Is difference between 300ppi and 265ppi noticeable?

[issybird]

I noticed the upgrade from the Glo (212 ppi) to the H2O (265 ppi); didn't notice the upgrade from the H2O to the Aura One (300 ppi), which is in line with what others are saying.

[stumped]

out of interest what is the comparable measure for pinted ( on paper) books ? - ink spot size?

I suspect that mass market paperbacks are printed with very poor density - if that is the right word
i.e. not in the same ball park as retina display tech ?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by GERGE

iPad is 265 ppi, you can use it as a reference. There is no difference you will be able to discern unless you have perfect vision. It is all about diminishing returns. An upgrade from Glo to Glo HD is greatly noticeable, that is 213 ppi to 300 ppi. Touch (160 ppi) to Glo is even more noticeable.

265 is more than enough for most people.

I don't disagree with your post, except I wouldn't use an iPad as reference only because I think ppi matters much less on an e-ink screen.

I have an original 6" Kobo Aura and when I compare to a 300 ppi e-ink screen, I can tell a difference. But it is not nearly as drastic as when I compared my old budget tablet to an iPad.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by stumped

out of interest what is the comparable measure for pinted ( on paper) books ? - ink spot size?

I suspect that mass market paperbacks are printed with very poor density - if that is the right word
i.e. not in the same ball park as retina display tech ?

They're actually printed at relatively high resolution (300+ dpi usually, 600+ isn't uncommon), but newsprint and other low-quality paper (including what most MMPBs use) has a fair amount of ink bleed/spreading that limits the effective resolution on the printed page. I've heard guesstimates of newsprint being equivalent to 170 dpi, with MMPBs somewhat better. But that's not an entirely fair comparison--bleed has smoother/blurrier inconsistencies than digital artifacting, which has sharper/jaggier issues.

Think about how poorly done digital (CGI) special effects look fake compared to how poorly done practical effects (models, costumes, etc) look fake. Both are wrong, but in different ways, and some people find one more forgivable than the other.

At any rate, content producers for mass-markets generally find 300 DPI sufficient for the source material (example), and the source ought to be at least as high a resolution as the final print will be.

Trade paperbacks are often printed at 600-1200 DPI (example), but again the effective resolution may be less depending on the paper used. Generally they use much higher quality paper than mass-market books, though.