Engadget: iRiver Story HD preview

[brbubba]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

not really...

if you had been around longer or read more threads about fonts on various readers you would appreciate not all fonts are created equal nor are the same fonts equal on readers of even the same types (as in all devices using a given EPD display from the same maker have exactly the same specs so it is the firmware that handles the actual rendering and this is where the differences lie.) So some fonts, in fact many native device fonts are very poorly constructed. So if you hack the font or have the option to use a different font you can find one optimized for your reader's native resolution and w/o the jaggies common on so many fonts.

Higher resolution "can" result in cleaner font edges but not if the font is not optimized for that display size and resolution. And everyone will view the font differently so there is no sweeping "fact" that a given font is good or bad only that a given font/resolution/screen size works for a specific individual. We all see things differently so any argument to insist on being "right" is like pounding sand...you get nowhere and only drag more sand where you are pounding to undo whatever progress you think you are making.

Also, resolution can be a red-herring in that higher resolution on the same display without proper scaling in firmware to render those fonts will only provide sharper but SMALLER text and images. This is due to the same font weight being used thus requiring the same number of pixels. These pixels on the higher resolution display are naturally smaller than those on a lower resolution screen. This needs be accounted for in firmware and not all brands of reader makers undertake to ensure this is addressed to give the crispest fonts possible at all sizes. So buyers need to beware and remember to see actually devices or photos (screen captures on the device do not work as they are converted into optimized GIF's so everything looks perfect compared to the real photo.)

That may be the case, but even the 650 vs the 350 exhibits the same problem that the Nook and Kindle have. I can't imagine Sony would do it right on one device and not on the other one when they have so much in common.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by screwballl

The font may be one that the Kindle may not display well but does on the Sony... same goes for the opposite. I prefer to let the Kindle keep a uniform default font for all my books, if I notice one book has a problematic font, I use calibre to convert it, remove text formatting and use the default which works much better for my usage and preference.

Resolution in pixels (like an LCD) is a completely different animal than eink, so therefore cannot really be directly compared.

yup, I hacked the font on my Kindles to use a combination of several fonts all of which exhibit zero jaggies. But like you I really like the consistency of having all books use the same font for the different paragraph styles as I find I notice fonts more on a reader than in a book for some reason. Maybe I notice just because I know it can be changed? Sort of the answer to the question of why a dog licks his...well, you know...it's because they can!!

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by brbubba

That may be the case, but even the 650 vs the 350 exhibits the same problem that the Nook and Kindle have. I can't imagine Sony would do it right on one device and not on the other one when they have so much in common.

dude...it's SONY, a company who's so compartmentalized no division knows what the folks in the "grupicle" next to theirs is doing. So no surprise there at all...Sony is pretty internally cutthroat during the best of times and the execs only care about maximum profit anymore. They will even ax a group or division because while it is earning a profit it's not enough of a profit. Maybe it's why that are still so successful even with a dwindling perceived quality of what the sell.

[Quilathus]

For the record, whilst I'm impartial to this news, I must respond to, in my opinion, some misinformation.

Originally Posted by screwballl

When it comes to eink, there is very little difference between the resolutions when it comes to most ebooks since the font and size are always static. Now for more detailed information such as the map they are showing on there, the higher resolution may help, but really, who is going to be expecting to map anything on their ereader?

I don't think you quite understand why higher resolution is better. As a previous poster mentioned, the higher the resolution means less reliance on anti-aliasing. Higher amounts of anti-aliasing over small text reduces perceived contrast as the lighter pixels that prevent "jagged" edges appear to make the text lighter. This is because of the device's inability to actually render pixels at 100% black since there's just not enough pixels to draw text before you reach an edge with smaller text. Due to this, you mostly get lighter rendered text.
By increasing the pixel density, a more defined dark zone can be rendered on the screen by the device before it reaches the edge of a character, allowing for increased perceived contrast, even if the contrast ratio of the device hasn't actually been changed.
Furthermore, eReading devices aren't totally static. Ever heard of font size changing? Designing a GUI to exploit the increased number of pixels to deliver smoother output? Unlike running a desktop OS, increasing resolution on a smaller device doesn't make everything smaller, it just allows developers to exploit more pixels, allowing them to either fit more on the screen if they want to, or to allow smoother rendering of whatever they want to render.

Originally Posted by screwballl

Slightly higher resolution, same storage as the Kindle3 (2GB), minor speed bump from the processor (600-800MHz versus Kindles 533MHz)... the only added benefit is the SD card slot.

At 213.3 ppi, that's 28% more pixels, basically for every 4 pixels on a 800x600, you get 5 pixels for the same distance. That's pretty significant.
Minor speed increase? You're joking right? MHz != performance. Unlike the Kindle's Freescale i.MX35 processor, which is built on ARM1136J, the iRiver story has a Cortex A8, the same processor architecture found in an iPhone/iPad etc. If we are to compare raw performance ratings in DMIPS/MHz (I know that's bad but...), we see that ARM1136J only does, say (optimistic) ~1.25 DMIPS/MHz versus the 2.0 DMIPS/MHz by the Cortex. So it's not a minor performance increase but a major one, since doing 60% more instructions per cycle, that means even at a puny 600 MHz, it'll still be 80% faster than the i.MX35 (at 533 MHz) theoretically.
(I still don't understand why the Kindle 3 doesn't have an SD slot...)

Originally Posted by screwballl

In this case when the screen is so small PLUS the fact it is eink and not typical pixels, a minor resolution bump like this will barely be noticeable without an increase in refresh rates. Since eink does not have a refresh rate, higher resolution on a small screen has less of an impact. Considering these will primarily be used for ebooks, a minor resolution bump is even less useful without additional software capabilities such as web browsing, map display or PDF display.

Do you even understand what refresh rate means ? I have no idea how you came to associate refresh rate with the ability to notice an increase in resolution.
I will agree that e-ink does not have traditional pixels physically, but the electrodes are actually arranged in a matrix representative of the screen's resolution. Thus there are actually REAL addressable electrodes behind the e-ink capsule layer that actually causes the e-ink to change from black to white. More of these = smaller area of e-ink capsules affected by each electrode, allowing for increased resolution.
Lastly, in contrast to a computer screen, eReaders tend to be held quite close to the reader, meaning character edge-pixels can be noticed if they're big enough (I certainly do notice them if close enough). Furthermore, unlike computer monitors which have RGB (or similar) subpixels, e-Ink doesn't have that luxury meaning that anti-aliasing must consume a full pixel, rather than sub-pixel rendering only having to cover part of a pixel. Thus on the monitor I'm typing on, even at only 95.8 ppi - with 3 subpixels per pixel, it actually has a perceived horizontal resolution of 287.3 ppi when rendering text. A big difference.

[WalkingDistance]

Not to purposely shift the subject but...

I'm not sure if you noticed but the iRiver representative never commented on the battery-life or the page-turn speed. This Hands-On video doesn't show the new prototype in action. This makes me think that iRiver's either working on it or that the new device won't beat the kindle in those respects.

The new fancy processor may speed page-turns but I think there's a trade-off. With a faster processor, you'll usually get higher battery consumption. Couple this with the fact that the screen has to render more (higher resolution) each time the screen refreshes.

So in effect, I feel like the reason why iRiver didn't talk about battery life was because it currently isn't better than the Kindle (which is one of Kindle's huge selling points).

[toronado]

Originally Posted by Quilathus

Furthermore, unlike computer monitors which have RGB (or similar) subpixels, e-Ink doesn't have that luxury meaning that anti-aliasing must consume a full pixel, rather than sub-pixel rendering only having to cover part of a pixel. Thus on the monitor I'm typing on, even at only 95.8 ppi - with 3 subpixels per pixel, it actually has a perceived horizontal resolution of 287.3 ppi when rendering text. A big difference.

That's a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I can't stand sub-pixel anti-aliasing. It creates colored fringe which is very difficult for me to look at. I much prefer the regular whole-pixel anti-aliasing to sub-pixed anti-aliasing, and I prefer no anti-aliasing at all over any anti-aliasing scheme.

My brain doesn't process the illusion of greater resolution that anti-aliasing schemes are trying to create, and thus I just see blurry (smoothed) fonts instead of crisp (jagged) ones. And thus I prefer to look at the crisp jagged ones. So to me, there is no perceived (imagined) increase in resolution when using anti-aliasing, but especially not with sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

I just hope that the developers of these devices can design fonts to fully utilize the additional available resolution on these new screens so as to rely less (and eventually not at all) on anti-aliasing.

From what I've seen on the iPhone 4, they seem to be doing just that, but I can't really say for sure.

Edit: CR looked at it: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/ele...on-kindle.html