NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Teddman

The iPad screen is glossy, which is going to be a bigger factor than even the backlighting. I don't like reading off a mirror.

I have both glossy and matte screens, and I personally like he glossy ones much better. Things look less washed out and less diffused somehow.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by badbob001

I don't understand the mention of how a backlit screen is better in a dark setting. When I'm a passenger in a vehicle, it's night, and I try to read on my phone, it's is way way too blinding, even with the backlight at its lowest level. If I use my computer at night with the lights off, it's too bright and I can't imagine putting a backlit screen a foot from my face to read in bed. I would think indirect lighting would be best in a dark environment.

There's a difference between dim lighting and dark.

Reading in the dark is bad on any thing--it's hard on the eyes to read in the dark with a real book with a little book light, or e-ink or an LCD.

But in dim lighting where you have to strain a bit to see a book or e-ink, a backlit device is easier on the eyes with the backlighting at the proper setting. i.e. reading with just a lamp on a few feet away etc. Which is pretty common in apartments, condos etc. which almost never have ceiling lights. You either huddle under a lamp, or need something brighter to sit say in the middle of the couch etc.

Not everyone one needs that of course--just like many of us never read in sunlight and don't care about that drawback of LCD etc. Everyone has their own needs.

[LDBoblo]

Naturally there's an MO involved with the article and its timing relative to a certain product release, but it's nice to see again that it's more dynamic and fluid than just "yer looking into a light lol it's obviously bad".

[kjk]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

You mean they FINALLY caught on to the idea of the "ambient light sensor" which my last four (spanning 10yrs) WINDOWS based laptops have used and were also around before then on other models...amazing....good for aPpLe!!

Well, if by FINALLY caught on to the idea of "ambient light sensors" you mean the Apple Powerbooks from around 2003, then yes, they have. At least, my old 15" Powerbook did.

[dmaul1114]

I usually turn the ambient light sensors off. My current Thinkpad doesn't have one, but my old Dell did.

I found it was always too dim for my liking.

[Penforhire]

My laptop causes me more eyestrain than my e-reader. Same thing in the dark, using a book light on the e-reader is better to my eyes. When I see a better screen technology I'll jump all over it. Most of us are E-ink fans for a better reason than "I bought it."

[kjk]

Well, the article generated some reasonable discussions about the issue, without getting too contentious or becoming an LCD vs. eInk battle...oh wait.. http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/12/...-the-ny-times/

[dmaul1114]

That's fine. I have NO problem with people loving e-ink. I like it a lot myself, but not for all my reading needs.

Just those that have to go around trolling and bashing other devices, saying "if it glows it blows", saying the iPad can't be an e-reader etc.

No problem with people who simply say they prefer e-ink. No need to do more than state personal preference.

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The glossy screen doesn't matter when it's lit up unless you're in direct sunlight or something. In normal lighting conditions you won't notice it's glossy when it's lit up, just like the iPhone or other glossy screen LCD screen devices.

But the thing I like about the article is that it acknowledges that every screen type has it's pros and cons for reading.

Something the "if it glows it blows" crowd here doesn't seem to acknowledge. All have their pros and cons, and what's best for you will depend on your typical reading conditions, what you need out of your device etc.

I love my Kindle, but I get annoyed to death with all the "if it glows it blows nonsense" and saying devices like the iPad can't be used as readers because of the screen tech.

Every screen type has it's pros and cons, everyone's eyes and typical reading conditions are different. There's just no need for people to talk in such absolutes, rather than just simply stating their own opinion that they only want to read on e-ink.

I love my Kindle when there's decent lighting and/or when I'm in a situation where I'm "allowed" to carry it. We're not allowed to use Kindles where I work (even during breaks). We _are_ allowed to read ebooks on our cell phones.

For cell phone reading I use my Android Milestone. It has a beautiful (if small) display and was I able to adjusted the font size on my reader to be comfortable.

This means I tend to read the same book in "chapters" (ie: one chapter at home on the Kindle, another at work on break on my phone) and so I make a comparison between the two readers on a near-daily basis. Before my Kindle, I was reading ebooks on Palm devices probably as far back as Palm had e-reading software.

Going from a Palm to a Kindle was amazing - it wasn't just hype that it was a more visually "comfortable" reading experience. Using my phone, I find the differences much more subtle. I tend to "think" my Kindle is more comfortable to use to read. However, my husband pointed out recently that I'd been using my phone at home to read for about 2 weeks straight (I had subconsciously decided the effort of syncing the chapters wasn't worth it). I think this shows they're close (at least for me).

I'm looking forward to the 10" Pixel Qi Adam tablet due out over the summer. It will have a combination eInk/LCD screen which means I can have a backlight when I need it and eInk when I don't.

Others mileage may vary...

Gwen

[Teddman]

Originally Posted by kjk

Well, the article generated some reasonable discussions about the issue, without getting too contentious or becoming an LCD vs. eInk battle...oh wait.. http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/12/...-the-ny-times/

That blog does raise some good points though. It's confusing as to what the article is actually saying about reading off various types of screens and its headline doesn't fit the subject matter.

I do think it's worth posing the question as to what motivation the New York Times would have to downplay the readability advantage of e-ink--when their newpaper was the primary showcase for the iPad's digital periodical reader features.

[Daithi]

I'm definately in the "If it glows it blows" camp.

An LCD is great for video but I want something reflective for reading. As reflective display technologies mature and become capable of displaying color video is when things will become interesting. Eighteen months from now, will we be arguing over which is better for movies: LCD or Mirasol?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I usually turn the ambient light sensors off. My current Thinkpad doesn't have one, but my old Dell did.

I found it was always too dim for my liking.

One of our LCD TVs has a light sensor. It's just not worth a damn. So it's off.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

My laptop causes me more eyestrain than my e-reader. Same thing in the dark, using a book light on the e-reader is better to my eyes. When I see a better screen technology I'll jump all over it. Most of us are E-ink fans for a better reason than "I bought it."

I have no issue reading from the screen of the laptop or the two desktops. So I don't see an issue using an iPad to read.

I am rather tired of the "if it's backlit it's crap" argument. That's just not always so. If it can be read in full sunlight, then it's probably going to be OK. But if not, then I just won't have it. Can the iPad be used in full sunlight?

[Demas]

Eighteen months from now, will we be arguing over which is better for movies: LCD or Mirasol?

I doubt it. E-ink scales extremely poorly (production costs to size) and Mirasol even worse (even its inventor did not wish to spend much making a prototype beyond a tiny 5.7 inch screen - and tradeshows are when manufacturers flaunt even completely extravagant prototypes) for- don't get me wrong, interesting- but quite limited technology (poor color fidelity, washed out contrast, and only purely reflective compared to 3Qi).

If you consider that 3Qi was founded by an industry leader with connections using the existing infrastructure of a huge incumbent technology, the challenge of Mirasol of finding a consumer friendly place in the market are going to take longer than 18 months.

Mary Lou Jepsen describes the issue here in the first 1:20 minutes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8WoItVRn0

If you watch the entire film you get a better grasp at just what it took to take an already geared up technology to get to market and look how long it took Pixel Qi. Compare that to a device like this, a 9.7 inch e-ink screen drives the price to $1100, showing the poor scalability of e-ink:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/12/b...eaper-still-1/

---

As for the article itself, it abides by the scientific truth that light is light and that our eyes cannot distinguish their source once the refresh exceeds the chemical reaction which interprets that light. Reading properly, 60 nits of reflected light is no different than 60 nits of emitted light, what becomes determinative are things like text rendering, contrast, viewing angle, and glare... all of which [comparable priced quality] LCDs can match, if not exceed present consumer reflective tech.

Put simply, suffering eyestrain seems to be more of a "you're doing it wrong" issue than anything else [bad habits of not blinking, not looking away, not matching ambient lighting, not using the right viewing angle, or reading on a low quality LCD] which the article expresses succinctly:

"reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen."

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Apple has figured this out, so that their laptops (and iPad) have light sensors that automatically adjust the brightness level of the screen.

Well, LED-light screens can dial the brightness down a lot further than CCFL-lit screens, so I think we'll see more things like that in the future...it wasn't really worthwhile on CCFL screens because of the high minimum brightness levels.

Demas - Well, as you noted one of the major factors is the brightness and colour balance of the display compared to the ambient light. This is typically drastically easier to match with a reflective, not backlit, screen.

Also 3Qi...3Qi...ah right, the product yet to hit the marketplace and from the idiots who messed up the OLPC program, right.