Amazon aims to launch front-lit Kindle in July

[ProfCrash]

I like nerd lessons. I just need to read them when I am not exhausted. Given that I am 33 weeks pregnant, it gets harder and harder to find times when I am not tired. (grins)

[ZigZagJoe]

If they move to a plastic substrate rather than glass, I'd buy it ASAP. Otherwise... eh... K2 still gets the job done. And loosing 3G web browsing - on the random occasions i use it - would really suck. Not a fan of touch only, either.

Now, take the real kindle 3, with the KB and 3g web, slap frontlit plastic screen in it and I'd be on that like flies on... well, you know.

I remain skeptical that the 1st generation self-lighted screen will be that good. One Nook owner said his new Nook had less contrast, and if that is typical then it is a step backwards. Perhaps by the 2nd generation they can work out the bugs, if there are any.

Regardless, I suspect any new Touch version with a self-lighted screen won't appear on the shelves until November. Since I have KF8 books to test and the Kindle Keyboards seem to be on the short list to get discontinued, and that means no KF8 update is ever likely for them, and Amazon doesn't seem to be in any hurry to bring a KF8 update to the Kindle No Touch, I ordered a Kindle Touch. Should arrive today. Really didn't want to spend more money on another Kindle, especially for testing KF8 books, but oh well....I Guess it is time to think about selling my Kindle Keyboard and my Kindle No Touch as four Kindles for one person is too many!

[afv011]

Originally Posted by jswinden

I remain skeptical that the 1st generation self-lighted screen will be that good. One Nook owner said his new Nook had less contrast, and if that is typical then it is a step backwards. Perhaps by the 2nd generation they can work out the bugs, if there are any.

It will always have lower contrast, it's just physics. When you add a layer on top of the screen (which implies a change of medium, air to screen protector), some of the light goes through, some is reflected back at the interface between the 2 mediums. When the light bounces off the screen to come back at you, the same happens, some of it goes through the screen protector, some of it bounces back to the screen. You can think of these reflections as ripples that affect the main light source, and degrade its quality. As long as there is something on top of the screen, there will be a drop off in sharpness/contrast.

Originally Posted by afv011

It will always have lower contrast, it's just physics. When you add a layer on top of the screen (which implies a change of medium, air to screen protector), some of the light goes through, some is reflected back at the interface between the 2 mediums. When the light bounces off the screen to come back at you, the same happens, some of it goes through the screen protector, some of it bounces back to the screen. You can think of these reflections as ripples that affect the main light source, and degrade its quality. As long as there is something on top of the screen, there will be a drop off in sharpness/contrast.

Thanks I hadn't researched how they were going to pull off the lighting. I was hoping they had a method that did not require a substrate. I definitely will not get one if they will use a substrate because as you said a substrate equals less contrast which equals a step backwards in quality. Most of the touchscreen readers that used an additional substrate sucked, and the rest were marginal at best. I know as I owned several Sony x00 and x50 models. The x00 sucked and the x50 were only marginal. Once they figured out a way to have touchscreen technology without an additional substrate they became readable.

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by afv011

It will always have lower contrast, it's just physics. When you add a layer on top of the screen (which implies a change of medium, air to screen protector), some of the light goes through, some is reflected back at the interface between the 2 mediums. When the light bounces off the screen to come back at you, the same happens, some of it goes through the screen protector, some of it bounces back to the screen. You can think of these reflections as ripples that affect the main light source, and degrade its quality. As long as there is something on top of the screen, there will be a drop off in sharpness/contrast.

I had hoped that current technology would prevent this to a degree. When the NGL first appeared in B&N stores I compared the NGL, NST and KT side by side. It was quite apparent that the NGL screen displayed less contrast/sharpness than the Simple Touch or Kindle Touch. If there is any degradation of the Perl display on the upcoming lighted Kindle I will be very disappointed.

[Joshua.P]

I might buy it. Only if I could find a relative or someone to sell my current K3 to of course....

[jbcohen]

hmm, interesting I could use the new front lit technology to warrant the purchase of a new model, however it would depend on what they charge for the new model. I simply could not spend $80 on the new kindle, I don't think the front end is worth that however something like $20 or $30 would be more like it. If I am patient someone somehwere will get me the product I want for the price that I am willing to pay for it, its only a matter of time.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Skydog

I had hoped that current technology would prevent this to a degree. When the NGL first appeared in B&N stores I compared the NGL, NST and KT side by side. It was quite apparent that the NGL screen displayed less contrast/sharpness than the Simple Touch or Kindle Touch. If there is any degradation of the Perl display on the upcoming lighted Kindle I will be very disappointed.

This layer is needed to distribute the light uniformly across the screen. I have seen a nook glow, and I would say the decrease in contrast is not that significant, and you can tell only by putting it next to a non-glow nook. It is way better than the Sony's that had the touch screen pre-infrared.

The alternative would be to have multiple light sources on the bezel and get rid of the "screen protector" that distributes the light, but you wouldn't get even lightning and would consume more battery power, as you'd have more LEDs. I think the current approach is the right one, a small price to pay for even lightning across the screen.

[ProfCrash]

I have heard that it looks better at home then at the store. The really bright lights at the store make the effect far more apparent then normal lighting at home. There is a difference but it is not that bad.

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

hmm, interesting I could use the new front lit technology to warrant the purchase of a new model, however it would depend on what they charge for the new model. I simply could not spend $80 on the new kindle, I don't think the front end is worth that however something like $20 or $30 would be more like it. If I am patient someone somehwere will get me the product I want for the price that I am willing to pay for it, its only a matter of time.

You might have a bit of a wait for the price to drop to $20 or $30 ...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

hmm, interesting I could use the new front lit technology to warrant the purchase of a new model, however it would depend on what they charge for the new model. I simply could not spend $80 on the new kindle, I don't think the front end is worth that however something like $20 or $30 would be more like it. If I am patient someone somehwere will get me the product I want for the price that I am willing to pay for it, its only a matter of time.

You are a cheapskate. You're an IT professional, aren't you? I wouldn't have thought that $80 represented terribly many hours of work for you. Just think of the enormously greater number of hours of enjoyment that such a device would bring you. Balance the time taken to earn the money against the time enjoying the results. For me, it's a simple equation.

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I have heard that it looks better at home then at the store. The really bright lights at the store make the effect far more apparent then normal lighting at home. There is a difference but it is not that bad.

I had access to a dark room (don't ask) and the difference was noticeable enough to me. We'll just have to wait and see the real thing.

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are a cheapskate. You're an IT professional, aren't you? I wouldn't have thought that $80 represented terribly many hours of work for you. Just think of the enormously greater number of hours of enjoyment that such a device would bring you. Balance the time taken to earn the money against the time enjoying the results. For me, it's a simple equation.

+1. The enjoyment (for me) has by FAR exceeded the purchase price(s), including $359 for the DXG and the DX before it.

Originally Posted by Skydog

+1. The enjoyment (for me) has by FAR exceeded the purchase price(s), including $359 for the DXG and the DX before it.

Add another +1! I don't even want to know how much money I've spent on readers!

• Quite a few PalmOS and WM PDAs during the pre-eInk reader era.
• Kindles owned: K2, two K3's (gifted one), K4NT, KT, KF.
• Sonys owned: Bookman in 1992, PRS505, PRS300, PRS600, PRS900, PRS350, PRS950. (Our Penguin troll would be proud of this.)
• Kobo Touch.
• And some early tablets.

Yes I know, I need help...