Quote:
Originally Posted by howyoudoin
No, I do not agree. I no longer have my Oasis, but at the time I had both the Oasis and H2O, I never felt that that the Oasis had a better display. If anything I thought the H2O had a very slightly better display in it's natural state, i.e, with the lighting off. E-ink displays are always evaluated qualitatively with the internal lighting off. The Oasis has a better lighting system by miles, but that is a separate issue to the e-ink display.
All other things being the same, the recessed screen will always be superior because there are fewer layers on top of it to degrade the quality. You can put plastic or glass or micro etched glass on top of it, but it'll always degrade it to some extent, even if only minutely. How can a layer added on top of the bare e-ink display improve it? It cannot. Even the highest grade of glass on top will bend light. And if the glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display below, then this gets worse, because of the air gap. (This is why Apple has laminated displays on it's higher end iPad models, while the older and cheaper ones have the air gap). Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Oasis has the air gap too. The glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display.
|
The fact remains that both the Voyage and the Oasis 3 had better contrast than many readers with recessed screens (not the Oasis 2, which had relatively poor contrast, like the Libra H2O). No argument you can bring can refute what my eyes see when I compare two devices side by side. When I see that the Oasis or the Voyage has darker blacks than the Libra H2O (for example), and most other people see it as well - moreover, when it can be clearly seen even on photos - then that's what counts to us, not technical evaluations and measurements.
And yes, I posted photos with the Oasis 3 and the Libra H2O side by side a while ago. Don't remember the thread, but the difference in contrast was pretty obvious.