TCL NXTPAPER Ultra 60

[norweger]

Anyone who's got experiences with this device. How does it gold up to real e-ink for eye strain?

[rowe]

I haven't tried the 60 Ultra, but have had Nxtpaper 3, Nxtpaper 4, and lots of e-ink devices.

Nxtpaper 3 wasn't very good IMO (I had the TCL 40). Not much better than putting a matte screen protector on a regular device. Temporal dithering, poor screen clarity, and generally low-end hardware.

Nxtpaper 4 is a significant step up (I had the 11+). Nice micro-etched glass surface and no temporal dithering if the gimmicky epaper/nxtvision features are switched off. But other than the screen Nxtpaper devices until the Ultra 60 have been held back by low budget components elsewhere e.g. very slow processors and terrible speakers. The Ultra 60 looks really promising and the early reviews I've read have been good, including testing for flicker.

Still no comparison to e-ink for reading comfort IMO as they're not bistable and the lighting is direct. The Nxtpaper 4 displays are very good compared to conventional screens for comfort though.

I'm disappointed they've gone for the low end of the market again with the 8" tablet they've just announced. That's my ideal form factor, but I'd only buy another TCL with an 'Ultra' type spec.

[Quoth]

I'm not recognising your descriptions, @rowe. Nxtpaper 3 is fine and eink is only better if the front light is off.

There is no difference at the same light level to reflected LEDs and rear lighting using LEDs.

The various epaper settings and enhancedments all make Nxtpaper devices worse. Best is with every gimmick off, and the non-default sRGB mode. Adjust colour balance, UI accent and brightness to suit. Then there is no temporal dither, glare, shine or flicker.

If an eink reader or Nxtpaper "white" is brighter than ordinary paper in lighting good enough to read paper, then it's too bright.

I've a Nxtpaper 40 4G, 50 5G, regular 11 and regular 14. My modern eink ereaders are only better if in decent reading light with the front light off.

I read novels at home on a Kobo Sage, and "on the go" on the Nxtpaper 50 5G (zero eye strain). Colour or large PDFs on the 11 or 14. The 11 is a bit nicer for notes/writing and 14 for PDF magazines. Most recent illustrated fixed layout novels are the Last Hero and Eric from Pratchett.

I'd not heard of the Ultra 60 or 8".

[rowe]

'Reflected light is not the same as direct light at a cellular level'
T.H. Chan Harvard School of Public Health
https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...1002/jsid.1191

A peer-reviewed study designed to measure the biological stress placed on retinal cells found a quantifiable difference between the technologies. Concluding that "cells accumulated ROS [Reactive Oxidative Species] two to three times more slowly on exposure to frontlit electronic paper displays compared to backlit liquid crystal displays."

This means that even at a comparable brightness, the light from a backlit LCD induces significantly more stress. It found that eink devices can be used three times as long as an LCD before reaching the same level of stress in retinal cells.

The thought of equivalency at the 'same light level' ignores the reality of variable ambient light. A reflective display works in harmony with its environment. It does not compete with ambient light, it uses it as its primary source of illumination. The optional front light supplements this preserving a reflected-light experience unless it is the primary source of light.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rowe

'Reflected light is not the same as direct light at a cellular level'
T.H. Chan Harvard School of Public Health
https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...1002/jsid.1191

And that's bogus science.

The thought of equivalency at the 'same light level' ignores the reality of variable ambient light. A reflective display works in harmony with its environment. It does not compete with ambient light, it uses it as its primary source of illumination. The optional front light supplements this preserving a reflected-light experience unless it is the primary source of light.

Only true if ambient light is good enough to read with the front light off. The phrase "harmony with its environment" is a loaded and emotional phrase, not science. What is true is that the brightness and colour temperature match the ambient light perfectly on eink, if the front light is off.

So, yes with no front light and good ambient light then eink is nicer. There is no eye strain at all on any decent resolution and contrast screen that has true matte surface. It happens that most eink have a matt surface and most everything else has a very shiny surface. Matt screens have been available for nearly 50 years, but cost more, because the headache inducing nature of the unconscious re-focusing on the reflection (typically x5 distance) causes eyestrain / headaches. This is known science. Not bogus woo-woo.

[Quoth]

The TCL Nxtpaper 60 Ultra seems to be simply a larger (7.2″) version of the TCL Nxtpaper 50 with the disadvantage of no micro SD card slot. It's twice the price.

The so-called epaper gimmicks on Nxtpaper are gimmicks that reduce the display quality and readability. The epaper switch on some models is annoying. I may put a piece of "blu-tack" to stop it getting moved.

Any smartphone in the last 27 years could have had a Nxtpaper-like screen (and smart phones pre-date the iPhone by about 9 years).

[Quoth]

I don't see an 8″ Nxtpaper tablet. TCL has always had smaller ordinary Android tablets and was the maker of Alcatel phones from the beginning of Alcatel selling mobile/cell phones. They also make panels up to TV size.

[rowe]

It's interesting that a study published in a peer-reviewed journal is dismissed as "bogus", while some extreme claims aren't being accompanied by sources.

'The phrase "harmony with its environment" is a loaded and emotional phrase, not science.'
It's a descriptive phrase for a physical reality. A reflective screen uses ambient light so its brightness is naturally proportional to its environment, like paper. An emissive screen generates its own light that must be adjusted to compete with ambient light. This is a functional difference, not emotional.

'Only true if ambient light is good enough to read with the front light off.'
A front light diffuses light over a reflective surface, which is fundamentally different from a backlight that projects light directly into your eyes. The study cited made its comparison using front-lit e-paper, and it still found that retinal cells accumulated stress two to three times more slowly compared to backlit LCDs. The benefit isn't nullified the moment a front light is switched on.

'There is no eye strain at all on any decent resolution and contrast screen that has true matte surface. It happens that most eink have a matt surface and most everything else has a very shiny surface. Matt screens have been available for nearly 50 years, but cost more, because the headache inducing nature of the unconscious re-focusing on the reflection (typically x5 distance) causes eyestrain / headaches. This is known science. Not bogus woo-woo.'
This assumes there is only one cause for a complex problem.

While it is true that reflections on glossy screens can contribute to eye strain, this is not the only factor (or even the primary factor for many people). Attributing all screen-related eye strain to this single issue is an oversimplification.

A matte finish on a backlit LCD screen scatters surface reflections. It does nothing to change the fundamental nature of the light source. The screen is still an emissive panel, actively projecting light directly into the eyes. This is different from an e-ink screen, which is a reflective surface that you view using ambient light (like paper).

Some "known science" about reflections does not invalidate the findings regarding biological stress caused by emissive light. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. Many factors contribute to digital eye strain, including PWM/FRC flicker. Or the simple, physical difference between looking at a light source versus looking at an illuminated object. A matte screen does not solve the whole problem.

The 'Ultra' model is more than "simply a larger version" of the previous Nxtpaper phones. The change in spec difference is between a budget, entry-level device and a proper mid-range one.

The new 8" Nxtpaper tablet: https://www.theverge.com/news/786479...roid-15-tablet