My Oasis has splotchier lighting than any early Paperwhite or Voyage I've seen.

[silverraven]

Thanks for the answers, and thanks for the pictures. They really do show just how far we have come with lighting!
And, in case anyone cares, I do not own a front lit reader. I'm still using my trusty K4NT with an m-edge light. One of these days I'll get brave enough to try something new.
S

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Amazon needs to figure out how Kobo got it so right with the Aura H2O. It's amazing how a $290 device manages to be worse off on lighting tech than a $180 device from 2014. Amazon were close to catching up to Kobo with the Voyage, but they seem to have regressed with the Oasis.

They are two different things, the H2O uses IR touch screen, while the Oasis uses capacitive. The latter requires another layer on top of the screen as well as the light guide, whereas the former doesn't. As well as any other different tech two completely different companies use.

Kobo's attempt at a capacitive touch screen ereader was the standard Aura and its issues have already been discussed earlier in this thread.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

They are two different things, the H2O uses IR touch screen, while the Oasis uses capacitive. The latter requires another layer on top of the screen as well as the light guide, whereas the former doesn't. As well as any other different tech two completely different companies use.

Kobo's attempt at a capacitive touch screen ereader was the standard Aura and its issues have already been discussed earlier in this thread.

And that's precisely what I mean when I say that Amazon need to learn from Kobo.

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

And that's precisely what I mean when I say that Amazon need to learn from Kobo.

I thought the general understanding was that IR touchscreens were terrible due to lack of responsiveness and low accuracy? (though, as a compensatory benefit, you can use them with gloves on).

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by NullNix

I thought the general understanding was that IR touchscreens were terrible due to lack of responsiveness and low accuracy? (though, as a compensatory benefit, you can use them with gloves on).

If you're a note-taker, yes. They're slower to highlight and type in your notes.

For 99% of the most commonly used functions by regular consumers of e-reading (book selection, page turning, press to look up word in dictionary), infra-red screens are more than adequate.

Is the capacitive screen trade-off of inferior lighting (at night) and milky screen (by daylight) worth it to provide better note-taking? Personally, I prefer peace of mind while reading and frustration when highlighting to peace of mind when highlighting and frustration while reading. YMMV.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by NullNix

I thought the general understanding was that IR touchscreens were terrible due to lack of responsiveness and low accuracy? (though, as a compensatory benefit, you can use them with gloves on).

My Basic Kindle 7th Generation has an IR touchscreen, and it's plenty responsive and accurate. I've noticed no difference whatsoever between it and my Voyage's capacitive touchscreen (I've not tried to take notes on either one, mind).

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Is the capacitive screen trade-off of inferior lighting (at night) and milky screen (by daylight) worth it to provide better note-taking? Personally, I prefer peace of mind while reading and frustration when highlighting to peace of mind when highlighting and frustration while reading. YMMV.

I don't have any frontlit e-reader with an IR screen, so I can't compare the lighting. The only frontlit reader I have is the Voyage, and while I admit its lighting is not the best there is, its screen is not the least bit milky. I've heard that the Paperwhite's screen can be milky, but I don't know if it's true or not.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Amazon needs to figure out how Kobo got it so right with the Aura H2O. It's amazing how a $290 device manages to be worse off on lighting tech than a $180 device from 2014. Amazon were close to catching up to Kobo with the Voyage, but they seem to have regressed with the Oasis.

And the H2O only has 5 LEDs at the bottom. And yet it works very well.

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And the H2O only has 5 LEDs at the bottom. And yet it works very well.

But it has the other sort of touch screen (see just previous posts). So some of us like Kindles, and some of us like Kobos. That's why we allow competition!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Is the capacitive screen trade-off of inferior lighting (at night) and milky screen (by daylight) worth it to provide better note-taking? Personally, I prefer peace of mind while reading and frustration when highlighting to peace of mind when highlighting and frustration while reading. YMMV.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to a "milky screen". The Voyage, which has a capacitive touchscreen, certainly doesn't have a milky screen. It has the highest contrast and clearest screen of any eink device I've owned.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to a "milky screen". The Voyage, which has a capacitive touchscreen, certainly doesn't have a milky screen. It has the highest contrast and clearest screen of any eink device I've owned.

My comparison of the Voyage is made with the Aura H2O and the older generation non-touch Kindle Keyboard, both of which have clearer screens in a side-by-side comparison. In all fairness, the Voyage has a pretty good screen if one does not perform the comparison, and is definitely not as egregious as the Paperwhite, whose milkiness has always been apparent to me even without a side-by-side comparison.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

My comparison of the Voyage is made with the Aura H2O and the older generation non-touch Kindle Keyboard, both of which have clearer screens in a side-by-side comparison. In all fairness, the Voyage has a pretty good screen if one does not perform the comparison, and is definitely not as egregious as the Paperwhite, whose milkiness has always been apparent to me even without a side-by-side comparison.

I certainly didn't find that my H2O had a clearer screen than my Voyage. Both were equally excellent. Perhaps it's just a case of variation between individual eink screens? We know that such variations exist.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I got a second Oasis. The lightning is a little better, but there are still more shadows on the edge than I was expecting. Mostly because the first had one extra-bright light in the upper right hand corner which is really distracting. At least the lights are of more similar brightness on the second one.

However the second one has a tiny pinhole in the text area. I will have to read on it and see if it is distracting. Overall I'm very disappointed in the screen. It may be whiter than my Voyage, but I still think my Voyage has more uniform lightning and less shadows than either Oasis and my older Paperwhites. I was hoping for an improvement and not a step backwards in my opinion.

[Kolja]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

I got a second Oasis. The lightning is a little better, but there are still more shadows on the edge than I was expecting. Mostly because the first had one extra-bright light in the upper right hand corner which is really distracting. At least the lights are of more similar brightness on the second one.

However the second one has a tiny pinhole in the text area. I will have to read on it and see if it is distracting. Overall I'm very disappointed in the screen. It may be whiter than my Voyage, but I still think my Voyage has more uniform lightning and less shadows than either Oasis and my older Paperwhites. I was hoping for an improvement and not a step backwards in my opinion.

I'm sorry to hear this. I too was hoping for a better screen on my 2nd Oasis which I don't have yet. Right now my Voyage has a better screen than my Oasis and if the 2nd one isn't better it looks like the Voyage will be the Kindle I keep for the next year.

[Barty]

Hmm, I wonder how the oasis has a whiter screen if the voyage also uses Carta. If you turn off the light on both, does the oasis' background appear whiter? In the dark, does the oasis' light appear bluer?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

If you're a note-taker, yes. They're slower to highlight and type in your notes.

For 99% of the most commonly used functions by regular consumers of e-reading (book selection, page turning, press to look up word in dictionary), infra-red screens are more than adequate.

Is the capacitive screen trade-off of inferior lighting (at night) and milky screen (by daylight) worth it to provide better note-taking? Personally, I prefer peace of mind while reading and frustration when highlighting to peace of mind when highlighting and frustration while reading. YMMV.

Sorry, but for me, the IR screen just doesn't work. I get page turns when I don't want them, and no page turns when I want them.

I am on the latest firmware, and I was reading in bed a few nights ago on my Aura HD and every time I moved the page turned. Then, when I tried to go back to my page, it froze up on me and wouldn't do anything for a minute or two.

I know that others absolutely love the IR touch, but for me, it's just one frustration after another.

Shari