TCL NXTPAPER Ultra 60

[norweger]

Anyone who's got experiences with this device. How does it hold up to real e-ink for eye strain?

[rowe]

I haven't tried the 60 Ultra, but have had Nxtpaper 3, Nxtpaper 4, and lots of e-ink devices.

Nxtpaper 3 wasn't very good IMO (I had the TCL 40). Not much better than putting a matte screen protector on a regular device. Temporal dithering, poor screen clarity, and generally low-end hardware.

Nxtpaper 4 is a significant step up (I had the 11+). Nice micro-etched glass surface and no temporal dithering if the gimmicky epaper/nxtvision features are switched off. But other than the screen Nxtpaper devices until the Ultra 60 have been held back by low budget components elsewhere e.g. very slow processors and terrible speakers. The Ultra 60 looks really promising and the early reviews I've read have been good, including testing for flicker.

Still no comparison to e-ink for reading comfort IMO as they're not bistable and the lighting is direct. The Nxtpaper 4 displays are very good compared to conventional screens for comfort though.

I'm disappointed they've gone for the low end of the market again with the 8" tablet they've just announced. That's my ideal form factor, but I'd only buy another TCL with an 'Ultra' type spec.

[Quoth]

I'm not recognising your descriptions, @rowe. Nxtpaper 3 is fine and eink is only better if the front light is off.

There is no difference at the same light level to reflected LEDs and rear lighting using LEDs.

The various epaper settings and enhancedments all make Nxtpaper devices worse. Best is with every gimmick off, and the non-default sRGB mode. Adjust colour balance, UI accent and brightness to suit. Then there is no temporal dither, glare, shine or flicker.

If an eink reader or Nxtpaper "white" is brighter than ordinary paper in lighting good enough to read paper, then it's too bright.

I've a Nxtpaper 40 4G, 50 5G, regular 11 and regular 14. My modern eink ereaders are only better if in decent reading light with the front light off.

I read novels at home on a Kobo Sage, and "on the go" on the Nxtpaper 50 5G (zero eye strain). Colour or large PDFs on the 11 or 14. The 11 is a bit nicer for notes/writing and 14 for PDF magazines. Most recent illustrated fixed layout novels are the Last Hero and Eric from Pratchett.

I'd not heard of the Ultra 60 or 8".

[rowe]

'Reflected light is not the same as direct light at a cellular level'
T.H. Chan Harvard School of Public Health
https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...1002/jsid.1191

A peer-reviewed study designed to measure the biological stress placed on retinal cells found a quantifiable difference between the technologies. Concluding that "cells accumulated ROS [Reactive Oxidative Species] two to three times more slowly on exposure to frontlit electronic paper displays compared to backlit liquid crystal displays."

This means that even at a comparable brightness, the light from a backlit LCD induces significantly more stress. It found that eink devices can be used three times as long as an LCD before reaching the same level of stress in retinal cells.

The thought of equivalency at the 'same light level' ignores the reality of variable ambient light. A reflective display works in harmony with its environment. It does not compete with ambient light, it uses it as its primary source of illumination. The optional front light supplements this preserving a reflected-light experience unless it is the primary source of light.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rowe

'Reflected light is not the same as direct light at a cellular level'
T.H. Chan Harvard School of Public Health
https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...1002/jsid.1191

And that's bogus science.

The thought of equivalency at the 'same light level' ignores the reality of variable ambient light. A reflective display works in harmony with its environment. It does not compete with ambient light, it uses it as its primary source of illumination. The optional front light supplements this preserving a reflected-light experience unless it is the primary source of light.

Only true if ambient light is good enough to read with the front light off. The phrase "harmony with its environment" is a loaded and emotional phrase, not science. What is true is that the brightness and colour temperature match the ambient light perfectly on eink, if the front light is off.

So, yes with no front light and good ambient light then eink is nicer. There is no eye strain at all on any decent resolution and contrast screen that has true matte surface. It happens that most eink have a matt surface and most everything else has a very shiny surface. Matt screens have been available for nearly 50 years, but cost more, because the headache inducing nature of the unconscious re-focusing on the reflection (typically x5 distance) causes eyestrain / headaches. This is known science. Not bogus woo-woo.

[Quoth]

The TCL Nxtpaper 60 Ultra seems to be simply a larger (7.2″) version of the TCL Nxtpaper 50 with the disadvantage of no micro SD card slot. It's twice the price.

The so-called epaper gimmicks on Nxtpaper are gimmicks that reduce the display quality and readability. The epaper switch on some models is annoying. I may put a piece of "blu-tack" to stop it getting moved.

Any smartphone in the last 27 years could have had a Nxtpaper-like screen (and smart phones pre-date the iPhone by about 9 years).

[Quoth]

I don't see an 8″ Nxtpaper tablet. TCL has always had smaller ordinary Android tablets and was the maker of Alcatel phones from the beginning of Alcatel selling mobile/cell phones. They also make panels up to TV size.

[rowe]

It's interesting that a study published in a peer-reviewed journal is dismissed as "bogus", while some extreme claims aren't being accompanied by sources.

'The phrase "harmony with its environment" is a loaded and emotional phrase, not science.'
It's a descriptive phrase for a physical reality. A reflective screen uses ambient light so its brightness is naturally proportional to its environment, like paper. An emissive screen generates its own light that must be adjusted to compete with ambient light. This is a functional difference, not emotional.

'Only true if ambient light is good enough to read with the front light off.'
A front light diffuses light over a reflective surface, which is fundamentally different from a backlight that projects light directly into your eyes. The study cited made its comparison using front-lit e-paper, and it still found that retinal cells accumulated stress two to three times more slowly compared to backlit LCDs. The benefit isn't nullified the moment a front light is switched on.

'There is no eye strain at all on any decent resolution and contrast screen that has true matte surface. It happens that most eink have a matt surface and most everything else has a very shiny surface. Matt screens have been available for nearly 50 years, but cost more, because the headache inducing nature of the unconscious re-focusing on the reflection (typically x5 distance) causes eyestrain / headaches. This is known science. Not bogus woo-woo.'
This assumes there is only one cause for a complex problem.

While it is true that reflections on glossy screens can contribute to eye strain, this is not the only factor (or even the primary factor for many people). Attributing all screen-related eye strain to this single issue is an oversimplification.

A matte finish on a backlit LCD screen scatters surface reflections. It does nothing to change the fundamental nature of the light source. The screen is still an emissive panel, actively projecting light directly into the eyes. This is different from an e-ink screen, which is a reflective surface that you view using ambient light (like paper).

Some "known science" about reflections does not invalidate the findings regarding biological stress caused by emissive light. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. Many factors contribute to digital eye strain, including PWM/FRC flicker. Or the simple, physical difference between looking at a light source versus looking at an illuminated object. A matte screen does not solve the whole problem.

The 'Ultra' model is more than "simply a larger version" of the previous Nxtpaper phones. The change in spec difference is between a budget, entry-level device and a proper mid-range one.

The new 8" Nxtpaper tablet: https://www.theverge.com/news/786479...roid-15-tablet

[Quoth]

'Only true if ambient light is good enough to read with the front light off.'
A front light diffuses light over a reflective surface, which is fundamentally different from a backlight that projects light directly into your eyes.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.
1. A backlight also uses a lightpipe / diffuser. Many LCD panels are actually edge lit
2. Light of the similar spectrum and brightness is identical even if it was "projected directly into your eyes", which only a laser would do.

The OLED, CRT, Plasma and rare actual LED displays are directly emissive and there is no difference from indirect light reflected of paper if the brightness is the same. It's reflections of objects on the screen acting like a mirror that cause eye strain. Just because something is in a journal doesn't automatically make it be true or real science.

And an eink screen with frontlight, especially a Kaleido one, is not using ambient light.

Please stop repeating nonsense.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rowe

The 'Ultra' model is more than "simply a larger version" of the previous Nxtpaper phones. The change in spec difference is between a budget, entry-level device and a proper mid-range one.

Unless you play 3D games or something, the increased spec means nothing to most users. For most people the Nxtpaper 50 isn't an entry level device. Cheap (€200 to €260 depending on Flash storage) doesn't mean entry level. The 60 Ultra for most people is simply a bigger phone that costs twice as much, though still cheap compared to some high profit margin models.

Originally Posted by rowe

The new 8" Nxtpaper tablet: https://www.theverge.com/news/786479...roid-15-tablet

Thanks for the link. I see there are still the bogus claims on blue light (from phones etc being harmful, original claims flawed) and that TCL is pushing the worthless gimmicks of the color and mono epaper modes which actually degrade the performance. Silly marketing, but I suppose it might make extra sales. Everyone I've shown the modes to agrees they are a pointless gimmick and worse than the sRGB mode with adjusted brightness.

The Nxtpaper Tab8 is claimed to be 8.7″ on that review, though it doesn't mention aspect ratio. Unless it's 4:3 it's poorer than an 8" 4:3 for reading.
It only mentions a Cell/Mobile enabled version.

EDIT
https://www.tcl.com/us/en/products/m...-8-nxtpaper-5g
From the TCL site
Aspect 16:10
ppi/DPI 180


So not so good for reading as the resolution is a bit low (Kindle Basic used to be 167 dpi) and aspect ratio is wrong.
It's only good for people wanting an 8" +size tablet for general portable usage.

See also
https://liliputing.com/tcl-tab-8-nxt...ay-technology/

It's OK for an entry level tablet with Cell/Mobile, but currently only USA Verizon. Likely there will later be a version with no Cell/Mobile modem/SIM.
Bad idea as an ereader compared to an 8″ Kobo Sage. If you need to read in colour it's likely too small.

[rowe]

Sure, modern LCDs use diffusers. The fundamental difference is the path the light takes to reach your eye.

With a backlit LCD light travels from the source, through various layers, and is projected out of the screen towards you. Essentially looking at a complex, filtered light bulb.

With a front-lit reflective screen like e-ink the light source illuminates the surface, and what is seen is that light reflecting off it. In a normal room, seeing a mix of ambient light and the device's own light bouncing off a passive surface just like reading a book under a lamp. That's the core distinction between viewing an emissive object and a reflective one.

The location of the LEDs in an edge-lit display is to make screens thinner, but it doesn't change the final path of the light. The entire purpose of the edge-lighting system is to use a guide plate to distribute the light evenly across the back of the panel. The end result is the same as any other backlight: the whole screen becomes an emissive surface that projects light through the pixels directly at your eyes.

I agree that some people are happy with budget hardware. However, expecting a device to feel responsive across a wide range of tasks isn't a niche requirement anymore, it's a mainstream expectation. The processors on the non-Ultra Nxtpaper devices I've owned were very low-end - struggling with video playback that my other devices handled easily. And the speakers were genuinely awful. Mid-range tablets with twice the processing power are available at much less than twice the price and better all round hardware. There's popular high end tablets with more than x10 the processing power, excellent all round hardware and better screen surfaces options (but expensive).

'Thanks for the link. I see there are still the bogus claims on blue light (from phones etc being harmful, original claims flawed) and that TCL is pushing the worthless gimmicks of the color and mono epaper modes which actually degrade the performance. Silly marketing, but I suppose it might make extra sales. Everyone I've shown the modes to agrees they are a pointless gimmick and worse than the sRGB mode with adjusted brightness.'
Totally agree. TCL marketing for Nxtpaper has always been intentionally misleading, which is a shame now they've started to release some genuinely good devices.