[Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Um, no. Only the low power per LED filament ones are better.

I don't know if there is a language barrier, but these don't use filaments and they are low power. I doubt kindle will care for lots of lumens.

Also less UV makes the colour WORSE.
The point is to convert the UV to visible light with the phosphor. Decent CFL and LED do not actually radiate UV.

Not in this case. Try the LEDs yourself, I'm part of a flashlight forum (budgetlightforum) and they are picker than you. http://budgetlightforum.com/node/61130 Optisolis are probably too expensive to put in here though, you'll end up with cheap 5000k and 3000k lights.

Obviously daylight fades artwork. Decent LED, CFL, Florescent and halogen lamps for art display have UV filters.

I think the point is to give light that never has UV but is as close as possible to perfect black body radiation.

The colour rendition problem is worst with the COB and similar LEDs (the one to nine high power types) and highest efficiency CFLs as well as higher efficiency LEDs.

Probably from the blue light, right?

I do think the idea of mixed colour LEDs so as to be able to have a less blue front light (as per some Kobos) is a good one as the evidence suggests the excess blue (WORSE in LEDs with LESS UV) is bad for sleep and degrades the retina.
So I don't use the fixed "white" front lights on my PW3 or Kobo H2O if there is any alternative. I have good enough lights to read old books, so never need front light on at home.

Why did you get the paperwhite if not for the light? Did you think you'd use it more than you would? I thought the same thing about x-ray and I keep the light on all the time at around level 3.

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

They are 100% fine for reading any text. Just no good for PDFs.
Why single out Romance? Drama and Detective is just as popular with women. Men don't read Romance as much.
PDFs are really intended to interchange paper printouts, and proof paper on screen. Ghastly format to actually use for reading, especially if a scanned source BECAUSE deliberately it's not meant to reflow or resize!
There are eInk devices for PDFs that can do magazine, letter size or A4. Unfortunately they are expensive, and some of the good ones don't do eBooks.

The big issue is the software. It's poor on EVERY eReader and app I've tried. It's like they only test with a few dozen books. Also like they have not researched libraries or document management. They've concentrated on stupid stuff (advert and & social media sharing). Navigation and Collection organisation has hardly progressed since before Kindle existed.
The original Kindle was CRAZY. Worse font & language support than every OS at the time.
Desperately poor support for annotating and getting annotations off to PC (Kobo H2O better than Kindle and the PRS350 ghastly).
I've written document management systems and software to manage physical libraries. The current state of eReaders book management, navigation, annotations, fonts, layout is poorer than late 1980s specialist DOS SW and poorer than Mac, Windows and Linux in 1998!

I can't say I disagree with you. I just see those types of books being advertised the most and I assume they're sold the most and read the most. The software is definitely lacking severely, but is it really that bad? I've found all the eBook software lacking in some way (calibre is slow and weak, the sony ones were no better than kindle now, and kindles read pdfs poorly, and x-ray was a marketing ploy rather than good annotations). Its not bad for reading though, and the search isn't great, and the display for the books is bad, but I don't think this was intended to be a personal library as much as a 'buy shit from amazon's vertical monopoly' system. The poor pdf support and poor management is by design and completely intentional.