LCD vs. e-ink

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ColdSun

I read in dark rooms a lot though, and a lot in bed. I've found that trying to use my Sony PRS-505 with a lamp is harder than using LCD, and my wife appreciates the light off as the LCD emits much less light. Plus, I actually do feel more strain to see my Sony in the dark than I do my LCD. This could be that I didn't have a good light to evenly light the surface of the screen, but you can see my point.

This is an area in which e-ink readers still have room for improvement. While reading an e-ink reader is a lot like reading paper, it's still like reading *greyish* paper. Which means, at least for me, that reading e-ink at night requires more illumination than a book would. Even with a pearl screen; while the increased contrast does make it easier to read by lamplight, it's still darker than paper. For me, changing to a brighter bulb in my reading light made all the difference - I think I went from 60w to 75w. Which would not be ideal if you didn't want to disturb the person next to you.

I have a might bright 2 clip on LCD light that works very well - but, for the same reason, I don't really like the kindle lighted cover; while the design is fantastic, really, I don't like how the illumination drops off at the far corner.

Of course I can *read* with a 60w bulb, or even with my Kindle cover. But both feel slightly dim and suboptimal.

[RockdaMan]

Epic. Awesomely written.

Originally Posted by ziegl027

I don't *think* I've ever contributed to one of these threads before, but my memory is poor so forgive me if I am repeating myself....

I hate cantaloupe. I've tried it any number of times in any number of recipes. I've tried it when people have assured me that the problem is not that I don't like cantaloupe, but the cantaloupes I have tried have been lousy supermarket melons. "Here, try my vine-ripened home-grown heirloom!". Blech. I hate cantaloupe badly enough that I dislike eating fruit salad that has cantaloupe in it, even if I do not eat the cantaloupe itself.

Does cantaloupe physically harm me? Of course not, it's a fine nutritious food.

Is the throat-closing queasy feeling I get when tasting it psychosomatic? I won't deny the possibility, but what am I supposed to do about it? Get hypnosis or psychotherapy sessions just so I can eat a fruit that is easily avoided?

Will I eat cantaloupe if I need to, if I'm in a social situation where I must to serve Miss Manners, or if I were in a hellish alternate universe where I was employed as a cantaloupe inspector? In such a universe might I become accostomed enough to the vile fruit to where it is not so repulsive? Well, I guess. But I for damn sure am not going to stop by the grocery on the way home to pick up a melon for dessert.

Does my hatred of cantaloupe stem from the marketing tactics of the papaya council brainswashing me? Don't be ridiculous.

I just don't like cantaloupe.

And it's really, really annoying to have people harping on me about "Why don't you like cantaloupe? Have you tried it prepared in "x" fashion? This one is delicious, take a bite!" for FORTY. FRIGGIN. YEARS.

You want cantaloupe, you can have it. Heck, I'll probably grow some in my garden next year because many people in my family do like cantaloupe. Somebody comes up with a cantaloupe that looks a lot like a cantaloupe and has the nutrition of a cantaloupe, but doesn't TASTE (supposedly--I'm looking at YOU, honeydew) like a cantaloupe, I'll give it a whirl.

But in the meantime I'll stick with papayas, thanks. Even if they are a little more expensive.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

When i was talking about books with illustrations i was also thinking about art books. Regarding these, i think that these books probably will be the ones less likely to be read in electronic devices, at least in the near future, due to its nature, (remember the unusual size of these books in the bookstores, the prolific colour, the detail in some pictures... and also the intended use, they seem made as to be a premium or luxury object not only a regular book) so as far as technology goes now i don't see a big migration from paper to electrons.

You are missing an entire class of publication: children's books. Depending on the age range, these may be predominantly illustration, and more often than not, involve color. There is an annual award to honor illustrators of such volumes called the Caldecott Award, named after 19th century illustrator Randolph Caldecott, and presented by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association.

An assortment of classic children's books have entered the public domain, and Project Gutenberg has HTML versions including illustrations by people like Caldecott, Arthur Rackham, and N. C. Wyeth. They reside happily in my ebook library, but I view them in color. 16 shade grayscale is simply not adequate.

We're starting to see development of a whole new class of "enhanced ebooks", aimed that the Juvenile/YA audience, and intended for platforms like the iPad.
______
Dennis

[ColdSun]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Epic. Awesomely written.

Goes both ways actually. Indeed, well written.

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

You are missing an entire class of publication: children's books. Depending on the age range, these may be predominantly illustration, and more often than not, involve color. There is an annual award to honor illustrators of such volumes called the Caldecott Award, named after 19th century illustrator Randolph Caldecott, and presented by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association.

An assortment of classic children's books have entered the public domain, and Project Gutenberg has HTML versions including illustrations by people like Caldecott, Arthur Rackham, and N. C. Wyeth. They reside happily in my ebook library, but I view them in color. 16 shade grayscale is simply not adequate.

We're starting to see development of a whole new class of "enhanced ebooks", aimed that the Juvenile/YA audience, and intended for platforms like the iPad.
______
Dennis

Hummm.... for some reason i think it will take some time until parents start giving away 200 dollar devices with very fragile screens to kids, instead of a good old paper book...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

Hummm.... for some reason i think it will take some time until parents start giving away 200 dollar devices with very fragile screens to kids, instead of a good old paper book...

Maybe they can put it behind reinforced security glass, and set to text-to-speech. And the color reader from PocketBook is only $139.

[lack]

To sum up, this debate has 2 separate points:
1, Is backlighted display causing eye strain for some people?
2, Is one technology has made the other technology's advancement stagnant?

for 1, I use LCD in work for 8-12 hours a day, and when I go back home I still use it for another 2-3 hrs or so. And I find it fine, But as soon as I started READING on it (re meaning: fire up a pdf or txt file and start reading-only mode) My sight was blurry and unable to focus properly after 2 hrs. And it is not a environment problem, since I have always take care in setting up brightness, contrast and others to match the environment I'm in.

In comparison, I get the same symptom if I read a book for exceeding 12 hours non-stop.

And that is why I stopped reading on my LCD devices.

My point is, the doctor on the linked cnet article missed the story as a whole. I believe some of the posters saying medical eye strain on LCD displays is a myth, BUT I also believe there is another factor which the doctor should have been researching instead, Is there is a difference of eye usage in the ACTION of READING compares to other viewing actions, and is there any relations of those factor regarding backlighted display?

For point 2, whoever is complaining, whoever can't take the complain and fights back, is being unprogressive themselves. any technology's advancement should be backed by market acceptances, not by hype alone. Saying one should die after another is just.. can't really put it to words..
Even the technology for niches deserve its own place of development, so why can't all just coexist?

I personally looking forward to seeing nook color(and, any LCD screen made specifically for reading) with my own eyes, and waiting for an avid reader who I can attest for his word for review. For now though, I'll settle for an e-ink screen.

@cold_sun: IMHO, engadget is good but the comments' are going downhill. I enjoyed them before, healthy dose of sarcasm and joke, and good facts hidden in, but the last couple of years it went horrible. I personally recommend not reading the stuffs you know is going to make the comments' section explodes.

[lack]

Sorry for only reading the first page the replying all too soon.
I see some of my points are already settled in the previous pages, and some even gives probable cause (thank you for your enlightening posts, sil_lis).
But glad that my post can still be said relevant *fiuh*

That aside, pros of an backlighted ereader compared to a non-backlighted one, IMHO is night reading mode - white on black!

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't know if this has ever been discussed here at MR before, but personally, I have a problem with information retention when reading from CRT and LCD displays. I find that I just don't remember as much afterwards compared to reading from paper (and now E-Ink). It's not really noticeable with light reading, but I do a fair bit of heavy, technical reading, and I can tell the difference there. I should say that I don't notice much eye strain when reading from CRT and LCD displays for long periods.

Has anyone here noticed anything similar?

CRT to LCD? Really?
Any difference between those 2 that I can think of as probable cause,
CRT has X-Ray radiation thing going on..
Older CRT has refresh rates lower than 60Hz..

But I am not a doctor so I can't testify that these things have anything to do with memory retention.

About any kind of interactive display vs books, IMO, is
1. the speed and amount of other information. Distraction is the keyword. But this factor is different each person, and in my case I get distracted much easily on front of a web-enabled devices
2. associative memory. each book is different so we can associate page color, touch feel, smell(if you are that kind of person, maybe), cover, etc with the content. Compared to that reading off of a LCD monitor probably don't stimulate other senses more. A reading device, I can't really say..

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by lack

CRT to LCD? Really?
Any difference between those 2 that I can think of as probable cause,
CRT has X-Ray radiation thing going on..
Older CRT has refresh rates lower than 60Hz..

CRTs emit a tiny bit of X-ray radiation, but nothing anywhere near any sort of harmful dose (I saw someone else say "the x-rays damage your eyes"). Totally unscientific and ridiculous. Every electronic device has *some* electromagnetic emissions.

CRTs have been 60hz + for like decades. It tended to be the bottom-end standard. You'd have to look high and low for a non-60HZ supporting CRT. Maybe on a Commodore 64?

I think it's pretty clear that backlit LCDs are harder on the eyes (especially in a dark room). But some people don't have any issues with them. I know CRTs could be hard on some people's eyes (higher refresh rates help). Personally I find LCDs harder on the eyes than a high-refresh-rate CRT (I use a 22.5" widescreen CRT @ 85hz) , but I don't expect everyone has the same reaction.

[lack]

I think I said "I can't testify that these things have anything to do with memory retention"

I'm in the same boat. I don't think moving from CRT to LCD has anything to do with it.

(I already said this) What I think is, any interactive display vs printed material.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by lack

I think I said "I can't testify that these things have anything to do with memory retention"

I'm in the same boat. I don't think moving from CRT to LCD has anything to do with it.

(I already said this) What I think is, any interactive display vs printed material.

Yes, I tried to say that I have the same slight information retention problem with both CRT and LCD displays. The problem is so subtle that I can't really quantify it, so I can't say relatively speaking which of CRT or LCD is worse for me. I only know that both are worse than paper or E-Ink when I read.

As far as x-rays go, they were already long gone when I was a student in the early 1980's (when such things were still actually checked by technicians). It's been a long time since the old "Radiation King" TV sets of the 1960's, and I can't see x-rays being a problem today.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by lack

To sum up, this debate has 2 separate points:
1, Is backlighted display causing eye strain for some people?
2, Is one technology has made the other technology's advancement stagnant?

for 1, I use LCD in work for 8-12 hours a day, and when I go back home I still use it for another 2-3 hrs or so. And I find it fine, But as soon as I started READING on it (re meaning: fire up a pdf or txt file and start reading-only mode) My sight was blurry and unable to focus properly after 2 hrs. And it is not a environment problem, since I have always take care in setting up brightness, contrast and others to match the environment I'm in.

On what device were you reading? A monitor or a dedicated device, 7" or smaller? I couldn't read from a monitor for any time longer than 5 minutes (book reading that is). I even find longer posts on forums a pain to read (and will often skip them). But I read without any problems on my 7" LCD JE-100.

[lack]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

On what device were you reading? A monitor or a dedicated device, 7" or smaller? I couldn't read from a monitor for any time longer than 5 minutes (book reading that is). I even find longer posts on forums a pain to read (and will often skip them). But I read without any problems on my 7" LCD JE-100.

On work, 17" LCD. My eyes is about 50 cm from the screen. At home, 15" laptop LCD, about 20-30 cm from screen.*

I was also reading in my nintendo ds lite with the same symptom, 2 hrs max. but more if I use it to play games.


In the coming end-of year holiday I am going to borrow my sis' iPad to test if I can read in extended time on it.


How come 7" is fine with you, but not a plain monitor? on what lighting conditions?*

[lack]

oh wow, I just got back from reading other sections' thought on the new color nook.
looks like I can understand coldsun getting pissed on e-ink users. I'm getting the vibe that some e-ink users dismisses the idea that lcd(or any backlighted display tech) can be a proper reading device completely.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by lack

On work, 17" LCD. My eyes is about 50 cm from the screen. At home, 15" laptop LCD, about 20-30 cm from screen.*

I was also reading in my nintendo ds lite with the same symptom, 2 hrs max. but more if I use it to play games.


In the coming end-of year holiday I am going to borrow my sis' iPad to test if I can read in extended time on it.


How come 7" is fine with you, but not a plain monitor? on what lighting conditions?*

Position. When I read on my device, I'm sitting comfortably on the couch, curled up in a chair, or laying in bed. Just like reading with a book. Behind a monitor, I'm sitting straight, in a "correct" computering position, so to speak. I can't move the monitor in a different position to it becomes more comfortable to read on, while I might switch position of my device (in relation to my eyes) several times.

Originally Posted by lack

oh wow, I just got back from reading other sections' thought on the new color nook.
looks like I can understand coldsun getting pissed on e-ink users. I'm getting the vibe that some e-ink users dismisses the idea that lcd(or any backlighted display tech) can be a proper reading device completely.

It's not only Coldsun...