Ars Tecnica tests the 5 best e-readers for every budget 20190523

[leebase]

Tall and skinny started out for video. None of the eInk readers have a tall and skinny aspect. It is not a format optimized for reading. Today’s phone are going even further into tall and skinny to claim larger screen size while still being able to be held in the hand.

It’s not a deal breaker, IMHO, but it is an advantage for reading books, PDFs and browsing the web to have a 4:3 or similar aspect ratio.

[HarryT]

Although I prefer reading on devices with a 3:4 aspect ratio myself, it’s perhaps worth noting that the 9:16 or 10:16 aspect ratio of most Android devices is actually far closer to the aspect ratio of the page of a typical paperback book. The traditional paperback has a page that measures about 10x18cm.

Where 4:3 really wins, as several people have already noted, is reading pages “2 up” in landscape mode.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Although I prefer reading on devices with a 3:4 aspect ratio myself, it’s perhaps worth noting that the 9:16 or 10:16 aspect ratio of most Android devices is actually far closer to the aspect ratio of the page of a typical paperback book. The traditional paperback has a page that measures about 10x18cm.

Where 4:3 really wins, as several people have already noted, is reading pages “2 up” in landscape mode.

The big iPad pro is about the smallest screen where I can still read the full page of a magazine and not need reading glasses. As far as aspect ratio, that really comes into play with regards to matching the page aspect of a document, i.e. PDF's and magazines.

I've never really been concerned with aspect ratio with regards to ebooks. I've read ebooks on my iPhone 7+, iPad pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura One, Kindle paperwhite and Kindle Oasis, i.e. my current set of active devices, without noticing a big change in my reading experience. I'm sure others have different experiences in that regards.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

fbreader you can get from its own web site:

https://fbreader.org/android

It's my favorite. It does what I need and nothing else.
I run it on the Fire HD 10 and on Windows.
And since Play has nothing I need I don't bother with it.

Fbreader doesn't sync for me on iOS. It's just as well as I dislike Google Drive.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Although I prefer reading on devices with a 3:4 aspect ratio myself, it’s perhaps worth noting that the 9:16 or 10:16 aspect ratio of most Android devices is actually far closer to the aspect ratio of the page of a typical paperback book. The traditional paperback has a page that measures about 10x18cm.

Where 4:3 really wins, as several people have already noted, is reading pages “2 up” in landscape mode.

Don’t forget web pages...particularly forums like the where the keyboard leaves little room for the text in landscape on a wide format tablet.

But really....I read just fine on my kindle tablets. Just like I read just fine on my iPads even without memory expansion. The difference between $399 for an iPad ad $80 for a Kindle Fire Hd 8 would have me picking the kindle every time if reading books and watching video were the only things I used a tablet for.

I have both. Well...I have many devices (but no eInk ones). Since I bought the “New” iPad mini, I no longer use my Fire tablets. Nor my iPad Air 2 for that matter. Not even sure I’ll be taking my Kindle tablet on trips given my mini has 256gig of storage.

I will be picking up the new Walmart tablet for $64 to have an Android 9 device

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've never really been concerned with aspect ratio with regards to ebooks.

An off the wall case where aspect ratio could be bothersome if I were to read something in landscape mode with the text the same size as it was in portrait mode thus making the lines very long. Not that I would ever do that.

The problem with overly long lines was one of the first things I learned when typesetting with TeX on 8.5 x 11 inch paper (way back in the 1980s); giving the page generous margins fixed that problem. At first it looked strange to me because the typical convention back then among computer people was to use half inch or whatever margins.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The big iPad pro is about the smallest screen where I can still read the full page of a magazine and not need reading glasses. As far as aspect ratio, that really comes into play with regards to matching the page aspect of a document, i.e. PDF's and magazines.

True, which is why I prefer to read such material on my 10.5” iPad Pro.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by DNSB

4:3 is just a gimmick by Apple? I seem to remember a time not so long ago when 4:3 was the aspect ratio for monitors--remember when 1024x768 was high resolution? 640x480? 800x600? 720x350 (bonus points for remembering which graphics card used that resolution and why the second number was actually 348).

Perhaps you can remember any number of tablets that were released prior to Apple's first iPad that sported a 16x9 aspect ratio?

My personal opinion is that 16x9 in portrait mode is just too tall and too narrow. Justifying text gives too many lines with massive chunks of white space. Admittedly, this is using a 2013 Nexus 7 which has a 1980x1200 (16x10) screen but I suspect making the screen even narrower is not going to help.

The 4:3 is a marketing gimmick to imply that it is like reading a book. Some of us are not concerned with the ratio of the display/physical tablet(?) or even the ratio of the text displayed.

The video ratio is important on tv only because of the original film ratio being display. want to see letter boxing with the black lines or zoom in to get rid of the black lines but see only part of the picture.

I have no idea what the ratio of my Palm Pilot or Tunsten II nor do I care when I got it; the display ratio wasn't even specified or that it did.

I do not believe my B&N Nook 1st edition ever mentioned its ratio nor did I care. The main things about a reader is price & resolution for whatever size one prefer or care to pay. My B&N Nook HDX 8.9 is supposed to have neither 16:9 or 4:3 as I've read nor did I care when I bought it.

apple just wanted people to believe that the 4:3 ratio is the only way to read a book & never mind that we have books of different ratios on the bookcase & that people will adjust the text display ratio for whatever comfortable it is for them. So is the apple 'trademark' of a 'retina screen' preferable to another company's plain screen that has a higher resolution than the 'retina' screen? I do recall with the intro of the Mac 512 apple claimed that "all you need is the icon" on the computer; always wonder why a keyboard was part of the apple computer.

The iphone now has a "notch"; does that make it better as a phone? The other companies should use it to their advantage by using the "notch" area for a status line/menu. Did the notch appear on the iphone because apple was not able to have their hardware accommodate a full screen & so came up with idea the notch is a "feature"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crane3

Some of us are not concerned with the ratio of the display/physical tablet(?) or even the ratio of the text displayed.

And some of us are. If you read PDFs, which tend to be formatted for an A4 or Letter page, 4:3 is a much better fit to the shape of the page than a 16:9 screen is. I read a lot of PDFs on my iPad.

[binaryhermit]

have all the kindles been a 4:3-ish screen? And to be honest, with reflowable text like what you find in almost all epubs or mobis, I don't find it to really matter much.


EDIT: By kindle I mean the eink readers, not the Android tablets currently known as Fire, formerly known as Kindle Fire

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

have all the kindles been a 4:3-ish screen? And to be honest, with reflowable text like what you find in almost all epubs or mobis, I don't find it to really matter much.


EDIT: By kindle I mean the eink readers, not the Android tablets currently known as Fire, formerly known as Kindle Fire

Not only Kindles, but every eInk reader. They all use screens made by eInk, and all eInk screens have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not only Kindles, but every eInk reader. They all use screens made by eInk, and all eInk screens have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

binaryhermit used "have been". Several readers with 9.7" e-ink screens, including the kindle dx, have/had 3:2 ish screens (1200x825ish).

Also, I think sony had a model a bit narrower than 4:3

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by DNSB

720x350 (bonus points for remembering which graphics card used that resolution and why the second number was actually 348).

1) The Hercules Graphics Card
2) The number of vertical pixels had to be a multiple of 4 due to limits of the Motorola 6845 it was based on.

Yes, old fogey here What do I win?

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

Yes, old fogey here What do I win?

A nap.

I vaguely remember the Hercules cards. The one I remember, but not a graphics card, is the Sound Blaster audio cards. What a nuisance it was back then installing all those cards. You had to worry about having enough slots.

[Apache]

The worry never stops. Now you have to worry that you have enough USB ports.
Apache