Can you read complete books on an LCD screens?

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

For anyone with eye problems that require a larger font, I suggest the Kobo Forma with an 8" screen. It's going to be better then the Oasis or Libra at 7". The larger the size you need, the better the 8" screen is vs the 7" screen.

I highly recommend swapping out the Oasis for a Forma.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[kyteflyer]

Voted yes. I’m short sighted, and like others cannot stand the bright light of an LCD screen in the dark. This is why I use a dark background, with tinted text (definitely NOT white). I mostly read in bed and a phone screen is small enough to hold in one hand. I can’t do that with my Kindle, Kobo, or PRS650. All that said, if that new Xiaomi reader turns up with a full English UI, then I could easily go e-ink instead. But, I *can* and do read full books on my phone and ipad.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by kyteflyer

I mostly read in bed and a phone screen is small enough to hold in one hand. I can’t do that with my Kindle, Kobo, or PRS650. All that said, if that new Xiaomi reader turns up with a full English UI, then I could easily go e-ink instead. But, I *can* and do read full books on my phone and ipad.

Hmmm... my phone weighs in at 189 grams while my Kobo Forma weighs in 197 grams, a truly massive 8 gram weight difference. I can easily hold the Forma one handed while using my thumb to trigger the page forward button. Admittedly, I have used on hand to hold all my Kobos since the original unit with it's D-pad. I can use my phone one handed but since it lacks dedicated page turn buttons, it's not as convenient.

For screen size, my phone has a 2532 pixel x 1170 pixel vs. 1920 pixel x 1440 pixel for my Forma though the Forma's 3:4 aspect ratio 8" diagonal screen gives me decent line lengths (3.8" width) compared to the phones 9:19.5 aspect ratio 6.1" diagonal screen and it's 2.5" width

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by kacir

A photon arriving at your retina that originated in a backlight LED is indistinguishable from the one that originated in a LED reading lamp and was reflected to your eye from an e-ink display.

There are things wrong with this statement, but I will focus on one point: if the properties of the light coming from LCD and e-ink are exactly the same, then why do so many eyes react so differently to them?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Requests a third option -

Yes, I can, but would not if I had another option.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

There are things wrong with this statement, but I will focus on one point: if the properties of the light coming from LCD and e-ink are exactly the same, then why do so many eyes react so differently to them?

I'm not entirely convinced that lumen for lumen, they DO react differently (on the average).

You want to talk about sensitivity to color spectrum and/or refresh-rate/flicker, that's one thing. But the idea that there's no difference between photons striking the eye from an indirect lighting source and photons striking the eye at the same intensity from a direct lighting source is quite sound.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not entirely convinced that lumen for lumen, they DO react differently (on the average).

You want to talk about sensitivity to color spectrum and/or refresh-rate/flicker, that's one thing. But the idea that there's no difference between photons striking the eye from an indirect lighting source and photons striking the eye at the same intensity from a direct lighting source is quite sound.

I find it hard to believe that aprox 50% of poll responders are unable to read books comfortably on LCD because they cannot adequately adjust the brightness. Maybe that's not what you meant?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

There are things wrong with this statement, but I will focus on one point: if the properties of the light coming from LCD and e-ink are exactly the same, then why do so many eyes react so differently to them?

A few points related to this:

The LCD screens we will be discussing here (PC screens, phones and tablets) are colour. With three channels to manage, producing clean blacks and whites has, historically, caused lots of problems. It is much better now than it was, but I can still tell you that very low brightness levels on my desktop LCD screens definitely cause poor contrast. I've done lots of testing with colour charts etc. and 16% brightness is as low as my desktop screens can go before they lose the ability to display the full range of colours/shades. I see the same effect on my phone.

e-ink also suffers from reduced contrast at lower brightness levels, but as a monochrome display I suspect there will be differences in how the device and the eye react. But comparison is difficult.

I set up my DSLR as a primitive light meter (fixed aperture read the shutter speed). In the same light setting, allowing my phone and my e-reader to auto-select the what they think is the right brightness, and the phone chooses twice as bright (2x faster shutter speed).

Lots of salt needed with that, but I think it does highlight that at the very least the two devices are tuned to different purposes. A colour LCD display is tuned to be able to continue to produce colour, so will typically (it seems) choose brighter levels in order to do that effectively.

I'd also throw into the mix the possibility that LCD refresh rates might be more of an issue at very low brightness levels. (Just guessing.)

I'd also add that colour vs monochrome runs into differences regarding the effect of pixel density. These days both types of screen are of a quality where this should be less of a problem, but certainly the raw specs should not be used for comparison.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I find it hard to believe that aprox 50% of poll responders are unable to read books comfortably on LCD because they cannot adequately adjust the brightness. Maybe that's not what you meant?

I find it perfectly believable that a very large portion of approximately 50% of poll responders have failed to adjust the brightness to a level to read comfortably. Some being due to device inadequacies and some being due to their own. I also believe a not tiny portion responded in a way that simply confirmed a bill of goods they were sold with early eink advertising and have never even tried reading a novel on something other than a phone or an eink device in a long time.

I do believe there are people who have conditions/sensitivities that can be adversely affected by LCD screens/monitors, but I also think those numbers are smaller in the wider world than what Mobile Read polls often tend to indicate.

That's not to say I think more people should admit to being able read books just fine on LCD devices (let alone that they should indeed read on LCD at all). It only means I'm tired of the combination of pseudo-science and advertising that gets trotted out as some sort of incontrovertible evidence that Eink is objectively "better" for Reading™.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It only means I'm tired of the combination of pseudo-science and advertising that gets trotted out as some sort of incontrovertible evidence that Eink is objectively "better" for Reading™.

I'm tired of the "they just don't know how to adjust brightness" argument that also gets trotted out every time in this discussion. And I find it condescending at the least and even mildly insulting. (Yes, I know you didn't mean specifically me, but still).

I don't think eink is objectively better for everyone. But it certainly is for me and no, that's not because I've never tried to read on anything else or because I've been hypnotized by advertising. I've used LCD devices for 25 years and eink for 10, so I think I'm pretty well informed which of them feels better for reading - to ME. Note I'm not saying it should feel better to you.

[JSWolf]

It's not only the brightness, but the colors. I do believe that som can find black text on a white background to be harsh. While changing the brightness can help, so can changing the colors.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's not only the brightness, but the colors. I do believe that som can find black text on a white background to be harsh. While changing the brightness can help, so can changing the colors.

I've tried many color combinations, but any color on a dark background just feels bad for my eyes. For me, the text must be darker than the background. And no matter the colors, eink still feels more comfortable. I've gotten headaches from spending too much time at LCD screens, even with dimmers, warm lights and all. I've never gotten a headache from eink.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don't think eink is objectively better for everyone. But it certainly is for me and no, that's not because I've never tried to read on anything else or because I've been hypnotized by advertising. I've used LCD devices for 25 years and eink for 10, so I think I'm pretty well informed which of them feels better for reading - to ME. Note I'm not saying it should feel better to you.

Which is exactly why I have no problem with your comments. You're not trying to perpetuate the myth that eink is objectively better for everyone like some do.

[crane3]

I find that AOLED is a bit better for reading, but think that it is that the text is blacker on a sepia background. On an e-ink, I need the text to be "fatter" but bold is too fat.

Anyway, each person's eye is supposed to be quite different as else why techies tout the use of the eye biometrics as a prime identification of a person. It is like using face recognition or even fingerprints for identification is not perfect; heck, last time when I had to renew my driver's license, DMV was not able to certify my identity as the thumb print was not recognizable by the computer biometrics; had to use the old fashioned method for verification to take the written test.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I'm tired of the "they just don't know how to adjust brightness" argument that also gets trotted out every time in this discussion. And I find it condescending at the least and even mildly insulting. (Yes, I know you didn't mean specifically me, but still).

Which is why I didn't use it any sort of blanket manner. I merely suggested that it applies to some and not all. I also acknowledged that for some, it may actually be a device limitation and not their own. So I fail to see why you would feel mildly insulted for being one of those who fall through the very large cracks I purposely left in my very non-all-encompassing statement.