Non-brightness vs. brightness as criteria - displays

Just wondering why there's never any reviews or even ONE stickie-thread dedicated solely for those who are specifically seeking NON-bright laptops.

I know that many people here might respond:
"all you need to do is dim it"

But even with that, some screens contain more fluresent tubes inside them, and their quality may be different. Some people say that Trinitron or Plasma monitors are consistently more pleasant for them. So - if it's merely a "dimming" issue, why would it be the case that people find Trinitrons & Plasma's pleasant viewing?

As proof that many people have been complaining re: the brightness factor (and why such a stickie-thread could be useful to us), see this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=too+bright+site:http://forum.notebookreview.com/

The stickie thread could be labelled:

Brands/models of laptops softest on eyes & nerves? (even when NEW

 

I prefer plasma over LCD. Not because of the brightness but because of the contrast. Plasma TVs generally have higher real contrast rates than TV LCDs.

PS. I don't understand why dimming a LCD display either with CCFL or LED back light would not be satisfactory.

 

Plasma are more comfortable to view, because TFT TV sets had many problems, but now, with improved technology (100Hz, dynamic contrast, ...) they get better and better.

But you are right, some displays are brighter on the lowest setting than others. Some are, some not, just try it, it's not difficult to see if the brightness is low enough for you.
If the lowest setting is too bright for you, then stop using your notebook in dark rooms, just switch on the light and you'll see that it's not too bright any longer.

 

These are valid concerns.

Some people are overloaded by certain sensory stimulation. Particular lighting for example, or loud, piercing or buzzing sounds. Florescent lighting has a certain frequency and some people are able to detect the flicker.

Nothing really bothers me but people who are affected by certain things should make their lives as comfortable as they can.

The problem is that MFG's generally produce products for the average person, whoever that is. Plasmas may have a softer look because of the gas technology used to produce plasma images.

You'll have to be more specific about what exactly you're experiencing in order for anyone to help. Otherwise you'll have to go through trial and error.

Interestingly, trinitrons are crt's. It may not be a problem with intensity at all.

Ask yourself if you might have a problem with fluorescents.

.

 

Actually, I've read posts by others who are similarly intolerant of computer monitors and they were the ones who mentioned about plasma's and trinitrons being more tolerable.

Basically, I have a feeling that some computer monitors are manufactured to begin with, with less intense "everything" - ranging from outgassing chemicals to strong backlighting.

I think, though, that as the years go by, it's getting harder & harder to find the less-intense stuff. (Unless by some miracle a wiz kid can invent a computer monitor based on Kindle technology.

People tend to take for granted when they have good quality stuff until they've become burnt by lethal stuff, which is when they start becoming painfully aware, whether they like it or not.

P.S. To Vehement: I wasn't referring to matte vs. non-matte. I'm aware of it, and that isn't the issue. In fact, I was once at the mall where they had glossy Dell laptops on display, and I found them very pleasant possibly in part because they were floor models & had thus been subject to alot of use & thus depletion of the lethal phosphors, but also perhaps because Dell, in general, may tend to be more tolerable for sensitives (albeit not tolerable enough, as I know, because I own one). Maybe Acer too? BenQ? Not sure. Which is why people like myself thirst for feedback from people re: the softness or non-softness of their own monitors. Specifically, I had created an amateur survey for that purpose, but there aren't enough testimonials. Here's the survey, which is as jinxed as my experiences: http://www.lemnet.com/guestbooks/show/?user=monitorp&book=1a

 

I'm willing to bet that anti-glare/matte displays would be the best bet. Even on the highest brightness settings, they're not nearly as bright as most glossy types. The point of the matte display is to reduce glare and be comfortable to view for long periods of time.

I'm thinking that a CCFL backlight is definitely the better choice here also. Even on the dimmest setting, my LED display is still fairly bright.

 

Again I say that the most probable reason for tolerability all across the board (be it matte or not or LED vs. LCD) is dimming/depletion of phosphors over the course of usage

I've been waiting forever for the HS102 projector to become available, since that would probably be the best solution for me - a projected display. Others on my board have found projectors to solve their issues, but on principle, I want to avoid the brand they use, since I hate that company for causing my terrible issues initially via their lethal LCD.

 

Next time you're at the computer store, pick up an ultraviolet or privacy filter and place it over one of their laptop demos.

It may very well be that LCD's are not causing these issues but are simply indicating particular symptoms. Sensory integration dysfunction, as an example.

.

 

Been there done that (3M filter, the best of best).

Did not work for me. Someone on my board had the same experience (i.e. filter not helping him. He's saying that removal of his wisdom tooth seems to have helped him, but he's not 100% sure yet regarding that.)