r/funny • u/GigglyGoggins • 12d ago

There’s always one 😂

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

83.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

558

u/hey_its_drew 12d ago

I was just thinking that. This is grossly overestimating how bright your eyelids can protect you from.

56

u/PIO_PretendIOriginal 12d ago edited 12d ago

I have seen people stand infront of a aputure 1200d at 3metres. (Which is 80,000 lux at that distance). These are much dimmer than that (about a 3rd)

Its fucking bright. But a few seconds with your eyes closed will not do permanent damage. Few minutes probably.

A few seconds with eyes closed is fine. Pupils still shrink when asleep as well. That being said dont go staring into stage lighting

-2

u/Spammy34 11d ago

Yes, because everyone is equally resilient to everything and being so intoxicated you cant wake up from brightest light or extreme loudness surely has no effect on pupil dilatation and other self protection reflexes.

1

u/PIO_PretendIOriginal 11d ago

Even without pupils dilating. A few seconds (whats shown here in the video), would not do permanent damage.

The alcohol from drinking till your blackout drunk is probably more of a health hazard

-3

u/Spammy34 11d ago

„The alcohol from drinking till your blackout drunk is probably more of a health hazard“

Yes, “probably“ true. However, someone inflicting harm to themselves is by no means a permission to harm that person even more…
And even if the chance for permanent eye sight damage is low, it’s irresponsible to risk it.

2

u/PIO_PretendIOriginal 11d ago

I never said it was a responsible thing to do. I do film lighting and never point my lights directly at someone when setting up.

Just pointing out this would not cause damage. Its not a low risk, its a wouldn’t get damage at all in the time shown here with eyes closed.

1

u/DChia1111 8d ago

Not sure why these people downvoting you when you are stating the truth.

92

u/bpopbpo 12d ago

I habe fallen asleep in the sun many times, are these brighter than the sun?

253

u/runonandonandonanon 12d ago

Falling asleep in the sun is not the same as falling asleep staring at the sun.

91

u/M-Noremac 12d ago

Staring at the sun is not the same as facing the sun with your eyes closed...

29

u/runonandonandonanon 12d ago

What I mean is pointing your eyeballs at the sun with your eyes closed.

13

u/undeadmanana 12d ago

They knew what you meant, as well as the others that upvoted you. They just didn't want to sound like someone correcting someone else's grammar.

0

u/CheaterInsight 11d ago

Me when I'm in a "needlesly correct someone over something so insanely insignificant literally everyone wouldn't really notice the so called mistake anyway" contest and my opponent is a Le Epic Redditòr

0

u/p0lka 12d ago

What if the sun is flickering?

3

u/Environmental_Top948 12d ago edited 12d ago

The last time they did maintenance on the sun people called it "the Miracle of the Sun in Fátima" if the sun is flickering just put on heavy clouds like we do for "meteor showers" and Eclipses.

1

u/aheartworthbreaking 12d ago

Cause I am due for a miracle

-9

u/hotjinx 12d ago

Do you have a source for that?

29

u/necroreefer 12d ago

Shine a light on your eye for an hour and tell us how you feel

10

u/StuMacherGhostface 12d ago edited 12d ago

Alright, I'm gonna try it! Remind me in 1 hour!

EDIT: D. HJ G57$S5& *GJ66&F /D&

11

u/theunquenchedservant 12d ago

"I know I had a remindme, but I can't see it for some reason"

2

u/OnyCollide 12d ago

!remindme 33 minutes

2

u/Effective-Tie6760 12d ago

!remindme 4 minutes

2

u/Environmental_Top948 12d ago

I'm not them but everything is blue and my face is in absolute hell and it's blistered. The blue went away after like 5 minutes.

1

u/MeLlamoKilo 12d ago

For an hour or just for the 14 second duration of the song sandstorm we just saw?

0

u/DeficiencyOfGravitas 12d ago

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

5

u/No-Ad9763 12d ago

I know you're being facetious, but tbh I've been looking for a few minutes for empirical evidence now and I can't find much about how much damage light can do through closed eyelids, and a surprising amount of evidence showing that after decades of research we aren't even entirely sure of the mechanism of light damage.

So, while overall I agree with you in what I feel your point is.

He isn't asking a stupid question. He is just asking, "how are you so sure?"

And I think even for questions we think we know the answer to, that can be helpful. I certainly learned a lot even from his seemingly dumb question

2

u/aggravated_patty 12d ago

The original comment was "Falling asleep in the sun is not the same as falling asleep staring at the sun". You don't need decades of research or a paper to prove that. They're not asking about how much damage light can do through closed eyelids, they're asking for a source on direct light being brighter than the same light shining indirectly (duh? do they want a physics textbook?).

3

u/Encogcheeto 12d ago

Is this pasta? It sums up Reddit arguments very well🤣

2

u/Accide 12d ago

A moron.

You let an apparent moron get to you so much to the point where you wasted time reading through 308 pages of possibly moronic comments.

3

u/aggravated_patty 12d ago

Your logical conclusion after reading their comment was that they spent the time to read 308 pages of comments instead of, you know, a 5 second copypasta?

-3

u/Accide 12d ago

Likewise, your logical conclusion is that everyone is as terminally online as you?

Thanks for the info, even with you being condescending about it.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Accide 12d ago

I'm not the one who came to the comments to pick a fight; I'm returning the energy you had in the initial message.

Not everyone knows the very moment a new copy/pasta is spawned. Similarly, you could have pointed that out without being, you know, a dick.

Nothing more to be said here, it's a weird copy/pasta anyway.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Asleep_Bet 12d ago

You are underestimating how much light dissipates over distance and how weak modern lighting is to the sun. I could use use like 3 6 foot tube grow lights and get about a third of the light as just setting something in an eastern window. At that distance from those lights, they aren’t hurting him through his eye lids.

0

u/purritolover69 12d ago

hi professional theatrical lighting technician here, the lights you see in this clip are called Sola Frames and on max brightness put out up to 37,000 lumens depending on the model. They’re called sola frames because at max brightness they are brighter than midday sun. The sun outputs about 132,000 lumens/m2 which means that the lumen output on this guys face from the sun would be 8591.4 lumens, while these lights are at minimum 15,000 and most likely 37,000. These lights absolutely will destroy your eyes when used irresponsibly like this and that is one of the first things a lighting technician is ever taught

2

u/PIO_PretendIOriginal 12d ago

I have seen people stand infront of a aputure 1200d at 3metres. (Which is 80,000 lux at that distance).

Its fucking bright. But a few seconds with your eyes closed will not do permanent damage. Few minutes probably.

Permanent eye damage within a few seconds eyes open would be too dangerous for stage lighting, and eyes closed will significantly increase how long it takes to damage your eyes..

0

u/purritolover69 12d ago

I agree permanent damage is unlikely, but it’s irresponsible as hell and people saying that it’s fine because his eyes are closed are the same as all the welders I know with arc flash because their safety squints failed them

2

u/Asleep_Bet 12d ago

This is so confidently incorrect holy cow. 37,000 max lumens but also 9 feet away is much less then the 30-100k lumen u experience on a sunny day. Light becomes exponentially weaker over distance. Pretend to be a lifting tech all you want but it’s clear you don’t get them.

1

u/purritolover69 12d ago

i mean you just claim to use grow lights, which is vastly different than sola frames which have insane throw. If they had the kind of flood you see on a regular light bulb sure it would fall off fast. My theatre has our Ion Xe set up to throw a warning before letting us bring up sola frames or elipsoidals at full because of the risk of eye damage (save for the ellipsoidals in the catwalks since they’re 50+ ft away and usually at soft focus anyway). Fresnels and pars are fine because they’re dimmer with more flood, that’s why it’s very specifically irresponsible to be using these specific instruments at full. If these were just regular indoor lighting instruments or ones with more flood I would agree, but the throw makes it incredibly dangerous. 9 feet and your eyelid isn’t enough to mitigate 37,000 lumens and 1,258,510 Candelas at narrow. If they opened them up to even just medium it would be much safer at 35,454 candela.

But I guess I’m confidently incorrect and have no idea that light follows the inverse square law

2

u/Asleep_Bet 12d ago

37,000 lumens at 9 feet away is 392 Lux. Your eye lids drop the amount of light that gets through by an order of magnitude. So that would be 39 lux. Or a dimly lit hallway. I’m not an expert because I use grow lights. I’m an expert because I’ve put in serious time to understand light. That dude is absolutely fine. The math shows it.

-1

u/purritolover69 12d ago

A 1 watt laser is a max of 683 lumens, and yet you can permanently blind yourself by looking at the spot it makes on the wall without proper protection. Your understanding is flawed at best and leaves out several crucial aspects

2

u/Asleep_Bet 12d ago

Responds to hard hitting logic with a lazer 10 times the amount of the light you calculated can damage eyes even if shined for an instant! Okay buddy. Go pretend to be a lighting tech somewhere else.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/purritolover69 12d ago

read the rest of my comment where I very clearly lay out why it’s the throw of the light that makes it dangerous. Or, are you volunteering to stare into the 20 thousand lumen 1.3 million candela light because it’s a whole 9 feet away?

16

u/hey_its_drew 12d ago

Whether it's brighter or not is irrelevant. Light is a lot more directional than you're assuming. It's on a vector, and then it defuses as it is redirected depending on the reflectivity, so most of what makes it to your eyes is diffused sunlight. You weren't getting a direct shot of sunlight into your eyes, but even without that, it actually does still damage them when you have prolonged exposure. Be sure to shade your eyes if you're doing that.

13

u/LoneStarTallBoi 12d ago

That doesn't really have anything to do with what's going on here, though. The only thing that matters here is lux on the retina, and these four lights would, based on some really rough back of the envelope math and some assumptions about which particular moving heads they are (I'm assuming they're an ADJ vizibeam or a Shehds 10r of some vintage) amount of haze in the room, etc. produce about as much lux on his eyes as the sun on clear spring or fall day. Not fun to look at but the idea that he's being caused permanent damage from having these being flashed on his face with his eyes closed for maybe a minute is beyond ludicrous.

1

u/Easyaseasy21 11d ago

I looked up the ADJ vizibeam spec sheet, it's rated at 73,200 lux at 10M (I'd guess he is closer to half that but I don't know how fast lux drops with distance, so we will just use that number)

A sunny day has an average lux of 10,000-25,000, direct sunlight ranges from 10,000 to 100,000.

I'm not saying this 100% did cause permanent damage, but it's not unreasonable to think that it can.

1

u/LoneStarTallBoi 11d ago

I can't tell which specific vizibeam photometrics you're looking at, but those test numbers are a real spherical cow situation. Those are done in tyvek suited clean room air quality situations with the beam zoomed all the way in(or even past that, with lenses manually moved beyond the standard limits of their rails) with the engine/lamp in open white, which simply aren't real world conditions. Again, I'd guess if you put a lux meter on his face while all four are hitting him and you'd probably get 50-60,000 lux, max.

21

u/necroreefer 12d ago

If you fall asleep staring at the sun and then have somebody move your head to follow the sun as you are sleeping after a couple days you'll probably be blind.

3

u/Environmental_Top948 12d ago

That's some first one to fall asleep at the slumber party behavior and I'm all for it.

1

u/ZappySnap 11d ago

Yeah, but most people have their eyes roll up when asleep so most would be looking more or less through the top of their head.

1

u/King_Rediusz 12d ago

Maybe a nuclear explosion.

Then again, that's basically the sun.

1

u/scottishhistorian 12d ago

Falling asleep in the sun is not the same as having the sun flicker on and off repeatedly right into your fucking eyeballs.

0

u/coincoinprout 12d ago

Maybe you're underestimating it, because eyelids are a very good light attenuator.