Quote:
Originally Posted by badbob001
Let's limit the scope to things that are close to or in consumer hands. . . lets discount, for now, stuff such as video, cost, and power since this topic is about eye strain?
|
By excluding the very factors that allow something into a consumers hands you've somewhat undermined the discussion you want to have, which I presume, you only want to come out as e-ink. Cost matters, rich media matters, power matters because all of those things affect the end users device, what we read and how we read. The very reason that e-ink is only for long form passive reading is because it isn't sufficiently responsive to do anything else. The very reason that LCD, to date, hasn't been found in slates as light as e-readers is because its power consumption is too high.
But in any case, if you want to ignore cost restraints, LCD can provide the closest paper experience if purpose built to do that... it's just cost prohibitive. LCD
can do it, but it'd be stupid to do it... you'd add diffuse layer on the glass to scatter light, you'd build a crazy expensive substrate for perfect viewing angles, you'd get perfect whites and blacks, etc... but you'd also go broke for a product no one wants at that price.
By contrast, e-ink is what it is. No one goes out and buys grey recycled paper and takes their pristine black & white documents to photocopy onto the grey paper for readability reasons. No one takes a magazine page and photocopies it to the grey paper set to a lower DPI in order to increase readability. No one takes those photocopies and continues to photocopy them in order to lose edge detail for the sake of readability. People DO photocopy faded documents and crank up to contrast for the sake of readability. These are all traits where market LCD is superior to e-ink and more readable for it.