Which is the best Light at night to stay in PC?
-
@link111 said:
Hello F.lux community,
First I have to say that I've been using flux for 1 month and I have to say that I have more eyes rested than before, thanks for this program!
My conf is:
Bightness monitor: 10% (Gaming monitor, panel TN 144Hz)
Contrast: 50%F.lux
Desktop:
Daytime: 4400K (with sun)
At night: 4000K (with light ON)Films/Series:
4400K (sun or light)Games:
Daytime: 5000K (with sun)
At night: 4500K (with light ON)Well, as I said in the title, at night I have a long tube fluorescent (normal) I think it makes too much lux and it bothers me, then I decided to change to LED tube (short) or low power light, which do you recommend me?
Thanks for help ;)
All that matters is that you avoid as much bright blue light as you possibly can in the last 2-3 hours of your day. So, use the warmest color temperature in f.lux that you can tolerate, use the lowest monitor brightness setting that you can tolerate, and also use the warmest indoor lighting colors that you can find and go with the lowest brightness that you can withstand (I don't want you to be unable to see where you're going when you're getting ready for bed lol).
I believe that 4000K is too blue for use during those critical final 2-3 hours before going to sleep. However, f.lux can be useless if your indoor lighting is too bright and too bluish (too alerting).
Another thing is, you want to make every attempt to avoid ceiling lights because no matter how warm or dim a ceiling light is, the location of the light source is alerting - just like how the sun is probably the most alerting and energizing when it's at its highest point in the sky. Even bathroom lights that are high up on the wall can be alerting due to their high location. The least alerting light source locations are at eye level while you're standing or lower. Think about the location of the sun while it's about to set.
Now, to get directly to your question, an answer cannot be given because "LED tube (short)" and "low power light" doesn't give me anywhere near enough information to give an answer. All I can tell you is what I said above: go with the light that has the warmest color temperature and that can produce nice dim light as well.
Personally, I just switch to these red LED lights at night: http://www.feit.com/led-lamps/performance/performance_led/performance_led/color_leds/color_led/a19-r-led
But, I'm a little bit extreme like that. I also switch f.lux to 800K (it requires a change made to the Windows Registry), and I lower my monitor's brightness to around 10% - and I also change its RGB setting to 50, 0, 0 (50% red, 0% Green and 0% Blue). Anything higher than 50 for Red and it begins looking ugly.
There's a LOT more that could be said, but this post is already long enough to make anyone take one look at it and say "too long, didn't read it". lol
-
Well, you explained a lot, thanks for that.
@TwoCables said:
Now, to get directly to your question, an answer cannot be given because "LED tube (short)" and "low power light" doesn't give me anywhere near enough information to give an answer. All I can tell you is what I said above: go with the light that has the warmest color temperature and that can produce nice dim light as well.
I mean my current light at night, is a Fluorescent Linear Tube T12 white, so do too much light and bother me sometimes... and consume more than others. So I want to change to LED Linear Tube T5 warm or Energy Saving light (low power light).
@TwoCables said:
Personally, I just switch to these red LED lights at night: http://www.feit.com/led-lamps/performance/performance_led/performance_led/color_leds/color_led/a19-r-led
I think RED is too dark... prefer warm light.
@TwoCables said:
But, I'm a little bit extreme like that. I also switch f.lux to 800K (it requires a change made to the Windows Registry), and I lower my monitor's brightness to around 10% - and I also change its RGB setting to 50, 0, 0 (50% red, 0% Green and 0% Blue). Anything higher than 50 for Red and it begins looking ugly.
Yeah, I can see, 800K is a crazy lol, I can't stay look the monitor with 2700K looks too dark and too orange.
@TwoCables said:
There's a LOT more that could be said, but this post is already long enough to make anyone take one look at it and say "too long, didn't read it". lol
I read all XD
Thanks for help ;)
-
@link111 said:
Well, you explained a lot, thanks for that.
You're welcome!
@link111 said:
@TwoCables said:
Now, to get directly to your question, an answer cannot be given because "LED tube (short)" and "low power light" doesn't give me anywhere near enough information to give an answer. All I can tell you is what I said above: go with the light that has the warmest color temperature and that can produce nice dim light as well.
I mean my current light at night, is a Fluorescent Linear Tube T12 white, so do too much light and bother me sometimes... and consume more than others. So I want to change to LED Linear Tube T5 warm or Energy Saving light (low power light).
Ok.
@link111 said:
@TwoCables said:
Personally, I just switch to these red LED lights at night: http://www.feit.com/led-lamps/performance/performance_led/performance_led/color_leds/color_led/a19-r-led
I think RED is too dark... prefer warm light.
Red is as warm as it gets. There is no blue or green, and those are colors that make the overall color cooler when added to red.
@link111 said:
@TwoCables said:
But, I'm a little bit extreme like that. I also switch f.lux to 800K (it requires a change made to the Windows Registry), and I lower my monitor's brightness to around 10% - and I also change its RGB setting to 50, 0, 0 (50% red, 0% Green and 0% Blue). Anything higher than 50 for Red and it begins looking ugly.
Yeah, I can see, 800K is a crazy lol, I can't stay look the monitor with 2700K looks too dark and too orange.
That's because your indoor lighting is too blue. It's also because you're not used to it yet. To me, 2700K isn't warm enough. At first though, I didn't like 2700K at all. By the way, 2700K is the same color temperature of many basic 60W incandescent light bulbs.
Consider this though: if your monitor isn't producing accurate colors, then your color temperature choice in f.lux will be skewed.
@link111 said:
@TwoCables said:
There's a LOT more that could be said, but this post is already long enough to make anyone take one look at it and say "too long, didn't read it". lol
I read all XD
Thanks for help ;)
You're welcome.
-
So you didn't answer my objective question xd
Which you prefer or is better for the eyes? LED Linear Tube T5 warm or Energy Saving light (low power light)?
Thanks
-
@link111 said:
So you didn't answer my objective question xd
Which you prefer or is better for the eyes? LED Linear Tube T5 warm or Energy Saving light (low power light)?
Thanks
Like I said, I need more information about what "Energy Saving light" is. That can be ANYTHING. You still haven't said anything other than "Energy Saving light". Show me what it is.
-
@link111 said:
I mean my current light at night, is a Fluorescent Linear Tube T12 white, so do too much light and bother me sometimes... and consume more than others. So I want to change to LED Linear Tube T5 warm or Energy Saving light (low power light).
O.K., I had this selected when I clicked quote, but I also want to add it to your most recent reply. A "low power light" doesn't mean anything. What matters is not really watts, but (to me) color QUALITY, (measured in "Color rendering index") and brightness, measured in lumens. Lumens are a bit difficult to measure, I'm not an expert.
Most 60w bulbs now (not 20 years ago--they were probably either similar, or long life) are a bit above 2700K, I'd guess even the aerotech bulbs push a bit higher. Maybe I'm just accustomed to warmer lighting because of yellow lamp shades and whatnot. Anyway, like @TwoCables said, 4000K is way too white and I'd never use that at night, it's just well, I HATE that color temperature, unless it's coming from the moon, fluorescent lights have ruined that color temp for me. The color quality of many (not all) fluorescents can be very VERY poor. See the Fluxometer!
Fluxometer fluorescent link:
https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=Light Therapy/Carex Daylight 12 incheshttps://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=lights/candle
Even that bright "light therapy" lamp, yes it's not snake oil there, they usually work well. You can see how uneven and strange the color specturm is, and that's what most fluorescents look like. I don't like most fluorescents, but if the quality is decent, i can tolerate them.
I'd recommend getting IKEA Ledare $5 LED bulbs. The color quality is over 87, and that's very good. Most cheap LEDs only do 80 or sometimes less, so it's a steal. I would like the clear version if it wasn't $2 more, so maybe I'll just make my own cover (if I knew how!). Try the 600 lumen version, and just try to work with it. It's a good bit warmer than what you may like, way below 2700K, down to around 2,500K (for Kelvin) on the clear version. Around 2,650 for the frosted.
-
Off topic: the Aero-Tech 20,000-hour incandescent bulbs are 2700K light sources.
The '87' for the color is for the CRI, which stands for the Color Rendering Index.
-
@TwoCables 20,000 hours, wow. Even more off-topic, I recently saw a post about this lighting cartel on Reddit and wondered where a good place to put it would be, looks like that's right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
-
@lorna said:
@TwoCables 20,000 hours, wow. Even more off-topic, I recently saw a post about this lighting cartel on Reddit and wondered where a good place to put it would be, looks like that's right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
Yeah, they're sold as "rough service" bulbs. lol To me, they are the only bulbs worth buying.
I am not surprised in the least bit that this cartel existed. When I learned that these 20,000-hour incandescent light bulbs exist, I immediately began seeing the typical 1,000-hour bulb as a product of extremely greedy corporations.
-
@TwoCables @lorna yeah, what they could have done is come up with different materials, and tested all other metals, and keep researching to find out which ones produced a similar light to tungsten but better efficiency. I wonder if that exists... but we probably won't find out until some far off time in the future, maybe even 100 years from now. Oh well, LEDs are getting better.
-
@AbbyGelber Yep, lamps are great, they can be extremely bright, 1500+ lumens, but still be relaxing because it's not lighting up the whole room. Amazing.
-
@Tungsten_smooth said:
@AbbyGelber Yep, lamps are great, they can be extremely bright, 1500+ lumens, but still be relaxing because it's not lighting up the whole room. Amazing.
That's a "copycat spammer". Do a Ctrl+F on this page for some of the phrases they SEEM to have typed, and you will see they are just taking a paragraph from one of my posts. I'd imagine there's hidden spam in their post with special code.
I see this type of spam quite a bit on Overclock.net. It's pretty clever, but we have an easier time seeing it over there due to the way their Quote boxes work.
Oh and yeah, I'm back! I accidentally closed the tab I had always kept open for f.lux, and somehow I never noticed! Of course, I also haven't used f.lux in a few months too. I had to use it tonight and the first thing I wanted to do was check the forum (it was like a natural reaction!), and then I was like, "GASP! WHEREZ MY TAB?! SOMEONE CLOSED MY - oh wait. I closed it. Obviously. Well, now I know why I felt I was missing a tab these past few months!" hehe It's good to be back.
-
@TwoCables Lighten up, I doubt we can go on just one post. It is a bit odd a new user would go to an old post but maybe it was in the unread list.
Good job on reopening the tab, the devs are busy on the windows release this month.
-
@Tungsten_smooth said:
@TwoCables Lighten up, I doubt we can go on just one post. It is a bit odd a new user would go to an old post but maybe it was in the unread list.
Good job on reopening the tab, the devs are busy on the windows release this month.
What do you mean "lighten up"? I know what I'm talking about here. I even recognized it as soon as I read it. Scroll up to my first reply above and look at the 3rd paragraph.
So as you can see, that is a copycat type of spammer. It's a spambot. I've seen them many times on Overclock.net. They take something from another post so that they can look like a human and get others to reply to them with Quote so that the spam is hit and more spam gets generated from it as well.
Anyway, I'm glad you told me what Mike and Lorna are up to because I was little worried.
-
Oh gosh, is the copypasta spam back again?
We missed you @TwoCables. We are heads down for a little longer, Windows and some new goodies coming soon. -
@lorna said:
Oh gosh, is the copypasta spam back again?
We missed you @TwoCables. We are heads down for a little longer, Windows and some new goodies coming soon.Aw thank you.
When I came back and saw how quiet it is around here, I honestly began wondering what happened. It almost felt like a ghost town. :)
-
Heheh. Soon.
-
@TwoCables Woah, I went to your post and it's
so closecopy pasta! You're right. Why do people waste their time doing these things? -
@Tungsten_smooth said:
@TwoCables Woah, I went to your post and it's
so closecopy pasta! You're right. Why do people waste their time doing these things?It's not a person. I think there's something hidden in these copycat spam posts that causes a positive hit on their spam if you Quote the post - which also generates even more spam.
-
@TwoCables O.K. don't be so literal. Why do people waste their time making a BOT to post things?
