Quote:
Originally Posted by pete_1967
It's not just the fact that the image is a photograph of the real thing taken in less than perfect conditions, you are also looking at re-sized, most probably 72dpi, compressed jpg image. There is no way to evaluate the true quality of the display or colours it produces from that picture.
|
Yep. It's an image embedded in and extracted from an eInk product PDF. I wasn't sure how representative it really was, but it was the best actual product shot I've been able to find.
That said, I have to believe it's in the ballpark, as I can't see eInk releasing a shot that didn't present their product in the best possible light, so to speak. (I saw the shot taken outdoors against a grassy field as an attempt to show of what it looked like read out of doors in sunlight, to prove it
could be, and to show off the color values relative to "natural" colors.)
And if it's in the ballpark, my unimpressed comments stand. This might do for some material. It won't do for me, and I frankly doubt it will look so much better in person than it does in the product shot to change that opinion.
Quote:
|
For example I just downloaded RHEL 6 manuals in epub format and they contain colours and colour images and having them shown in colours on my reader would be perfect, even if only in 256.
|
The applicable question is how much content is out there for which color eInk would be adequate. The stuff I want to view includes things like art and photography, where it wouldn't be. RHEL 6 manuals might be an exception. I have stuff like that, but I convert it from HTML and view it on a device with an LCD screen and 16bit color.
______
Dennis