Quote:
Originally Posted by toddos
Just for pure pedantry, here: . . . |
I wouldn't say you were being pedantic so much as asking for credit where credit was due. Your request is reasonable, your point correct, and the bit you quoted above informative. Please cash in these 4,3961 smoothie points.
I wish we'd stayed with that sort of conversation rather than more adversarial approaches, which tend to speed threads along but aren't terribly useful.
Quote:
|
Also, while I agree with your stated need for comparing screens for oneself, I just want to point out what I've been pointing out -- you need to compare like to like. You can't compare reading on desktop/laptop monitor to reading on an eink device, yet that's often how the comparisons come out. . . .
|
Just as I'm guilty of not recalling a technical explanation in one of your earlier posts, so you seem not to recall the point I've been making repeatedly (even in the post to which you've just responded).
From the very beginning, I've mentioned the iPhone 4 as an exception in my experience with LCDs, and suggested (as anyone would) that this has to do at least in part with the higher pixel count and density. I also mentioned my hope that that same tech would come to iPads and laptops soon (since this thread actually predates certain
rumors about the iPad3's screen, let alone its release).
I don't recall whether I mentioned it in this particular thread or not, but I've also said I'd be glad when non-trademarked pixel densities and counts became standard for non-Apple devices, and I've tried to stay alert to that possibility. And since SAMOLED Plus is real-stripe, I expect later iterations of that screen to move forward as well. (We'll see about its contrast levels later.)
My only caveat is the need to live with both kinds of screen tech -- pixel-improved LCD (and possibly SAMOLED Plus) and e-ink -- to be certain they're interchangeable over time.
This means I've been comparing like to like for several pages. What I haven't done is tested the Nook Color or Kindle Fire for protracted lengths of time, since I hadn't expected them to be easier to read than the original iPad and was/am unlikely to buy either device. If people claim those are as easy to read as e-ink, and they insist their claim is based on screen tech rather than personal experience, I'd like to know their reasoning beyond ergonomics and brightness/contrast adjustment.
And on behalf of others who have posted here:
To identify like to like, we have to be aware of the differences between the iterations of each kind of screen tech. People who compared their laptop screens to e-ink were making the comparison in good faith, since those are in fact LCDs and constitute the extent of many people's experience beyond smartphones and earlier media players. Being unaware of differences between vintages of LCD screens made within a few years of each other, and stating a preference for e-ink based on experience with the older LCD screens, does not make a mobile read member "ignorant." It might very well mean they haven't been exposed to later LCD developments because they try to avoid buying every expensive gadget that comes along, or even reading about said devices in order not to be tempted.
Ignorance is not a synonym, after all, for
thrift.