New Chapter on Digital Reading (Sony)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Scythe

An eInk display will stay visually on the screen much longer than the same thing displayed on an LCD -- using the same battery and charge. Read up on how eInk works first and then if you still feel you're right we can continue arguing

You're fighting an uphill battle when comparing the 2 technologies.

Yes, and? If the standby time for the CPU is just a couple of days that does not matter.

https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Reflective_LCD

says the LCD display consumes 20mW. So if you turn on the reader every time you want to read then it is not obvious that this power consumption affects the total reading time so much. Was it 20 hour reading time that was claimed for the Cybook? That is 50mW with a 1000mAh battery. So you get 15h or so with the LCD display.

[mattgb]

I would like a clock (as per hack somewhere else on these forums) as standard AND estimated number of pages left in battery!

I know that may sound daft but with a device that does not allow you to carry a spare battery around this has been the only pain for me. 3 times now I have got on the train only to find after a couple of pages it turns off since the battery is too low.

Now you may say - just regularly charge it up! But, as we all know by now with mobile batteries being the worst culprits, these lithium-ion have the longest life if you charge fully & then discharge fully before recharging again. When you have no ability to (easily) swap out the battery this becomes even more important (even if it means I take something else to read with me on the occasion it does run out on the road, erm track )

[Scythe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, and? If the standby time for the CPU is just a couple of days that does not matter.

https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Reflective_LCD

says the LCD display consumes 20mW. So if you turn on the reader every time you want to read then it is not obvious that this power consumption affects the total reading time so much. Was it 20 hour reading time that was claimed for the Cybook? That is 50mW with a 1000mAh battery. So you get 15h or so with the LCD display.

It hibernates. The CPU is based on the ARM architecture and therefore doesn't really need to be shutdown. The eInk doesn't need to be powered off cause it only uses 1mW of power at idle. I can leave my eReader on for days without it really affecting the power. Everyone would be turned off with 15h operating time. Hell, my wife would kill me if her eReader didn't last at least a week and a half.

It's very efficient with an ARM cpu and a eInk display, than it is with an ARM cpu and an LCD display. Especially if you're a slow reader, or someone who reads over time (like most of the world). The LCD would only benefit those that would breeze through a book a day, or enjoy turning off and powering up their eReader.

So, it depends what you're going for. How fast you read or page changes over time. I'm sure most people would rather base their battery's lifetime on page changes than on how long their battery has to live.

[tompe]

HarryT claimed he got 25 hours reading time with his Cybook. So obviously that machine is not for you. The discussion was about machines like the Cybook and if a LCD display would be an alternative for machines with these kind of reading times.

[Scythe]

Originally Posted by tompe

HarryT claimed he got 25 hours reading time with his Cybook. So obviously that machine is not for you. The discussion was about machines like the Cybook and if a LCD display would be an alternative for machines with these kind of reading times.

Well, of course it'd be an alternative. It comes down to lifestyle and how much you read. It makes far more logical sense to go with eInk for those that do casual reading. For power reader's, an LCD is much better based on reading speed and how much you read in a day.

I think there's 2 core audiences. Most would rather have the eInk I believe.

Also, as eReaders grow in size, the more power is needed to show an LCD page. That's where eInk will most likely dominate (IE: newspapers display).

[halljames]

I dont understand the arguments going on here. eInk devices generaly last significantly longer than LCD devices, they are lower power, my SONY easily lasts a month between charges, reading every day. Its easy on the eyes, unlike LCD screens.

I just dont see the point in arguing the case of LCD.

[Scythe]

Originally Posted by halljames

I dont understand the arguments going on here. eInk devices generaly last significantly longer than LCD devices, they are lower power, my SONY easily lasts a month between charges, reading every day. Its easy on the eyes, unlike LCD screens.

I just dont see the point in arguing the case of LCD.

There's LCD's that look like eInk as well. It's a debate as to which to use.

At the moment, eInk is king. It'll most likely stay that way as eInk grows in innovation.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Scythe

Well, of course it'd be an alternative. It comes down to lifestyle and how much you read. It makes far more logical sense to go with eInk for those that do casual reading. For power reader's, an LCD is much better based on reading speed and how much you read in a day.

I think there's 2 core audiences. Most would rather have the eInk I believe.

If you turn of the unit when you are not reading as most people seems to with the Cybook it does not matter if you are a casual reader or not.

[Scythe]

Originally Posted by tompe

If you turn of the unit when you are not reading as most people seems to with the Cybook it does not matter if you are a casual reader or not.

It matters based on how fast you read a page of text, and if you like to leave it open and grab a drink, etc.

If you read a page of text at ~36 seconds, than you'd be equal to reading via eInk (or even more efficient if you read faster). If you read slower than that, then eInk will save you more power in the long run.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Scythe

It matters based on how fast you read a page of text, and if you like to leave it open and grab a drink, etc.

If you read a page of text at ~36 seconds, than you'd be equal to reading via eInk (or even more efficient if you read faster). If you read slower than that, then eInk will save you more power in the long run.

Were did you get 36 seconds from?

If you are thinking about the number of pages you can read in a certain time period then your eye sight also matters (font size).

[igorsk]

I'm guessing there'll be a new model with the new Epson controller and possibly touch screen.

[Studio717]

I'm hoping for a larger screen version, because I'm happy with my 505 for 'regular' books but wouldn't mind a larger version for pdfs. Don't really need wifi (or wireless buying), though if I had it I'd use it to transfer books, articles, etc., onto it.

Anyone else appalled at some of the lines on that 'postcard' image from Sony announcing the event? I read some of them... kinda grim for an ad!

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by tonyofla

Engadget on the Sony Oct 2nd event
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/09/s...sh-next-month/

The comments are refreshingly positive. It almost feels like a different site.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree, Nate. The point about an eBook reader is that it spends 99.5% of its time displaying a static image, and the screen uses no power to do that. During that time, the CPU can "hibernate" and again use very little power. LCD screens constantly use power.

Those are "standby" times, and don't really reflect usage. I can get about, say, 25h of actual "reading time" on my Gen3, on a battery charge. That's a 1000mAh battery - less power than that of the typical "AAA" battery. That's at least a factor of 10 better (probably more like a factor of 20) than any laptop computer with an LCD screen.

I measure battery life in practical terms: How long I can use a device before I have to plug it in again. I use this because trying to measure actual reading time is impractical.

Also, the 99.5% statistic is both incomplete and incorrect.

It is incorrect in that it assumes that the average reader takes 200 times as long to read a page as the device takes to change it. If we consider a nominal .1 second runtime, then your statistic assumes that the screen will remain unchanged for 19.9 seconds. I can read the Kindle page in less than 3 seconds. I bet most people who own an ebook reader are almost as fast (if not faster) than me.

It is also incomplete in that it assumes a linear reading pattern that mainly applies to fiction. True, this is the most common way that an ebook reader is used; but it's not the only way nor is it even in the majority. There are numerous other things you could do with a book that would involve flipping the page repeatedly. This would negate any benefit of an Eink screen, and heighten its deficiency: very slow screen refresh.

I will agree, though, that the Eink screen is a much nicer experience. But the screen refresh is too slow. If the next gen screen come out with a .01s refresh, I might get one.

I would also agree that there are some situations where an Eink screen is better than LCD. But in most situations it is not.

[jerryleejr]

Originally Posted by igorsk

I'm guessing there'll be a new model with the new Epson controller and possibly touch screen.

I knew it I even posted way back when. As soon as I bought something 31 days later a new model would roll right out!!! Breathe 10, 9, 8, 7.... Hey I can read on mine it does what I want, I can find the books I like. Stupid Red PRS just had to have it. So goes technology. It is all the ducks fault and Probably the Kat to as the armadillo snickers in the background!!!

JJ

Hey Igorsk dont you work for Sony????