PRS-350 To buy or not to buy (at $120 on Best Buy)?

[LucidDreams]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

As I said, I own the other three devices you're talking about. You've been saying the 350 is darker than the others and attributing this to the amount of text, but I've compared the Kindle 3 and the 350 and I must say -- I disagree.

It might be a difference in settings, as my colleague said above, in which case, to be fair, all brightness and contrast settings should be normalized before the comparison.

The one review I've read that seemed to substantiate your claim was an early one that included this picture:

That picture really doesn't support my claim of screen brightness but rather the issue with text formatting when using the medium font. As for screen comparisons, the settings should be adjust so each display provides it's best display of text and contrast. Sadly there's no standard test established for this like there is for HDTVs. That way you could calibrate the displays as close as possible to a reference and then compare each one on a level playing field.

If you look at a page that has a lot of densely populated text on it then it will appear darker. When you use a smaller font you amplify that effect since there's less "white space" visible to actually see. If you up the font size, you have less text and more space between text and closed characters (like "e", "a", "d", "o", etc.) on the page/screen. This makes the page appear brighter when in fact it is not, there's just less darker items on the page. In bright settings this isn't an issue but when indoors you'll hit a threshold sooner where it's hard to read using the smaller font but isn't with a medium fonts. But as mentioned above, using the medium font has formatting issues and is too large of a increment in size.

I mentioned that the pixel density might be adding to that cause as well. Makes sense when you consider that there are little balls inside the display and that there are smaller balls in the more dense screen (5" display has the same resolution as the 6"). And that one side is white and the other black, how those smaller balls reflect light could give a darker appearance under lower light conditions (less ball surface to reflect light). But this is just theory based on what seems logical.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by LucidDreams

Makes sense when you consider that there are little balls inside the display and that there are smaller balls in the more dense screen (5" display has the same resolution as the 6").

But that isn't the case. The balls are smaller than the "pixels" and in both screen sizes more than one ball goes into making a "pixel" (which is why I'm putting pixel in quotes-- it is only pixel-ish.) What defines a screen area as a pixel is the presence of a transistor under that area. Higher resolution screens have more transistors, not more/smaller capsules.

[carpetmojo]

That is - to us in UK - a steal.

And as far as I know, the 350 is made just as the 650 - ally front, good quality plastic back.
That's also what they look & feel like when you can get hands on a demo....

[Ripplinger]

I thought that the Pearl e-ink displays are identical, whether in a Kindle or in a Sony, they're made by the same people. And one thing you can't do is make any adjustments to the brightness level of the background of the screen, it's just not possible.

If you're seeing one background as brighter than another, it's just an optical illusion caused by the darkness and thickness of the font used, which you can change on the Pearl e-ink screens. I actually don't see any difference in the background at all myself looking at the image. But to prove it, if you take the sample image and copy a section of the background only from the Sony and paste it onto the Kindle background area, you'll see they're identical.

Just change the font on the Sony, or at least adjust the viewing settings for the default, and the backgrounds should look pretty much the same.

[LucidDreams]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

But that isn't the case. The balls are smaller than the "pixels" and in both screen sizes more than one ball goes into making a "pixel" (which is why I'm putting pixel in quotes-- it is only pixel-ish.) What defines a screen area as a pixel is the presence of a transistor under that area. Higher resolution screens have more transistors, not more/smaller capsules.

That makes sense, I just assumed that the pixel resolution and display density were tied together. Meaning if you increase the density of the pixel resolution (pixels per inch) that you would also do the same for the display (balls that make up the pixels). Thanks for clarifying.

[LucidDreams]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

If you're seeing one background as brighter than another, it's just an optical illusion caused by the darkness and thickness of the font used, which you can change on the Pearl e-ink screens. I actually don't see any difference in the background at all myself looking at the image. But to prove it, if you take the sample image and copy a section of the background only from the Sony and paste it onto the Kindle background area, you'll see they're identical.

Just change the font on the Sony, or at least adjust the viewing settings for the default, and the backgrounds should look pretty much the same.

A page that is more densely populated with text will appear darker. The easiest way to illustrate that is to look at a piece of paper with one character on it vs one with a bunch of text. The background is still white but because of the text the page appears darker. So when lighting isn't bright, there's less "white" to reflect which makes it harder to read the text when a page is full of small font sized text.

Your last statement is where the problem lies. Because of the 5" screen size you're limited to using the small or medium font. But the medium font is too large of a step from the small font so it has serious text formatting issues. So being limited to using the small font you hit the threshold of being able to read comfortably when indoors and either have to up the font size to medium and deal with the formatting issues or increase the lighting so you can comfortably read using the small font.

With a 6" display this is less of an issue since you can use a larger font size (similar to the medium one on the PRS-350) without the text formatting issues the PRS-350 has.

[LucidDreams]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

That is - to us in UK - a steal.

And as far as I know, the 350 is made just as the 650 - ally front, good quality plastic back.
That's also what they look & feel like when you can get hands on a demo....

The PRS-650 has a few extra features over the PRS-350 but they're nearly identical in core features. All that I recommend is that you compare the two. Making sure you play around with the various font sizes and if possible under various lighting conditions. But as I mentioned in a previous posting, if form factor isn't your #1 criteria in an eReader then spend the extra cash and get a 6" display. That's more so now that the new Nook came out. Since for $139 you get pretty much everything the PRS-650 offers but with Wi-Fi.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by LucidDreams

That makes sense, I just assumed that the pixel resolution and display density were tied together. Meaning if you increase the density of the pixel resolution (pixels per inch) that you would also do the same for the display (balls that make up the pixels). Thanks for clarifying.

Take a look at this image on Wikipedia. You can tell what an individual "pixel" is supposed to be by the jagged blocks around the outline of the eye-- and you can see that the individual capsules are much smaller-- maybe a couple of dozen or so of them inside each "pixel." And note that the "pixels" aren't sharply defined but have diffuse edges-- that's because there are no physical dividers inside the display fluid making individual cells, so the end of a "pixel" is defined by the electrical field gradually no longer being strong enough to "flip" the capsules further away from the transistor. So the "pixels" aren't really like pixels and actually look more like dots of pigment from an inkjet printer diffusing a short distance through the fibers of the paper that it is splashed down on.

Edited to add: I just isolated a single "pixel" on that image by letting two of the sides of the black pixels count as two sides of a square white pixel (where it is much easier to see the individual capsules) and it looks like the pixel is very roughly 10 capsules wide, so around 100 capsules per pixel. So it seems to me that there should be lots of room for increased resolution with current capsule sizes. One capsule per pixel doesn't seem realistic, but 10 per pixel doesn't sound unreasonable. (This test image is the 166 dpi 6 inch display, not the 200 dpi 5 inch display) If you could make a pixel around 3x3 capsules instead of around 10x10, that would mean you could produce a display with a resolution of 500 dpi without changing the size of the individual capsules.

[MasterGame]

Arguably, what epaper needs now is increased contrast more than increased resolution. I'd gladly sacrifice more pixels for a whiter background.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by MasterGame

Arguably, what epaper needs now is increased contrast more than increased resolution. I'd gladly sacrifice more pixels for a whiter background.

But an increased resolution is essential for acting as a substrate to overlay a red/green/blue/clear filter on top of.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by LucidDreams

Your last statement is where the problem lies. Because of the 5" screen size you're limited to using the small or medium font. But the medium font is too large of a step from the small font so it has serious text formatting issues. So being limited to using the small font you hit the threshold of being able to read comfortably when indoors and either have to up the font size to medium and deal with the formatting issues or increase the lighting so you can comfortably read using the small font.

With a 6" display this is less of an issue since you can use a larger font size (similar to the medium one on the PRS-350) without the text formatting issues the PRS-350 has.

I have both and I read a smaller font size on the 350 than on the 650 due to the font being clearer on the small one which has the same dpi as the big one. Actually I have more text on the 350 this way as on the 650. This is why I prefer reading on the 350 even after I bought the 650.

If the font size bugs you, just convert your books to LRF. The gaps between font sizes are considerably smaller.

Originally Posted by LucidDreams

That's more so now that the new Nook came out. Since for $139 you get pretty much everything the PRS-650 offers but with Wi-Fi.

No, you don't. No MP3s, no audio feature at all, no foreign language dictionaries, no collections or comparable feature. You will get a couple of gimmicky social stuff for those who have no real friends and a cheapo rubber case with a pearl screen that will be just the new standard screen from now on. The only thing they do better with their reader is the 6 different fonts. But they can't compare to the x50 in performance.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

As seen in the bargains area, the 350 is now $110 at Borders:

http://www.borders.com/online/store/...id=SA_20110525

Thanks for the heads up!

They also have the pink version for the same price:
http://www.borders.com/online/store/...u=027242805132

Already got a silver one from Best Buy so I bought a pink one this time. Planning on using one of the readers exclusively for fanfiction and the other one for actual books.

[Prestidigitweeze]

[Never mind! Thought someone had found an impossible deal on the Daily!]

[jdgoff]

I had one. I liked it, but I didn't care for the positioning of the controls. They were not comfortable for me to use, but I have very long fingers. I traded up, but it's a good device.

The Rune that Binds

[Prestidigitweeze]

Strange -- I'm a studio keyboardist whose outer digits span tenths and I don't have that problem at all.

Not to invalidate your experience, though. I'm just saying that comfort might not depend entirely on the length of one's fingers.