No difference between eink and LCD

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Did you ever question to think maybe it's the difference between trying to read on a small phone rather than a machine that is around the same size as your typical paperback?

I also think that a great many people are simply in denial that their eyes maybe changing and it might be time to get some glasses. It's always better to blame a piece of technology rather than sucumb to admitting the fact of an aging body.

Ereaders are coming down in price, but I think it really is dependant on how much in a day you read on the devices. If you can read the same amount of time on both devices without the device dying on you then it really shouldn't matter. Pick whichever one you will find the most useful.

For me, I find the Kindle easier to read on in sunlight. I find it lighter than equivalent sized tablets, I find it larger than 3.5" screens, though not as large as a 7" Samsung Galaxy 7Plus.

All in all I prefer to read on the Kindle. Next would be a regular paper book, new without musty smell, though actually a paper book with slick white pages has glare in the sun or under a bright lamp also. Just about last would be a 3.5" screen of any kind. Well maybe a handheld microfiche would be last.

[EowynCarter]

I can read in sunlight with e-ink.
I read LOADS during holidays, my T1 battery still OK.
E-ink wins.

[JoeD]

I don't recall ever feeling like an LCD is causing more eyestrain than my eInk devices, as long as the brightness levels are roughly matching the ambient light. Too bright or too dim for the conditions and yes I've felt it.

Ease of reading on the eyes wasn't why I bought an eInk though, it's ability to read at all outside :P Reading an LCD outside IS a huge strain on my eyes, or rather, was the few times I attempted it

[Tarana]

I think the study was worthless. It is extremely difficult to note the differences between people that have healthy eyes. The brain and eye can adjust for a LOT of things under many varying conditions. That's how the system is intended to work. However, if you have eye damage, your brain and eye CAN'T make this adjustment. It is those who have physical issues with vision that can tell a researcher whether this thing works better than that thing.

If they want a study that actually tells them something, they should recruit people with similar eye damage to compare the screens.

[ebusinesstutor]

Originally Posted by teotjunk

I am curious. Would the battery savings on a eink reader justify buying an eink reader ?


teotjunk

From a useage perspective, perhaps. I use my Galaxy Note as my ereader but it is also my phone and needs to be charged daily. If I am travelling and the battery gets low, I may have to choose between continuing to read or saving power for calls.

[Fluribus]

The abstract says, "Results suggested that reading on the two display types is very similar in terms of both subjective and objective measures."

The section quoted by SteveEisenberg suggests that there was a subjective difference that they discounted.

I don't know how they could objectively measure my problem. The LCD screen doesn't make my vision blurry. It doesn't make my eyes stiff. I can still read with alacrity.

The LCD screen causes me pain. The longer that I read, the longer the pain lasts afterward.

[kennyc]

My conclusion: People are weird.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

The abstract says, "Results suggested that reading on the two display types is very similar in terms of both subjective and objective measures."

The section quoted by SteveEisenberg suggests that there was a subjective difference that they discounted.

Probably the subjective "reading on this type of screen for more than a few minutes makes my eyes tired and gives me a headache", even though it was exactly what they were supposedly trying to study.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

The abstract says, "Results suggested that reading on the two display types is very similar in terms of both subjective and objective measures."

The section quoted by SteveEisenberg suggests that there was a subjective difference that they discounted.

I don't know how they could objectively measure my problem. The LCD screen doesn't make my vision blurry. It doesn't make my eyes stiff. I can still read with alacrity.

The LCD screen causes me pain. The longer that I read, the longer the pain lasts afterward.

Some minority of folks got headaches and eyestrain from CRTs running a 60hz refresh, too - others didn't.

It's good to see as a baseline that LCD tablets don't appear to be causing significant eyestrain any more than e-ink for most people (that's really all the study is saying). It's not saying anything about keeping you awake at night, or reading outside, or whatever. Simply that there doesn't appear to be a difference in eyestrain, overall.

Personally I find e-ink a tiny bit less fatiguing, but as an I.T. professional I stare at a screen all day already - perhaps, for example, the amount of hours I spend in front of a screen makes my case a bit different.


Or Maybe the difference in the appearance of the screen (more like a printed page) makes me psychologically calmer (many years of associating reading with calm/peace) and that makes me feel less strained. After all, studies have shown that people can't pick out the difference between Coke and Pepsi in a double blind study, but that they do taste differently to people - but it's more the effect of how our brains have been tuned over the years by advertising/experience/etc to taste them differently, than an actually large difference in taste.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My conclusion: People are weird.

Other people are weird.

[supermighty]

I used to read books on the LCD of my Palm Treo. Never had a problem. I can still read on my Nexus, but I like changing it up with my nook. I don't notice much difference in eyestrain though.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Tarana

The brain and eye can adjust for a LOT of things under many varying conditions. That's how the system is intended to work.

I so agree. I was -700 in both eyes (I what I saw at 20 feet you saw at 700 feet). I went in for Lasik - got PRK. Due to a number of issues, I had 5 surguries. I wanted 20-20 vsion. I got 10-300. Still a lot better than I had, and I don't need reading glasses. My ability to guage distances is awful, but my brain knows when it should switch to the distance eye and when it should switch to the close work eye. I am just amazed.

I thought it was strange that people read faster on paper. I would believe it if it was on nonfiction. I find paging through the tax code on paper a lot easier than online.

[toddos]

From the abstract: "It is not the technology itself, but rather the image quality that seems crucial for reading."

In other words, it's what I've been saying for years. The important part is not the technology (eink vs. LCD, front-lit vs. backlit), but the resolution as in dots/pixels per inch. Eink has "fuzzy" pixels, and so gets an artificial boost to ppi despite being relatively low, though the new 1024x768 6" screens have finally cross the 200ppi barrier. Anything over 150ppi is comfortable for most people, which is why the iPad pre-retina display was bad for reading but the Nook Color was good.

Back light vs. front light vs. reflected light is a red herring.

[4691mls]

I think a preference (or non-preference) for LCD vs e-ink is individual, and people should buy what they like!

Personally, I am nearsighted and usually take off my glasses to read. As a result, I hold the text fairly close to my eyes (around 10 - 12 inches). When looked at Nooks Tablets and Kindle Fires in stores in early 2012, I felt like I could see every pixel in the text. E-ink is much better for me.

[slex]

I haven't seen the whole study, just the abstract, so I can't really say more about it. But no matter how many studies with the same conclusion they produce, it won't change even in the least the fact that for me reading from an e-ink device causes far less fatigue than reading from an LCD.