ChimairaSpawnThey work on anything. Software solutions can be incompatible with some applications. Especially 3D. They also work on all devices And even walking down the street.
craingerf.lux is only addressing the issue of being exposed to blue light. Even though it tones down the amount of blue you are still being exposed to some. Gunnar glasses block 65% of blue light from digital screens, but they also address the issue of digital eyestrain which is the adverse side effects (headaches, blurry vision, dry/irritated eyes) that come from close distance screen viewing for long periods of time.
m0arpheusWow, I just noticed this but look,
>f.lux [...] tones down the amount of blue you are still being exposed to some
>Gunnar glasses block 65% of blue light from digital screens
It takes creative language to knock down another company with the same claim you're using to big up your own.
But this does raise an interesting question... does f.lux block out more or less than 65% of blue light?
According to their own study, it looks like f.lux blocks out more than 65% of blue light on all of the devices I looked at: https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=iPad%20Pro/6500K-iPad%20Pro
Now, of course, that is their own study so take it with a grain of salt, but as a user of f.lux I have a hard time believing it blocks out less than 65% of blue light, which puts them at least on par with these glasses.
iamak9Pretty sure the glasses also block UV and short wavelength blue produced by the backlight itself, but since most modern monitors use LED's now-a-days, that is less of a problem. That leaves gunnars going down the path of lost cause. If you are using a CRT, or an early LCD with a fluorescent backlight however, gunnars will serve you better than f.lux.
iamak9the thing is, you can use these glasses AND f.lux, or you can use these glasses on things that can't run f.lux - such as a secured workstation or a friend's computer or TV or something. Personally, I do both, but f.lux breaks frequently enough that I have uninstalled it for the time being - though when it works, I love it.
DC_JCIf f.lux didn't cause my really high-end computer to chug running games on Ultra in 60fps I would have absolutely no reason to get Gunnars. That being said, I may get gunnars just because f.lux is so far from optimized for most of the videogames I play, especially Titanfall and Dota 2. For some reason Overwatch works find with f.lux...
m0arpheuswhy not both? you've clearly spent a decent amount of money on computer hardware already; $40 (or less for the alternatives) to help protect your eyesight isn't so bad imo.
from the alternative 'action glasses' and 'esports glasses' i've seen, the gunnars have better build (lighter, sturdier) mine are always in their case+sock so i can't speak to them being impossible to clean.
DC_JCMy theory, and this is just my theory, but that Gunnars and f.Lux mess with my sleep cycle IF, and ONLY if, I don't get enough blue-light during the day. If I'm not outside enough during a given day, I feel like the orange hues of both Gunnar and f.Lux mess with me for some reason. Just basing this off of personal observation, no data at all on it but yeah.
ChimairaSpawnI don't have these per se, but my glasses anti-glare coating filters blue light and has a yellow tint very close to the gunnars. The adjustment to f.lux was much harsher than wearing my glasses. I had stronger headaches and more sleep disruption with f.lux. I think it was because I compensated the color discrepancy by turning the brightness up vs keeping brightness and contrast normal and wearing the glasses.
kittieI think the eyes are able to better adjust for the altered colors when completely covered by glasses than partially altered by changing the hue of the monitor. All in all, glasses are the more ideal solution, so it is more of a cost concern.