The Good Guys have dropped their LG C2 42” price to match JB, but slightly cheaper with the eBay Plus coupon on offer
If this price is not attractive enough, I don’t know how to convince further
Remember to stack with discounted gift cards for further savings
Same here. Couldn't resist at this price- replacing a 7 year old Dell 34 inch ultra wide for work, looking forward to it.
Reportedly - between the risk of burn-in and the non-standard sub-pixel structure making text a little harder to read - these make pretty bad work monitors but spectacularly good gaming and content consumption monitors (if you don't need more than 120Hz). I'd keep that old monitor around and maybe stick it on a monitor arm you can move out of the way when you want to game or watch something, if you can.
Good advice.
Biggest concern for me was the Automatic Brightness Limiting for white documents. For $1k I'll give it a good run, and if it doesn't work out as a work monitor it'll be wall mounted in the bedroom, which we were looking at doing anyway. Expecting it'll be great though, and go nicely with the OLED on the Lenovo Yoga 9i from last year that has been good too.
@Millikano: I've had one since launch (and I had a CX 48" before that) and text is definitely not an issue. It's much clearer than the Dell/Asus monitors I had before it which were both premium IPS panels.
You can disable the ABL via the service menu (I've disabled it both mine with no adverse effects so far, but obviously do this at your own risk).
Would it be too big to sit in front of it every day as a monitor??
I use one at home as my only PC monitor, can confirm it is amazing. Run Cleartype (assuiming you use Windows) and text won't be an issue. The TV has a few burn-in mitigation settings you can turn on, as well as smarts like screensavers, hiding the taskbar etc. No regrets whatsoever from my mixed use of gaming, content consumption and WFH.
Just makes me wonder about their usual margin.
Very true.
The extra dollar off may come from LG support if they want to clear out the old stocks.
Staff pricing for resellers is 50% off RRP and even then there is plenty of margin for LG I'm told.
cos it is 42' inch
It was $2400 at release.
That wasn't long ago.
how long ago?
that is quite expensive for 42"
don't think many people are choosing 42" for living room
I think 65" is the minimum choice for living room nowadays.
don't think many people are choosing 42" for living room
I think 65" is the minimum choice for living room nowadays.
That really depends on the size of your living room and whether or not you want a TV to dominate the space.
@eug: not really…
I think even with small living room, 42" is quite a small TV nowadays..
60" is just cutting it..
most people get used to the 60" after first it seems big, if going from 42"
if they go back back to smaller size e.g. 42", it would seem very small now..
I checked 55" at store and that feels small so 42" is gonna be even smaller
I think even with small living room, 42" is quite a small TV nowadays..
60" is just cutting it..
As I said, it depends on the living room. I literally went through this exercise with a work colleague a few weeks ago. He was after a TV, I suggested a 65", he said his living room is too shallow for it. He was wanting to go for a 50-55" but his wife wanted a 43" as a big TV would dominate the space.
You have to remember that not everybody is like you or me. There are plenty of people who don't care about size.
I checked 55" at store and that feels small so 42" is gonna be even smaller
If your living room is the size of the store then yes it'll feel small. Everything is relative.
You have to remember that not everybody is like you or me. There are plenty of people who don't care about size.
yes I understand that..
just seeing many bargain posts/tv deals..
where most deals seems to be around the 65" TVs
hardly see any 42" TV deals on hear
or people showing much interest in those deals for their living room
Even this deal is more about people considering using it as pc monitor
proves the point.
You have to remember that not everybody is like you or me. There are plenty of people who don't care about size.
no doubt
though I think you are too generous with the word plenty, more better word is "some"
"There are some people who don't care about size"
especially in regards to living room TV where people want big screen to show off and also enjoy ie like her husband.
The wife might of got the final say in that case, but no doubt the husband is not happy with that choice.
Also the irony of that statement on a different topic
https://www.insider.com/most-women-are-unhappy-with-breast-s….
If your living room is the size of the store then yes it'll feel small. Everything is relative.
no, it nothing to do with living room size being same as the store
it is do with what TV size you are used to watching/seeing
and how the eyes view other TV size and comparing one TV to the next.
All the stores usually display all sorts of TV sizes
and when you look at 65" then move to the 55"
the eyes naturally view it as being smaller..
So no doubt the 42" would be seen as being smaller..
If you only ever view 42" screen in living room or in the store
then it would appear not small
it is only when you view a big screen then you view it as smaller
if you are used to viewing a 24" monitor
then put this 42" on your desk, it would appear to be very large.
It is the size comparison in the brain/eye that then makes that screen or object appear smaller or larger.
just seeing many bargain posts/tv deals..
where most deals seems to be around the 65" TVs
hardly see any 42" TV deals on hear
Don't forget that you're in a bubble. You are on an internet forum where everyone has some sort of inclination towards technology. It is not surprising that people with a more technical inclination would gravitate towards larger screens.
Even this deal is more about people considering using it as pc monitor
proves the point.
Refer to my point above.
no doubt
though I think you are too generous with the word plenty, more better word is "some"
"There are some people who don't care about size"
LG has been making OLED TVs since 2013. The smallest size they made was 55" all the way up till 2020 when they made the first 48" OLED TV. Then in 2022 they made the first 42" OLED TV.
If the market was small, they wouldn't bother making smaller and smaller TVs that nobody would buy.
"Plenty" doesn't mean "majority". It means there's a big enough market that LG is willing to pour money into it.
no, it nothing to do with living room size being same as the store
it is do with what TV size you are used to watching/seeing
This is what you said:
I checked 55" at store and that feels small so 42" is gonna be even smaller
You said you went to a store and looked at a 55" TV and it looked small.
A 55" TV in a big store will look smaller than a 55" TV in a small living room.
Don't forget that you're in a bubble. You are on an internet forum where everyone has some sort of inclination towards technology. It is not surprising that people with a more technical inclination would gravitate towards larger screens.
No, the 65" TV deals are also advertise on TV, store brochure ads
you don't see any 42" TV deals or ads at all.
The reason why they also doing this is because the stores probably also have data that 65" is the current prefer size
hence why they got more stocks and more deals.
so just to do with this website..
LG has been making OLED TVs since 2013. The smallest size they made was 55" all the way up till 2020 when they made the first 48" OLED TV. Then in 2022 they made the first 42" OLED TV.
If the market was small, they wouldn't bother making smaller and smaller TVs that nobody would buy.
"Plenty" doesn't mean "majority". It means there's a big enough market that LG is willing to pour money into it.
never said there was no market or market is small,
the point of the current argument from first comment is whether people are choosing 42" for their living TV
which I said is unlikely at this current time
Go read the first comment again
as I said from start of comment
"don't think many people are choosing 42" for living room
I think 65" is the minimum choice for living room nowadays."
42" TV most likely are being made for people who want a smaller TV for their bedroom, garage / shed, outdoor, pc monitor or whatever but unlikely being put in a living room..
There is probably a good market size for people who want 42" OLED pc monitor (which currently does not exist or is too expensive)
so those people are buying this TV for that reason.
42" is just way too small for a living room area, even a small living room..
the only case that someone would choose it is for aesthetic reason (like the wife) so it fits in with their living room
rather than they want to watch a 42" over a 65" screen.
If money was not an issue, logically most people would pick the larger 65" over the 42" any day.
Only exception is like that wife case.
You said you went to a store and looked at a 55" TV and it looked small.
A 55" TV in a big store will look smaller than a 55" TV in a small living room.
No it is small because I am use to watching a TV that is larger than 55"
42" no doubt would be seen as small when placed in a living room.
It would feel large if I was use this a pc monitor though, cos as mention of what we are used to seeing daily.
It does not matter where you view the 55" TV in store or at home…
Rather than size of the living room, a better argument could be made about how far you are sitting from the TV.
If you are sitting 3 meters away and suddenly sit at 1 m away, then even a 42" would suddenly feel big ie using it as pc monitor
However if you are sitting the same distance e.g. 3 meters
and used to watching a 65" TV
then change to a 55" or 42" then it would be viewed as smaller in comparison tp what you are used to viewing…
No, the 65" TV deals are also advertise on TV, store brochure ads
you don't see any 42" TV deals or ads at all.
Yes. Size sells. Big size equals more money. Shops love making money.
Read what I said again. I never said more people want 42" TVs than 65" TVs. I said it depends on the size of the living room.
Someone with a smaller living room is more likely to prefer a smaller TV.
I'm not sure why you keep trying to move the goalposts and keep arguing.
Someone who's more into TVs is more likely to choose a larger TV for a given space. Someone who doesn't want a big black rectangle to dominate their smaller living space is more likely to choose a smaller TV for a given space.
42" is just way too small for a living room area, even a small living room..
For you. Not everyone is like you. We live in a large world and believe it or not, different people can have different opinions as to what size TV fits best in their living space.
Rather than size of the living room, a better argument could be made about how far you are sitting from the TV.
Having a smaller living room typically means you're sitting closer to the TV, because … the living room is smaller.
Yes. Size sells. Big size equals more money. Shops love making money.
why don't you go in the shops ask them what screen size is selling most
doubt there is much 42" inch screens selling as much nowadays compared to 65" especially for living purpose.
Read what I said again. I never said more people want 42" TVs than 65" TVs. I said it depends on the size of the living room.
Someone with a smaller living room is more likely to prefer a smaller TV.
I'm not sure why you keep trying to move the goalposts and keep arguing.
Not moving any goalposts
Being saying the same thing as I have always been saying…
No, don't think many people are choosing the smaller TVs ie this 42" for their living room space
considering how cheap the 65" screens prices are nowadays e.g $1000k or less.
And just for your sake, if they are choosing a smaller TV, they are not picking a small 42" screen for their living room TV..
maybe 55" to 60" is probably the minimum.
which is what my first original post was about
that people are not buying this 42" for their living room TV…
For you. Not everyone is like you. We live in a large world and believe it or not, different people can have different opinions as to what size TV fits best in their living space.
Yeah not arguing with you on that point..
never did.
the only thing that I have been saying is that people aren't likely to be buying a 42" screen for their living room
considering how cheap the 65" TVs are getting (approx $1k prices) regardless of how small their living rooms is..
the only exception is that wife case you mention, ie for aesthetic reason rather than because they prefer watching 42" vs a bigger screen in the living room..
which is what happen in that case..
the husband wanted the bigger screen but the wife objected (due to aesthetic reason)
if they were buying this 42", it would more likely be for their bedroom, garage, shed etc..
can't make it any clearer than point.
Having a smaller living room typically means you're sitting closer to the TV, because … the living room is smaller.
how small of a living are you talking here?
from what I seen of living rooms, even small ones
people are sitting at least approx near the approx 1.7 to 2m distance
most aren't going being sitting at 1m distance like a pc monitor
and still does not change anything about the original comment
that people are not nowadays picking 42" for their living room TV.
A 42" TV is quite small as a main TV in a small living room
and sitting at 1.7m to 2m distance.
No way that most people are choosing this 42" TV for their main living room TV
except for that wife type of case.
why don't you go in the shops ask them what screen size is selling most
Can you point out where I said 42" TVs were selling more than 65" TVs? Why are you making up arguments like that?
No, don't think many people are choosing the smaller TVs ie this 42" for their living room space considering how cheap the 65" screens prices are nowadays
Once again you're assuming everybody is like you. Not everyone wants a large black rectangle dominating their small living room.
I hope one day you realise that there are plenty of people in this world who are different to you. They can have different preferences to you.
You like big TVs. I like big TVs.
But not everyone likes big TVs. Cost is irrelevant. Some people are happy paying $1000 for a 42" that looks nice in their home rather than $1700 for a 65" that sticks out like a sore thumb.
A 42" TV is quite small as a main TV in a small living room and sitting at 1.7m to 2m distance.
People must have been unable to watch TV 10 years ago without binoculars.
Once again you're assuming everybody is like you. Not everyone wants a large black rectangle dominating their small living room.
I hope one day you realise that there are plenty of people in this world who are different to you. They can have different preferences to you.
You like big TVs. I like big TVs.
no you are putting more words into what I said then needed.
never said anything about preferences of different people can't be different to me.
not sure how many more ways I can make this clearer than what I have been keep on saying..
all I said was
-people aren't likely to buying this 42" TV for their main living room TV..
42" TV is quite small nowadays when there are other bigger size TV people have seen in store to compare it.
are there some exception?
sure, ie the wife case of choosing aesthetic over screen size.
but that is quite low cases..
why don't you go into some of your neighbour's houses or whatever
you will not be seeing hardly any 42" TV in their living room.
If they did have a 42" or smaller TV, then it is most likely in their bedroom or somewhere else like the shed etc.
and upgrade their TV to something 55" to 65"
This is just reality nowadays..
can't make that any more clearer than this..
so you should stop with this comment argument, cos it is not going anywhere.
People must have been unable to watch TV 10 years ago without binoculars.
this comment is pointless argument that has no relevance nowadays..
Were people okay with 42" monitors 10 years ago?
of course, cos the bigger screens size didn't exist or was just still too expensive.
people were also happy with the size of their CRT TVs before LCD TV came out
What is your point?
It is pointless argument..
Guess what, bigger screens have gotten cheaper and quite affordable for 55" to 65" screens
so most people aren't buying the 42" screens for their living room.
now please stop with comments cos your arguments are pointless and going nowhere.
no you are putting more words into what I said then needed.
I don't have to; you're doing that perfectly well yourself. ;)
What is your point?
You said:
don't think many people are choosing 42" for living room
I think 65" is the minimum choice for living room nowadays.
I said it depends on the living room (and the person obviously). Not everyone wants a big rectangle dominating a small living room.
You are unwilling to accept that not everybody wants a 65" TV in their living room. You think it's the minimum size for a living room. But you don't seem to realise that people can have different opinions to you.
I don't have to; you're doing that perfectly well yourself. ;)
nope you are
and your arguments are going nowhere and pointless
e.g.
"People must have been unable to watch TV 10 years ago without binoculars."
LOL, okay dude you are seriously losing the plot here..
yeah and people use to ride horses and walk around a lot before the car was invented..
once the car was invented, most people are buying cars rather than horses.
nobody said anything about people being unable to watch 42" screen 10 years ago.
the point was back then 65" was not released or very expensive..
but now it is quite cheap, lots of people aren't buying the 42" screen for their main living room TV…
Basically their minimum acceptable screen size or standards have changed in 2023 due being able to afford a bigger screen than 42"
I said it depends on the living room (and the person obviously). Not everyone wants a big rectangle dominating a small living room.
You are unwilling to accept that not everybody wants a 65" TV in their living room. You think it's the minimum size for a living room. But you don't seem to realise that people can have different opinions to you.
LOL okay whatever man..
You are unwilling to accept that not everybody wants a 65" TV in their living room.
no, didn't say anything about not everyone not wanting 65" and unable to accept that..
stop putting more words into people's mouth..
all said was people unlikely to buy this 42" TV for their living room nowadays..
You think it's the minimum size for a living room. But you don't seem to realise that people can have different opinions to you.
it is MOST LIKELY to be the minimum size TV they have bought or buying for their living based on how many deals have been posted for 65" TV
which means shops + manufacturers have lots of these TV size in the store and are manufacturing cos they know from their own data / polling that that is the screen size many customers looking at buying or are actually buying.
Doesn't matter how big or small is their living room…
Just look at this page written in July 7, 2022 and now it is march 2023
https://www.angi.com/articles/what-size-tv-should-i-buy.htm
The most common TV size in North American households is 55 inches but is expected to increase to 65 inches based on purchasing numbers.
What’s the Most Common TV Size and Viewing Distance?
The most common TV size is 55 inches size for the family room or living room. This puts the optimal viewing distance in most households at around 7.5 feet, or 5.5 feet for those looking for a more theatrical experience. Though, there are trends pointing towards 65-inch TVs being the most commonly purchased in the last couple of years, so the average size is expected to increase.
You can also create a poll to settle this if you are so confident in your pointless argument..
nope you are
I'm amused at how you ramble so much at such a simple statement.
You think 65" is the minimum size for living rooms nowadays.
I said it depends on the size of the living room. Some people don't want a large 65" TV dominating their small living room.
You are unable to accept that different people can have different opinions to you.
You then continue arguing with mountains and mountains of text, further reinforcing my point that you can't accept that other people may have a different opinion to you.
don't think many people are choosing 42" for living room
What you need to understand is the difference between a TV and a monitor. Of course this is too small to be used for most people's living rooms (I have an 88" at home in mine). The LG C2 is a monitor more than a traditional TV. It's an absolutely excellent 4K OLED monitor that supports 4K 120Hz through HDMI. It would be best compared to similar monitors to these:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/708660
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/747785
I've seen this argument a thousand times on OzBargain… People saying that 42" is too big to be a monitor. The truth is, technology is changing and the way people describe a "monitor" is saying too. Personally, I'd say this is neither a traditional monitor or a TV. It's a new size, one that is specifically targeted at creators and gamers. Provides incredible quality at a small size, but is meant to be for an audience that wants a bigger experience than a traditional monitor.
Even back many years ago, dual monitor setups were always common. Two old 24" monitors is technically like using one ultrawide 48" monitor. Nothing wrong with that. This is a 42" monitor… Should be pretty understandable now where this product sits for most users.
@Zackeroo: what is the point of your comment?
never said that this 42" TV was not suitable for a PC monitor
Just said that people aren't buying a 42" TV to put in their living room
They could be buying this for bedroom, shed, garage, or even as PC OLED monitor (which currently the only option since there is no OLED monitors or it is still too expensive)
I think even with small living room, 42" is quite a small TV nowadays..
60" is just cutting it..most people get used to the 60" after first it seems big, if going from 42"
You're discussing people using this TV as a traditional TV without realizing this isn't a TV for most people. This is a large 4K OLED monitor and is most definitely a good price for one.
You're discussing people using this TV as a traditional TV without realizing this isn't a TV for most people. This is a large 4K OLED monitor and is most definitely a good price for one.
what you mean most people?
Only the most techie of people (with spare cash) are buying this 42" OLED TV for the purpose of using it as PC monitor.
Also majority of those people who game aren't even gaming in 4k (according to steam data)
so those techie who are are buying this for a pc monitor is doing it for other reasons.
4K PC gaming is still not that big yet.
Or maybe they are gaming but they are using it for PC work and 4K console gaming and movie watching (so they don't need to buy a separate TV)
MOST people (non techie, average families, the public) are seeing this as just a TV for their bedroom, shed or garage etc..
and then MOST of those people are just buying the standard LCD/LED TV rather buying the more expensive OLED.
No one with more than two functioning brain cells pays LG's RRP even on launch. This is still a great deal but it's not a $2400 TV.
@Arealtur Kishman 69: Plenty of people would have initially wanting it as a Monitor asap. Given the 48 in comparison is very hard to use in most setups.
@scuderiarmani: 48" is doable for big screen monitor but can probably feel too big
42" is also probably the preferred biggest comfortable size for a monitor at 1m
both will need to use fancy zones though
since you don't want a full screen browser or word document on these large screens..
it also means you can't do full screen gaming while multitasking with other apps like web browsing, discord, twitch, youtube etc..
the size of this monitor means you are not gonna be able to put a another smaller monitor for multitasking usage on most desks..
$2695 to pre-order from Jb when they were new, I got a better deal than that, but it was the sticker price at the time.
@foxpants: Ouch, yeah I remember price fluctuating a little at launch actually, think their was a late adjustment.
Clearly LG thought they could charge a premium for a far more optimised Monitor size.
@scuderiarmani: The rumours before launch was it would be the same or even perhaps more expensive than the 48" C2 just becuase the size was desirable for monitor use.
I am losing this battle
Me too…
I lost haha
I'm taking my final stand, but the hordes are swarming….. must….resist….
My wallet is waiting for reinforcements to buy out the stock in my area so I can't click and collect…
Whys it so cheap now? Is something better coming?
yes
Always, but will be considerably more expensive than this for a long while.
And will no doubt will have some feature "you can't live without" even though no TV in history had that feature.
A remote.
Clearly G/C3's coming, around April/May.
42"
think the prefer tv size for most people is now 65"
If only a 48” was around this price
I'm waiting for the 83" to be under grand. Let's wait together.
Comment of the day! I'm still laughing :D Thank you!
83" too small. Need 97" OLED but only have $500 to spend
OOOOOOF
Anyone use this as a external monitor for a macbook? Are documents, IDEs etc displayed well enough just like regular monitors? Thinking of replacing a 2x 27-inch monitor setup with this.
would it be possible to run a 42 inch in the middle with 2x27 inch monitors on the flanks in Tie Fighter configuration?
This is what I have with my 32" and can confirm it is an amazing workstation. I also have my MBP 16" driving the whole config down the bottom. Should I upgrade to the 42"? Might be hard with the triple monitor stand that I have, I doubt the side arms will be long enough :/ Maybe I can have it above the 32" angled down so I can lean back and watch some TV :D
That sounds amazing, but apparently with 42" you don't even need to go full screen most the time you have so much real estate, can't imagine needing the 27"s as well, but I'd take em! haha
I'm considering the this 42" but I've somehow lost one of my 27s, how do you lose a monitor?
Same place as your socks.
All depends on the bandwidth of your output. Thunderbolt 3 can only do 2x 4K at 60HZ or 3x QHD at 60Hz or 1x4K at 120Hz with 1x4K @60Hz I think. If you want 3 monitor setup, you will probably have to have this 42 setup at 60Hz (despite its capability being 120Hz) and other 2x monitors (if they are 4K as well then you may not even get 60Hz). Thunderbolt 4 will perhaps support better arrangement than that.
Good point, yeah my system probably can't handle it
Tie fighter config would be 2x 42" with your 27 in the middle
Currently using as monitor for my M1 Mac Mini.
There's some settings that you'll have to adjust to make it working well. Don't forget to switch off if you not using it.
What do you do on it? If gaming, is there an input lag? If reading/editing documents - is the text sharp etc?
The only thing holding me back is the recommendation seems to be min 50-60cm viewing distance from user reports…
I have a 60 cm workbench mounted 2cm from the wall, with my fv43u mounted to the wall. The monitor comes out nearly 9cm when mounted. I could do with another 5-10cm depth on the desk.
yeah i thought that would be the case :(
my current work area is a funny shaped nook, and depth is quite limited. so now either weighing up moving my area to a rumpus area or just dealing with my current 2 x 24 inch setup from 2012 :')
@Jimothy Wongingtons: I've decided to wait until actual OLED monitors come down in price. Might be a few years.
So you end up sitting too close?
Yes you can. Here are some good tips https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/comments/wc9ids/steps_t…
I have created some automation to turn it off automatically like when I leave home or specific time of the night when it auto turns off (Also I have included my nanoleaf triangles and Philips hue light bar to be turned off with C2 as well so its a neat way to turn on/off everything at once)
OLEDs even WOLEDS (C2) have poor colour fringing on straight edges because display drivers are configures for RGB not WRGB. The new QD-OLEDs are WRG but their pixel subtracter is triangular. Also, burn in for productivity is a non 0 concern.
Once you go black you never go back… Wait I didnt mean to say that lol. Ive used a few different monitor setups and having one large screen is better. I'm actually going to a 55 inch screen soon. Pixels are always going to be an issue when going bigger sizes, but writing is fine to read text with 4:4:4 chroma enabled. Its only qd oled which has a different triangle pixel layout which is bad. Two issues you may want to be cautious with OLED monitors are dimming of the screen after a brighter page is on screen for a while or if its mainly white it will not be bright at all. Other is burn in, having icons, borders, toolbars, etc on the screen constantly is not great. Make sure to run some full screen moving content for a little while before turning it off
it is a tv
so will not be great in terms of pc turn it off for energy saving or after powering off the pc
Dunno about Macs but on Windows you can use LG TV Companion to automatically switch the TV on and off following the PC.
okay didn't know about the github app, if it works then should help in avoiding burn in and power management of the monitor….
previously other video I saw mentions those downsides of using TV as a monitor
this is a good video of what's it like + the pros and cons
Bought it from last deal for $1196 and 21 days later dropped another $200!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!
If it was within 14 days and from JB Hi Fi, you can get back difference.
Still give it a go I would say, they usually are kind to refund the difference till the ~3-4 week timeframe as they are invoiced by the supplier/manufacturer to those terms so they dont loose a cent
I got one 15 days ago and they still gave me the discount so definitely worth a try!
Do you just ask for a pricematch after you've bought it?
Just buy this one and return it to where you bought the first one.
Pretty sure no one is going to accept a return on a 3 week old TV, lol. I could be wrong, though.
Nah. You return the sealed one you just bought!
Comparing to a normal monitor, is OLED TV bad for your eyes for long hours of using it? (~7 hrs a day)
Thanks
Neither is bad for your eyes.
That's always been a myth; Just like blue light.
I was discussing this exact topic with my care team (2 Opthalmologists and 2 Optometrists) just the other week.
Since my eyes are so easy to damage, since I nearly lack a cornea, it was very relevant.
tldr:
-Eye strain is muscle strain; no damage to the eye - Like any muscle, they will strengthen with time.
-We are daytime creatures, our eyes do less work seeing blue light; the more the better, within reason (until you get anywhere close to the brightness of the sun, or UV, of course).
I sit behind monitors for over 12 hours a day for work, and behind a lot of monitors (2 * 49", 4 * 27) and without my blue light filter stops my eyes feeling tired / dry etc.
Other than that, my eyes are near 20/20 and I've been doing this for years.
As for oled being worse, nah, it's just light, and far less harmful than sunlight as it's a limited spectrum being displayed at far less brightness that midday sun.
Yep, 14-15 hours a day here. And with very little 'natural protection' like most people have.
Hence why I had the discussion with my specialists about what was damaging and what wasn't.
Blue light filtering is a fascinating topic to discuss with someone who literally cuts into eyes and observes damage (or lack of) every day.
Regarding filtering, The simile they gave, was switching arms when one gets tired cleaning.
Bright lights (mostly blue) cause your pupil and cones to respond in a specific way, the muscles that cause this can get tired.
Switching to 'Night mode' (wider pupil, Rods taking some of the work from Cones), changes the muscles in use, and feels better.
They agreed that having a pair for the sake of comfort is harmless;
Yet all 4 specialists agreed that wearing them 'every day' could percievably cause minor negative changes, because our bodys think we're living somewhere less bright; and wide spectrum light exposure actually contributes to eye health via cell hardening and such.
It's a facinating topic when you're actually talking to pros that have no interest in twisting the truth and selling things to you…
Interesting stuff. Any links to articles talking about this?
@LordNoon6: Not that I know of. Most studies you'll find, find them at the best, useless.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29044670/
It's a really hard subject to find non-bias information on; because even half the optomestrists are selling glasses, so have an interest in 'upgrading' you. My specialists also pointed out that most of the studies are Sponsored also.
I have however nerded out about this for a few years, and the easiest way to grab an understanding I feel, is to read about eye devlopment.
How UV light causes natural crosslinking. How cells (specifically the epithelium) react to different wavelengths in regards to cell-health, and to look into things like interocular molecular imbalances suffered by people who work in pseudo dark 24/7 (submarines and such).
I've read hundreds of pages on it; I've not found a good summary to be honest with you.
But to have a handfull of professionals with no monetary interest in the technology 'confirm' that "we don't know, but we don't like the theory"?
It was enough for me.
@MasterScythe: Honestly I am not smart enough to read and understand the article you linked. But here is what I have been doing which has helped me wind down in the evening. I got a Galaxy projector (specifically the Sky Light Evolve Clouds only) and have it set to all red clouds. https://www.amazon.com.au/BlissLights-Sky-Lite-Evolve-Projec…
Hours before bed I will turn it on and set it to the All red mode I created in the app, then it reflects off the ceiling and bathes the entire room in a soft but deep red light. I browse and watch videos on my iPad with the brightness turned down and "night shift" enabled, and I can still feel myself getting drowsy until I put down the iPad. It definitely made an improvement for me compared to the typical "white" LED room lights.
I guess my dumb ass just concluded, red is the opposite of blue so it should help. Yeah I don't know the science behind it but it helps for me.
@harshbdmmaster718: Yes.
Night time, and affecting your circadian rhythm is something blue light does.
Thats why "no screens late at night".
I like to read a book.
Thats why "no screens late at night".
Funny thing though is. After a few hours of bathing in red light reflections (the projector uses a laser I think which projects on the ceiling, not too intensely even if you look at the ceiling but the whole room is a dim deep red hue) I notice that my eye normalizes to the red room (it still looks red after hours) but when I look at my phone's lock screen which has a picture with some red on it, that red looks grey, almost white lol. So that basically tells me I am getting a decent amount of red light into my eyes lol.
![[eBay Plus] LG C2 42" OLED 4K TV $995 + Delivery ($0 C&C) @ The Good Guys eBay](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/79/764279.jpg?h=b226a01c)
Never thought I'd see it this price. Amazing.