Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthem
I believe there was a study done in 2012 that concluded it had more to do with the image quality than the screen technology. Linked here at the National Institutes for Health.
I ALSO think that "e-ink superiority" is a myth. Personally, (anecdotally here folks) I think text is FAR clearer on my Fire HDX tablet when reading books than on my Kindle (5-button) OR my Paperwhite 2 that I got rid of earlier this year. Resolution has dramatically improved on the e-readers over the years, but the edges of text still look "watery" or indistinct to me by comparison with the razor sharp text on my Fire HDX... |
I agree with your thought that "e-ink superiority" is a myth.
The following is a follow on from your link:
An area I have not seen any work on regarding comparison of E ink and LCD (nor with AMOLED) is the effect of contrast on reading comfort. There has been work regarding LCDs on this though.
For people with astigmatism it has been found that they find it more comfortable reading on poorer quality LCD displays and this has been put down to these displays having lower contrast ratios than higher quality ones. On the higher contrast ratio screens the astigmatic eye refocused more frequently with higher contrast screens as the difference in its focus on lines in the vertical and horizontal planes on the display are more obvious to it. For lower contrast displays the difference in focus due to the astigmatism was not so obvious and so the eye was not teased into so many refocussing acts and so less tiring.
E Ink has a very poor contrast ratio performance compared to other displays (which is one reason why they are very poor at handling grey-scale images, for example). LCD is orders of magnitude better than E Ink. So taking the work with LCDs above it may be that the low contrast ratio of E Ink gives a less tiring reading experience for those with astigmatism, and it may be that if one experiences that to be so it is a symptom of astigmatism (or other eye defect).
LCD's contrast ratio, while good, is significantly less than AMOLED. LCDs cannot do pure blacks (because of the backlighting behind the "black" pixels casts them to grey) whereas AMOLED being emissive does do real black (the pixels themselves emit the light and so for black are turned off). Some things perhaps come out of this.
First, for those with astigmatism using an LCD display they may be for reading better off reducing the contrast and adjusting the brightness so that the background tends to grey while doing so. Reducing the brightness may also reduce eyestrain (astigmatic eyes are prone to glare, especially in a low lit environment).
I wonder if those with astigmatic eyes are more comfortable with lower resolution displays? High resolution displays likely having the same effect as high contrast ratio ones?
AMOLED, which has been on high end phones for some years and now appearing on some of Samsung's small tablets, has contrast ratio higher than LCD and I wonder if these displays will be more tiring on faulty eyes? With no back or front lighting glare may be less of a problem though.
Text on paper also has a poor contrast ratio, roughly the same as later E Ink displays, and perhaps this is a reason that most everyone is comfortable reading on paper? But I suspect that those with correct or fully corrected eyesight may be happier with the much higher contrast ratios possible with LCD and AMOLED.
Looking at some of the comments made by some against non E Ink displays regarding reading in lit environments I have to wonder whether they have actually used high quality displays as found on top end phones and tablets. Good modern LCD and AMOLED displays as found on the better small tabs and phones work fine (I can read text easily on my AMOLED phone in sunlight, and good LCDs can do better than AMOLED in that).
For myself, my own order of preference for reading is AMOLED and high quality LCD equal first, then E Ink. My next reader will be a small tablet.