Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtel
Who knows. I have no idea how Amazon made the PW4 screen, but it's a myth that recessed screens are always better than flush screens. There have been flush readers with excellent screens (Voyage, Sage) and recessed ones with less than average screens (2014 Kindle Basic, Libra H2O).
If you think the flush screen is the one and only reason PW4 is worse than PW3, please explain how the flush Voyage could have one of the best eink screens in existence and how the flush Sage could be practically as good as the Libra 2.
|
Don't the PW3 and PW4 have the same e-ink display? The only difference between the two is flush vs recessed, which causes the difference.
The Voyage was great because the e-ink display it used was one of the best ever, plus the glass over it was micro-etched. The micro-etching made the glass on the Voyage even better than the glass on the Oasis. Apparently Amazon skimped out on the micro-etching process for the Oasis because it was too expensive.
The Aura H2O (gen 1) had the same generation of display as the Voyage, and remains the best display seen on a Kobo as well. The Voyage appeared slightly better than it despite the extra layer, because it was 300 ppi compared to the Aura's 264 ppi.
Another reason why screens can appear different is the material of the top layer (glass vs plastic). Unless I am mistaken, the PW4 and Oasis 3 have the same generation of e-ink display, but the difference is that the Oasis had glass on top and the PW4 had plastic on top. So the Oasis looked better.
In general, if two devices have the exact same e-ink display underneath, then the recessed one with no extra layers will read better than the one with an extra layer on top. If the extra layer is glass, it will be slightly worse. And if the extra layer is plastic, it will be much worse.