iPhone X FaceID and eye safety

[Superrjamz54]

There you are:

It's nowhere as intense and you are not spending 3 hours in a dark environment with your eyes 5cm away from it.

For comparison in the middle of the recording I am trying to setup face id. See how the light from the flood illuminator is much much more intense?

Yet your eyes can’t see the intensity. Most people don’t spend 3 hours in a dark environment looking at anyThing. They are usually asleep by then. Your not in a dark environment when your using a phone. The light from the phone is enough to actually prevent that.

 

[jeremiah256]

There you are:

It's nowhere as intense and you are not spending 3 hours in a dark environment with your eyes 5cm away from it.

For comparison in the middle of the recording I am trying to setup face id. See how the light from the flood illuminator is much much more intense?

Thanks - I gave you a thumbs up for trying the experiment, but the burner is much further away from the recording device, and again, just because the IR emitters are brighter does not mean it is harmful.

You have pain from the iPhone X. No one that I've seen is doubting that. What we are stating is that it's not from the IR emitters on the iPhone and it would be in your best interest to find out what exactly is causing you a problem. Even if we aren't going to convince you one way or another, I hope we can convince you to see an eye specialist.

 

[stafil]

Thanks - I gave you a thumbs up for trying the experiment, but the burner is much further away from the recording device, and again, just because the IR emitters are brighter does not mean it is harmful.

You have pain from the iPhone X. No one that I've seen is doubting that. What we are stating is that it's not from the IR emitters on the iPhone and it would be in your best interest to find out what exactly is causing you a problem. Even if we aren't going to convince you one way or another, I hope we can convince you to see an eye specialist.

Well thanks for your concern, but you logic is faulty. I check my eyes yearly and never had anything wrong with them.

I the difference in the distance was less than a foot.

I would do it again but I can see that nothing will convince you. So let’s leave it at that.

 

[Jensend]

https://www.renesas.com/us/en/doc/application-note/an1737.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116568/
https://www.researchgate.net/public...rared_Radiation_Exposure_to_Biometric_Devices

The internet is flooding with research proving that IR is harmful to the eye.

The amount from the proximity sensor *may* be acceptable. The one from the "flood illuminator" I doubt. But it's up to you do decide for your eyes.

Everything is harmful in the right quantities. Unless you can show me a specific quantity of IR radiation that a study says is harmful, and can tell me exactly how much IR the iPhone emits, then you are just basing it on your feelings.


The tracking system that is used for the VR system I have flashes 15 IR LEDs 120 times a second. I have not gone blind yet.


(Off-topic: Why does a forum for iOS devices works so poorly on an iOS device?)
[doublepost=1540794961][/doublepost]

Everything is harmful in the right quantities. Unless you can show me a specific quantity of IR radiation that a study says is harmful, and can tell me exactly how much IR the iPhone emits, then you are just basing it on your feelings.


The tracking system that is used for the VR system I have flashes 15 IR LEDs 120 times a second, and sweeps IR lasers across the room 60 times a second. I have not gone blind yet.


(Off-topic: Why does a forum for iOS devices works so poorly on an iOS device?)

 

[stafil]

I submitted my proof, the video.

It is very easy to convince me that is not harmful by submitting your proof: I challenge anyone to show me a document where apple specifiec the intensity of the “flood illuminator”

 

[C DM]

I submitted my proof, the video.

It is very easy to convince me that is not harmful by submitting your proof: I challenge anyone to show me a document where apple specifiec the intensity of the “flood illuminator”

So far it's proof of something somewhat different at best, as was put earlier in the thread:

All this ‘proves’ is that the iPhone emits light at wavelengths that a camera can detect. It in no way proves that this poses any danger to human health.

 

[stafil]

So far it's proof of something somewhat different at best, as was put earlier in the thread:

Replace “proof” with evidence.

I submitted evidence, links to papers, experiments and what not.

I haven’t heard a single data point from anyone.

Tell me; if you are so sure it passes the safety standards, what’s the intensity of the flood illuminator according to Apple?

I haven’t heard anything solid from anyone. Only “Apple says it’s ok”, “You are wrong but don’t care to provide any data”, “You are a tinfoil”.

 

[Jensend]

You submitted proof that the camera you used recorded a higher value for the IR emitter than it did for the screen.

You did not prove your initial claim that was the original subject of this thread: “
FaceID is dangerous for your eyes (in dark environments)”

 

[stafil]

You submitted proof that the camera you used recorded a higher value for the IR emitter than it did for the screen.

You did not prove your initial claim that was the original subject of this thread: “
FaceID is dangerous for your eyes (in dark environments)”

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you read the replie someone accused me of putting a clickbait for title. So I changed it to something less clickbaity..?

If your eyes being bombarded by such an intense light every 5 seconds is not good enough proof for you, then I don’t know what it is.

 

[Jensend]

Don’t just link a bunch of papers. Tell us what amount of radiation they found to be harmful, and how much radiation the iPhone emits. If you can’t give us those two numbers, than you have given us no useful information.

 

[C DM]

Replace “proof” with evidence.

I submitted evidence, links to papers, experiments and what not.

I haven’t heard a single data point from anyone.

Tell me; if you are so sure it passes the safety standards, what’s the intensity of the flood illuminator according to Apple?

I haven’t heard anything solid from anyone. Only “Apple says it’s ok”, “You are wrong but don’t care to provide any data”, “You are a tinfoil”.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Simply questioning claims to understand them better as to whether they are more objective or subjective and what that means in relation to those claims.
[doublepost=1540795982][/doublepost]

If your eyes being bombarded by such an intense light every 5 seconds is not good enough proof for you, then I don’t know what it is.

But you just said that wasn't proof. (Nor is there something showing an intense light bombarding something, given that IR and visible light are not the same and no particulars about intensity are available from the videos or statements.)

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Go grab your remote controls in the house and test them.

Then I'm guessing bury them in a draw and never use them again.

And stop confusing evidence and proof, your video doesn't prove anything harmful. You are wrongly extrapolating the hypothesis that because something is happening, it must be harmful, without checking whether this thing is indeed harmful. Asking others to draw their own conclusions is just silly, I could post a video showing that streetlights flicker, which is proof that they are damaging my retina. But that's just proof that they flicker (Because all lights flicker!).

Just go get your eyes tested and talk to an optician or someone you trust as qualified.

 

[stafil]

Go grab your remote controls in the house and test them.

Then I'm guessing bury them in a draw and never use them again.

And stop confusing evidence and proof, your video doesn't prove anything harmful. You are wrongly extrapolating the hypothesis that because something is happening, it must be harmful, without checking whether this thing is indeed harmful. Asking others to draw their own conclusions is just silly, I could post a video showing that streetlights flicker, which is proof that they are damaging my retina. But that's just proof that they flicker (Because all lights flicker!).

Just go get your eyes tested and talk to an optician or someone you trust as qualified.

I am not going to spend all day doing random tests just so you guys can change your story later. Check out the test with the stove requested by another user who later changed his story.

 

[Jensend]

If your eyes being bombarded by such an intense light every 5 seconds is not good enough proof for you, then I don’t know what it is.

Discovering something and saying “this is concerning” is fine. But you can’t just jump to a conclusion based on you feelings and intuitions and expect other people to accept your conclusions. If you don’t know, just ask “is this something I should be concerned about?”

 

[stafil]

Discovering something and saying “this is concerning” is fine. But you can’t just jump to a conclusion based on you feelings and intuitions and expect other people to accept your conclusions. If you don’t know, just ask “is this something I should be concerned about?”

Although you have a point, it would be stronger if this was a scientific paper and we were both researchers.

I don’t have the necessary resources or time to do a proper scientific study.

My findings together with the hundreds of people complaining about eye problems with the X and Xs(but never had a problem with Samsung phone) is good enough for me to make this claim in this forum IMHO.

The fact is that Apple doesn’t publish the technical details about the FaceID, so there is no other way for me to prove my hypothesis.

And to be honest if I was any of you I would be asking Apple to provide the exact details about the flood illuminator instead of trying to defend them

 

[C DM]

My findings together with the hundreds of people complaining about eye problems with the X and Xs(but never had a problem with Samsung phone) is good enough for me to make this claim in this forum IMHO.

Although it seems that most of that has been mostly linked to something else.

 

[stafil]

Although it seems that most of that has been mostly linked to something else.

I suggest you read the “eye strain” thread. People still can’t explain why the headaches.

 

[Jensend]

“is good enough for me to make this claim”

To make what claim?

 

[stafil]

“is good enough for me to make this claim”

To make what claim?

That FaceID is bad for your eyes in certain conditions.

 

[Deacon-Blues]

I said I thought your title might be a tiny bit click-baity, but I did not mean to accuse you of ill-intent. Your new title is much more measured. With that being said, I am interested in your topic. Eye safety is a concern of mine. The whole PWM issue got me thinking about eye safety, and of course Face ID as well.

I have had Require Attention for Face ID and Attention Aware Features turned off since day one. Why? Because from the start I wanted to minimize my eyeballs being blasted with IR where ever possible. Just in case. I’m not going to stop using Face ID, but I’m going to be smart about it. In fact, unless I’m driving I will usually close my eyes when I know Face ID is going to activate.

If there is any damage, it would be cumulative over many, many years. So it’s not time to panic, in my estimation. I think it’s definitely something that should be looked into. The easiest route to peace of mind would be through Apple's own documentation. Perhaps if enough people clamor, they will share their research on the safety of Face ID.

This is a topic I am interested in but we have nowhere near enough information to say there’s a problem, or a danger. At least that’s how I see it (while I still can).

 

[C DM]

I suggest you read the “eye strain” thread. People still can’t explain why the headaches.

Even with that it doesn't then somehow make this explanation therefore be the actual one, or even necessarily a likely one, simply based on people not being sure.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Although you have a point, it would be stronger if this was a scientific paper and we were both researchers.

I don’t have the necessary resources or time to do a proper scientific study.

My findings together with the hundreds of people complaining about eye problems with the X and Xs(but never had a problem with Samsung phone) is good enough for me to make this claim in this forum IMHO.

The fact is that Apple doesn’t publish the technical details about the FaceID, so there is no other way for me to prove my hypothesis.

And to be honest if I was any of you I would be asking Apple to provide the exact details about the flood illuminator instead of trying to defend them

Samsung sell significantly less phones than Apple, so you would hear significantly fewer complaints. Samsung also provide OLED displays for Apple, so there shouldn't be a problem there.

Whether Apple were to publish technical information is irrelevant, if you aren't capable of understanding them. You have jumped to a negative conclusion - not a hypothesis. As the other user pointed out, you could have asked a question, instead you've formed a conclusion based on a misunderstanding of technology.

It's not about defending or attacking, these are well established principles. Whether company A or X is employing them doesn't matter. Apple would be unlikely to ever provide technical information, as they don't make the part, they just need to prove it's safe.

If you want to be a kitchen-table scientist then go ahead, science is important and learning about the methodology is equally important. Just don't think what you are doing is correct, and has many flaws. And no you can't write a scientific paper, unless you are a qualified scientist in a particular field - you can't just write something and submit it for peer-review and expect any meaningful response.

 

[matthijst]

But, you cannot perceive IR light. What about IR makes you think it's not healthy? I'm not sure anyone can convince you otherwise as clearly this is a topic of passion, and whatever rabbit hole you've went down has given you a stern belief is some pseudo-science. However fundamentally, why IR?

You cannot perceive it....
Tell that to millions of people that get skin cancer from UV.

 

[stafil]

I said I thought your title might be a tiny bit click-baity, but I did not mean to accuse you of ill-intent. Your new title is much more measured. With that being said, I am interested in your topic. Eye safety is a concern of mine. The whole PWM issue got me thinking about eye safety, and of course Face ID as well.

I have had Require Attention for Face ID and Attention Aware Features turned off since day one. Why? Because from the start I wanted to minimize my eyeballs being blasted with IR where ever possible. Just in case. I’m not going to stop using Face ID, but I’m going to be smart about it. In fact, unless I’m driving I will usually close my eyes when I know Face ID is going to activate.

If there is any damage, it would be cumulative over many, many years. So it’s not time to panic, in my estimation. I think it’s definitely something that should be looked into. The easiest route to peace of mind would be through Apple's own documentation. Perhaps if enough people clamor, they will share their research on the safety of Face ID.

This is a topic I am interested it but we have nowhere near enough information to say there’s a problem, or a danger. At least that’s how I see it (while I still can).

Getting Apple to publish at least their technical specifications would be a good start for sure.

All I have heard from them so far is “It’s not harmful, trust us”

 

[Jensend]

I suggest you read the “eye strain” thread. People still can’t explain why the headaches.

Headaches aren’t necessarily linked with physical eye damage. I can looks at certain optical illusions that will give me a headache, but they don’t cause eye damage.