• Lighting

  • Awful LED lights everywhere in USA...and upcoming incandescent ban!

beyondthelight

By artificial and in the context of this forum, I mean light from devices using led based backlight technology, oleds, etc.

This is a great site by a scientist who is also a participant on this forum ("jen" username on this forum):

https://www.flickersense.org/testing-leds-and-screens

Quoting that webpage:

Random flicker might be better than regularly pulsed flicker. Candlelight flickers slowly, but it doesn't harm me and even makes my brain feel a little better when I'm recovering from LED injury.

I view that many natural light sources do not have the same regularly pulsed flicker as our devices (artificial source). FRC (temporal dithering) and pixel inversion are very regular flicker patterns. Lots of measurements (including my own) on this forum confirm the regularly pulsed flicker aspect of current displays.

Also [emphasis mine]:

All of the LED lights that are OK for me have some special quality. Some are DC or have good AC/DC conversion and have low, non-periodic flicker. Some have low flicker that lacks color flicker and that has either a very random pattern or slight randomness to its pattern. This suggests that specific engineering for qualities not yet described by the IEEE report and not yet clearly defined may be required to create safe LEDs.

I wrote previously about what would be a more "ideal" display. I mentioned and included color spectrum as a criteria (WLED backlight spectrum peaks) so I am definitely interested in seeing improvements in the "quality" of the light itself, "the raw substance" as you termed.

https://ledstrain.org/d/2589-products-to-try-or-avoid-pwm-flicker-and-temporal-dithering-testing/158

More about FRC here: https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=6799\

I wonder if these older LCDs due to their being not as accuracy as current displays are more comfortable.

Very old LCDs like an early portable TV or old 1994 Thinkpad, had a lot of pixel noise, the electronics weren't able to adjust pixels as accurately as they can today.

      I wonder what folks here have to say about this statement from https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=6799

      Looks to me that FRC is not "below the noise floor" of people's vision despite claims to the contrary [emphasis mine]

      Human vision already has natural noise (but most brain filters that). The same problem affects camera sensors.

      The important job is to make sure FRC/temporal dithering is below the noise floor of human vision. Also at high resolution, FRC pixels are so fine that it's almost like invisible spatial dithering instead of temporal dithering. Also, FRC is dithering only between adjacent colors in the color gamut, not between widely-spaced colors (like some technologies such as DLP has to).

      photon78s By artificial and in the context of this forum, I mean light from devices using led based backlight technology, oleds, etc.

      Ok, first the context of this forum is decided by its content, each one decides in what context his/her strain is situated. Second you are talking about electro-luminescence then, because all those light sources you mention are luminescent. Because there is no such thing as artificial light, light is light, or does artificial water exist?

      photon78s This is a great site by a scientist who is also a participant on this forum ("jen" username on this forum):

      https://www.flickersense.org/testing-leds-and-screens

      what a great resource! it has so much data, this is by far the widest, deepest database of electro-luminescence nastiness.

      photon78s so I am definitely interested in seeing improvements in the "quality" of the light itself, "the raw substance" as you termed.

      Try a small spectrumview electro-indandescent monitor and then we can talk about this subject later, because there is no point until you actually experience it.

              beyondthelight

              Happy that the monitor works for you. At the moment I will wait for more reviews and testing data.

              Anyone care to explain this statement:

              In fact, many modern light sources, such as LED lights, use a combination of incandescence and luminescence to produce light. Incandescent materials can provide the initial heat to activate luminescent materials, resulting in a more energy-efficient and versatile light source.

              Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/incandescence-vs-luminescence.382420/

                  Why do they only accept bitcoin? That's always a massive red flag for me. I will be holding off buying this until some sites start doing legitimate reviews on it.

                  photon78s the company informed me earlier that their 10bit panel is true 10bit. I will wait for them to share the panel model # (if they do..) so I can find a datasheet that indeed shows 10bit unless they already have access to the datasheet? I don't care how much more extra true 8 or true 10 bit cost as long as there's no frc.. I'm sure others feel the same as well

                      jordan

                      Promising. Ideally, they must show the testing data for FRC (and how the pixel inversion looks like in motion) including what computer/software/gpu/driver/cable/bios version etc. is driving the display not just simply claim "true 10 bit" but turns out to be actually 8 bit + FRC like with so many other manufacturers. I also care about matte texture roughness issue coming from bad experiences with modern high end supposedly verified 10 bit Eizos. I'm not interested in any compromised "solution" as it seems that the tech exists just scattered in different products and never combined into one (too high cost?). Mentioning wood enclosure is nice and aesthetic (hopefully less VOC off-gassing but that is another issue) and part of their natural oriented viewpoint but just for myself I prefer costs and engineering time to be more focused on the actual display tech.

                          photon78s yeah that's true that would be nice to know. The datasheet from panel manufacture seems to always specify if frc is being used. Panel look alone sadly isn't always right, datasheet PDF is a must. Oh right!! If I could I would definitely prefer glossy myself. Recently I tried a matte film on my phone and it made me feel not so good. I think with what you were saying with matte harshness it adds a rainbow grainy/ dither like effect if you know what I mean. Unsure how to properly describe it but I think you'll know what I mean.

                              jordan

                              Yes, not just the rainbow effect but an eye focusing issue especially working on black text on white background or even in dark mode in apps while coding etc. I find my 7i screen (in between matte and glossy but leaning slightly towards smoothness/glossy) much more comfortable for longer work sessions than a pro grade Eizo but others may differ on the issue. Also they should verify the lack of backlight flicker even if it is using incandescence. For example, see Incandescent light bulb "gentle" flicker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HUrYoqxQpw

                              Datasheet + high speed microscope pixel-level videos would be even better at the relevant frame rate to show the motion if their is still some unavoidable pixel inversion.

                              If an incandescent light flickers in brightness with the same waveform pattern (frequencies and amplitudes) as a known harmful led source, will it have the same or similar negative effect on the viewer? This is making sure the only thing different is the color spectrum and CRI. Any examples/studies on this?

                                  photon78s In fact, many modern light sources, such as LED lights, use a combination of incandescence and luminescence to produce light. Incandescent materials can provide the initial heat to activate luminescent materials, resulting in a more energy-efficient and versatile light source.

                                  This physicsforum.com user's statement is pure nonsense, there is no such thing, luminescent light activated materials are not activated by heat, its nonsense. Phosphors that convert UV light (black light) into white like in LED's and the old CFL's are activated not by heat but by cold ultraviolet light. Only in those old white CFL fluorescent tubes a ballast was needed to provide a second long incandescent light for the mercury vapor to start being conductive for the high voltage that came afterwards, this generated UV light, and as this UV light shined on the white chalky phosphor coating around the glass tube, it produced phosphorescence, which is a type of luminescence. Which is the exact same principle used in WLED, except it does not use mercury vapor to produce UV light or needs a ballast to start up, now its just a purple diode with a phosphor coating, the amount of coating determines the kelvin temperature, "cool" or "warm", but the photons are still luminescent in nature.

                                    photon78s If an incandescent light flickers in brightness with the same waveform pattern (frequencies and amplitudes) as a known harmful led source, will it have the same or similar negative effect on the viewer? This is making sure the only thing different is the color spectrum and CRI. Any examples/studies on this?

                                    This would be interesting to explore, but it could not physically be possible for an incandescent light source to flicker in similar waveform frequencies as a LED source, because in incandescence bulbs for example, the filament that heats red hot cant turn on and off that quickly like a LED, most it can do is a sine wave, LED's can flicker in square waves, just completely on and off at hundred or thousands and even million times per second, that's how information is transmitted by fiber optic cables, with lased diodes, which are just collimated LEDs. But incandescent light can't do that, not even in your wildest dreams, its just physically not possible. Any frequency that you put in an incandescent bulb naturally dampens into a sine wave, the heated filament dampens any high frequencies or square waves.

                                      Cool site. They actually say on the site that they have a non frc 10 bit monitor.

                                      31.5″ 3840 x 2160 (4K), 75Hz, HDMI, VGA, DisplayPort, 178° viewing angle, 10 bit (No FRC) 7W, 120/240V, 81x62x3cm 5.2Kg. With electro-incandescent light box: 40-300W, 120/240V, 81x62x16cm 7.6Kg.

                                      They even have a link to an open source guide at the bottom of the page. They seem like nice people, and I'm sure they would provide more details if others want to experiment here. Tbh it wouldn't be too hard to create a project here around building an optimal monitor with a 3d printed frame and incandescent backlight, provided someone can source proper panels from a supplier that has drivers that are easy to work with.

                                      solar-backlit-laptop-screen-plans.pdf (solarbacklight.com)

                                      Edit: This was somewhat interesting We made our own monitor for under $100! (youtube.com)

                                      Edit2: Might also be possible to just buy some montitor, strip off the back and use a new controller. eDP: are controller boards universal to panels? | Ars OpenForum (arstechnica.com)

                                        async

                                        Those are great links for DIY approach. This product reminds me of photographic incandescent backlit light table or old school overhead projectors. Remind myself to get some E26 incans or other compatible bulbs that are increasingly hard to acquire in certain regions if going with this approach.

                                        This might be in the general direction for driver board found from frame.work HDMI controller board discussion

                                        Can we get the incandescent backlight to not even have the gentle smoothed change in brightness like from AC mains?

                                        Other mention of spectrumview here:

                                        https://diysolarforum.com/threads/incandescent-computer-monitors.79202/

                                          async They even have a link to an open source guide at the bottom of the page

                                          BTW, the website is updated every few days (just a couple of days ago there was no "No FRC" and the open source guide said "coming soon", and the contact form had just been added) so it's worth checking every now and then for new info

                                          @photon78s you might have already known, but solarbacklight is the same website as spectrumview — so the first guide describes specifically how they made their monitor

                                              Nasty lighting is everywhere now even Nikon cameras have a "natural light" white balance setting.

                                              Source: https://bythom.com/newsviews/do-you-know-whats-automated.html

                                              First of all, artificial light is different than natural light. Natural light is a form of black body radiation, which means that light spectrum is created continuously both in value and time. Most artificial or human-modified light tends to have spectral gaps and peaks, plus they often have a frequency component. I'm a strong believer that if you're outdoors during the day photographing in natural light, you should always use Nikon's Natural Light Auto. If you're indoors (or outdoors at night in a city area with artificial lights present), you can pick one of the other auto white balances, but I'd argue that you need more information and should be using that to perhaps make a different choice.

                                                photon78s Nasty lighting is everywhere now

                                                I agree, and this is the part i don’t get, why is there such a push to ban incandescence light when everybody knows is the best quality source of electric light we have, ok maybe not the younger generation that grew up with cfl’s and led’s and maybe has never seen an incandescent bulb. But my question is, why do our political overlords want to discourage its use? The official narrative is because they use too much electricity and are not “efficient enough”. But this has many incongruences and does not stand for the least of logical scrutiny.

                                                First incandescent bulbs are known to last for centuries, https://www.museumoflost.com/the-centennial-light/ , this was just course before planed obsolescence kicked in, https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy which then made the filaments burn much hotter to reduce their lifespan, but you can still have centennial lasting incandescent bulbs at home if you just wire them in series, for example instead of having one 100w bulb shinning at full brightness, just easily wire two sockets to connect two 100w bulbs in series, meaning it will still use 100w and output same lumens, but the bulbs will shine at 50% each, giving a nice warm light that will last for generations. So in reality incandescent bulbs can be really efficient in a long lasting sense, much more than led’s, and because they are made of just glass and metal without any plastic, their disposal are much environmentally friendly than plastic led’s.

                                                The second argument is about its electric to light conversion efficiency, that they use more electricity for the output lumens compared to led’s, and this is true, but they don’t say anything about photon and spectral quality because led’s are no match for incandescent bulbs in that sense. An analogy of their rhetoric is similar to somebody telling you that the only food you can eat is cereal, because the conversion of calories to energy is more concentrated by weight, and therefore its a more efficient mass to energy conversion food than other less caloric foods like for example fish. This is the narrative, that you should not worry about the quality of the food or photons you consume, because its energetic conversion efficiency is the single most important thing that matters...at least for light, because the consumption amount of electricity does not matter when it comes to electric cars, electric stoves, electricity devouring 5g celltower antennas, or to power trillion watt particle accelerators that nobody knows exactly how that is contributing to raising their quality of life. The political, environmental, and technical arguments against incandescent light use does not make sense from many points of view, or is there a hidden hand trying to ban incandescence?

                                                    13 days later

                                                    async

                                                    async Tbh it wouldn't be too hard to create a project here around building an optimal monitor with a 3d printed frame and incandescent backlight

                                                    Absolutely agree, there should be a project page here around creating your own incandescent backlight monitor, it would certainly be the first of its kind.

                                                        beyondthelight But my question is, why do our political overlords want to discourage its use?

                                                        Because Incandescent bulbs made manufacturers pennies. and LED bulbs make them dollars, so they push for bans on incandescent so they can make more $$. It's all about the money

                                                        Thankfully I saw this ban coming and stocked up with a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs for my home.

                                                            ensete I don't think this is all about the money, because its not like the government has a monopoly on LED bulbs, or any national industry for that matter, all led chips come from China, with very few exceptions. So its definitely not about the money in my humble opinion, i think there is something else, and its not about the energy consumption either, because how much more efficient everything has become now, compared to when people used to have incandescent bulbs at home, how many more solar farms and wind turbines have been installed, and other sources of energy found too. There is no shortage of electricity, no way, a lot of people even generate their own electricity at home, so why ban incandescent bulbs even homes are generating their own electricity? The ban is definitely not because they use more electricity than LED bulbs, because that is not a problem, because there is more than enough electricity, and even if there wasn't enough, people can still decide if the higher price they are willing to pay for using incandescent bulbs is worth it. Just like one can decide if its worth to have a small car or a huge truck, if it was about energy consumption why are trucks and sport cars not banned? So the incandescent ban concerns to something else, a hidden purpose, something that is being obfuscated.

                                                                dev