02-13-2010, 11:23 AM | #61 | |
Country Member
Posts: 9,058
Karma: 7676767
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denmark
Device: Liseuse: Irex DR800. PRS 505 in the house, and the missus has an iPad.
|
Quote:
|
|
02-13-2010, 01:03 PM | #62 | |
Fanatic
Posts: 556
Karma: 1102020
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: Kindle Keyboard (rip), Kindle Voyage, Fire Tablet 10 '17, iPad '19
|
Quote:
Given currently accessible LCD and e-paper technology, can the backlight of a LCD display be set at a level that matches the light level, as deemed comfortable by the user, that is reflected off an e-paper display while also matching the contrast? |
|
Advert | |
|
02-13-2010, 01:33 PM | #63 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 63
Karma: 90
Join Date: Feb 2010
Device: Notion Ink Adam
|
Under just those constraints, sure, it's just expensive. The difference between CRT, AMOLED, LED- which are purely emissive- and e-ink, Mirasol, SiPix- which is purely reflective- is that all LCDs are transflective to a degree (around 33% ish). There are expensive proprietary LCDs out now which enhance this quality for precisely the characteristics you describe. Obviously they're on mobile devices rather than TVs which are intended for indoor use.
The problem is that you pay a huge premium for those proprietary (typically modified substrates, modified polarizer, tighter tolerances on the crystal layer, etc.) elements that only a small sector of the market wants that exceeds even the cost of current e-ink fabrication. Any engineering/manufacturing choice is the product of cost/feature ratio where e-ink just edges in (if it's battery life was worse than LCDs or if the form factor demanded twice the weight and volume... it's doubtful the purported eyestrain advantage would be enough to garner its adoption - put simply, eyestrain alone is not dispositive; cost, form, battery life, durability, etc. are all factored) and expensive transflective-focused LCD is edged out. However, based on your "currently accessible" constraint, sure, you can buy a $2000 LCD ereader with the qualities you mention. Now if you're willing to either: 1) Expand the definition of "accessible" to "working tech available to OEMs and in prototype" OR 2) Defer "currently" by a few weeks, then 3Qi is a contender, of course. The real innovation of 3Qi isn't necessarily a new LCD feature but a cost effective way of getting it. |
02-13-2010, 01:46 PM | #64 | |
Connoisseur
Posts: 63
Karma: 90
Join Date: Feb 2010
Device: Notion Ink Adam
|
Popular Science did a feature on the tech explaining how it works, its origins, its benefits and its disadvantages, and its place in the market compared to competitors:
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/articl...-paper-forever The end of the article also reiterates the premise of the NYT article: Quote:
Despite this, the article acknowledges that reading is a subjective experience where people will like what they like. |
|
02-13-2010, 01:55 PM | #65 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
Quote:
I stare at them for hours reading stuff online, writing and other work etc. and don't have too much eye fatigue issues. The laptop just isn't comfortable to curl up and read a novel on, or read a research study, like my Kindle, a real book, or print out is. So I don't think I'd have much issue reading on something like the iPad. Plus, unlike the guy above I'm not reading for 8 hours etc. Usually 30-60 minutes in any one stretch, so that helps as well. I love my Kindle, but more for the convenience of e-books in general than the screen. The long battery life is the main perk of the screen for me, as it is nice to just have to charge it every couple of weeks. |
|
Advert | |
|
02-13-2010, 03:16 PM | #66 | |
Banned
Posts: 2,094
Karma: 2682
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: N/A
|
Quote:
And much of the issue with cheaper LCD's is, of course, the CCFL backlighting. Oh, and I'd note that older IPS screens are actually less reflective, which is why they're so hard to view in direct sunlight and they've required a more powerful backlight, which is why takeup of them for mobile devices has been slow before e-IPS came along last year. Last edited by DawnFalcon; 02-13-2010 at 03:22 PM. |
|
02-13-2010, 03:24 PM | #67 | |
Guru
Posts: 618
Karma: 493394
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Device: iRex iLiad, Onyx Boox 60
|
Quote:
- Poor contrast hasn't caused me eye strain (though it can slow my reading). - Dim lighting conditions don't strain my yes, but it does affect my speed and accuracy. - Haven't had any problem with low PPI. Infact, my new Onyx Boox has a much higher resolution than my current LCD monitor, 167 ppi vs 86.27 ppi (according to an online calculator). Of course, it does only have 8 (soon 16) shades of grey, so it will have more trouble with certain fonts. - While low refresh rates do cause lots of problems, having a high refresh rate doesn't mean that you wont have problems. Besides, an E-Ink screen refreshes as fast as your light source, which approaches infinity for direct or indirect sunlight. |
|
02-13-2010, 03:52 PM | #68 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 63
Karma: 90
Join Date: Feb 2010
Device: Notion Ink Adam
|
The issue is that you are contrasting empirical evidence versus subjective experience.
I'm merely stating: a) Causes of eyestrain; b) How another technology empirically mitigates that. ...to balance a similar list geared expressly towards e-ink, which, I notice, you're not going after. I appreciate you at least qualifying it as personal experience, but that's all it is. For example, "Causes of water boiling" a) Molecules are excited; b1) Via convection; b2) via microwave bombardment You're essentially saying, "Water that is boiled by convection tastes different so clearly microwave bombardment doesn't boil water." As for the refresh rate issue, as you say, it's just as present in artificial lighting for reflection based technology and the truism that "doesn't mean you won't have problems" doesn't further the discussion (because one can just as easily say, "Just because you're using e-ink in daylight doesn't mean you won't have problems") in any empirical way... so why stack the deck when conversing? |
02-13-2010, 04:09 PM | #69 |
Banned
Posts: 2,094
Karma: 2682
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: N/A
|
You're simply comparing salted and distilled water, and wondering why the results are not matching. *shrugs*
|
02-13-2010, 04:21 PM | #70 | |
Professional Contrarian
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
|
Quote:
The only studies I've seen so far are a bit older, were mostly paper vs CRT, in which CRT's fared poorly with both eye strain and reading comprehension. |
|
02-13-2010, 04:28 PM | #71 | |
Fanatic
Posts: 556
Karma: 1102020
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: Kindle Keyboard (rip), Kindle Voyage, Fire Tablet 10 '17, iPad '19
|
Quote:
If you're going to compare pixelqi to e-ink, then I would guess it would be best to compare them with pixelqi in reflective mode (else it'll just be a comparison to a backlit LCD screen). I would be interested to know if given the same room lighting conditions, how do the two screens compare in terms of contrast. I suspect e-ink is more reflective since the reflection occurs near the surface as opposed to LCD with the reflection layer in the back (I wonder if LCD reflectivity gets worse as resolution increases due less light getting through the denser components). Is there any argument against the viewing quality of paper itself and I mean the quality of a laser printer print out? Who wouldn't love a nice white page with dark letters? Now, which technology better mimics the viewing properties of paper (lets discount, for now, stuff such as video, cost, and power since this topic is about eye strain)? Last edited by badbob001; 02-13-2010 at 04:48 PM. |
|
02-13-2010, 05:13 PM | #72 |
Kindlephilia
Posts: 2,017
Karma: 1139255
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Snowpacolypse 2010
Device: Too many to count
|
I have really bad eyes and what works best for me is paper or eInk in a reasonably well lit room. Clip on reading lights work so-so for me but still a bit better than backlit LCD/LED. Even with a backlit display I still need to be in a reasonably well lit room. My eyes fatigue faster with backlit displays. This is not empirical evidence as I'm sure that any testing has been done with people with far better eyesight than mine.
I am curious to see future improvements in display technology and hopefully my eyes will benefit. |
02-13-2010, 05:40 PM | #73 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,305
Karma: 1958
Join Date: Jan 2009
Device: iPod Touch
|
There's just no way the iPad will be as good as an e-ink device for outdoors reading. If you expect to be reading outdoors frequently, then an e-ink device is the way to go (like the Kindle)..
90% of my reading is in-doors and I have no problems looking at LCD screens for long periods, so the iPad will be fine for me. |
02-13-2010, 06:14 PM | #74 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
Quote:
I'm not sold on the iPad yet, but not because of the screen. I mainly want a tablet for stylus markup/highlight so I'll have to see how 3rd party apps and a capacitive stylus end up working on that front. My girlfriend is very interested in one for pdf/academic reading and doesn't care about markup, so maybe she'll get one and I'll have a good chance to play around with one then. |
|
02-13-2010, 07:11 PM | #75 | |
Connoisseur
Posts: 63
Karma: 90
Join Date: Feb 2010
Device: Notion Ink Adam
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Demas; 02-13-2010 at 07:16 PM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Display Technology and Eye-strain | kjk | News | 56 | 09-24-2010 05:50 PM |
Eye-Strain on LCDs is a Myth (or missunderstood) | schmolch | General Discussions | 119 | 04-15-2010 05:15 PM |
Readers & Eye Strain | Big Kev | Which one should I buy? | 9 | 01-26-2010 01:25 AM |
Eye strain with 505? | wallflower75 | Sony Reader | 14 | 08-26-2009 04:08 PM |
Eye Strain on the Kindle | markbot | Amazon Kindle | 22 | 08-24-2009 02:18 PM |