New Chapter on Digital Reading (Sony)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Try staring at the lightbulb itself rather than just the things illuminated by it

It's not really a fair comparison, is it? The backlight of an LCD screen is no brighter than, say, the light reflected from white paper in a well-lit room.

[nekokami]

One factor might be that with LCD, we don't generally remember to adjust the brightness in comparison to the ambient light of the room, so perhaps we end up with too much contrast between the two. Or many people may leave LCD screens turned up too bright most of the time, so that they are in fact brighter than a well-lit printed or e ink page. But the eye can't tell whether the photons are coming from the front of the display and bouncing off or coming from the back of the display and passing through.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by astra

The question is why?
I believe any conventional light bulbs flicker with the speed electrical current is coursing through it (like 50 times per second?). We do not noticing the flickering but it flickers and that's what tires our eyes.

No. An incandescent light bulb does not flicker either. The tungsten filament gets heated up and--without going into too much detail--starts emitting photons. While there is some cool-down in the filament during each half-cycle of the sinusoidal waveform, the filaments reaction is way to slow to exhibit any noticeable flicker on a 50/60 Hz current.

Originally Posted by BobVA

So, all this would allow me to restate what Valloric said as "For all practical purposes, the backlight doesn't flicker"

I call 50 KILOhertz no flicker. We can debate the academic if you want .

Originally Posted by nekokami

One factor might be that with LCD, we don't generally remember to adjust the brightness in comparison to the ambient light of the room, so perhaps we end up with too much contrast between the two. Or many people may leave LCD screens turned up too bright most of the time, so that they are in fact brighter than a well-lit printed or e ink page.

Yup. People buy an LCD screen, turn it on, and leave it at the default of 300 cd/m^2. You might as well save yourself the time and just poke a red-hot knife into your eye.

Originally Posted by nekokami

But the eye can't tell whether the photons are coming from the front of the display and bouncing off or coming from the back of the display and passing through.

This is debatable. Are we going into particle physics? Just open the door, I'll be right there.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

One factor might be that with LCD, we don't generally remember to adjust the brightness in comparison to the ambient light of the room, so perhaps we end up with too much contrast between the two.

I read for many years on HP iPaq Pocket PCs, and certainly found those very comfortable. One nice feature of the iPaq, however, is that it has a light sensor which automatically adjusts the brightness of the backlight to suit the ambient lighting conditions. Perhaps that's one reason that I did find it comfortable to read on.

[athlonkmf]

everyone forgotten the high dpi of eink? and the other pros and cons?

why is this thread changed to a LCD vs Eink debate?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Valloric

This is debatable. Are we going into particle physics? Just open the door, I'll be right there.

Sure. I'm familiar enough with the language, and willing to be convinced if you can offer a rational argument as to why the eye should be able to tell the difference between reflected photons and backlit photons, that does not apply to simply turning the backlight down so that the same lumen count is being emitted.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I read for many years on HP iPaq Pocket PCs, and certainly found those very comfortable. One nice feature of the iPaq, however, is that it has a light sensor which automatically adjusts the brightness of the backlight to suit the ambient lighting conditions. Perhaps that's one reason that I did find it comfortable to read on.

HP iPaq be darned! The Mac has had ambient light sensing capability for a long, long time on their PowerBook/MacBook lines, and we all know that Macs PWN!!!

Great feature! Drives me bonkers! I like to set the brightness myself thank you very much.

But regardless, reading books on an LCD with the brightness toned down still drives my eyes bonkers. I guess LCD e-books and "bonkers" go hand-in-hand across the board for me!!

-Pie

[jedavis1]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

HP iPaq be darned! The Mac has had ambient light sensing capability for a long, long time on their PowerBook/MacBook lines, and we all know that Macs PWN!!!

It hasn't had them very long at all. Maybe 5 years... Mac laptops have been around for nearly 18 years.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by jedavis1

It hasn't had them very long at all. Maybe 5 years... Mac laptops have been around for nearly 18 years.

Since 1992 actually.

[jedavis1]

Originally Posted by David Munch

Since 1992 actually.

They haven't had ambient light sensors that long. I can find no reference for ambient light sensors in Mac laptops before the one in the Aluminum power book. that came out in 2002-2003.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by jedavis1

They haven't had ambient light sensors that long. I can find no reference for ambient light sensors in Mac laptops before the one in the Aluminum power book. that came out in 2002-2003.

Which takes us back to my original statement. Mac's have had them a long, long time. Six years in computer years is like 600 in human years (not to mention a few OS revisions and a change to an entirely new CPU).



-Pie

[Carole5012]

Hi

I have been rummaging around in the forums for the past few days to get info on the Sony as they have just been introduced to Ireland. I have researched the sony and the kindle as they are in my price range (although the Kindle hasn't arrived here yet). I am not at all tecky(!) so I find all the different formats etc confusing. What I want to be able to do is:

- read a book downloaded from any provider be it Amazon, Waterstones, Borders, or WH Smith in much the same way that I can when I by a paper copy, With the latest books available and a reasonable back catalogue.

- Not having to hook up to a computer to download would be nice but not essential.

- I like the inbuild dictionary thing.

- I have an MP3 player so I don't need it play music or audio books.

- I dont want to have to run programmes to convert files into different formats (although my 13 yr old would probably do it for me)

Does something like this exist? If not

What are the chances of this from Sony?

[Penforhire]

The short answer is no, it doesn't exist. The most basic reason is copy protection (DRM) varies from vendors. The long answer is you can get there by doing some work on your own, breaking DRM formats and reformatting.

[nekokami]

Carole5012, the only unit so far that can download books without connecting to a computer is the Kindle. (The Kindle also has the most streamlined interface for finding and buying ebooks.) Regarding your other concerns, as Penforhire pointed out, there is no universal format yet, and the different vendors are using different proprietary formats that can't be read on each other's devices.

You might want to look at the ebooks sold by the different companies, e.g. Fictionwise, Amazon, Sony, etc. and see which vendors have the most books that you'd be interested in reading. Not all books are released as ebooks, sadly.

[dordale]

Carole--
You might want to check out the Cybook as well. It reads mobipocket files natively, so no conversion is necessary. And there are plenty of online stores / libraries that sell / loan out mobipocket files. You would have to connect to your computer to load files on to it though.

Good luck with your decision!

dordale