So I'm starting this thread just to keep it in one place. As promised - first video of Macbook's screen showing different shades of Red, Green and Blue (brightness going down in 3 phases for each color) is here: https://vimeo.com/292002526 (go fullscreen to make the flicker more visible - on the embedded version it's not so obvious) I wanted to clear it a little bit, just to make it shorter and add some captions, but finally just uploaded the full content, due to lack of time to master the video editing software and rendering capabilities of my 8 year old laptop that I use currently. The setup consisted of Macbook Pro 13 2015 screen as a victim, HTC 10 in 120 fps slowmo as camera and an old russian microscope that promises to give 60x zoom. Anyway - if you browse through this video, you'll see that when the light goes down on red (around 4:30) and green (15:30) pixels, some funny thing begins - pixels tend to make pulsing glows, brighter and darker "lines" of pixels come one after another - the darker the color gets, the more it is visible, so carry on watching if you don't see it at first. Another thing is visibility of the same issue on blue subpixel - as I look on my computer - it pulsates a little bit, but not as much as the other colors, which is strange. In next days (probably more around weekend) I'll be testing different scenarios and different screens, so please share any ideas that may be interesting. I'm also open on suggestions on free video editing software and online video sharing platforms as I'm a newbie in this area.

I have an update (a long one). I've tested several screens in different setups: Macbook pro 13 2015 Ipad Pro 10.5 (2017) Iphone 8 plus Dell e5480 Asus ZenPad S 8.0 HTC 10 I've tried recording microscope view on all of them with iPhone 8 plus (240 fps) or HTC 10 (120fps). HTC 10 seems to catch flickers better so I finally used it instead of iPhone 8+ (I only checked HTC 10 with iPhone's camera). Test consisted of running HTML page with a JS script that started with color shades of higher brightness going down to lower values. At first I started with 255 (highest) value for Red, Green and Blue and was going down to 0, but then noticed that most interesting part is between 100 and 0, so I started there and went down in increments of 20. To give you some input - here's how I perceive (and rate) all the above screens: Macbook pro 13 - (3/10) father of all the eye strain, can't use it anymore for longer periods Ipad pro 10.5 - (8/10) I couldn't use it for a long time when Macbook pro 13 was in action, but now it's fine, I don't get strain with it, just minor tiredness from using a screen Iphone 8+ - (6/10?) it's my wife's phone, so I don't use it often, at first it seems nice, but after some time it has some hints of straining features (screen to sharp, some brightness issues, etc.) Dell e5480 - (4/10) I can use it for a while, but it's generally straining my eyes, not to the level of Macbook, but still unusable Asus Zenpad S 8 - (6/10) medium strain after longer usage, ok for shorter sessions HTC 10 - (8/10) same as Ipad pro 10.5 - I wish all the screens I have were of the same quality. No strain, apart from standard tiredness after long sessions Now let's dive into results: Macboook pro 13 - obvious flickering on subpixel level for many color shades / steps of brightness Ipad pro 10.5 - no noticeable flickers, maybe a little bit at lower brightness, but not as aggressive as these of MBP 13 (by the way - it has a little bit different shape of subpixels - they look a little bit like half-moon) Iphone 8+ - it flickers on lower brightness levels, a little better than MBP 13 Dell e5480 - it flickers similarly to MBP 13, on top of that it has PWM on everything below 100%, so it's a double winner 😃 Asus Zenpad S 8 - flicker on lower brightness levels, didn't seem to be so aggressive HTC 10 - no noticeable flicker, maybe a little bit at the lowest setting (a different layout of subpixels - they're formed into "stairs", not standard vertical lines) As you can see, only HTC 10 and Ipad 10.5 didn't produce obvious flicker on these tests and it matches my feelings about them - they're the only 2 screens I can use on daily basis, other ones (apart from Iphone) are worse. Below you'll find the video with examples of different screens - at first it's just red subpixel part (red and green subpixels proved to reveal flicker the best) and then as a bonus I made a video of webpage browsing on my Macbook, which also shows different flickers (this time not isolated to just one color). As usual - open it up in full screen as flickering is more obvious then. https://vimeo.com/292764049 I'm not sure if it's actually FRC or dithering there, but at least it proves that, even when not clearly visible, there's a hell lot of flicker on our screens. Another important thing is relation between screens that are bearable for me and these who don't seem to flicker. I just don't know how to test these screens at shops, I won't be able to put them under the microscope 😉

This is great. Though could it be this is neither FRC nor temporal dithering but regular polarity inversion? http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php I am also curious to see how Firefox Quantum's pixels behave in contrast to a known-good browser (or maybe better, a screenshot of the same Firefox window). But I don't know if it acts the same on Mac. Edit: Plus further tests like switching temp. dithering on and off with working tools like "ditherig", Nvidia-Settings or several open source Unix drivers like nouveau, radeon, amdgpu, which claim to offer control over the dithering status.

It could be inversion too, but it would probably manifest itself on higher brightness, I could only spot it clearly when saturation of color was below 40%. Also if you look at examples of browsing the real webpage the parts that flicker are mostly on edges of fonts, dark areas, which also suggests some kind of dithering to get better colors. Anyway I’ll have to check how lagom’s test looks under microscope - that’s a good idea 🙂 Regarding Quantum - I haven’t checked it, I hope the difference between standard browser and Quantum can be observed with my gear, but if it’s subtle I doubt that it will get caught. Could you share any specific websites that are worse on Quantum? Or recommend another browser that is better to test it against. Speaking of software - I looked at the gray color of the new GMail which is also cursed, but haven’t spotted anything different so far - probably it’s a mix of gray text on gray background, awkward Chrome font rendering and general usage of gray colors which are composed of all R, G, B in different shades which makes flickering more likely. Reddit under chrome is another interesting case of how bad a website can look now. I’ll also check if Ditherig changes anything on different machines, but I couldn’t spot the difference with bare eye on my newer laptops, probably it doesn’t support modern graphic cards from Intel. I’ve only seen it making a change on an older HP DV6 (bars instead of gradient), but this laptop is close to impossible to be put under this microscope (broken charging port requires it to be positioned carefully to operate). I don’t use Linux on a daily basis so I’ll probably check it one day, but not soon. It would be more interesting if there was a known distribution / version that is helping in some cases. It could lead to software, not hardware solutions which would be better for us. By the way - does anyone have access to a microscope (any semi-professional with zoom around 50-60x should be enough) and a camera that is better than one on the phone? I may be limited with this stuff, however I’m not sure what factor is the most important for camera. I hoped for better results with Iphone, but it proved to see less flicker, probably due to some aggregating / averaging algorithms used to make videos more fluid.

andc Could you share any specific websites that are worse on Quantum? Any site, they changed something in their engine between 56 (.02 I think) and 57+. https://ledstrain.org/d/297-firefox-quantum-57 I believe the lagom black level test is good for testing for temporal dithering in general. I could clearly see 6 bit both temporal and static dithering in some of the black boxes when switching on and off via the graphics card driver (8 bits were hard to see). However, we don't know where the Firefox eye strain is coming from. But it must be something that changes over time, for screenshots can be looked at in external image viewers without eye strain.

I've tested it briefly with Night Shift and F.lux and could see flicker, especially on lower brightness settings, but I'll try to catch it again on the video. Basically what F.Lux / Nightshift does is adding a little amount of red color to the tone (or removing amount of blue, which gives similar output), and it results in making red pixels brighter. In case red component is already there, it might be fine (as I couldn't see flicker on higher brightness of pixels), but if only blue / green subpixels are used, it can add more flicker as it will probably activate red subpixel in low brightness (which seems to equal additional flicker). I'll check different color profiles, I'd guess, if "Color LCD" is tuned for this particular display, they should add more flicker due to missing sweet spots. The problem with observing whole pixels instead of just subpixels is that it's harder to see the flickering - three subpixels at once are brighter than individual ones which somehow misleads camera. You can check it on the second part of my video where I browse a webpage - there is some flicker, but it's not as noticeable as this on isolated "red" examples. It would be great if someone had better equipment, maybe then we could see the flicker on higher brightness and also observe whole pixels without issues. Thanks for your comments guys, many useful ideas, just need to find time to test everything properly 🙂

Thank you! I have a few questions to understand this better - -it only shows in certain areas when you decrease brightness, so you wouldnt see it everywhere on the screen? -isnt the light that lights the pixels still the backlight? But the pixels can dim I understand, so even if the backlight is flicker free, the pixels make it appear as flicker? -is it software controlled? -if it is, we need to send this to a few people, if you dont wanna do it I can do it - mostly Daniel Georgiev, who programmed iris and could be capable to use this information to program a cancellation of this effect into his software too.

martin martin it only shows in certain areas when you decrease brightness, so you wouldnt see it everywhere on the screen? Based on what I saw - it depends on how bright given subpixels are. Each color in HTML and on screen (as a pixel) is built of Red, Green and Blue components whose shades range in value from 0 (pure black) to 255 (full brightness, clearest shade of R, G or B ). From what I've seen - flickering is usually noticed by my phone's camera if subpixel shade goes below 100 (around 40% of 255 max value). So it seems that if you go below 40% of native brightness every pixel/subpixel may start flickering. Also if pixel is generally bright, but contains deeper shades of specific colors (like a touch of red provided by F.lux or night watch) these deeper shades will probably flicker. martin -isnt the light that lights the pixels still the backlight? But the pixels can dim I understand, so even if the backlight is flicker free, the pixels make it appear as flicker? I'm not sure what the nature of this flicker is - it may as well be pixel inversion mentioned by @KM . I'll have to read how LED / LCD screens are built, but I believe that there might be set of overall LED lights behind whole screen, but pixels may also have their own brightness, or control how much light they let through by FRC, dithering or other ways. martin -is it software controlled? I'd like to test it - guys in other comments suggested checking different OSes or tools like Ditherig. I also know @JTL has been working on some dithering disabling options. I hope it's software-controlled as it would mean that the technology itself isn't broken, just needs a good driver, we could then count on creation of an optional driver that stops flickering sacrificing color quality on screens. martin -if it is, we need to send this to a few people, if you dont wanna do it I can do it - mostly Daniel Georgiev, who programmed iris and could be capable to use this information to program a cancellation of this effect into his software too. I'd be glad to send this and other findings to our known contacts that may at least tell us if it's dithering, FRC or other stuff, so we know what causes our issues. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate, it may be another wrong path, but at least correlation between screens that are usable for me and visibility of flicker in tests is promising.

martin could be capable to use this information to program a cancellation of this effect into his software too. Maybe, maybe not. It's either controlled by the GPU dirver or firmware, which iris works "above" so any workarounds would reduce visual quality further compared to a lower-level fix. What I think might be of interest is testing my hypothetical dithering fix after I get it working with a microscope or capture card, etc.

Just a small update - I've just tried decreasing the camera brightness in phone's settings and it seems to be able to see whole pixels behavior, even on high brightness of target screen, so that's a good sign as it should allow for tests on the whole spectrum. I've quickly checked Mac screen with Windows 10 again and while on slowmo it shows flicker, when observing it with bare eye there seems to be another layer of dithering where pixels change their colors slower. It's like fading in and out between two shades every 0.5-1s. It might be the same thing, but perhaps there is both some PWM-like behavior on subpixel level which gives flicker in slowmo and another - dithering-like that can be observed without 120fps. I'll have to check if Ditherig can stop this slow dithering and if it's visible the same way when I record it in standard, (non-slowmo) mode.

Screens under microscope in slowmo (dithering / FRC tests)

JTL

andc maybe even PWM on Macbooks

A good oscilloscope can do that.

andc

JTL A good oscilloscope can do that.

I know it can, but camera would show what really happens, especially how dithering is made on individual pixels level, whether it happens on all the brightness levels, etc.

cont-temp One thing that I am curious about is that if different color profiles on the macbook change the flickering at all. For example that deep-red with not the default screen color profile (color LCD) but for example with Adobe RGB (1998). And maybe with truetone/nightshift on and off if you have one of the newer versions of OS.

I checked various color profiles on MacOS yesterday (around 8 of them including Color LCD, Adobe RGB, Universal RGB, sRGB, Display P3). Each of them flickers on static deep-green color (rgb(0,50,0)) - some are better, some are worse, but differences probably come from the actual representation of this color on different profiles - it ranges from standard green (for brighter profiles) to almost black (for darker ones). Turning off font-aliasing didn't stop the flicker. Running Night Shift didn't change it too, although results were a little bit different than I expected - there was no added red subpixel component visible this time, maybe it's too subtle for camera, but I'll have to recheck it.

I also made a test with shades of gray getting down from 255 (white) to 0 (black) which shows obvious flickering at lower levels.

Another test I tried is checking how lagom's pixel inversion examples (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php) look under the microscope. There weren't any anomalies, they were shown as standard static pixels in different configuration.

I'll upload shades of gray and lagom's videos later, just for reference, although they don't seem to reveal too much.

Next step is checking browsers - Firefox Quantum vs. Safari vs. Chrome on MacOS - maybe some differences in font rendering will be easy to be spotted if one of them is using non-standard shading on the edges.

Edit:
Here are 2 videos with grayscale and Lagom.nl tests:

https://vimeo.com/294115665 https://vimeo.com/294115542

andc

I've checked various webpages in Firefox Quantum (62.0.3), Chrome (69.0.3497.100) and Edge on Win 10/Macbook setup and haven't seen major differences between them so far. I'll try to write another script that will scroll the same way through some example text in different fonts so we can compare them 1-1 between these browsers, current browsing video is too chaotic to be reliable comparison input.

What's interesting is the fact that every font seems to use some antialiasing stuff, i.e. it isn't just black, but also has some shades on the edges, the bigger the font the wider this shade is. As can be spotted on previous videos - shades equal dithering. And this dithering happens exactly where our eyes try to get focus (at the edges of characters). It may mean that our eye strain may be a result of focusing exactly on things that are constantly changing. I didn't think this shading will be happenning in such extent on retina screen which is quite sharp, but it does.

JTL

andc I've checked various webpages in Firefox Quantum

Try downgrading to 57 and deleting and creating a fresh Firefox profile. i'd be curious of your results.

https://www.howtogeek.com/255587/how-to-find-your-firefox-profile-folder-on-windows-mac-and-linux/
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-older-version-of-firefox

deepflame

@andc when you started your research with your MBP 13'' 2015 which OSX version were you using?

I noticed that I get migraine like symptoms when using OSX 10.13.5 and up (including Mojave). When I reverted the graphics driver to the one in OSX 10.13.4 it got way better (even on Mojave). The blue light is still an issue, but hey, no migraine 😃

Edit: Ok, Apple does something on 10.13.6 and up that cannot be fixed by reverting the graphics driver. So I need to go back to 10.13.4 (or 10.14.5 with old driver) to get my head straight again...).

andc

deepflame

Replied in the other thread. Started having issues after High Sierra on 2015 model. Now as I put it under scope it’s on HS probably, I’ll have to check it since I don’t use it on regular basis.

andc

Here is another video: rendering of fonts on W10/Macbook Pro in different browsers: Chrome, Edge, Firefox in current versions (I'll downgrade Firefox to see if it differs later).

https://vimeo.com/294862076

I ran custom script that scrolled through sets of "S" letters (since it has most curves, so most potential antialiasing would happen) in different fonts, boldness levels, with antialiasing set to on / off, etc.

Results may not look groundbreaking, but you should clearly see dithering on the edges where antialiasing (i.e. shading on subpixel level) happens. Actually this is not so big as I saw before on some pages - probably there are worse fonts than the standard ones I used (Courier, Times New Roman, Arial, Verdana, etc.). Also worth noting is the fact that this screen is retina, i.e. pixels are really small, so the same fonts should use more dithering on screens with lower resolution.

Next test I'll be preparing is running the same "S" letters in different shades of gray. I've seen that lots of sites (even Ledstrain) use some deep gray instead of black for the color of their main font. So it's likely to dither, although it seems to be black.

I think we may start sharing these videos with more experienced guys (i.e. tech, industry contacts) as @martin suggested since further tests will not be likely to reveal more details, the only big step may be finding a setup (OS, driver) that doesn't dither on the screen that flickers usually. I'll be testing early W10 installation soon, but I don't have high hopes.

andc

Another video with fonts in different shades of gray (latest Chrome on Win 10 / Macbook Pro 13):

https://vimeo.com/294902061

Shades range from black - the first one - #000 to light gray - #bbb. Flickering is visible at first only on edges, but when font becomes more gray whole its area starts to flicker. If you're wondering how given color looks like, here is an example: http://jsfiddle.net/scaLtk8u/1/ - see bottom right part.

andc

I need to check one more thing - iterate over ~20 shades surrounding the ones that usually flicker.
My idea is - if dithering could be stopped with decreased color depth (i.e. resigining from more accurate colors), there should be at least one shade close to dithering ones with which they can be substituted. If none of them is stable then I don't see a chance of finding non-flickering setup with such screen - each deep red, green, or blue, as well as their combinations will flicker, even on 16 colors display.
I initially thought that displays use dithering to fill gaps between supported colors (which should be solid), but it looks rather like PWM on subpixel level, where every darker color causes flickering.
The worst case scenario is that such screens are actually not 6, 8 or 10 bit, but 1-bit, i.e. capable of displaying only max brightness (pure color) and min brightness (black) as solid dot, and everything inbetween is simply subpixel flickering, same as PWM can be observed on many displays.

Edit: I checked the screen again - my script went through around 30 subsequent shades - each of them flickered, there's no stable phase, so every darker color is subject to dithering. I tried also different settings of ditherig.exe, but it didn't help as well in any case.
A strange observation was behavior of Chrome, rather an HTML bug than something important for screen itself:
on my testpage I have an info panel with white background. When it's present on screen, Chrome shows some kind of banding-like artifact - top 25% of screen has different shade then the rest on specific range of background color (around rgb(0,30,0)). I'm not sure where it comes from, but neither Firefox nor Edge behave the same way. <body> CSS consists just of background color and it isn't uniform. That's just another sign that with Google stuff you may never be sure recently 😉

martin

andc Could you please do one subjective test for me please? When you are looking through the microscope at the display thats causing you issues (flickering subpixels), if you keep looking longer just through the microscope, does it start giving you issues or not? If not, then it would prove that the flicker is not the cause, but the eye fixation is - when there is such a clear outline as individual pixels to focus on, the problem could disappear no matter the flickering. Without the scope then, the eye fixation could be more complicated and thus the issue comes back. Please let me know.

andc

martin
It might be hard to test - since I don't use this Mac on a daily basis I got a little bit immune to this screen, at least on W10, ie. when I used it a lot even 5 minutes could trigger issues, now I can stand 1-2 hours, this doesn't seem to cause long time effects (broken sight for one day, etc.). It was a surprise when I started doing these tests, rendering videos, etc. Maybe it's new W10 which is somehow better than older updates.

So I think it would probably tire my eyes faster by looking through the scope, in a physical way. It's a single lens microscope, so different view in each eye could be problematic too.

Anyway, do you want to check if issues start to appear due to light coming from the screen, not the focusing on it? Maybe running this notebook as a background "lamp" on a flickering shade and trying to see if I get tired eyes without looking at the screen directly after 30 minutes would be a good test then.

martin

andc Yes, that is the point. Im trying to differentiate between the issue possibly caused by flicker and issue caused by eye fixation. It can also be both - flicker plus small pixels and aliasing result in bad eye fixation, while under the scope, the fixation is easy due to clear outlines of pixels being visible. It would also prove (in your case) the dependency on one vs. both eyes as a factor.

hpst

martin Flickering/movement of some sort seems a logical culprit...I don't believe aliasing etc is though since none of us are bothered by print...and if you zoom in on ink on paper it's fuzzy and blotchy so rules out the idea that only sharp and fine edges are focusable and anti-aliased/smoothed fonts look similar to printed ink zoomed in. It makes more sense that its the movement bothering us rather than the absolute clarity.

martin

hpst Youre trying to find one reason behind it all and thats the biggest obstrucion on solving it. I am bothered by aliasing (aliased subtitles in bsplayer gave me headache, turned it off and voila, its gone), I am bothered by PWM (tested with oscope on my LED ASUS work monitor, PWM below 100% brightness is painful, full brightness and Im using it for very long time now). It can also be bluelight, it can also be dithering. And the reason it can be so many things is because in my opinion, each of them disturb vision and especially binocular vision.
User erwin has just proven with his case that its both - new tech does something (many things) differently, and we might all have certain kind (maybe not all the same kind) of visual problems ( i do, getting treated now). Its a combination of things, thats why its so elusive. It has to be considered screen by screen, device by device. Unfortunately. And that is because the vision we all have (or lack) also plays a major role.

Also paper is way more textured than any screen ever will. Ink might be fuzzy, but the canvas is not and its in the same visual distance. Also some people reported that putting very textured matte cover on their phone screens solved it. Movement and fuzzy fonts might appear the same to an eye, both are hard to fixate upon.

hpst

martin I think the "that's the biggest obstruction" comment was unfair. I do believe there IS a primary technological root cause. I know you don't agree. Too many of us have the same symptoms with the same types of tech for it to be "everyone is different". It is impossible that each device has some qualititatively different cause and is far more logical to thing there is a primary root insult. I also disagree erwin's case PROVES what you claim. Erwin's relief could have been coincidental, because of or in spite of the meds, or he just got used to the new display as some people exerience initial strain and then relief. It doesn't prove anything.

I think we need to do practical things like shut off dithering and see if that helps. It's a clear and objective change and test. We can avoid PWM, block blue light, not use LED etc and those have proven not at all a common culprit. I think by claiming its 7 different factors and different in each person all you do is muddy things to the point you can't ever be sure what is or isn't working. How many times have you seen peolpe post "cured!" with some claim its a panel type or PWM or whatever, only to see them later say it is back? Nearly every time it is like that. I have had those eureka moments many times myself. I have not once seen more than ONE person say "I fixed my convergence, eliminated PWM, and use only CCFL and everything is fine now for good. I firmly believe that's because we haven't found the cause...once we do you will see MOST people noting relief in the same way people in an office stop having breathing problems once mold is removed etc. There is a noxious stimulus and we haven't found it.

martin

hpst I mean for you it might be obstructive. If you manage to find one single reason behind all of these (apart from a health issue/eye problem, that would render all these issues nonexistent, which I hope for with my eye therapy), so if you find one technological culprit that applies to all, Ill congratulate you and will be very happy.
However from my experience so far it seems its multifactorial.

alarmatwork

Can you please make test on iPad as well... It supposed to have Retina display as well, but my eyes are cool for looking it for hours... But MacBook Pro 2018 takes only minutes for the first symptoms to appear. Just to understand the difference.

tfouto

I made a USB video with a cheap microscope.

On Sony XZ 2 not on max brightness there is lots of ficker. Dont know how reliable is the camera.

Can anyone watch the video and see if it causes any strain symptoms?
Watching the Sony Video on Computer seems to trigger me the symptoms. Have to rewatch it later.
Be careful watching the following video, too much flickering:

Sony Xz 2: https://1drv.ms/v/s!Ai2kKt-CrSGog4lbfMO-b1Gfo0iNqA
Original file: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai2kKt-CrSGog4lcKNFY32S7Z0H0lw
For some reason when converting to mp4 didn't convert it to the end.

On HTC One at máx brightness, there seem to be background noise probably seems on backlight.

HTC One: https://1drv.ms/v/s!Ai2kKt-CrSGog4la7Kj7wzV3pRnu9Q

Btw usually dithering works at what frequencies?

tfouto

Andc, it's really amazing this thread. I have watch the first video. It seems i feel the neurological symptoms of watching this video, led's flickering on my 27'' monitor. Crazy.

Do you have the HTC 10 video? I am considering buying. BTW, do what is the microscope? Is it expensive? I might buy one.

Btw i bought a small filter 450nm, it only lets passes blue light. There's so much blue light everywhere. Even in your video of red, and green led's only there was so much blue light coming from the filter. THis means that this devices acomplish this color with lots of blue. There is no other way since the spectrum is has so much blue in it. A huge spike.

https://www.peauproductions.com/products/blue-light-filter

tfouto

andc What's the model of the microscope you use?

andc

tfouto

I'm sorry, I missed your previous comment. I captured HTC 10 screen only with Iphone 8+ camera, but it seems to miss any flicker, probably due to some kind of algorithm in iOS to make videos more fluid, I couldn't make it reveal the same things I observed while using HTC 10 to capture these videos. I'll probably buy another HTC 10 in coming months once battery in mine dies (it's at 60% capacity at the moment), so it might be interesting to capture both devices one with another.

Regarding microscope - it's an old soviet semi-toy microscope called "Naturalist" - exactly this one: https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Microscope-NATURALIST-Vintage-PLASTIC-CHILDREN-TOY-USSR-Box-and-Accessories/123554698744?hash=item1cc46f15f8:g:9x0AAOSwMNxXanjk:rk:12:pf:0
Unlike most current toy microscope this actually works and allows me to get decent zoom-in to see individual pixels.

I think blue light will be on every recording since it's present in gray tones and camera capture can be a little bit different from the source due to encoding / compression. I think some minor flickers on my videos are probably compression artifacts, but there is definitely an obvious alternating flicker pattern clearly visible too.

« Previous Page Next Page »