Quote:
Originally Posted by derangedhermit
It's strange to hear a claim that print is not high resolution. Magazine print can't be replicated by 300 dpi laser printers. E-ink doesn't come close. 300 dpi would be a substantial, easily visible improvement to e-ink displays intended for e-readers. So would improved contrast; again, it appears to me to be less than paper. And screen refresh times need to go up by a factor of 5 or more, for page turns. There's plenty of room to make the technology better.
When an e-reader page looks as good as a page of The New Yorker or The Atlantic and page turns are 1/10 sec, then I'll be satisfied with the screen quality.
|
An offset press at maximum resolution needs a high quality (and much more expensive) paper to be effective. A good magazine will provide such quality, but a newspaper or a conventional paperback book won't. Grab yourself a jeweler's loupe and compare a paperback novel to the output of a 300dpi Laser. (Though most nowadays are 600 or better.) The resolution from eInk won't match a photograph, but it effectively matches a mass produced book.
When you think about it, although a current iPad's Retina screen is quite effective, most WEB sites still use 72 DPI for graphics. It is like the new TV screens with "triple the resolution and half the thickness" that are being advertised for release in few weeks - how long before TV channels begin transmitting content that will use that increased resolution. Just like 3D, it will be a flop. We still have less than ten percent of content available in 3D, much to the chagrin of all those consumer a couple of years back who raced out and bought 3D sets to replace their perfectly functional existing sets.