LCD vs. e-ink

[tipstir]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know what comparing Vizplex with Pearl has to do with the thread on a debate between LCD and E-Ink, but since you are here, can you tell me what makes you say that Pearl has less grey? From what I can see with Photoshop they are the same. It is true that the text is darker, but not by much.

This could just be the jedi mind trick:
vendor *waves hand*: Pearl is much better
public: Pearl is much better

vendor1 *waves hand*: reading on E-Ink is just like reading on paper
public : reading on E-Ink is just like reading on paper

vendor2 *waves hand*: with an LCD screen you can do anything on the device
public : with an LCD screen I can do anything on the device

vendor3 *waves hand*: entourage edge is not too heavy
public : ...

Well, it can't work every time.
On the other hand I'm buying an E-Ink now, and tablets look so shiny, so I'll probably buy one next year.

I had seen someone mention the two technologies. But anyway I am for the LCD panel as that has been around longer than any current panel today. The old CGA, EGA, VGA an etc.. Glossy panels make the LCD panel vivd. For reading glass vs plastic top layer. I would go with plastic first then the glass.

[athlonkmf]

I always wonder what kind of TFT/LCD monitors people who have eyestrains are using. A couple of weeks ago it did occur to me. I never had trouble with LCD-screens. But that's because I have been working with good quality screens forever. And insists on using the digital cable. Dvi or hdmi.

A few weeks ago I helped someone with their computer and they have an included with the cheap ass computer TFT screen, linked with a mere vga cable on some low profile video card. The text was fuzzy, contrast and brightness wrong, and colors were off. Then I understood. If they work with these kind off screens, no wonder eink would mean such a huge diff to them...

[aagstn]

Originally Posted by tipstir

(old tech)Vizplex / Pearl E (new tech) I say you need to test out the device with each feature and see which one doesn't make you feel with your head. They have come a long with since the days of the TI AVIGO Back-lite Glow on green screen TouchPad. Now clarity for reading on these e-readers:



Pearl E has less gray, blacks are blacker, sharp crisper text seems to jump off the screen.

I've compared the nook side by side with the Kindle 3 in store and the differences were much more minor than I imagined. Pearl is not something I would feel the need to buy a new device for and certainly not worth putting up with no ePub support for.

[ColdSun]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

I don't understand why you defend it and not the LCD manufactuers.

Also, why dismiss peoples observations? My observation is that I can read longer and more comfortably on a e-ink device. >shrug<

I'm not sure what your point is. Am I supposed to accept the observation that LCD burns a person's eyes or eink is the best device for reading? What about the people posting before you that said they use LCD all the time and its fine for them, or if they use eink they have more strain? I already said I think eink is a great technology, but that doesn't mean it is the only technology or even superior than LCD for reading. Its just a matter of preference, but yeah I'll dismiss anyone that says that LCD burned their eyes or eink devices are preferred by the majority of ereaders because those things are not true.

[trevgriff]

I have had the following e-ink readers; Nook, Sony 500, 505 and 900. I have also read on the Sony 650. But since I received an iPad for work i haven't gone back to my e-ink reader since. I have read six (6) novels on the ipad in the past three (3) weeks. No eye strain, the back lit feature has actually made it easier to read.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by ColdSun

Umm no I think it is more of a fact that e-ink readers are the first on the market that are PORTABLE, and all that was AVAILABLE.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say but it falls on deaf ears as they have chosen to tune out the truth...[/QUOTE]

Don't you also like how everyone has completely ignored the point that both types of machines are probably just fine and give an equal reading experience, but that it just might be their aging middle age eyes that are changing that now need glasses to see clearly and relieve the strain that they complain of!

No it's MUCH better to get into a foolish "my machine is better than your machine" class debate just so that they can feel superior.

Any excuse to avoid admitting they are getting older & need some glasses.

[astra]

cfrizz
Young age's ignorance is sometimes too obvious

athlonkmf
I have a very good monitor. It was chosen for picture editing with S-IPS matrix and DVI connection naturally.
There is no fuzziness, or any other fault. Its performance is superb. I see everything very clear, sharp, under any angle.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

No it's MUCH better to get into a foolish "my machine is better than your machine" class debate just so that they can feel superior.

Any excuse to avoid admitting they are getting older & need some glasses.

And some folks start out with impaired vision and need corrective lenses beginning in early childhood. Others truly do find reading on an eInk screen easier than on a backlit screen, even if they don't need glasses. (See reports elsewhere on MR from people who complain of headaches when trying to read any extensive amount of text on a normal monitor.)

Superiority is in the eye of the beholder, but everyone has different eyes, and insulting folks who for whatever reason find eInk easier on theirs doesn't help your case.
______
Dennis

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And some folks start out with impaired vision and need corrective lenses beginning in early childhood. Others truly do find reading on an eInk screen easier than on a backlit screen, even if they don't need glasses. (See reports elsewhere on MR from people who complain of headaches when trying to read any extensive amount of text on a normal monitor.)

Superiority is in the eye of the beholder, but everyone has different eyes, and insulting folks who for whatever reason find eInk easier on theirs doesn't help your case.
______
Dennis

I am one of those who have had glasses since I was two years old. But that has nothing to do with the fact that as we age our eyes age right along with every other part of our bodies. And it most likely is age causing the eyestrain from trying to read something too small that needs the assistance of glasses.

As for your second point I agree, but it also works the other way around as well, if those who PREFER e-ink could avoid all of the rhetoric & insults to lcd screens which is mostly nonsence, there would be nothing to squabble over in this thread.

This is simply a matter of different strokes for different folks. I will eventually have both my Sony AND an color ereader once they work out the majority of the bugs. It does NOT have to be an either or situation that everyone always insists on making out of issues like this.

[BaenSidhe]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Umm no I think it is more of a fact that e-ink readers are the first on the market that are PORTABLE, and all that was AVAILABLE.

PDAs were portable and made pretty good ereaders. I used mine for 5 years before it died and I got a prs-500.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by ColdSun

I'm not sure what your point is. Am I supposed to accept the observation that LCD burns a person's eyes or eink is the best device for reading?

Yes, if that's their observation. Unless everyone who says it is a liar. I just know that you aren't saying that...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by BaenSidhe

PDAs were portable and made pretty good ereaders.

It's a pity PDAs morphed into phones. The iPod touch sorely lacks competition.

[ColdSun]

Originally Posted by BaenSidhe

PDAs were portable and made pretty good ereaders. I used mine for 5 years before it died and I got a prs-500.

You are a rare case though. Most people did not use PDAs for reading, only a small portion of us did. RCA and ebookwise helped push along ebook readers, but eink was the first widely adopted device for reading and this is why everyone assumes it is better when it is not. Over the last few years the eye strain myth has continued to snowball until it got out of hand. Now we have articles on CNET setting the record straight. We have iPads and tablets proving sales of larger hand-held LCD devices are valid, and we have in large part Apple to thank for the fact that BN is making a read-centered device in LCD. Like said above though, different strokes for different folks, and I think there is room in the market for both screen types.

[ColdSun]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Yes, if that's their observation. Unless everyone who says it is a liar. I just know that you aren't saying that...

I am saying that people who say that lasers shoot out of their LCD screen and damage their eyes are full of it. LCD does not damage eyes and anyone that says this is a liar. It may cause your eyes to dry up from staring too long, it may give you a headache or you may have trouble seeing the screen, but the LCD is NOT what caused that to happen to your eyes. Is that clear enough?

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's a pity PDAs morphed into phones. The iPod touch sorely lacks competition.

I've noticed that. I assumed it was because they couldn't compete. Zune didn't.

No app store, none of the fit and finish of Apple hardware.