Paperwhite Second Gen: First Impressions

[techiegirl]

I feel like I'm at the Optomitrist office with my eye tests. I have terrible eye site but I do see the pin holes.

[sirmaru]

I edited my earlier post and did finally see one very faint image of a pin hole in the second image in the lower left. That kind of "problem" would never bother me in reading fonts on a PW 2013.

I believe that eye glasses and surgical corrections improve vision and may allow seeing more pin holes. I wear no glasses, have a large cataract in my right eye which has not been surgically corrected and have macular degeneration in both eyes which can never be surgically corrected. Corrective surgery for cataracts can cause loss of sight for those who also have macular degeneration.

However, I can READ perfectly without glasses and can read street signs at a distance in my car with BOTH eyes. The only effect of the cataract is to make that one eye SLIGHTLY near sighted.

Since medical care in Asia and especially in China is less aggressive than in America, the QC KIDS in China are probably missing almost all the pin holes as I miss them.

Now I understand the huge preponderance of 5 star reviews for the Paperwhite 2013 on Amazon. Those folks probably need their eyes checked and probably need more precise eye glasses or surgery. However, most probably don't bother with it if they can see reasonably well without it.

Maybe eye test charts should have pin holes rather than letters.

The same effect happened on the PW 2012 where most of us didn't perceive the color blotches as noticeable while for some they were very bothersome. Inability to distinguish slight hues made the difference.

@Techiegirl: Are you using your glasses to see the pin holes and, if so, can you see them without your glasses.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by sparklemotion

For those you don't have pinholes, and are curious what they look like, I took pics when I had my last PW2 which was literally riddled with them. Many of which fell right on top of the text. They also look worse in person and are more obvious/annoying when reading at night.

Hm. They look like stuck pixels.

I am near-sighted, and read without glasses. I'm sure I'd be able to pick up all of those pinholes while reading the first page.

To be honest, I'm seeing the same thing that was happening with the very first LCD-screens about 15 years ago. Many came out of the box with one or more dead (always black), hot (always white) pixels. Later on, they became better, but now sub-pixels where sometimes stuck (the red, green or blue part of a pixel would be always off or on). Now, I hardly ever hear or read about dead or stuck (sub)pixels except in rare cases, as long as you're not going for the extremely el-cheapo LCD's.

For LCD's, there actually was/is a standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_13406-2

"The table below shows the maximum number of allowed defects (per type) per 1 million pixels."

Most LCD-monitors are Class II. This means that an acceptable LCD can have:

2 hot pixels AND 2 dead pixels, AND 5 stuck pixels (which may be grouped by 2).

This is per 1 million pixels. A 1920x1080 LCD-screen has 2.073.600 pixels. This means that you may have 4 hot pixels, AND 4 dead pixels, AND 10 stuck pixels (in groups of 2).

Standard or not, I would *never ever* accept a monitor that just barely meets Class II, whatever the standard says. I've actually never seen a Class I monitor (allowing no defects) in the wild; not even quite expensive ones. (Let's say, a €500 19" EIZO LCD, like mine, in 2007 was still Class II.)

In short: if Amazon wanted to, they could just state that the Paperwhite is allowed to have X pinholes, and if it has less, they don't accept returns, just like LCD-manufacturers do/did. I think it would hurt their sales though.

Originally Posted by sirmaru

Maybe eye test charts should have pin holes rather than letters.

@Techiegirl: Are you using your glasses to see the pin holes and, if so, can you see them without your glasses.

Maybe some people's expectations are a bit too high, but still, these replies are becoming a bit annoying. Just because you don't see pinholes does not mean they can't be a problem.

Some people have vision like an eagle, and they can see a speck of dust at a distance of a mile. Some people have vision like a mole (like me), who can't see an elephant when they're sitting on it. I CAN'T actually see the difference between a good DVD and a Blu-Ray on a normal viewing distance (and I have a 47 inch TV). All my friends are of the opinion that I'm watching blurry movies, but to me, they're fine. Therefore I don't pay almost twice as much for the BR-disk.

However, I do have the hearing of a bat. (Well, almost.)

That means, I hear almost everything; even dog whistles that are pitched somewhat low. Many people can't hear the things I can pick up, but do you know how much NOISE light bulbs, fluorescent lights, TV's, receivers, refridgerators make?! It's maddening.

Since a few years, LCD-manufacturers are skimping on the backlight. Do you know how many LCD-monitors go like: "zzzzzzzz" or "iiiiiiiii" or "èèèèèèèè" all the time, especially if they're not at full brightness (at which level they'll burn your eyes out)? TV's do it too, but because you normally watch with sound on, it can't be heard; if I'm sitting in front of a computer, I *can* hear the LCD's, if they're using cheapo backlights. I've actually returned 4 of them, trying to replace my current one. That constant buzz or whine turns me mad, while others can't even hear it with their ears on top of the screen.

If you have a hearing like mine, you wouldn't BELIEVE how noisy a "silent" room can be. To me, many computers advertised as "silent" sound like a fracking tornado.

I've actually considered soundproofing my walls to dampen both outside and inside noise, but it's way too expensive.

[sparklemotion]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

Oh, you're not kidding about them being tough to photograph! Even the slightest amount of camera shake will ruin the shot.

I can see why you returned yours!

It was a pretty bad one. Like van Gogh's Starry Night Over the Rhone. Which I love, but I don't want to see it while I'm reading.

Just to be clear regarding your earlier post. I wasn't disparaging someone for keeping a PW with a pinhole. If one is happy with their PW that is all that matters. (Heck, I kept a PW1 with color hues last year.) I was addressing the mentality of thinking - hey I got a good one, it only has one pinhole. It just shows a lowered standard of expectation and that is a little depressing to me. That's all I meant.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Hm. They look like stuck pixels.

I am near-sighted, and read without glasses. I'm sure I'd be able to pick up all of those pinholes while reading the first page.

To be honest, I'm seeing the same thing that was happening with the very first LCD-screens about 15 years ago. Many came out of the box with one or more dead (always black), hot (always white) pixels. Later on, they became better, but now sub-pixels where sometimes stuck (the red, green or blue part of a pixel would be always off or on). Now, I hardly ever hear or read about dead or stuck (sub)pixels except in rare cases, as long as you're not going for the extremely el-cheapo LCD's.

For LCD's, there actually was/is a standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_13406-2

"The table below shows the maximum number of allowed defects (per type) per 1 million pixels."

Most LCD-monitors are Class II. This means that an acceptable LCD can have:

2 hot pixels AND 2 dead pixels, AND 5 stuck pixels (which may be grouped by 2).

This is per 1 million pixels. A 1920x1080 LCD-screen has 2.073.600 pixels. This means that you may have 4 hot pixels, AND 4 dead pixels, AND 10 stuck pixels (in groups of 2).

Standard or not, I would *never ever* accept a monitor that just barely meets Class II. I've actually never seen a Class I monitor in the wild; not even quite expensive ones. (Let's say, a €500 19" EIZO LCD, like mine, in 2007 was still Class II.)

In short: if Amazon wanted to, they could just state that the Paperwhite is allowed to have X pinholes, and if it has less, they don't accept returns, just like LCD-manufacturers do/did. I think it would hurt their sales though.

The problem with that comparison is that the FIRST LCD monitors indeed had a few pixel issues with nearly every unit. But the Paperwhite 2nd Gen is the latest in a very long line of eInk screens. Earlier eInk screens didn't have this issue, at least not in large numbers. So I really don't think we can chalk up pinholes to "new technology" that will get better with time, unless the pinholes are not related to the eInk screen. I'm inclined to think that the pinholes are related to the light layer rather than the actual eInk screen. One reason I think this is because they shine. eInk screens don't shine, but light layers do.

[gouni]

Originally Posted by Dee Q

My PaperWhite came today. She looks gorgeous!

This is not yours but mine sent by mistake at home.

You must make it to me.

In Exchange I will give you a cookie.

[fearindex]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

Would Amazon be as competitive if it raised the price? Would I be willing to pay an extra $20 if it would guarantee a device that's 100% perfect verses 99.8% perfect?

Yes, I would. But that's just me, I don't expect the majority of consumers saying that. Then again, the majority of the consumers are not enthusiasts that frequent boards like this.

Personally I would be willing to pay an extra $100 for a perfect screen, maybe even more. Heck, they could sell it as extra insurance or something and I'd pay for a guaranteed, pre-checked, no exchanges needes perfect PW2. Some people do pay a lot of money for extra peace of mind.

But I do agree, the reason why those variations exist is similar to LCDs. They too have certain tolerances (like a few dead pixels and light leaking) because a reasonable manufacturing process would otherwise generate too many duds and the cost would go up.

Over time the manufacturing process will get better and the quality will improve, but we are still at the infancy of frontlit e-ink screens and so far the rather frequent imperfections are part of the process. Though, after all these years, they are still a part of the LCD buying process too, so...

Anyway, the regular, non-lit e-ink has matured to a really nice place. The $69 Kindle is very cheap peace of mind!

[sparklemotion]

Originally Posted by fearindex

Personally I would be willing to pay an extra $100 for a perfect screen, maybe even more.

Me too!!

[sirmaru]

The Monitor I had before the present one had one dead pixel in the upper left corner. I never returned it since it did not interfere with anything.

Some folks are more perfectionist than others as well. I tolerate lots of problems in software, hardware, cars, furniture, heating systems, etc. which could cause some other folks to freak out. That is especially noticeable in Software forums where I see some posting in favor of class action suits for problems I cannot even notice or care about.

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by sparklemotion

Me too!!

Maybe Amazon should hire some pre-screened QC folks with pre-screened eye tests to filter out the perfect units.

Then they could sell them at a much higher price for those bothered by pin holes, color hues and other variations from the norm.

The average 16 year old kid working for FoxConn in Shanghai has probably never seen an ophthalmologist.

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by sparklemotion

It was a pretty bad one. Like van Gogh's Starry Night Over the Rhone. Which I love, but I don't want to see it while I'm reading.

Just to be clear regarding your earlier post. I wasn't disparaging someone for keeping a PW with a pinhole. If one is happy with their PW that is all that matters. (Heck, I kept a PW1 with color hues last year.) I was addressing the mentality of thinking - hey I got a good one, it only has one pinhole. It just shows a lowered standard of expectation and that is a little depressing to me. That's all I meant.

Don't even sweat it! I was just teasing a bit!

My guess is that Amazon figures that it is less expensive to offer no questions asked exchanges on a flawed Kindle (however the customer defines "flaw") than to guarantee that every Kindle coming out of the factory is utterly flawless.

[jgsmith]

I'd like to preface my odd question by saying that my current reader is a Kobo Touch and I just ordered a PW2. Now my question...

For those that are unhappy with their PW2s, given the following 2 choices...and ONLY these choices, what would you choose?

1. The PW2 you are unhappy with

or

2. A new Kobo Aura, running Kindle software

I get that #2 is not possible, but humor me. Imagine that you could have the identical Kindle experience...Kindle software, access to Amazon, etc. but just swap the PW2 hardware for the Aura hardware.

Jim

[sparklemotion]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

Don't even sweat it! I was just teasing a bit!

My guess is that Amazon figures that it is less expensive to offer no questions asked exchanges on a flawed Kindle (however the customer defines "flaw") than to guarantee that every Kindle coming out of the factory is utterly flawless.

I thought maybe you were teasing a bit, but I wasn't certain! I think you very well may be right on that second part too.

Originally Posted by fearindex

Personally I would be willing to pay an extra $100 for a perfect screen, maybe even more.

I posted this much earlier in this thread, but I will repeat it again here. I would prefer to pay $200 for a guaranteed good quality reader rather $120 for a crap shoot reader where you never know what you will get until you open the box. We never worried much about the quality of our Kindles until the Touch was released. With the release of the PW1 last year we started to no longer take Kindle quality for granted.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by jswinden

The problem with that comparison is that the FIRST LCD monitors indeed had a few pixel issues with nearly every unit. But the Paperwhite 2nd Gen is the latest in a very long line of eInk screens.

IMHO it isn't: I think it's the second in a line of *LIT* e-Ink screens.

I'm inclined to think that the pinholes are related to the light layer rather than the actual eInk screen.

Yes, I think this is correct.

One reason I think this is because they shine. eInk screens don't shine, but light layers do.

Therefore, the pinhole would probably become invisible if you turn the light off.