My Oasis has splotchier lighting than any early Paperwhite or Voyage I've seen.

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by Yolina

I'd say no Here's my Voyage, and I'd call that one a good screen - granted, there is a small shift in colour (cooler at the bottom, warmer at the top) but it's less obvious in real life and certainly not noticeable when I'm reading

I think that's pretty similar to how mine looks, and yes, in real life it's not as obvious as the camera shows it. I do notice the gradient a little in low lighting conditions, but while I'm aware of it, its not enough to be distracting.

Its a real shame about the quality control these images are showing on the Oasis, especially when the first couple of views looked so promising in the other threads posted here (Mickey330's thread and the Len Edgerly video).

[Jason90]

How's that increased 10 led uniformed lighting then?

You would think by design an ereader is pretty basic and should be easy to assemble compared to other tech out there,yet there is always too many cases with issues of the lighting.

Would be interested to see behind the scenes how these get built and why it's so hard to lay 6-10 led's around an eink display!

[Kolja]

Originally Posted by positively4th

I was going to post a review on Amazon, but the Oasis page says it hasn't yet been released and reviews can't be posted. I contacted support and they said I may hear from someone about it in 2-3 days.

On Amazon it stills says on the Oasis page "be the first to review" with no way to review. There is very little about the Oasis in the Discussion section. Didn't Amazon ship the Oasis to arrive on 4/27 for the early customers who ordered?
Maybe they are afraid of the reviews.

[positively4th]

Originally Posted by Kolja

On Amazon it stills says on the Oasis page "be the first to review" with no way to review. There is very little about the Oasis in the Discussion section. Didn't Amazon ship the Oasis to arrive on 4/27 for the early customers who ordered?
Maybe they are afraid of the reviews.

This is what amazon has to say on the subject:

"I've contacted our technical support team and they are currently working on the issue with you not being able to write a review on your Oasis Kindle.

They were not able to provide an exact date or time when they expect this issue to be resolved, but I'll continue to monitor the situation with the technical support team until the problem is fixed. We appreciate your patience in this matter."

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by NullNix

Sure, though it'll do no good. Attached: one in lighted room with light at 13; one in a darker (but still lit) room, light at 8. No shots in full sunlight (because it's night here), none in a dark room (because the camera canna handle it without flash).

Note: shadow cones are clearly visible in the dark shot, but they're visible only to the camera: the same is true of the apparent brightness variation/shadow cone on the right of the light shot. To my eyes, both are entirely invisible and the screens are unvarying brightness fields: a clear consequence of the human eye's logarithmic intensity response versus a CCD's more nearly linear one.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see, but in the rightmost picture I see very obvious shafts of light coming from along the bottom edge of the Kindle as pictured. I'm in dim light as I post this so that probably helps with perception.

[JulyB]

If you want to see some reviews, you can look at the international Amazon sites - as far as I know all of them are working and overall the reviews so far are incredibly positive. So I really doubt that it's some kind of US only conspiracy.

[kobayashi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Both those pictures look absolutely fine to me. What do you perceive the problem to be?

Yikes!!! Maybe some people just can't see color very well.

[kobayashi]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Also proves that those of us who can see it clear as day on the original photos aren't just a bunch of loonies making things up to be obnoxious

+1

[howyoudoin]

I am concerned for HarryT's eyesight.

[badgoodDeb]

Some of us are also aware that physics dictates that the area closest to the light source is brightest, and so our mind just equalizes the color. When I sit in a chair beside a lamp, and read a paper book, there is gradation of brightness across each page, and in the valley of the spine. So I expect the same gradation across all physical objects.

That said, I would make a lousy painter, because I don't often notice the many different shades of green within one tree. The differences that are due to physics, lighting, etc: my mind wipes those away, and tells me "yes, this is a three dimensional object. Color variations are how I know that. Now you can forget those color variations, because they are normal".

So what some term "more discerning", strikes some of us as "far too picky". It's just semantics. So don't yell as us for not caring, and we'll try not to yell at you for caring, that the color changes a bit across a page. My minds tells me that such slight color changes are normal, because, well, "Physics". So I dismiss it.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by Jason90

How's that increased 10 led uniformed lighting then?

You would think by design an ereader is pretty basic and should be easy to assemble compared to other tech out there,yet there is always too many cases with issues of the lighting.

Would be interested to see behind the scenes how these get built and why it's so hard to lay 6-10 led's around an eink display!

It's not hard to lay them out, but it is hard to force light from only 6-10 LEDs to evenly light a square surface.

More ideally, you'd want a large number of lower power LEDs to avoid the shadows. The shadows are there because to get those parts of the screen lit up, you have to bend light more sharply via refraction. The physics of optics shows us that the more you want to bend the light, the more complicated the optics have to be. And to make it worse, the more likely you are to introduce optical aberrations into the layer over the e-ink that cannot be completely removed.

And here, Amazon is trying to take the light from a half-dozen LEDs, refract it down onto the e-Ink display, and then bounce it off the e-ink back out with as little distortion as possible. As someone who knows enough about optics to understand the challenges of this, I'm honestly still somewhat impressed they made it as good as it is. And all you have to do is compare the screens between the PW3 and Voyage to see how much sharper the second-generation layer is in comparison to make higher DPI screens that much nicer (something Amazon doesn't even toot their own horn about).

Optics is one of those things that never really gets any easier. We just figure out even more bizarre techniques to push the boundaries just a bit more.

[Barbara1955]

When the 1st PW3 I got had bad lighting I used a bit of contrast so the dark areas were darker & when I posted on Amazon & the thread here people could see the unevenness a bit better. Just a suggestion so those of us with bad eyes can see what you seeing

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I am concerned for HarryT's eyesight.

I'm not. Many men have some level of colour blindness. I suspect that it's this that allows some of us to miss the colour gradations the rest of you see.

EDIT: "most" -> "many"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I'm not. Many men have some level of colour blindness. I suspect that it's this that allows some of us to miss the colour gradations the rest of you see.

EDIT: "most" -> "many"

Approximately 1 in 7 men (me included) have blue/green colourblindness. It's a defect in the X chromosome and so affects only about 1 in 50 women (because a woman needs to have the defect in both X chromosomes).

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see, but in the rightmost picture I see very obvious shafts of light coming from along the bottom edge of the Kindle as pictured. I'm in dim light as I post this so that probably helps with perception.

Yes -- but in that picture, those "obvious shafts" were *not visible* in the environment in which the picture was taken. They were only visible if you looked at the camera image, even if you looked at that image after turning its brightness down so it was the same apparent brightness as the original screen.

Camera sensors are different from human vision. Amazon have optimized the Kindle for its users, human beings, not for cameras. So *of course* the things look horrible in photos: they're advanced optical devices tuned for the human eye and visual cotex being viewed by things that don't process light like the human eye and visual cortex do.

I did say my photo was useless at the top of my post