With the new election results, maybe incandescent will come back. :)

jordan

I also agree that Irlen really works: I totally was suspicious about whether it was "real" at first, but even literally having that doubt in mind before meeting with the specialist, I was still blown away by the results lol

There is a very visible and immediate difference in the amount of depth perception I have in the real world, and the sense of "scale/proportion" to things. I can see it changing immediately when taking them on and off. Although there is no traditional prescription (unless you add one), I can see the position of objects slightly move when putting them on, so the colors definitely change my perception of space in some kind of way.

Note that I'm referring to custom Irlen tint, this was part of evaulating 50+ different combinations and layers of the lenses in a dark room.

I've heard that some Irlen distributors don't go through the whole process to personalize it (which wouldn't create as good of a result). Fortunately, the specialist I worked with was very familiar with the process.

In fact, the first time I ever tried Irlen the amount of increase in depth perception was so immediate/surprising that it made me realize "I swear the last time I was able to see the world like this was over 10 years ago"

And this was with the initial doubt that "it's probably not going to do anything", LOL.

It is certainly real since it very noticeably changed the way I see, even when I initially didn't believe it would. No other types of glasses have done this for me.

(BTW, Neurolens actually didn't work at all for me! However, Irlen has been working great for me for more than a year now, I can tell the difference every time I put them on.)

My ability to coordinate movement, feel less tired under cheap LED bulbs, deal with large crowds, able to judge distance/proportion/scale is all better while using Irlen glasses, the change happens immediately and was very obvious to me.

However, they don't improve my LCD screen sensitivity and are not really useful for that purpose -- I actually take them off while using screens. (except for some OLED phones for an unknown reason, which it actually does make a bit less "noisy" feeling to my eyes and slightly more tolerable)

;;;;;;;

'''''''''''''''

'''''''''''''

jordan

I hope @miripump or somebody can answer this question. I remember finding positive reasons for circular polarization but nothing against display polarization like this. But I also found:

Human-made light sources can alter natural light cycles, causing animals that rely on light cues to make mistakes when moving through their environment. In the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, a collaboration of ecologists, biologists and biophysicists has now shown that in addition to direct light, cues from polarized light can trigger animal behaviors leading to injury and often death.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107092714.htm

And this:

Most animals do not have eyes that are sensitive to polarized light or behavioral activities that require polarized light. Wilhelm Karl von Haidinger published a paper in 1844 announcing his discovery that the human eye does perceive linearly polarized light. This visual sensation is manifested as two opposing paddle-shaped yellow regions with blue areas orthogonal to the yellow. This pattern, known as Haidinger's brushes, is best seen when looking at a highly polarized white background.

photon78s Human-made light sources can alter natural light cycles, causing animals that rely on light cues to make mistakes when moving through their environment.

I believe polarization is basically another strawman to blame for low quality light, first, there is no such thing as Human-made light, there is no such thing as artificial light, light is either incandescent or luminescent, and those two can be either celestial, chemical or electric, except there is no celestial luminescence. Problem with animal disorientation is that low quality light disrupts their mental processes, just like us, but they are more sensitive. I sincerely think it all boils down to luminescent light sources being the culprit, but because there is no alternative in many applications and circumstances, people make up all sorts of strawmans and wild theories. But the solution is simple, yes sometimes the simplest facts are the hardest to understand.

beyondthelight you should also test with incandescent monitors and see what results you get

Although I'm really excited about the benefits of an incandescent monitor, this is something I really want to know before considering one, because I have a feeling despite the undeniably great light + potential for really positive long term effects —

this could still potentially be an issue (for me) "while" working on the screen:

Do any photos/videos on your spectrumview look "3D" or do they look entirely flat like a painting or a print on paper?

For me the false 3D effect is the biggest issue and directly ties to strain + brain fog.

Screen/software combos that don't have it — which are super rare, but possible — like the 2004 Nintendo DS top screen, some old flip phones, and the 2015-revision AUO303E TN panel (with Win10 LTSB 2015 and Intel graphics drivers disabled), are super comfortable for me, even though they're not incandescent!

In fact, the AUO303E is WLED-backlit (and even has a bit of PWM), but as long as the software is fine, somehow manages to avoid the conventional "LED issues" that almost every other screen causes for me!

There are screens I've tried where this "3D effect" is implemented at the panel level (TCON) and no software combo can remove it, for example 3 different LG IPS panels I tried in my T480 before finding the AUO303E. I could tell because even the BIOS was affected.

For reference, even a CCFL TN I own from 2005 has the false 3D effect issue, and it causes strain. But the three examples I listed above do not, and they work great.

This means despite the incandescent backlight, knowing what exact panel is used in the SpectrumView (and if there's any kind of panel lottery) and whether it has any kind of false 3D effect is still really important for me to know.

DisplaysShouldNotBeTVs Do any photos/videos on your spectrumview look "3D" or do they look entirely flat like a painting or a print on paper?

Entirely flat, best description would be like looking at a quality museum grade reference art book, just plain quality. No 3d effect whatsoever.

DisplaysShouldNotBeTVs This means despite the incandescent backlight, knowing what exact panel is used in the SpectrumView (and if there's any kind of panel lottery)

Best display is the 31.5" at 30 bit depth and no FRC, the panels used for these are the best in the world, and made in Mexico, but really any panel backlit by incandescent light increases tenfold in quality, 90% of the solution is changing backlight, not really frc or anything else, what the panel does is really just molding the light source, the first thing is the actual photons, the rest follows from that. For example if you start with quality ingredients for a food recipe, then most likely the food will end up good tasting, because all you are doing is rearranging those ingredients, but if you start with cheap or pale tasting ingredients, then it will not matter how you rearrange them, it will never increase in taste because the source was never good in the first place.

ensete 3000? thats significantly more than what I paid. sorry to hear that it didnt work for you but it definitely is not snake oil as theres lots of data to back it up plus It helps me a lot and also helps others too. btw did you see a diagnostician or a screener? did they have the full lens kit ?

Speaking of bulbs. Obama administration wanted the incandescent bulbs banned, trump brought them back and then biden banned them. I'm sure with trump and rfk jk we will see them back eventually.