Sony Reader 300 - HANDS-ON REVIEW

[Lemurion]

I think what LDBoblo is complaining about is aliasing, not anti-aliasing. Aliasing is the jagged effect one gets with pixelation, while anti-aliasing refers to techniques to reduce this effect.

I would actually think that PDFs, especially image-based ones, would be worse for aliasing than reflowable formats because the font may not be scaled to the screen resolution, and that would lead to a greater fuzziness in the display.

I know I find the lettering in comics and manga to be fuzzier than standard text-based LRFs and EPUBs.

[Abecedary]

Exactly, Lemurion. We want anti-aliasing algorithms in our e-ink devices--that's what results in smoother-looking fonts on screen. However, some people feel that it makes the fonts look slightly blurry, which it does to a certain degree. But that's part of why it perceptually is smoother, and less jagged.

Also, if a PDF uses an embedded (or subsetted) font, each character is rendered on-screen using the vector outlines of the glyphs. Most renderers use anti-aliasing algorithms to apply different levels of gray to best approximate those smooth curves. You really only deal with the "fuzziness" you describe if the PDF was created from scanned pages, as opposed to being properly created or distilled from a layout program.

[susan_cassidy]

How comfortable is the next page/prev page dial-looking thing? Being in the middle of the device looks like it might be uncomfortable. I have small-ish hands. The 300 might be nice for using other formats, though. The price seems good.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Exactly, Lemurion. We want anti-aliasing algorithms in our e-ink devices--that's what results in smoother-looking fonts on screen. However, some people feel that it makes the fonts look slightly blurry, which it does to a certain degree. But that's part of why it perceptually is smoother, and less jagged.

Also, if a PDF uses an embedded (or subsetted) font, each character is rendered on-screen using the vector outlines of the glyphs. Most renderers use anti-aliasing algorithms to apply different levels of gray to best approximate those smooth curves. You really only deal with the "fuzziness" you describe if the PDF was created from scanned pages, as opposed to being properly created or distilled from a layout program.

That's why I mentioned graphic material.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

That's why I mentioned graphic material.

Ahhh. Gotcha. I glossed over the "especially image-based ones" part of your post.

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Exactly, Lemurion. We want anti-aliasing algorithms in our e-ink devices--that's what results in smoother-looking fonts on screen.

Are you sure? Anti-aliasing helps on CRT and LCD, I'm not so sure it works well on E-Ink. It is used in Kindle 2 and a lot of people complain that it's harder to read than K1.
http://sites.google.com/site/kindle2.../fontrendering

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Are you sure? Anti-aliasing helps on CRT and LCD, I'm not so sure it works well on E-Ink. It is used in Kindle 2 and a lot of people complain that it's harder to read than K1.
http://sites.google.com/site/kindle2.../fontrendering

Anti-aliasing can help with text rendering on any pixel-based device. I just pulled out my loupe and took a close look at my 505, and it definitely uses anti-aliasing. It's nowhere near as extreme as the Kindle 2 samples in that link, but it definitely is there. Remember that there are different methods for how to do it, and from what I can tell, the Sony one (or maybe it's the ADE one) does the job pretty well.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Anti-aliasing can help with text rendering on any pixel-based device. I just pulled out my loupe and took a close look at my 505, and it definitely uses anti-aliasing. It's nowhere near as extreme as the Kindle 2 samples in that link, but it definitely is there. Remember that there are different methods for how to do it, and from what I can tell, the Sony one (or maybe it's the ADE one) does the job pretty well.

One thing to consider is that the Sony has really good dithering - which will definitely help with anti-aliasing. Combine good dithering with a decent sampling algorithm and you'll get solid results even on EInk.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I think what LDBoblo is complaining about is aliasing, not anti-aliasing. Aliasing is the jagged effect one gets with pixelation, while anti-aliasing refers to techniques to reduce this effect.

I would actually think that PDFs, especially image-based ones, would be worse for aliasing than reflowable formats because the font may not be scaled to the screen resolution, and that would lead to a greater fuzziness in the display.

I know I find the lettering in comics and manga to be fuzzier than standard text-based LRFs and EPUBs.

No, what I'm complaining about is the anti-aliasing as well. It blurs and lowers contrast in details that cannot afford the drop in contrast. Good anti-aliasing demands reasonably high contrast to be effective, and the solutions used on e-ink readers are mediocre for anything other than squared slab serifs and vertical sans.

I'm not disagreeing with the need for anti-aliasing, but rather I'm saying that the hardware is too lacking to make good use of it.

[lionfish]

300 has a higher DPI so I expect a sharper font display.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by DrMoze

I really have to respond to this. Not to change LDBoblo's mind (I'm not feeding a troll here!), but to clarify facts for others who may read these comments and actually believe them. There is NO 'pixellation' or antialiasing on either e-ink device I own (the Sony 300 and 505). NONE. I'm a scientist and computer/technology aficionado, and I know what these terms mean. I also have both my 300 and 505 in front of me now, and have been staring at them up close and under a magnifying glass. And comparing them to a few older paperbacks. The detailed outlines of the edges of each individual letter on the e-ink screens are smooth and sharp when seen up-close. Each letter is well-formed with no 'gloss' on the screen, unless you happen to angle a light at a particular angle, which is easy to avoid. Curiously, the paperback print quality seems a little fuzzier overall than the e-ink, because--even though the letters appear sharp--the paper texture leads to a 'softer' image of the letters.

I'd love to see pictures of this. Every single device I've seen is pretty obvious at the pixel level. Don't need to chalk up honest negativity to trollism at every turn, by the way.

I don't know what your agenda is with respect to e-ink displays (do you even own such a device? ), but your comments are uniformly derogatory and off-base.

Nothing I've said about the display quality is false for any device I have seen (and yep I do own one, and can't wait to upgrade when something better becomes available)

("Old soggy newsprint"? Puh-leeze. I'm sure I've read more paper books in my day than you ever will, and my eyes and mind are still open enough to see what is actually in front of me.) I will stand by my own direct and detailed observation that there is NO antialiasing nor pixellation of the characters on these e-ink displays in front of me. Maybe we simply have a Luddite in our midst. But, your comments on the e-ink display characteristics are objectively WRONG.

Have a go at this site and tell them they're wrong too, by the way. I'm sure with your technical mastery and enormous reading background, you'll soundly put all the data, photographs, and even casual observation on the part of many not-so-amazingly elite consumers to rest.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Anti-aliasing can help with text rendering on any pixel-based device. I just pulled out my loupe and took a close look at my 505, and it definitely uses anti-aliasing. It's nowhere near as extreme as the Kindle 2 samples in that link, but it definitely is there. Remember that there are different methods for how to do it, and from what I can tell, the Sony one (or maybe it's the ADE one) does the job pretty well.

This is actually kind of interesting, as the user's photomicrograph shows the text to be mapped to pixels much larger than the e-ink capsules themselves. The concept photo from Bookeen in the same thread is hilarious though...look how they just overlaid the letter on top, ignoring the boundaries of the capsules. I WISH my reader did that.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Wetdogeared

I'll just tag on some pics I just took of the PRS-300 to compare with the PRS-505.

Looking at these pictures, it appears that the central 4-way button is larger on the 300. Do you find this any easier to manipulate? do the parts of the button actually have a wider "effective area" or are the places you need to press just a bit farther from each other?

My Gen3 has a 4-way that must be pressed inside of the hole through the case, and I end up hitting the central button fairly often. (and I broke the screen once, so I read with it in the case.) When I tried a 505 in the store at Fry's, it seems *better*, but still not great. If the 300 is actually larger, then it might be even better than the 505 (and probably loads better than the gen3)

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

This is actually kind of interesting, as the user's photomicrograph shows the text to be mapped to pixels much larger than the e-ink capsules themselves. The concept photo from Bookeen in the same thread is hilarious though...look how they just overlaid the letter on top, ignoring the boundaries of the capsules. I WISH my reader did that.

Thanks for the link. After looking at that, I'm fairly certain that what you describe as blurry or fuzzy letterforms is due to the non-regular arrangement of the e-ink elements (and yes, that Bookeen photo is pretty silly). As I've said before, I've noticed it, too, but only in very bright light (i.e., direct sunlight) situations. It isn't noticeable to me (unless I look really closely) in most of the places I read.

And like lionfish mentioned, I'd like to see how the 300's screen with its 200dpi pixel density looks. From DrMoze's first post, he mentioned that text is the same size on the 300 as on the 505, but there's less of it (contrary to how you'd think they'd handle a screen size reduction at the same resolution). It's a ~20% increase in pixel density, so it should make a slight, but noticeable, difference.

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Have a go at this site and tell them they're wrong too, by the way. I'm sure with your technical mastery and enormous reading background, you'll soundly put all the data, photographs, and even casual observation on the part of many not-so-amazingly elite consumers to rest.

I find this subject very interesting and wonder what a non non-aliased eInk screen might look like. But the information at the site you refer to is questionable. In it he states the following about contrast ratio:

On a computer screen, this ratio might be 1000:1 or more. On the Kindle, it is 7:1 with the E-Ink display. This is a huge fundamental difference in potential contrast!

(For reference, newsprint has a contrast ratio of about 10:1 and a reflective LCD display is only about 5:1.)

He is apparently wrong in his assessment of reflective LCD, or at least wrong in lumping them all together. The Jetbook's LCD has a rated contrast ratio of 12:1, which, if the rest of his article can be believed, is better than newsprint but way better than eInk, relatively speaking. (reference: https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Reflective_LCD)