBY tv's there are even 2 kinds of yellow (the composite and the real). So the light of any monitor is 'ansich' very unnatural. Eyes may react different to these lightsources. But the brain is falling for the illusion.

Retorical Do the eyes see more than the brain can handle ?

I know of one case in which a guy could see UV after an operation , the lens is filtering out a lot of UV. Maybe just maybe light that isn't perceivable has an impact on the eyes too. So you might be right that our eyes need sunlight with it's entire spectrum instead of just 3 frequencies all day long behind the monitor...

a reply to: frenchfries

When red and green combine yellow is produced. The colors coming from our monitors are nothing more than radiation that our optic nerve senses, sends to our brain which then converts into meaningful data that we can use. At least that's my understanding of the matter.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: rickymouse

A LCD monitor actually uses frequencies within the spectrum of colors that we can supposedly see and does not give us the ones we cannot supposedly see. The trouble is that concentrating just these frequencies is hard on the eyes, those frequencies isolated do not exist in nature and our eyes are not used to them.

Sounds reasonable to me. But it are still tiny monocromatic lightsources right ? I'm inclined to say that monitors emit discrete light and a the sun a continuum.

In what way is that reasonable? it is entirely unreasonable and given with absolute disregard to reality.

The frequencies of light emitted by an LCD are entirely existent in nature. The sun gives us quite a nice continuum which covers right over the spread of frequencies produced by the different 'colour' LEDs or dyes.

I wonder if everyone will be blind by the time they are sixty in the future?

Well good point ,for as good as I know now the colors that the monitor produced are not 'real' only 3 or in best case four are. on the new RGBY tv's there are even 2 kinds of yellow (the composite and the real). So the light of any monitor is 'ansich' very unnatural. Eyes may react different to these lightsources. But the brain is falling for the illusion.

Retorical Do the eyes see more than the brain can handle ?

I know of one case in which a guy could see UV after an operation , the lens is filtering out a lot of UV. Maybe just maybe light that isn't perceivable has an impact on the eyes too. So you might be right that our eyes need sunlight with it's entire spectrum instead of just 3 frequencies all day long behind the monitor...

Again, please explain how the what is a photochemical effect of triggering the eyes can at all be effected by the frequencies? the eye roughly just act as a trigger, they don't really care all that much about the frequency except having a chemically dependant efficiency.

bad science is bad

a reply to: frenchfries

Also forgot to say you shall check for the difference between photometry and radiometry, many info for you inthere.

a reply to: rickymouse

The human eye cannot "see" yellow. That is, the eye has cones for red, green, and blue, but it has no cone that can see yellow.

However, the brain can perceive yellow based on the information the cones in the eyes tell it. Yellow things affect the red and green cones in a specific way, and the brain reads that input from the red and green cones as being "yellow".

So humans' ability to perceive the color yellow is a bit of an illusion, in a way.

Human vision has three colour receptors; red (565nm), green (508nm) and blue (445nm). Each of these have a response curve that is sine wave shaped, and so they overlap each other. Thus any color that is seen has a unique sets of responses for each receptor.

Computer monitors that take advantage of this process by generating three intensities at these frequencies for each pixel. For each pixel, it appears there is a particular color there.

a reply to: ErosA433

www.livescience.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The conclusion on this is concerning.

a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: ErosA433
www.livescience.com...

Thanks for the link, though the article contains little to no scientific information other than a sensational coffee time easy to digest story.
A better more detailed version of this story is detailed here

rcc.harvard.edu...

Even then... its not that detailed...What the research says however is that it is nothing to do with the Red and Green LEDS it is the increased prevelence of near UV and UV that it emitted by the blue LED or light emitting source.

It has nothing to do with 'Naturalness' of the frequencies, and all to do with that you are exposing your eyes to a higher energy tail of a spectrum that you might otherwise not be exposed to unless you say... looked directly at the sun, or at a lightning flash for example. You might call me pedantic but its important to clear up this kind of thing because while you are right that LCD/LED screen use might increase eye deterioration based on the above, claiming its because of natural frequencies is a figment of the imagination.

Red and green light is basically not energetic enough to case damage to the eye at normal levels. It is the blue, when pushed out to the near-UV and soft-UV that is energetic enough to cause damage.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The conclusion on this is concerning.

Your interpretation of this is somewhat puzzling. I read it, and in no part does it suggest that LCD/LED displays are a major factor in eye problems. Infact... LCD/LEDs and computer work are not mentioned at all in the document. What it says is actually that a certain amount of UV exposure during childhood appears to protect from later development of issues. Seemingly the opposite of the statements made in the previous link. From the data presented it is quite hard to come to the absolute conclusion that, Computer use and looking at LCD/LED displays = eye problems because its not natural.

It basically says that more study is required but, childhood conditioning by UV exposure could cause some later life protection against problems later in life, and those more at risk are those who didn't have that same childhood exposure.

Sorry Frenchfries... thumbs down? for what exactly? asking for something better 'coz its not natural man' thought the motto for ATS was deny ignorance...

originally posted by: frenchfriesI'm inclined to say that monitors emit discrete light and a the sun a continuum.

You are wrong. Painfully wrong.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: ErosA433
www.livescience.com...

Thanks for the link, though the article contains little to no scientific information other than a sensational coffee time easy to digest story.
A better more detailed version of this story is detailed here

rcc.harvard.edu...

Even then... its not that detailed...What the research says however is that it is nothing to do with the Red and Green LEDS it is the increased prevelence of near UV and UV that it emitted by the blue LED or light emitting source.

It has nothing to do with 'Naturalness' of the frequencies, and all to do with that you are exposing your eyes to a higher energy tail of a spectrum that you might otherwise not be exposed to unless you say... looked directly at the sun, or at a lightning flash for example. You might call me pedantic but its important to clear up this kind of thing because while you are right that LCD/LED screen use might increase eye deterioration based on the above, claiming its because of natural frequencies is a figment of the imagination.

Red and green light is basically not energetic enough to case damage to the eye at normal levels. It is the blue, when pushed out to the near-UV and soft-UV that is energetic enough to cause damage.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The conclusion on this is concerning.

Your interpretation of this is somewhat puzzling. I read it, and in no part does it suggest that LCD/LED displays are a major factor in eye problems. Infact... LCD/LEDs and computer work are not mentioned at all in the document. What it says is actually that a certain amount of UV exposure during childhood appears to protect from later development of issues. Seemingly the opposite of the statements made in the previous link. From the data presented it is quite hard to come to the absolute conclusion that, Computer use and looking at LCD/LED displays = eye problems because its not natural.

It basically says that more study is required but, childhood conditioning by UV exposure could cause some later life protection against problems later in life, and those more at risk are those who didn't have that same childhood exposure.

Sorry Frenchfries... thumbs down? for what exactly? asking for something better 'coz its not natural man' thought the motto for ATS was deny ignorance...

I should have said unnaturally mixed or concentrated frequencies. It is like dumping too much concentrated natural chemistry into the water from a slaughter house, a little from a small slaughterhouse is natural, the big meat processing plants dump way too much and it can destroy the environment further down stream and into the Ocean till it dilutes.

In this case of narrowing the band, the frequencies we cannot see actually buffer the strength of what we can see in natural light. Subtract the buffer and what happens? I read an extensive article about that but the conclusion could not yet be known because it will take years of research to see what the effect in humans is. I was watching someone's TV one day and my old friend said it was clearer than anything in the room. He was right, we examined things then went back to looking at the tv. After you watch the TV for a few minutes, everything else looks a tad less clear. I did research on what we had noticed and ran into an article that addressed that. That is where I got what I just said. Much of the filtering is actually done in the brain from what the article said.

On another note, they can transmit information through LEDs, but people need to be trained to receive the information in the brain. This has already been proven, I wonder if some of this training is being done through the shows we watch on the TV or our monitors. If you see someone drinking a cold bottle of coke, and when they add in a certain frequency pattern, you want to drink a coke when you see that pattern. Or even worse, we choose the candidate for president because of a frequency pattern of trust they associate the candidate with. It is good they haven't got this perfected yet, society would be more of a puppet than it is now. I thought conditioning techniques back in the seventies were bad.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: frenchfries

There are quite a few screens with a dedicated yellow diode/pixel now - RGBY.

Most monitors are RGB and we see in RGB so that seems like a good match for our vision.

I'm not at all impressed by what I've read about RGBY:

RGB vs RGBY: Does Adding Yellow Really Improve TV Image Quality?

The additional yellow pixel is not a bad thing, but the overall consensus is that it's an unnecessary feature for current home theater content. If brightness is what you're after, perhaps Nano Lighting or OLED with its blacker-blacks are better alternatives. The fourth subpixel may have its day, but for now is too gimmicky to justify the premium price.

@frenchfries
To me your question involves not only pixel size of the monitor but the equivalent of "pixel size" of the eye's cones in particular, though the rods play a role too even though they don't sense color.

If you look through a magnifier at a monitor, your eyes/brain can see the discrete colors in the pixels. It's only when you make them small enough that they tend to blend together in our perception. No blending in the perception of a closeup view of a monitor, right?

a reply to: ErosA433

If you look through a magnifier at a monitor, your eyes/brain can see the discrete colors in the pixels. It's only when you make them small enough that they tend to blend together in our perception. No blending in the perception of a closeup view of a monitor, right?

Indeed thanks , but my point is more about the frequencies and the eyes as a system. the perception is what is done in the brain. But we are more than just a brain.

After I started to realize that the light emitted from the monitor is Discrete 3 or 4 frequencies I also realized that maybe a continue spectrum of light triggers processes in the eye that aren't part of the visual trackt but do have effect on the eye as an organ so indirect can be beneficial.

Look I'm not saying that LCD are per se harmfull but it's a fact they are not natural.

So to conclude what (brains) can't see might as well important too. For me it's only natural that a steady bombardment of 3 frequencies must have some effect (positive or negative) on the entire organism that is different from a continue spectrum.

a reply to: ErosA433

In what way is that reasonable? it is entirely unreasonable and given with absolute disregard to reality. The frequencies of light emitted by an LCD are entirely existent in nature. The sun gives us quite a nice continuum which covers right over the spread of frequencies produced by the different 'colour' LEDs or dyes.

Ah the thumbs down but nothing personal. ... look I agreed with the guy and it still sounds reasonable to me, than you say it's unreasonable and then you repeat my argument. Then you go further with scientific argument. finishing with 'bad science is bad'. That's an attitude right ?! If you read my post you see I don't disagree at all with you...
But responding with 'disregard to reality' makes me look like I'm talking about frequencies outside the band.
If any you should have read my post more carefully.

It is an attitude, it is an expression of exhaustion of people making strange claims or expressing them in a way that can mislead or misinform, whether intentional or not.

I did read your post quite carefully, my direction was not so much at yourself Frenchfries than a double back at Rickymouse.

The eyes operate electrochemically, the brain performs adaptive focusing as a matter of reflex pretty much. There are lots of things that we know cause problems with the eyes, its quite important that we identify, study and if possible, propose solutions to. The post was not clear, although later described by a response to me up above. There are still lots of subjective additions made by rickymouse though this time far clearer explaining the thoughts and interpretation from the articles.

What I know of light, I think people are getting a head of themselves still with this Natural = good, none natural = bad.

Example
This is taken from a study of how the colour of certain parts of a flower effects how bee's approach the flower. Now my point isn't about this but more the linked reflectance spectrum of the various tests.
What they did was to put an Orchid in a setup and watch bee's visiting it, they then removed the inner petals and replaced them with fakes that have different colour spectrums and watched how the bee's then approached. Right, thats the purpose of the study, but if you look at the spectrum below.

jeb.biologists.org...
Spectrum


It clearly shows that the reflectance spectrum of the original flower... denoted as OP... is a spectrum containing a peak at 460nm... or Blue and then a rise in the spectrum at 600 which is... Yellow-Orange. The 'natural colour' of this flower being that nice deep purple/pink.

SO thats an example of mixing different wavelengths, it occurs in nature, so is it bad for your eyes to look at an Orchid? Also notice that the Yellow in this plot actually stars as a cliff in the green, and passes right through into the red spectrum.

Iv also seen similar plots looking at butterfly wings.

My point is this -> It is hard to say that mixing two colours in a light source to make yellow is harmful for the eyes in comparison to that of a single light source peaked at yellow. I am not sure that there is any evidence for it. The only evidence iv seen presented is as follows;


High intensity light causes retina damage (known before)
Light sources such as LEDs can have long tails into near UV and Soft UV which can cause eye and retina damage (Known before)
The balance of brightness of an display's components, in order to achieve a human perceived 'white' can mean that the intensity of the blue light can be very high and high enough to cause degradation.

This is quite interesting and something I was unaware of before this thread. I knew that the mixture of the different colours to get 'white' was done via either 3 or 4 colours on such displays, but was unaware how extreme the spectrum can be (peaked) toward the blue. Which is ultimately the point. It has little to do with yellow being a mix of two colours, more the relative intensity of the sources. Saw one plot showing a spectrum from an iPad, it was interesting that the blue peak was about 3 times higher than the rest, it was also very narrow, with the others being more spread. The other interesting thing was that the spectrum between green and red is double peaked although a continuum between those peaks... looking quite similar to that of the Orchid (in context that it is smooth, and not 3 clear distinct colours)

a reply to: ErosA433

ha yes , I mixed up a lot yesterday , didn't sleep good .

So thats an example of mixing different wavelengths, it occurs in nature, so is it bad for your eyes to look at an Orchid? Also notice that the Yellow in this plot actually stars as a cliff in the green, and passes right through into the red spectrum.

Well i think you're right mixing is quite natural. But consider this. Behind monitors we see only 3 basecolors (and if one is rich 4) all the time and very long.
This isn't natural. But as you said non-natural doesn't mean bad. But well with my common sense I think that it isn't good too. In a way i'm inclined to say that it's better too sit in the sun a while each day just to relax the eyes. I do it in combination with Astaxantine and it helps my bad eyesight to relax.

If you're interested in Eyesight I can share the following... (not a link but an observation)

Quite interesting (by observation) is that many people in central Africa developed myopia in just one generation. myopia is still a mystery to me what is the underlying proces. In the case of central Afrika it can't be genetics... old pygmee's have good eyesight , but their western style living children not always....

Greetings

In the 1660s, English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton began a series of experiments with sunlight and prisms. He demonstrated that clear white light was composed of seven visible colors.
By scientifically establishing our visible spectrum (the colors we see in a rainbow), Newton laid the path for others to experiment with color in a scientific manner. His work led to breakthroughs in optics, physics, chemistry, perception, and the study of color in nature.

a reply to: AsongAboutU

I was always quite partial to the double-slit experiment back in science class and the fact that light and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles.

Said experiment perfectly illustrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.