600 ppi this year or next? Good ereader speculates

[binaryhermit]

"Not So" GoodEReader, the National Enquirer of the ebook news industry.

That said, I don't think we're going above 300 ppi anytime soon, let alone 600.

For me, the cost-benefit ratio is a very important factor in e-reader upgrades. I like an e-reader because it's an example of a single-use tool that does one thing and does it well. I like the absence of backlighting and the absence of distractions caused by multifunctionality. When I just want to read, nothing beats an e-reader. But that doesn't mean I want to spend as much on a single-purpose tool as I would on a phone. That's a major reason why I didn't buy a Forma - for less than $150 more, I can replace my aging phone with a powerfully-spec'd 6.4 inch Android 8.1 device. So any improvements to e-reader screens, for me at least, would need to come without a massive blowout in price. I could not justify spending more than around $200US as an absolute maximum for an e-reader, and if that means sticking with ~300dpi, I'm fine with that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

...and both had a resolution of 265ppi, not 248.

Whatever. My point still stands: that pixel density has shown an incremental increase; it's never doubled at one fell swoop, and there's absolutely no reason to expect it to do so in the next year.

[JeanPierre]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whatever. My point still stands: that pixel density has shown an incremental increase; it's never doubled at one fell swoop, and there's absolutely no reason to expect it to do so in the next year.

The subject article mentions that 500 and 600 ppi is what e-ink display manufacturers are making, I remember reading the following in 2017: https://goodereader.com/blog/e-paper...screen-in-2019

E-reader manufacturers will have to use the parts they can get a hold of, won't they? Have you seen any mention of screens with pixel densities between 300 and 500 ppi? I haven't been following e-reader hardware progress diligently, so I couldn't say myself.

As for pixel densities never doubling in one fell swoop, that seems to be true for e-readers, but didn't Apple do just that when they introduced retina displays for the iPhone, iPad and Macbook Pros?

With all that said, I don't expect the jump to 600 ppi to happen soon, but I personally had been thinking, for the reasons given above, that this will be the next jump: directly from 300 to 600 ppi.

Your post bursts my bubble somewhat, but I think 300 ppi is plenty for me anyway

[Philippe D.]

The ereader industry somehow faces a difficulty: where other tech industries tend to have frequent opportunities to introduce a "new version" of their products (bigger, better, and so on), ereaders, when they don't break down, tend to be rather long-lived tech items. I mean, I wouldn't want to change my reader for a new model unless the older one had broken down (which happened to me about a year ago) - there aren't enough new features for me to change.

Announcing higher resolutions is a standard marketing trick, but as we've seen here, it's unlikely to be the killing factor that makes users buy a new reader. As has been said before, ereaders are one-trick devices that typically do only one thing, but do it pretty well, and increasing their resolution doesn't really improve much on how well they are doing their job.

When last I had to choose an ereader, the DPI was absolutely not a factor for my choice. Real factors were screen size, weight, ease of use, practical aspects of the sleep cover I could buy with it. Software quality would have been an important factor, if I could have found reliable information on it. DPI? I can't see the difference from one device to the next, so, no, not a factor.

[sydmalicious]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

"Not So" GoodEReader, the National Enquirer of the ebook news industry.

That said, I don't think we're going above 300 ppi anytime soon, let alone 600.

Fair. But I’m really new to GoodEreader so I shared the link. I found it interesting, at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JeanPierre

As for pixel densities never doubling in one fell swoop, that seems to be true for e-readers, but didn't Apple do just that when they introduced retina displays for the iPhone, iPad and Macbook Pros?

Doubling makes a lot of sense for phones/tablets, as it means that all existing apps can be made to work the same as before, by just doubling pixels.
That isn't really a big consideration for eReaders.

[mikij1]

Originally Posted by sydmalicious

Will We See 500 or 600 PPI e-Paper Displays in 2019 or 2020?

I don’t know if it is necessary but the commenters suggested that it is contrast that needs to improve not the resolution. A guy in the comments argued you can’t really discern the difference in resolution from 300 ppi to 600 ppi as the human eye isn’t capable of seeing those details. Perhaps, but I have the iPhone XS Max and latest iPad Pro and it seems much of those displays are noticeably crisper than my 1st gen iPad Pro and iPhone 8 Plus.

What do you think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Contrast is more important. No doubt. E ink background is too dark without light direct or frontlight system...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JeanPierre

The subject article mentions that 500 and 600 ppi is what e-ink display manufacturers are making, I remember reading the following in 2017: https://goodereader.com/blog/e-paper...screen-in-2019

Seriously? You're supporting a story on an unreliable site by linking to another story on the same unreliable site?

[HLS]

I was looking at my 221 ppi Aura next to my 300ppi ereaders and oddly it looked better and crisper. I don't know why

[JeanPierre]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seriously? You're supporting a story on an unreliable site by linking to another story on the same unreliable site?

Do your research before you take a tone like that, or you'll find your input dismissed as casually as you dismissed the story I linked, and with cause.

https://www.j-display.com/english/ne.../20170522.html

[Barty]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It will win on image quality and lack of burn-in.

At this point I'm not sure OLED will ever deliver on all the hype. Certainly not before microLED is commercially viable.



And I do think it will be cost competitive with eink, which is what's relevant.

OLED has delivered on the hype. It has flaws inherent to the technology, burn in and pixel aging over time (though long enough for it not to be a real issue), but it's pretty much delivered on the promises, mainly perfect zero black. It's just not the ultimate be all and end all display technology.

Eink still has the advantages of low power usage and sunlight readability. If microled can deliver there, it'll be a great replacement.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by kcladyz

I was looking at my 221 ppi Aura next to my 300ppi ereaders and oddly it looked better and crisper. I don't know why

I don't really know why either but I would think it is likely mainly because of the poor contrast of eink displays, that due to both the current display technology and their being reflective. Increasing the "pixel" density will help blacken the blacks and that will in turn make the fonts denser and appear "crisper" against the background.

EDIT: On a reread maybe you mean the Aura was crisper? If so I could only imagine it would be a better font or a better contrast display compared to the others. But, in the general case, my original comments stands in that I would expect for eink higher ppi would likely enable darker fonts.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by JeanPierre

The subject article mentions that 500 and 600 ppi is what e-ink display manufacturers are making, I remember reading the following in 2017: https://goodereader.com/blog/e-paper...screen-in-2019

Originally Posted by JeanPierre

Do your research before you take a tone like that, or you'll find your input dismissed as casually as you dismissed the story I linked, and with cause.

Sorry, but I was as baffled as @HarryT. The link you gave before, and I quoted again, was to another article on GoodEreader. To be honest, the article that this thread is about, just feels like a replay of the of the one you linked to. So, using the first article as support for the second, doesn't seem right. Plus, the date on it is September 2018, not 2017 as you stated. That also makes me question things.

https://www.j-display.com/english/ne.../20170522.html

Did you mean to post this link in your first post? If so, that would explain our confusion.

That link also feels like it might be the only source of information that GoodEReader are using. It is where the images came from. If so, it doesn't inspire confidence if in them as it took 14 months to comment, and they feel the need to repeat themselves only four months later. And in both just feel like a repeat of that press release. But, in this case, maybe we are being a bit harsh. The articles are just speculation on a possibility. That press release does support the existence of e-ink screens at these resolutions. And if they exist, someone will eventually use them. The questions are really when, how much they will cost, and how much better they will actually be over the current screens and devices.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by davidfor

That press release does support the existence of e-ink screens at these resolutions.

I don’t think that we can reach that conclusion, unfortunately. The press release says that they were starting to be developed in 2017, not that the development led to a commercial product (most development projects don't) or that it's still ongoing today.