Iliad screen is messed up

[olis]

I'm really impressed with the Iliad screen showed in that picture. Is there anyone who knows for sure if the iliad(latest edition) is vizplex?
I've read many posts on this subject but no one was conclusive.
thanks.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by olis

I'm really impressed with the Iliad screen showed in that picture. Is there anyone who knows for sure if the iliad(latest edition) is vizplex?
I've read many posts on this subject but no one was conclusive.
thanks.

It isn't. iRex had already before costomized the screens wavelengths in their own way to improve them. When vizplex came out, they say they tried it but didn't notice any noticeable difference to their customization already in use before.

[olis]

thanks axell77, greatly appreciated.
It would be useful to see a side by side photo comparison between a vizplex screen and the Iliad display.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by olis

thanks axell77, greatly appreciated.
It would be useful to see a side by side photo comparison between a vizplex screen and the Iliad display.

AFAIK the picture wouldn't be representive as vizplex AFAIK is primary supposed to speed up display speed. So you'd need a video at least.

[akiburis]

Originally Posted by olis

I'm really impressed with the Iliad screen showed in that picture. Is there anyone who knows for sure if the iliad(latest edition) is vizplex?
I've read many posts on this subject but no one was conclusive.
thanks.

I doubt any response could be conclusive, unless it came from iRex. I certainly don't know for sure, and I don't know whether it matters much. But I'd say, having got the iLiad Book Edition a few weeks ago, and comparing it with the Sony PRS-505, which I've had for several months, that the iLiad's (well, this iLiad's) screen is Vizplex or something as much like it as makes no difference. The background gray seems a bit lighter and brighter than that of the PRS-505--but my PRS-505 is older, and some darkening may have occurred, so it would probably be better just to say that they're comparable. The screen refresh on the iLiad (my new Book Edition, that is) is just as fast as on the PRS-505. It's perhaps a tiny bit faster, in fact, at least when I make the most direct comparison I can, of the way they display PDFs that I've generated with pdftex---files that are the same in every way, basically, except formatted with different "papersizes" for the Sony and the iLiad. In general, in fact, the page refresh speed was a surprise--what I'd read about the iLiad had led me to expect it to be rather slow, and in my estimation it typically is not.

Keep in mind that the difference, in contrast and refresh speed, between Vizplex and the first-generation e-ink material is definite but not very great in any case. And the iLiad's font rendering, for one thing, is different and I gather always has been (16 gray scales and I think anti-aliasing that is clearly quite different from whatever it is that the Sony implements--but here I'm technically out of my depth).

I recall that when the PRS-505 was released, though it was known that Vizplex was being used, Vizplex was not mentioned in the specs or in Sony's promotional material. Similarly, iRex could have switched to Vizplex without wanting to "play it up" in any way--or maybe not, of course; who knows?

I recall, also, having read a PVI or E-Ink press release, quite some time ago--before Vizplex was actually being used in any device that was on the market--in which it was stated that Vizplex was (I'm paraphrasing very loosely from memory) easier and cheaper to make than the first-generation e-ink screens. So I'd think it likely enough that the first-generation stuff is just obsolete and not being made any more. But again, who knows? (Somebody, of course, but not me.)

[orcinus]

It has been stated before by iRex employees (can't remember if it was here or on iRex fora) that they've tested Vizplex and decided it doesn't offer any advances over currently used screens that would justify changing the currently used production process.

Vizplex' main benefits over the previous generation are brighter whites (and, thus, higher contrast) and faster refreshes. According to iRex, the increase in refresh speed from iLiad's already tweaked switching waveforms to Vizplex isn't dramatic enough to warrant a switch.

That does leave the issue of contrast / brightness, though. iLiad did have an advantage in that area over other 1st gen E-ink devices, but how that advantage compares to Vizplex' - i don't have a clue.

BTW, i'll try to make a quick video of my Reader and iLiad page flipping side by side and post it here as soon as the Reader charges up. Also, i'll try to get a friend with the new, Vizplex equipped Reader to bring it to work tomorrow and make some side by side comparisons.

[orcinus]

Here goes...



Couldn't get them perfectly synced, but frame by frame analysis shows iLiad is a bit faster. Nothing earth-shattering, though...
Here's a readability comparison in a best-case scenario (outdoors, lots of sunlight):


Click for full size

iLiad has noticeably better whites and contrast and much less ghosting (almost none). Reader's screen looks like a bad paperback in comparison.

[akiburis]

Originally Posted by orcinus

It has been stated before by iRex employees (can't remember if it was here or on iRex fora) that they've tested Vizplex and decided it doesn't offer any advances over currently used screens that would justify changing the currently used production process.

Perhaps you are referring to a post on MobileRead in which Karel of iRex said

Mostly correct, however Vizplex is not really a screen but a film on which the electronic ink is laminated and iRex does not use a standard 1st Gen PVI but a custom proprietary 8.1-inch screen developed by iRex Technologies which is produced by PVI.

Since Q2 we implemented the Vizplex material into our 8.1-inch display, but the improvements are only very minor.

It's unclear, of course; but "implemented" is not the same as "tested," and "since" suggests an ongoing practice. So I'd say the more likely interpretation, on the face of it, is "We're using it, but the improvements are only very minor, so we haven't advertised the fact," rather than "We tested it, but decided not to use it, because the improvements were only very minor."

This post of Karel's wasn't followed up by any clarification, so far as I know, which is odd in a way, since its meaning has been puzzled over and debated by some subsequent posters. So: not followed up with any clarification, maybe, because he'd already said more than he meant to?

[orcinus]

Yeah, i think that was it. But i think it was also mentioned on the iRex forum, in a discussion involving Karel's post in the i-to-i blog:
http://i-to-i.irexnet.com/2007/11/09...ays-different/

... which states:

"In the coming weeks we will compare the display performance of the current iLiad with a Vizplex™ prototype and analyze the differences. So stay tuned."

Again, no updates of any kind since then.

Edit: It's worth noting that iLiad's screen never was described as a gen 1 e-ink display. According to iRex, if the first Sony Reader is first generation, then iLiad's screen is second and the Vizplex third.

[soilwork]

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...40&postcount=9
According to this post, it seems that Irex is currently using Vizplex.

[orcinus]

Originally Posted by soilwork

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...40&postcount=9
According to this post, it seems that Irex is currently using Vizplex.

As discussed previously, Karel's statement is open to interpretation. It could mean they are, but it could also mean they've implemented it on a test device and decided against it.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by orcinus

As discussed previously, Karel's statement is open to interpretation. It could mean they are, but it could also mean they've implemented it on a test device and decided against it.

in either interpretation, isn't the result, it just doesn't matter?

I mean did the vizplex marketing already go so deep into your brain, you want it in your device, even when it does no observable difference for this device?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by axel77

I mean did the vizplex marketing already go so deep into your brain, you want it in your device, even when it does no observable difference for this device?

For many people, apparently.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by orcinus

Vizplex' main benefits over the previous generation are brighter whites (and, thus, higher contrast) and faster refreshes. According to iRex, the increase in refresh speed from iLiad's already tweaked switching waveforms to Vizplex isn't dramatic enough to warrant a switch.

That does leave the issue of contrast / brightness, though. iLiad did have an advantage in that area over other 1st gen E-ink devices, but how that advantage compares to Vizplex' - i don't have a clue.

According to the specs, vizplex is slightly faster, but the iLiad screen has a slightly better contrast.

[soilwork]

Originally Posted by orcinus

As discussed previously, Karel's statement is open to interpretation. It could mean they are, but it could also mean they've implemented it on a test device and decided against it.

Hmm, I thought it means the former pretty clearly. I am not sure how latter interpretation is possible just given the article without any outside knowledge. Of course, English is not my first language, so I cannot be sure.

However, if iRex implemented it, it is a mystery why they are silent about it. Advertising about using Vizplex will do at least no harm or possibly good.