Quote:
Originally Posted by ottischwenk
This isnt a Kaleido 3 CFA.
|
It is same general tech. The difference is that this earlier Kaleido tech uses larger colour filter on top of the bottom. So it's 300p vs 100p in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cellaris
Talking about colour e-readers seems to spark passions. There is no thread in which they are mentioned that does not end up in such confrontational discussions.
Honestly, I can't understand how in a thread about 10" e-readers, colour e-readers can be omitted or dismissed, not least because there are not too many options to choose from and the vast majority of the devices available have a resolution of 227 dpi. Not even with all the technical and theoretical hype can one hide the fact that a colour e-reader is a very good (but also very expensive) option in this 10" segment. And I think there are already more than enough reviews available (many of which compare with other monochrome devices) to give us an idea of what their screens look like in reality.
I think there is an important subjective component in any evaluation. There are users in this forum who, having in their hands a Kindle Scribe (300 dpi) and a Kobo Elipsa 2E (227 dpi), have preferred the Kobo Elipsa 2E and have argued that it looks better. "Theoretically" I may disagree (how is an e-reader with lower resolution going to look better?) but I have no objection to their personal assessment, which is ultimately the one that matters. It is this subjective component that I find missing in the assessment of colour e-readers. There is too much theoretical assessment and not enough practical perspective. Theoretically you can argue indisputably that an image with 300 ppi looks better than one with 150 ppi, but you cannot understand how the contribution of the different colours to that image gives you a more satisfactory overall result (for example, the image of a book cover or the cartoon of a comic book). And it's the same with a text. You cannot understand how you can like a colour text better, with only 150 ppi, if you do not visualise the additional information provided by the different colours that appear in that text (for example, in a Wikipedia article or in a dictionary query, where several colours are combined to give you a more complete final result even with half the resolution). That practical experience, with its strong subjective component, is what I miss in assessments that focus on purely theoretical aspects. No matter how much someone tells me (with all the weight of theory) that black and white images look better because they have a higher resolution, I will still prefer to see the covers of a book in colour. And no matter how much someone insists (with all the reason in the world) that the colour of an e-reader is rubbish compared to that of a tablet, I will still prefer to read a comic book on a colour e-reader rather than a monochrome one because I think (subjectively) it looks better.
|
You make some good points. But I'd even go further and say that it's not all subjective. Even lower resolution screen, or older generation screens, can look better objectively, and quantifiably. I own 4th gen Kindle, it's screen is six inch 600x800 px, but it looks better compared to eight inch 1200x1600 px of my inkpad. The reason is very simple. It's got no touch screen, no thick glass protection over it's screen, and no light panels at the sides. This all means that it's eink panel is extremely close to the surface of the device, while all that stuff in front of pocketbook, makes the screen look fuzzy when it's looked at a very close distances (example). Now, all things considered, resolution disadvantage is noticeable regarding fonts, it is just 6inch, and it's got no illumination, so I'd still say that inkpad is better reading device overall. But I wouldn't say that it's got a better screen.