In general I think the population at large, and especially programmer types, know way too little about lighting given how ubiquitous both lighting and photography/videography is in our everyday life.
Good on you for fighting the warm light fight!
Good on you for fighting the warm light fight!
I can literally preserve my whole night vision and have zero eye strain in pitch black conditions by red shifting my computer screen. No one supports this because we are stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_effects_of_high-ene...
The laser pointer community of all groups understands this stuff well. They recommend green lasers because they use the lowest power for the highest visibility at night. Blue lasers are easy to get super powerful, but unlike a lower powered green one, which usually will only temporarily blind you if you make a mistake - a powerful blue laser will straight up destroy your eyes forever. Permanent blindness.
This has been my major frustration also. Different enthusiast communities all discover these things independently and talk about them in their own domain language. Night photography and astral photography talks about red shifting as well.
Probably not what you are aiming for but for Linux this is a somewhat solved problems. The default DM, Gnome, has built-in color shift with a time schedule AFAIK. For Wayland and xorg there are also numerous other solutions that do a display-level redshift, I can recommend wl-sunset for Wayland.
But note that the wikipedia article you link states clearly that the eye strain attributed to blue light has no scientific evidence. That's also what I found out last time I looked into it - all those very strong statements about how dangerous blue light emission is supposed to be has no equivalent scientific studies that prove them. I think there was also a prominent article about that here on HN.
I think the effect might be completely made up, as it is something that is easy to believe and to subjectively feel that it works, by a placebo effect basically.
The blue light problem has to do with how high energy blue photons interact with specific substances found in minute quantities in our eyes, leading to inflammation.
Further, actual studies of filteirng blue light needed the right display tech. Before OLED, I couldn't actually "turn off the non red pixels", and thus never fully eliminated blue light from my display. Most of the "science" around blue light is trash. Yes, I say this as someone who actively published at top AI conferences and is intimately familiar with peer review.
I'm going to keep on preserving my night vision and browsing the internet for hours with zero issues at night while being told that my red shifted phone is placebo. You try turning your OLED phone on at full brightness in the middle of the night with and without the red-shift and tell me which hurts your eyes more...
Please notice two things: 1. It's not even about whether blue light might be harder on the eyes in general, but whether it matters on the brightness levels consumer devices are usually used (so astronomers are completely irrelevant to that discussion, and so is a modern phone at night at full brightness) and what the actual effects are in practice 2. It's an astonishing position to take, to at the one hand realize there is no scientific basis for the claim, but still act 100% convinced. Especially for an academic.
It's also not obvious why "night vision preservation" might be relevant. We are not talking about looking at things during the dark, but at (more or less brighly) illuminated objects.
I don't have skin in this game and likely won't respond further. I even have a weak red light shift active while writing this (I feel like it might help with the sleep rhythm a bit). But I am absolutely saying that claims like this need scientific evidence and that it is foolish to believe in such things only because it's currently a popular claim, to take that position that absolutely. This is not the correct way of thinking, and there is no need to not leave space for doubt.