• village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      Brighter for less energy is the important bit. It doesn’t mean that the lowest brightness has to be higher than it is now.

    • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      But marketers must have number go up! Moar Candles!

      Seriously, more efficiency is always good, but does anyone actually test monitors for low brightness performance, how good is the color at 100 nits, 50 nits, 10 nits, how low can they go? It’s like reviewers have totally forgotten that dark rooms exist.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        I mean, bright sunlight is the worst case for contemporary displays, so you usually don’t have that. And you don’t want to stare in a lamp for most of the time.

        I usually have to help with xrandr --brightness and --gamma, even in daylight, because the darn thing is still too bright on it’s lowest setting. What’s important for me is therefore contrast, not brightness.

        • P00ptart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’m more concerned with outdoor signs and billboards at night. There’s one near me that’s so ridiculously bright that it’s hard to drive by there at night.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Seriously, I already have to put my monitors on nearly the lowest brightness as it is. So tired of extreme bright lighting. Especially offices.

    • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, my finger can only fiddle the brightness toggle so much. Any more and I’m going to be playing Operation with the slider widget.

  • monotremata@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sounds like it could be really useful for VR displays. The best optics for VR right now use polarizers to fold the optical path repeatedly through the same lens, but a side effect is that only a small portion of the light makes it to the users’ eyes.

    Could also extend the battery life of phones; the display is the main power draw for most phones, and the higher brightness make that worse.

    I understand why people are reacting badly to these being described as “brighter,” but it does also mean “more energy efficient for the same brightness.”

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I understand why people are reacting badly to these being described as “brighter,” but it does also mean “more energy efficient for the same brightness.”

      Exactly, it’s all relative. What “brighter” really means in this context is more energy converted to light, less energy wasted to heat - which is entirely a good thing.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Fuck all. Of all the problems they could fix, brighter displays is not one of them.

    These LED signs light up the night sky. No stars, affects wildlife, hope you don’t live across from one, all caused by these blights.

    These should be banned.

    Darkskies are a right.

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    This thread is full of people completely missing the point. How in the world is an improvement to display technology so it uses less power a bad thing?

  • jdr@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sounds like we should do more of this “discovery” then