Side by Side screen comparison: 505 & 700

[Seabound]

For instance take a picture of a person standing in front of a window, (on a sunny a day). Prior to taking picture note the individual. Then take a picture. You will see the resulting image have the person look as if they are hidden in a shadow.

Not if you spot-meter for the subject instead of the background. Then you will have the correct exposure for the subject, with the background overexposed.

Originally Posted by =X=

That is exactly the point I make. The eye has the ability to capture all of that information and register it and compensate without any human awareness. Digital cameras (CCD) have very narrow resolution and low light depth, compared to the human eye.
...

Again the same amount of light that enters the human eye enters the camera, but the final image of the camera is far worse than what was seen with the naked eye.
=X=

I can only repeat what I already said in my post which you do not include in your quote. Your reasoning only makes sense if the amount of light coming from the PRS-700 is at the sensitivity threshold of the camera, and if that coming from the PRS-505 is well above the threshold. Looking, at the posted pictures, this is not the case. There was ample and uniform ambient lighting for the shots. We are looking at face-on, side-by-side images taken with one shot, i.e. we are making a relative comparison using one photo, and all things were equal as far as the camera was concerned. I am not now comparing what the eye sees and what the camera sees, just what the camera sees.

In fact, since your post made me think about this more, I am now quite convinced that the difference in the 700 and 505 that the original photos show is real and not an artificial one.

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by Seabound

Not if you spot-meter for the subject instead of the background. Then you will have the correct exposure for the subject, with the background overexposed.




I can only repeat what I already said in my post which you do not include in your quote. Your reasoning only makes sense if the amount of light coming from the PRS-700 is at the sensitivity threshold of the camera, and if that coming from the PRS-505 is well above the threshold. Looking, at the posted pictures, this is not the case. There was ample and uniform ambient lighting for the shots. We are looking at face-on, side-by-side images taken with one shot, i.e. we are making a relative comparison using one photo, and all things were equal as far as the camera was concerned. I am not now comparing what the eye sees and what the camera sees, just what the camera sees.

In fact, since your post made me think about this more, I am now quite convinced that the difference in the 700 and 505 that the original photos show is real and not an artificial one.

I've been to the Sony store 3 times now, and yes, it looks exactly like all of the pictures on here. I was so psyced for the 700, and it is a real dissapointment, since I can't see myself wanting to ever buy something that is so inferior to LAST gen's model.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Seabound

Not if you spot-meter for the subject instead of the background. Then you will have the correct exposure for the subject, with the background overexposed.

You've definitely missed the point of my previous post as you are taking about how to compensate for the underexpose. I was merely trying to pointing out who inferior CCD vs the naked eye, (via a simple test)

Also you counter argument only further proves my point as you admit the problem is shifted to the background. Where again the naked eye sees the scene without any image loss.

Originally Posted by Seabound

I can only repeat what I already...

Well unfortunately I could not help you understand. My fault really, I just don't feel like getting into the science behind optics and CCDs. It's not an easy topic and unless you have a background in it, justice could not be done in a few posts.


Kind Regards,
=X=

[tcv]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

I was skeptical as well, untilI went to a Sony store and saw it for myself. The difference was instantly noticeable.

Oy. And there are others who claim there is no difference. How can the views be so divergent?

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by =X=

You've definitely missed the point of my previous post as you are taking about how to compensate for the underexpose. I was merely trying to pointing out who inferior CCD vs the naked eye, (via a simple test)

Also you counter argument only further proves my point as you admit the problem is shifted to the background. Where again the naked eye sees the scene without any image loss.

=X=

Your example of the imaging problem which can arise with a subject indoors, beside a window on a sunny day cannot be applied to the case we are considering: two Sony readers which are both illuminated by the same ample and uniform ambient lighting. The range of lighting difference we are dealing with coming from the two readers is not as large as in the example of the window and subject that you put forward.

There is also a poster who has said that what he saw with his eyes regarding the differences looked exactly like what he sees in the photos that have been posted.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by tcv

Oy. And there are others who claim there is no difference. How can the views be so divergent?

Who is wearing glasses or contacts and are they clean?!

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by tcv

Oy. And there are others who claim there is no difference. How can the views be so divergent?

There is a clear difference. The question is what is important for you.

The PRS 700 is comparable to the 500 in screen quality, maybe slightly better, but not as crisp as the 505, however it is so fast, has ergonomics that leave the 500/505 in the dust, and has decent to good integrated lighting that for me it was the first e-ink device I really liked and I bought it on the spot the moment I found it was available in my local Sony store.

[guguy]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

There is a clear difference. The question is what is important for you.

The PRS 700 is comparable to the 500 in screen quality, maybe slightly better, but not as crisp as the 505, however it is so fast, has ergonomics that leave the 500/505 in the dust, and has decent to good integrated lighting that for me it was the first e-ink device I really liked and I bought it on the spot the moment I found it was available in my local Sony store.

Once more the 700 has a much better cpu and more ram than the 505
(according to mr ebook matrix) along with an hardware Java-acceleration
engine (Jazelle) so I wouldn't be surprised if sony realeased
new features for the 700 only.

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by guguy

Once more the 700 has a much better cpu and more ram than the 505
(according to mr ebook matrix) along with an hardware Java-acceleration
engine (Jazelle) so I wouldn't be surprised if sony realeased
new features for the 700 only.

On the flip side, the 700 has a greatly reduced battery life, and a fuzzy screen.

Whats more important to you in a reader?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

On the flip side, the 700 has a greatly reduced battery life, and a fuzzy screen.

I assume the greatly reduced battery life is only when using the integrated light? Something's got to power it. If you need/want the light charging it every night doesn't seem to be a big deal. Everything in life is trade off. I charge my cell phone every night.

BOb

[johnnyr]

According to the sony rep, 5 hours without the light.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

According to the sony rep, 5 hours without the light.

That's just wrong. The Sony battery life is listed in page turns. Now maybe 5 hours using the light. But without the light it should get close to the same amount of page turns as the 505.

BOb

[johnnyr]

This is what the rep told me. He could be exaggerating, but his point was clear, the 700 has signifigantly rwduced battery life because of the touchscreen and lights

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by johnnyr

According to the sony rep, 5 hours without the light.

Last night I read about 1 hr+ with the light at max and turned it off when I went to bed and this morning it still had 4 bars. After I recharged it today, I read 3 hours+ without charging it - without light by and large - and it still shows 5 bars.

I intend to test it tonight and read several hours with light at max and not charge it to see how it holds. The User Guide specifies 7500 continuous page turns without light and 4 hours with bright light, 8 hours with standard light

Today I spent about 2 hours at Borders and I mostly read from the 700 but I went to compare it once more with the 505 displayed and again I do not understand how anyone can claim the 505 is fast compared with the 700. Nicer, slimmer, maybe, but fast??- to me there is a huge, huge difference in speeds. Maybe the display unit was not in the best shape, but it took forever to turn pages, move around and so on. Comparing with the almost instantaneous response of the 700 is like night and day...

[johnnyr]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Last night I read about 1 hr+ with the light at max and turned it off when I went to bed and this morning it still had 4 bars. After I recharged it today, I read 3 hours+ without charging it - without light by and large - and it still shows 5 bars.

I intend to test it tonight and read several hours with light at max and not charge it to see how it holds. The User Guide specifies 7500 continuous page turns without light and 4 hours with bright light, 8 hours with standard light

Today I spent about 2 hours at Borders and I mostly read from the 700 but I went to compare it once more with the 505 displayed and again I do not understand how anyone can claim the 505 is fast compared with the 700. Nicer, slimmer, maybe, but fast??- to me there is a huge, huge difference in speeds. Maybe the display unit was not in the best shape, but it took forever to turn pages, move around and so on. Comparing with the almost instantaneous response of the 700 is like night and day...

Do you have the 505 as well? How do you feel about the 700's screen?
Do you like it so far?