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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Atlantic

To make things worse under low ambient light conditions and high Kindle Oasis light settings - a brownish color appears between the lights that is incredibly distracting (at least to me). Under a lamp source or outside in the sun the screen looks fine. Returned Kindle Oasis.

But surely you wouldn't have the light on high in low ambient light, would you? In low light levels, you set the light low - nobody wants to reading looking into a glaring light.

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But surely you wouldn't have the light on high in low ambient light, would you? In low light levels, you set the light low - nobody wants to reading looking into a glaring light.

What do you think of this Oasis, taken in darkness at what I would could consider a low front light level?

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by pagepack

What do you think of this Oasis, taken in darkness at what I would could consider a low front light level?

I hate to say anything as I'm not sure how it looks to you in person but I couldn't deal with those dark shadows on the right.

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I hate to say anything as I'm not sure how it looks to you in person but I couldn't deal with those dark shadows on the right.

Its not mine, its from a Amazon UK review.

For the price I would expect perfection. I have a paperwhite 2 with a very even screen, no light cones. I was going to upgrade but to me Amazon have dropped the ball. No way could I read on such a flawed screen.

[disconnected]

Originally Posted by pagepack

What do you think of this Oasis, taken in darkness at what I would could consider a low front light level?

That looks a lot like my PW1. I thought it was acceptable for a first try but I wouldn't accept it on an Oasis.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pagepack

What do you think of this Oasis, taken in darkness at what I would could consider a low front light level?

Poor, but that's not what I was commenting on. It doesn't matter if a screen looks bad in conditions that you don't read in. All that matters is how it looks in the conditions in which you do read. If you don't read on the device with the light set high in a dark room (and I don't know of anyone who would read in such conditions), why does it matter what the screen looks like in such a situation?

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Poor, but that's not what I was commenting on. It doesn't matter if a screen looks bad in conditions that you don't read in. All that matters is how it looks in the conditions in which you do read. If you don't read on the device with the light set high in a dark room (and I don't know of anyone who would read in such conditions), why does it matter what the screen looks like in such a situation?

The picture I posted is very close to the normal light level I read my PW2 on in darkness. So its pretty dire for a 270 quid device.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pagepack

The picture I posted is very close to the normal light level I read my PW2 on in darkness. So its pretty dire for a 270 quid device.

I agree with you, but that is not what I was commenting on. I was responding to a comment from someone who said that their screen looked bad when they turned the light up high in a dark room. I would not personally consider that a fault if the screen looked reasonable in the conditions in which I actually read. If you actively look for faults in extreme conditions, you're pretty sure to find them.

[Josieb1]

I have the exact opposite problem (it's more an observation than a problem tbh) with my new Kobo GLO HD. I have faint yellow lines between the led lights at the bottom that are more visible on a brightly lit screen but i can't really capture them on a photo. I was going to report it to kobo and try and get it replaced but as I can't capture it sufficiently on a photo they aren't interested. Plus I've got used to it.

Remember I paid £90 for this device, not the £270 Amazon want for an Oasis.

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you, but that is not what I was commenting on. I was responding to a comment from someone who said that their screen looked bad when they turned the light up high in a dark room. I would not personally consider that a fault if the screen looked reasonable in the conditions in which I actually read. If you actively look for faults in extreme conditions, you're pretty sure to find them.

That is exactly why I asked for your opinion on a Oasis photograph in the same lighting condition I would read in. Be it poor quality control, design fault, whatever. Its not acceptable on a premium device.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pagepack

That is exactly why I asked for your opinion on a Oasis photograph in the same lighting condition I would read in. Be it poor quality control, design fault, whatever. Its not acceptable on a premium device.

As someone else has already pointed out previously in this thread, the CCD detector in a camera responds linearly, whereas your eye responds logarithmically. What that means is that contrast differences (shadows) will always be greatly exaggerated in a photograph compared with the appearance in real life. The photo you posted may or may not be objectionable to the eye; you'd have to look at the actual device and see. Contrary to the popular expression, the camera can - and does - lie.

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As someone else has already pointed out previously in this thread, the CCD detector in a camera responds linearly, whereas your eye responds logarithmically. What that means is that contrast differences (shadows) will always be greatly exaggerated in a photograph compared with the appearance in real life. The photo you posted may or may not be objectionable to the eye; you'd have to look at the actual device and see. Contrary to the popular expression, the camera can - and does - lie.

The person leaving the review and pictures confirms that what we see in the photograph is what they are seeing with their own eyes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

But it has the other sort of touch screen (see just previous posts). So some of us like Kindles, and some of us like Kobos. That's why we allow competition!

This isn't a Kindle vs Kobo discussion. It's a why can Kobo do it with 5 LEDs when Amazon can't do it with 10 LEDs discussion.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by shalym

Sorry, but for me, the IR screen just doesn't work. I get page turns when I don't want them, and no page turns when I want them.

I am on the latest firmware, and I was reading in bed a few nights ago on my Aura HD and every time I moved the page turned. Then, when I tried to go back to my page, it froze up on me and wouldn't do anything for a minute or two.

I know that others absolutely love the IR touch, but for me, it's just one frustration after another.

Shari

I've used IR on a Kindle Touch and I found no problem with it. I've used IR on Sony Readers and again, no problem. I use IR on my H2O and still it works.

The reason for extra page turns is because IR allows you to activate it anything that can properly break the IR beam. As for not getting page turns when you do want them, could be a dirt/dust/etc. covering some of the IR ports.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

On the other hand, having the device not turn page when you intend it to is a genuine concern. I do think it's to do with the engine, not the IR panel. I've heard of people using ePub on Kobos who have this issue, and it generally isn't one when reading kePub.

That may have been an issue in the past, but Kobo has fixed any responsiveness issues. The IR is better with ePub now is better than it was when I first got my H2O.