Rig for red lights at night is bad now.

North Baltic sea said:

Hi,


The article found the same thing that had been known for decades, because of the red light due to wave frequency, color separation is not the best possible, This is taught here for children at school.


There is nothing to change how the human eye's wrists allow a night vision and other than the red frequencies in the light give impulse and you lose at least a part of the twilight of your sight.


Nautical charts are at least here, therefore, in addition to color, the symbols of the Direction of cardinal signs and lateral references, so there is no need to distinguish them with colors. There is really nothing new in this article or a scientific reference to a new research result on the subject. Red sing only electric line, pipe line etc.

NBs

Click to expand...

Maybe nothing new, seems to me most posters disagree with the conclusions though and favor red light at night.

DDW said:

Almost no one uses printed charts as their primary source of navigation in 2018. Yes I have them onboard, and actually prefer a hand drawn chart to an electronic vector chart. However I routinely use only computer screen rendered versions and almost never look at an actual piece of paper. I think nearly everyone does the same. Hence my question "who uses paper charts?"

Click to expand...

I use papercharts to do initial navigation planning and course plotting. I create all my plotted courses in the Nav Display from there. I use the GPS/Display as my primary navigation tool.

I keep a chartbook beside the helm when I'm operating. Often when I zoom out, I loose detail, like some markers. I like to use the chart to get 'big picture' views and for verifying my upcoming markers and turns.

A failing (historically) of electronic plotters is they use vector generated charts, with computer algorithms to declutter when zoomed out. The computer is not very good at determining which things are important to keep. Human cartographers are (or should be). For years with Raymarine MDFs, I kept a laptop handy because it could display the NOAA printed charts on screen. Prior to that I kept the printed charts handy.

The newest chart plotters from Raymarine (and I assume others) will as easily display the raster charts as vector, in fact they can be displayed side-by-side for comparison. Now I rarely refer to a printed chart. I primarily use the raster NOAA and CHS charts displayed on the plotter in preference to the Navionics vector charts though it is easy to switch back and forth and I frequently do. The raster charts have detail appropriate to that zoom level, as determined by the cartographer, so even a small rock will be depicted on a large area chart, if it is an important hazard to navigation. This is what vector charts still do poorly.

The big advantage to rendering the NOAA charts on screen is that they can be seamlessly stitched together, even when different scales overlap. You are never caught between two charts or two scales. This is a big improvement over paper. The disadvantage is the size of the display cannot compete with a 44 x 22" chart - if you have the room to lay it out - and the adjacent ones.....

I think the controversy here is due to the author of the article drawing a faulty conclusion from the data. Red light DOES protect your night vision, but make it hard to see red ink on a paper chart, so the author says red ligting is not good for navigation. That does not mean that red light is not better for preserving night vision, which is what the author seems to conclude.

Benthic2 said:

I think the controversy here is due to the author of the article drawing a faulty conclusion from the data. Red light DOES protect your night vision, but make it hard to see red ink on a paper chart, so the author says red ligting is not good for navigation. That does not mean that red light is not better for preserving night vision, which is what the author seems to conclude.

Click to expand...

Dim red light will allow for quicker recovery of night vision adaption than dim white. The difference isn’t huge however. Dim white is much better than bright red as well. I agree that the author is missing the subtlety.

Also, keep in mind that if you have red light and you see a green, blue and red line on a white background, the red will look red, the green and blue line will look black, and the white background will look red. If the color of the red line is the same wavelength as the red light, AND is as reflective as the white background, it will blend in. So, you can see red ink just fine with a red light. The problem comes in discriminating it from the red appearing background.

DDW said:

Almost no one uses printed charts as their primary source of navigation in 2018. Yes I have them onboard, and actually prefer a hand drawn chart to an electronic vector chart. However I routinely use only computer screen rendered versions and almost never look at an actual piece of paper. I think nearly everyone does the same. Hence my question "who uses paper charts?"

A NOAA or CHS raster chart rendered on a computer monitor is perfectly readable, including the magenta lines, under red light or in total darkness. Again, these displays do not depend on incident light, they create there own. The ambient light makes no difference unless there is too much of it (bright sunlight).

Click to expand...

You got me there. I do often use raster charts on an electronic medium unless it's my home turf and I spring for a chart book.

Northern Spy said:

The US Navy submarine force stopped "rigging for red" in the control room before coming up to periscope depth at night about 30 years ago. Shifted to low level lighting in 88 or 89.

The OOD would wear red glasses in the control room prior to rigging for red to adjust his eyes even more.

Click to expand...

Maybe those were rose colored glasses. In my day we just called them the OD.

Red/white LED's on dimmers in the Salon, Wheelhouse, and cabins. We are Dog Zebra at night when underway, but when needed to move around they work very well.

Hmmmmm, I turn on my red light, looked at the magenta in my map book and it was still visible but, in gray.

OldDan1943 said:

Hmmmmm, I turn on my red light, looked at the magenta in my map book and it was still visible but, in gray.

Click to expand...

Yup. It is all about wavelength and reflectivity. Usually our “red” lights aren’t a single wavelength. The same with the colored lines. In your experiment, I’d be interested to know what color the background appeared?

A friend has a great Furuno radar with one annoying flaw. The screen brightness control has to cycle up to full before it will go down. Not that it matters because he runs in the dark with all the displays cranked up. ?

It's really simple ...

oscar said:

Take some bearings and get a fix, like the ol' days?

Click to expand...

Plot, Label, DR baby, Plot, Label, DR ... always kept me off the rocks.

I had no idea. I thought it was for setting the mood while at anchor.

Greetings,
Mr. PM. Ya, I know what kind of mood you're trying to create but remember, this is supposed to be a family site...

Racing sailboats to Hawaii in the Victoria to Maui race we found a couple of things on lighting at night. First was our binnacle compass was had a tactical card with red and green sectors with white numbers. With red lights the numbers in the red sectors disappeared. The solution was to use blue light. Those didn't exist for that compass but the service tech at Captains in Seattle had a low tech solution. He had white leds that he simply painted with a blue sharpy. It solved the problem.



Our fish finder was also a NMEA data repeater and even at the lowest level it was far to bright on the ocean at night. We used red cellophane over the display to dim it. That also worked. Inside we had red leds but the ones facing the companion way were also too bright. We only turned on the two facing forward. This was plenty of light in the cabin and did not overpower the on deck crew.



When its really dark it doesn't take very much illumination.

Personally, I find looking through glass at night the most hindrance in seeing things like logs in front of my vessel. In bi-gone days many commercial fishing vessel, and some pleasure power boats, had a helm window that dropped down or lift up to give a clearer view if required. This poor visibility through glass is also true, maybe more so, in thick fog.

At night, I no longer use a dim red light if I need additional lighting inside the vessel. I usually find the numerous electronic, though turned down as far as possible, more light than I need or want.

Boat said:

My personal theory is that it is the same "self-destruct gene" responsible for addiction, fear of success, emotional arguments, more is better mentality, emotional decision making, hormonal driving, etc.

Click to expand...

Well said. Better to just wear your shades at night. ;-)

Wow. Sailed/raced 75,000 miles or more on powerful ocean racing yachts. Red at night, nav station, above and below. Never any of this non sensical opinions. It is so obvious.

Nothing nonsensical in letting science alter tradition if its not perfect.

Ugh

JYoung said:

Ugh

Click to expand...

looks like a bluish white light is now in to me for the navy.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a273682.pdf

Dissatisfaction with the red lighting system caused the crews of many ships to alter
the lighting within their work environment. Some would extinguish all lighting, and
some tried a white light configurtion in which the overhead lights in the vicinity of the
visual display equipment were turned off, while lights away from the visual display
equipment remained on. There were many complaints of eye strain, fatigue, and
headaches. In addition, watch-standers reported that working under red ambient
illumination was also fatiguing, made focusing difficult, and significantly impaired their
ability to identify color-coded information from charts. These complaints led to the
discovery by one crew of an alternative light filter for submarines that was available
through the Navy stock system.
The alternative was a blue filter which appeared to address some of the problems
expressed by the operational focces (Letter from CO, USS Greenling SSN 614, 1980).
Their choice of lighting was supported by research quoted in the NAVSEA lighting
"manual which contained a chapter on blue iliumination for radar system display
consoles (see NAVSEA Lighting Manual, chapter 12). The rationale for the use of this
lighting was that performance on perceptual tasks coul." be improved if the visible
spectrum were divided in half based upon relevant/irrelevant information. A short
wavelength (blue) was used for general room (non-relevant) illumination while a longer wavelength (amber) was used for display (relevant) illumination. The division was
achieved by placing an amber filter over the display screen; this tev'hnique effectively
split the visual spectrum by limiting the output of the display to long wavelengths and
by not transmitting any of the blut ambient illumination to the display phosphor.

Click to expand...

"Major navies are switching to dimmable white (and now green or blue, too) lighting for night operations, and the rest of us should consider doing the same. Rothblum concurs, noting: “Recreational and commercial mariners should consider the advantages of using low-level white light on the bridge at night…When charts and displays need to be viewed, low-level white lighting greatly surpasses red lighting in supporting good color discrimination and, therefore, accurate reading of charts and displays.”

diver dave said:

That could well be. I think that is called "monovision" where one eye is set up for distance and the other for close.
Reminds me of an incident I had years ago. Flying solo into PBI and I lost a contact mid flight from the Bahamas. I have like 20:200 uncorrected. So, I had to land with basically one eye. Didn't really favor that set up.

Click to expand...

When I had my cataracts removed and the lenses replaced I opted for the "Restore" lenses that are about twice the price of the single vision lenses. Medicare will not pay for them, but it was worth the price to me. They are Fresnel lenses and give BOTH distance and close vision in one eye just like the human eye. That was 12 years ago and I have never regretted it. I am 82 years old and drive and fly and use computers with NO Glasses, night and day.

jimisbell said:

When I had my cataracts removed and the lenses replaced I opted for the "Restore" lenses that are about twice the price of the single vision lenses. Medicare will not pay for them, but it was worth the price to me. They are Fresnel lenses and give BOTH distance and close vision in one eye just like the human eye. That was 12 years ago and I have never regretted it. I am 82 years old and drive and fly and use computers with NO Glasses, night and day.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this post. This could be a life changing bit of knowledge.

This post wins the Official Boat Award for the best post on any forum in recent memory.

I don't know when I will need cataract surgery but I am adopting a "why wait?" attitude towards it. I am averse to medical treatment of any kind but have heard nothing but good of cataract surgery.

I like the red lights at night. Not crazy about turning navigation into a video game. Maybe goes back to flying at night as a child. LED lighting is garish. I have a strong sense of self preservation and the concept of situational awareness has great appeal to me.

Situational awareness and lighting are only connected a tiny bit in my mind. Seeing something or not....for whatever reason.... AND comprehending its threat and your ability to mitigate it to me weighs more heavily in terms of situational awareness.

The post of the thread to me so far was the one that said looking through glass or clear vinyl is the biggest detriment to night vision....much more so than temporary loss due to lighting ( unless your night vision is so bad to begin with).

Boat said:

I don't know when I will need cataract surgery but I am adopting a "why wait?" attitude towards it. I am averse to medical treatment of any kind but have heard nothing but good of cataract surgery.

Click to expand...

Ive heard of hypochondriacs but wow....

jimisbell said:

I am 82 years old and drive and fly and use computers with NO Glasses, night and day.

Click to expand...

That is awesome, a nod to the med industry and an inspiration.

jimisbell said:

When I had my cataracts removed and the lenses replaced I opted for the "Restore" lenses that are about twice the price of the single vision lenses. Medicare will not pay for them, but it was worth the price to me. They are Fresnel lenses and give BOTH distance and close vision in one eye just like the human eye. That was 12 years ago and I have never regretted it. I am 82 years old and drive and fly and use computers with NO Glasses, night and day.

Click to expand...

The ReSTOR lens is certainly an option, however it is a diffraction multifocal (not Fresnel) and does NOT work just like the human eye. The ReSTOR uses diffraction to provide a near focus at around 14” and a distance focus hopefully at infinity. There is no intermediate focus and visual acuity in that range (think at arm length) is at best 20/40.

All but one current multifocal IOL (intra-ocular lens) will not provide vision as clear as a mono-focal IOL. The advantage is that while the vision is not as sharp, it at least does provide both distance and near vision. In essence, it is a compromise. I have a professional bias towards vision as clear as possible, however compromises aren’t necessarily all bad. I will even use multi-focal contact lenses on occasion when the convenience outweighs the drop in clarity.

The other factor is that the surgeons make more money upselling patients to multifocal IOLs. Not necessarily a bad thing. Patients tend to be happy. Most cataract patients have best corrected visual acuity of 20/50 or worse before surgery. So if these patients can see 20/30 without correction after surgery they are seeing much better than they had in years. Of course, they may have been able to achieve 20/20 with a mono-focal IOL and small spectacle correction.

It all comes down to what a patient wants, “good enough” vision that gives the convenience of being able to read without putting on glasses, or the best possible vision but having to use a correction for near.

what_barnacles said:

Ive heard of hypochondriacs but wow....

Click to expand...

Everyone will develop cataracts, all you have to do is live long enough. It has nothing to do with being a hypochondriac. The only way to prevent cataracts is to die young.

However, not everyone who has cataracts needs cataract surgery. The time to consider it is when your vision is interfering with your ability to do or enjoy the things you want to do. That is going to be different for everyone.

I agree with most of that. You are a professional in the field so I cannot compete with you in that area. BUT, I dont think you have them in your eyes. I am also a professional, in the field of engineering. AND I have them in my eyes and have for long enough to know their advantages.



I have 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. The weaker one was also weak before cataracts. I expected the surgery to correct that. It didnt, but thats all right. Being an engineer I suggested to the surgeon that we remove that lense and put one in that would correct that one to 20/20. Thats what an engineer would do. Of course he didnt think that was a good idea.....LOL


My distant vision will pick out another airplane at 2 or three miles as a black dot and the instrument panel is as clear as it ever was. However I do find that "definition" is not as good as it was. In engineering terms, the pixilation is courser. In other words its like the difference between HD and 4K television. Not enough to cause any concern, but noticeable in that a larger font or a higher contrast on the computer is helpful in the intermediate ranges.


Before the surgery and before the cataracts, age (45) had reduced my vision to where I needed bi-focals. I could not wear bi-focals because it drove me crazy...literally...I would rather die than wear them. Luckily the progressive lenses came along about that time (about 1979). I got some of the first ones and they were great. Cant remember the grind, but there were only about three different ones at that time and peripheral vision was the problem with two of them. the third had peripheral vision so I got those and wore them until the cataract surgery.


BUT, not wearing glasses is worth any small inconvenience. Glasses were not psychologically adaptable to me. As a teen ager I could "read the date on a dime at a mile" and I could do needlepoint. I didnt take well to ageing eyes. I hope engineering will find the way back eventually, but I am VERY happy with these lenses.

jimisbell said:

I have 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. The weaker one was also weak before cataracts. I expected the surgery to correct that. It didnt, but thats all right. Being an engineer I suggested to the surgeon that we remove that lense and put one in that would correct that one to 20/20. Thats what an engineer would do. Of course he didnt think that was a good idea.....LOL

Click to expand...

Yeah, around here most eyedocs cringe a little bit when a Boeing engineer comes in. Combining biology, optics, and psychology isn't always easy.

jimisbell said:

BUT, not wearing glasses is worth any small inconvenience. Glasses were not psychologically adaptable to me. As a teen ager I could "read the date on a dime at a mile" and I could do needlepoint. I didnt take well to ageing eyes. I hope engineering will find the way back eventually, but I am VERY happy with these lenses.

Click to expand...

Exactly! You are doing really well. It is all about managing expectations and figuring out what compromise will work best for you. There are improvements being made in IOLs all the time as it is a huge potential market. By the time I may need cataract surgery in 5-20 years, there will be even better options than their are today.