gunnartech


quality posts: 3 Private Messages gunnartech
tmacfarlan wrote:I'm not sure why people are attributing the eye strain solely to the computer screen. [Note: this post is kind of long-winded, so skip to the last three paragraphs if you're not here for science class]

The eye strain most people are having at their computer is due to the subtle difference in frequency of their monitor and the fluorescent lights overhead.

Nerds will all know that their monitor operates at a specific frequency, and you can adjust it in your computer's settings. The native frequency is usually 60Hz (the power line transmission frequency), but some monitors have different native frequencies.

This means that your screen doesn't emit a steady light, it flashed at you so fast that you don't notice it. You can test this theory by keeping the screen in your peripheral vision and focusing on something else - most people can then see the screen flickering. It works with televisions as well, even the old tube-style ones. Ever see a video recording of a monitor or TV and it flickered or had those lines running down it? That's the same effect. The video recorder grabs the picture at a different rate of speed than the screen produces it, causing distortion.

Now, the normal person sees at about 32 frames per second. This means that the monitor flashes nearly twice as fast as you can see, and your eyes will fill in the extra with the light left over from the last flash. No harm, no foul.

The problem comes in with overhead fluorescent lighting. Those lights also flash, and it's usually at a different rate than your screen. To find out the frequency of your lights, you would have to check the ballast model's frequency and then do some back-of-the-napkin math against how old (or new, in some cases) the light itself is.

Some fluorescent lights have a frequency of 60Hz, but that's for a full cycle. That means that in the first part of a frame (1/60 of a second) it's getting brighter, and the second part of the frame it's dimming. As the tube gets old, that frequency lowers. There are a lot of different reasons for that, from the ballast to the cathode to the starter. If you're interested, you can learn more at the wikipedia page about it.

The difference in frequency between your screen and your room lighting is what causes eye strain and headaches for most people. The lights are flashing at a different speed than your screen, and even though you can't see it, your eyes are affected by it.

I never had eye strain problems at previous jobs, but I think that was because I could always turn off the overhead lights and I'd put an incandescent (or LED more recently) light in my office. Now I'm in shared workspace and I can't do that. I started getting eye strain issues around the end of the day, and I'm in for one to see if these help.

Bottom line: For $40, if they work then I've saved myself a lot of headaches. If they don't work, well, I've spent more on far worse ideas.




Agree with the points about the difference in frequency of screen and fluorescent overheads, but there are a lot of other reasons for computer eyestrain as well. We've studied this for the better part of a decade now, and patented what we feel to be the best, most comprehensive solution out there. Definitely helps to get involved in the setup of your work environment...ie lighting, workstation height, monitor selection, etc. But you should also consult your eye care professional and get your eyes checked regularly. Just about every doctor will let you know that computer eyewear will help.

gunnartech


quality posts: 3 Private Messages gunnartech
ocsurfreport wrote:I do, I bought them thinking it might make a deference in gaming or something, but really it was just in my head. I am also a Art Director and glued to the computer, tried these and nothing special again. I never get these headaches that people constantly mention from staring or squinting at the screen so I have no idea what they are talking about, and I have 2 30" apple displays when working. On the other hand I thought that the glasses looked kinda sharp and decided to see if I could use them While driving (like the Tag Heuer driving glasses) and that was a big mistake because then I did get headaches. The first time I waved it off thinking I must be sleepy, the second time I thought to myself that my eyes kinda hurt, but it cant possibly be the glasses, the third and final time I acutely got really dizzy, so I decided that something was quite wrong here, so I held them up next to my Serengeti sunglasses for comparison, (Quick switch, back and forth) only to discover that these have a slight magnification that is just barely visible, but enough to cause your vision to be off when used looking long distances. Anyway you should probably avoid them.



Definitely not designed for driving. They have a focusing power for a specific viewing distance. The 'magnification' is actually a byproduct of that focusing power. Bottom line is that the glasses help your eyes relax when viewing things in the near distance. If you use them to view things in the far distance (ie driving) they aren't going to work well.

gunnartech


quality posts: 3 Private Messages gunnartech
Takran wrote:These are for reducing eye strain - there is no other purpose to them. If you do not suffer from eye strain due to long periods of computer use, you do not need these (see end of post - you technically don't need them at all). I am one of those people who does not get headaches, and therefore do not own a pair of these. They do not give you any kind of advantage or assistance with gaming.

The 'enhanced' vision that people feel they get is an illusion. Human eyes are more sensitive to light in the "yellow" part of the spectrum - due to the more-sensitive green and red cones in your eye both being activated by yellow light - than any other specific part of the spectrum. The yellow tinted lens reduces overall light input, causing the pupil to dilate to larger than usual, and consequently increasing the amount of yellow light hitting the retina. This gives the surreal illusion of "seeing better", when in reality you've actually lost some visual data through the filtering of the lens' tint. TL;DR: These don't "help" with gaming.

While I personally wouldn't compare a set of yellow glasses to cataracts, I do agree with what inflationary said: you can adjust the tint of your monitor to achieve the same result as far as eye strain reduction due to overly bright whiteness. From my understanding, some people prefer the glasses because it makes everything around them look yellow while they're using the computer, which is less jarring when glancing away from the yellowed monitor to non-yellowed real life.



Good facts here...we just need to dig a little further. The red/green cones are concentrated on the central part of the retina and blue cones are scattered closer to the periphery. Here's where the interesting part comes in. The fovea centralis is the part of the retina where the high level visual processing takes place. Nerve endings are 100x more dense here....and there are almost no blue light receptors. For anyone that has skied on a whiteout day, you'll know that with amber lenses, you can actually see the terrain, but without them, you can't. Why? too much blue light blasting at your eye keeps you from using the most sensitive part of your retina. Filter it out, and you've got more visual sensitivity. Same applies to the computer screen...especially any document with a white background.

Add in the focusing power that relaxes your eyes, and high wrap that keeps your eyes from drying out, and you've got a very robust, doctor recommended solution.

Thanks!
Joe (GUNNAR CEO)

kolme


quality posts: 11 Private Messages kolme
gunnartech wrote:Good facts here...we just need to dig a little further. The red/green cones are concentrated on the central part of the retina and blue cones are scattered closer to the periphery. Here's where the interesting part comes in. The fovea centralis is the part of the retina where the high level visual processing takes place. Nerve endings are 100x more dense here....and there are almost no blue light receptors. For anyone that has skied on a whiteout day, you'll know that with amber lenses, you can actually see the terrain, but without them, you can't. Why? too much blue light blasting at your eye keeps you from using the most sensitive part of your retina. Filter it out, and you've got more visual sensitivity. Same applies to the computer screen...especially any document with a white background.

Add in the focusing power that relaxes your eyes, and high wrap that keeps your eyes from drying out, and you've got a very robust, doctor recommended solution.

Thanks!
Joe (GUNNAR CEO)



I don't know the exact density of the cones in the fovea centralis in comparison to the other areas of the retina but I do know and agree that it is by far the most sensitive to (colored) light. And that it also has only a scarce supply of blue cones. So maybe there is a bit of science behind these glasses. - medical student who is studying for a neuro test tomorrow...

shivarajan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages shivarajan
gunnartech wrote:Good facts here...we just need to dig a little further. The red/green cones are concentrated on the central part of the retina and blue cones are scattered closer to the periphery. Here's where the interesting part comes in. The fovea centralis is the part of the retina where the high level visual processing takes place. Nerve endings are 100x more dense here....and there are almost no blue light receptors. For anyone that has skied on a whiteout day, you'll know that with amber lenses, you can actually see the terrain, but without them, you can't. Why? too much blue light blasting at your eye keeps you from using the most sensitive part of your retina. Filter it out, and you've got more visual sensitivity. Same applies to the computer screen...especially any document with a white background.

Add in the focusing power that relaxes your eyes, and high wrap that keeps your eyes from drying out, and you've got a very robust, doctor recommended solution.

Thanks!
Joe (GUNNAR CEO)






Wow! Straight from the horse's mouth (A response form GUNNAR CEO)

Interesting discussions btw. Given in future more and more people will be looking at handled led screens, any help to reduce eye-fatigue of any kind by any percentage is indeed of a great help & will get wide acceptance. 10 year ago where a normal person will smile @ fellow commuter, look around, look at people walking, look at street lights/crowd/posters (aka object @ various distances), NOW all we do is what now? majority of folks I see in public places do is KEEP STARING at their phones and NOTHING ELSE. My optometrist also told me same thing that since eyes are pretty much made to work more at a fixed distance/light source all the time, strain on people eyes in last decade is gone exponentially high and will be only going north from here on. A totally different world now, something for which our eyes were never designed for. So yes anything in this front is of great help. In4one ....

Shiva

Flexfx


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Flexfx

I use a PC 8+ hours a day as well as game on the weekends and I have had two pairs of Gunnars for the past two years. Won't work or game without them on and even makes watching sports on TV that much better. Every single person I let try them on has asked where they could get a pair.

Gunnars FTW.

kazama


quality posts: 4 Private Messages kazama

Makes perfect sense, actually. Thank you for taking the time to read the thread and respond to folks. You've convinced me to pick one up on that alone, although my mind was already made up before that. ;)

Looking forward to trying them out!

gunnartech wrote:f.lux doesn't work for all the problems associated with computer eyestrain and only 'sort of' fixes the one that it's designed to help.

Basic rundown on major causes of computer eyestrain.

1- Reduced blink rate. Eyes dry out.

2- Extended time in near point viewing. Eyes have to strain to maintain focus.

3- Quality of light. Backlights from computers aren't full spectrum light.

4- Glare and visual noise.


f.lux tries to help with the Quality of light. The problem is that it doesn't address the other issues, and it doesn't fully address the quality of light issue either. Since the CCFL or OLED backlight is the original source or light, you can't add to the emitted spectrum, you can only filter from it. f.lux can filter some of the excessive blue light, but it can't give you a full spectrum viewing experience.

Hope that makes sense.



gunnartech


quality posts: 3 Private Messages gunnartech
shivarajan wrote:Wow! Straight from the horse's mouth (A response form GUNNAR CEO)

Interesting discussions btw. Given in future more and more people will be looking at handled led screens, any help to reduce eye-fatigue of any kind by any percentage is indeed of a great help & will get wide acceptance. 10 year ago where a normal person will smile @ fellow commuter, look around, look at people walking, look at street lights/crowd/posters (aka object @ various distances), NOW all we do is what now? majority of folks I see in public places do is KEEP STARING at their phones and NOTHING ELSE. My optometrist also told me same thing that since eyes are pretty much made to work more at a fixed distance/light source all the time, strain on people eyes in last decade is gone exponentially high and will be only going north from here on. A totally different world now, something for which our eyes were never designed for. So yes anything in this front is of great help. In4one ....



Thanks Shiva
What your eye doc may or may not have referenced is the fact that the NEI (National Eye Institute) which is a division of NIH (National Institute of Health) published a study a little while back. It showed that the rates of myopia (near sightedness) are skyrocketing. Over the last 25 years, the rates of this eye disease of increased 66%. If any other disease had done so, it would be surrounded by a major media frenzy and have the term "epidemic" thrown onto it. We just need to get proper education around how to adapt to our changing environment and use the proper tools. I've committed the last 10 years to studying this field and have 20 years in the optical field. Most of what we do at GUNNAR is just apply solid optical principles to a very real problem. No rocket science, no snake oil. Just things that you can go to your eye doctor and confirm....extended computer use causes eyestrain. GUNNAR is a solution.

meakyori


quality posts: 0 Private Messages meakyori

Personally, I absolutely love mine. I spend nearly all of my time on the computer (job is working on a website, computer science major has my homework on computer, free time is gaming on computer) and they've helped drastically with eyestrain and general fatigue after long sessions on the computer. I have the anime style ones, and I get lots of compliments when I have them on. But I wear them for the functionality, and that they perform very well on. I've had considerably less headaches since I got them. The only thing that I don't like is that they didn't come with a glasses case, so I'm constantly paranoid I will break them.

ocsurfreport


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ocsurfreport
gunnartech wrote:Definitely not designed for driving. They have a focusing power for a specific viewing distance. The 'magnification' is actually a byproduct of that focusing power. Bottom line is that the glasses help your eyes relax when viewing things in the near distance. If you use them to view things in the far distance (ie driving) they aren't going to work well.



Thanks for the heads up, I as not aware of that,

ocsurfreport


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ocsurfreport
digduga wrote:Just curious, but TAG Heuer has invented a ton of research into pale yellow lenses for night time eye fatigue relief for racing-car drivers. (Source; http://www.tagheuer.com/int-en/eyewear/expert-glasses/night-vision-anti-glare#/int-en-eyewear-expert-glasses-automatic-night-vision-matt-black-elastomer-glasses-3582-099). My question is, is this basically the same technology at a fraction of the price or is this something completely different?



Thats what I thought too.
Read my experience with that in the above post...

ncc1701


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ncc1701

Most of the pros and cons of these glasses have been discussed thoroughly already so I won't rehash them, but I'll bring up a few points I haven't really seen.

These glasses have a pleasant side effect of making a room that's lit by indirect daylight feel sunny. It actually helps my mood.

The slight magnification doesn't really make things any sharper. The lenses just aren't high enough quality to give you any additional edge detail. I don't feel there's any net benefit to the magnification.

The glasses work best within an arm's length or so. Beyond that things start to get fuzzy. "Real" gamers might think "computer", but I think "Xbox", and these just aren't good for gaming on a TV across the room. I tried once and experienced *more* eyestrain trying to keep things in focus. I definitely wouldn't drive with these.

Depending on your lighting environment, you may see more inter-reflections from the lens itself. Some of the blue it tries to reflect away from you ends up bouncing back to your eyes. It can be somewhat distracting.

Overall, I do like wearing them for computer use, but they're not for everyone. YMMV.

inflationary


quality posts: 0 Private Messages inflationary
gullsnest wrote:Sorry but I call BS alert. If you had in fact been a "research scientist" at B&L you would know that these are for blocking BLUE light which is what causes the symptoms of CVS (computer vision syndrome) a very real affliction. Your computer being "too bright white" has nothing to do with it. As a pilot involved with Aerospace medicine, I have used RayBan pioneered yellow lensed haze and high altitude glasses before switching over to RayBan's Ambermatics when introduced back in the 1970s and have worn them ever since, for flying and driving, for the very same reasons. I also have several pairs of Foster Grant computer readers as I prefer the more amber lense color to the brighter more yellow colors like these, but the effectiveness is the same. The science behind them is proven and has been for over 40 years, and was, as I said pioneered by RayBan/Bosch & Lomb. It is unfortunate that the Ambermatics were discontinued when RayBan was bought by Luxotica.



I was being modest with the "research scientist." Actual credentials went far beyond that, including 50 patents 'nuf said. You DO make some good points and good credibility as an actual USER of RayBans, etc. At high altitude especially, the UV (blue, as you call it) is indeed SEVERE and harmful. Like you, I wear and swear by the Aviator glasses (genesis of the RayBan line circa WWII). CVS is more aptly addressed with more "time outs" from the monitor, exercise and talking to real people who are actually there. People whose work requires staring at a monitor all day are the most affected. Plain old-fashioned fatigue. Hey - if they seem to work, go for it. ~inflationary~

flintlocke


quality posts: 0 Private Messages flintlocke

I have wooted many a woot, but never have I missed a woot between the time I added to cart and the time that I went to checkout.

Missed it by seconds - seconds!

Maybe GUNNAR Optiks next time.