Quote:
Originally Posted by boswd
this seem rushed.
|
YES...but I also feel it might be the best they can do given the way E-ink epaper panels function and create colors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I don't think the underlying technology will ever be ready for prime time. Unless eInk can manage better than 12 bit 4096 color displays, this simply won't be adequate for most ebooks using color content.
eInk is a niche market, and will remain so. It's just dandy for monochrome text with, perhaps, line art or grey scale illustrations, and sees productive use in a variety of dedicated reader devices where the fact that people find it easier to read and it has long battery life between recharges are the compelling features.
If you need anything like accurate color, or you need to view animations or video, eInk is not for you. Color eInk doesn't do a good enough job for most of the material you might need color to view, and the screen refresh is far too slow to handle any material that requires motion.
The big question is whether LCD screens supporting proper color will simply take over the market and leave eInk non-viable because not enough people will want the displays to make it worth the while to make them.
______
Dennis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Unless they do better than 12 bit (4096 colors), I don't see a lot of interest.
I have electronic volumes on photography, art, and design. 12 bit color would simply not be acceptable for the display.
______
Dennis
|
Nicely explained Dennis...I thought I would pass along the Wiki link explaining color-depth in terms of what is likely a very jargon like phrase like "bit-depth" or "xx-bit colors". I think it might help people get a nice working understanding of color on computers, nature and photos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth
Basically it refers to the range of colors a given device can disply. The higher the bit-depth the more colors. Photos, can get by with 16-bit color depth but our eyes will be able to know something is not quite right but it's more of a feeling than an absolute knowledge. But when you get to 24-bit color it's what is defined as "true color" that is pretty much every color our eyes can process and color transitions, where one color transitions into the color of the pixel next to it.
One of the drawbacks of low bit-depth like 4096 or 12-bit color is you can see what is called "banding" either in the whole image or in the dark portions of an image as well as lighter areas with lots of color transitions. It can also appear for only one color present in an image.
The best way to understand it is to look at the sample images in the Wiki link I added above. Nothing makes it easier to grasp than simple pictorial examples.
A nice example of this is the image below from Dennis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
eInk has a product brochure on their website, here:
http://www.eink.com/sell_sheets/eink_brochure.pdf
The brochure contains a photo of the screen displaying color content.
I'm afraid I'm not impressed. This would not be adequate for my purposes. |
I so agree with ya, from that image the colors are very underwhelming for sure. Not enough tonal range in the greens and the weak blacks in the colors just does not give any richness leaving the colors muted. But we need to remember, for E-ink, which might be the most difficult of the e-paper technologies from which to create colors, this not much better than I had expected. I can't begin to imagine the engineering challenge of generating even 4096 colors given the limitations of how E-Ink panels work. While it might be an idea design for grey-scale monochrome panels, it just does not seem likely for E-Ink to create a high end true color panel that they will be able to stick with the current way of doing things. But, hey we never know what these companies have going on it their skunk-works lab. But I do not expect panels which staunchly stick the the e-ink concept to ever offer true color or even more then 64K colors, if they can even get there. It would seem they won't be able to create the number of shades for each color so I feel the design has a ceiling which is not too far from this panel.
If you open the image in Dennis' post you will see some pretty obvious banding on the lower portion of the screen. Now it could be due to the camera used and therefor simple artifact unrelated to the panel or it is due to the low number of colors. Looking at it in an image editor/viewer, hint - any viewer/editor will be just fine, the banding is even more apparent as you zoom in. but also there is a section in the mid-portion of the image where the banding is curved so it could well be simply due the angle of the panel relative to the sun light. I guess I am saying it could simply be a failure of the photo to give a completely accurate image. Which means we reach another of those "...need to see it in real life..." things.
I would get into the difference between DPI and PPI because I think people sort of consider them the same thing, but at some point I guy has to stop...hahahaha...needless to say, if you really want to gain a greater understanding and improve the ability to slice through the marketing BS, Google "dpi ppi" and hunt down a page which gives a nice straightforward explanation...and you will see why they are not the same thing.
hope that make a bit of sense, I am pretty foggy this AM.
