E-Ink talks about plans; promises color in 2010

[Slite]

I don't want either bigger screen nor colour.

I want a device that will display every format I throw at it without crashing if it's not correctly formated. And with enough flexibility in it to allow me to select every aspect of fontface, size, zoomlevel, justification, etc etc etc.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by ekaser

We really must get away from "pixel count WxH" resolutions. That worked for years (okay, decades) for computer screens, but this is a new class of device, more akin to a book than a computer (although, as time progresses, the distinction will blur). But regardless, when talking about the display resolution, I think it's much more useful to talk about the DPI (dots per inch) than the absolute count of number of pixels. Current 6" readers are pretty much all 166 DPI, whereas the 5" devices are 200 DPI. I hesitate to say that any resolution higher than that is wasted, but it's certainly a case of "diminishing returns". So, if you want to think in terms of absolute pixel count, then figure a 9" display is going to be roughly 5" x 8". At 166 DPI, that's around 830x1328 pixels. (9.7, which seems to be popular for some reason, would be slightly higher, around 5.4x8.6, or about 900x1430 pixels. At 200 DPI it would be 1000x1600 for 5x8 and 1080x1720 for the 9.7. But DPI is much easier to think about than absolute WxH pixels. Who cares how many pixels it has, WxH-wise, if the DPI stays the same and the display gets bigger, that's really all you need to know.

I agree that this is an issue that causes confusion, mainly because both are correct ways of describing "resolution"—that is, the ability to resolve detail in an image on a screen.

I've taken to using the general term "resolution" to refer to the more commonly understood WxH total pixel counts (the "resolution" that most people are familiar with), while using "pixel density" to describe, well, the pixel density of a screen or image. I've found that people who aren't familiar with the whole pixel density thing tend to grasp it much quicker instead of using "resolution" in two different (but again, totally correct) ways.

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by Slite

I don't want either bigger screen nor colour.

I want a device that will display every format I throw at it without crashing if it's not correctly formated. And with enough flexibility in it to allow me to select every aspect of fontface, size, zoomlevel, justification, etc etc etc.

I'm with you on all of that except color. True, color isn't necessary for reading straight novels, but the world is a wider place than just novels. It would be nice to see the covers of novels in color. It's a must to have colors for comics, children's books, magazines, web pages, etc. And the line between 'readers' and 'computers' will continue to blur.

When I worked at HP in the early '80s (we were making a pre-IBM PC desktop engineering computer), we were just starting to talk about color displays, and all of the younger engineers were thrilled about the idea, but a 50-ish marketing manager said, "You don't need color on a computer display, black & white is good enough for anything you need to do!" Back then, it was understandable that someone with not much "forward vision" would think something like that. Today we should know better.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by ekaser

I'm with you on all of that except color. True, color isn't necessary for reading straight novels, but the world is a wider place than just novels. It would be nice to see the covers of novels in color. It's a must to have colors for comics, children's books, magazines, web pages, etc. And the line between 'readers' and 'computers' will continue to blur.

When I worked at HP in the early '80s (we were making a pre-IBM PC desktop engineering computer), we were just starting to talk about color displays, and all of the younger engineers were thrilled about the idea, but a 50-ish marketing manager said, "You don't need color on a computer display, black & white is good enough for anything you need to do!" Back then, it was understandable that someone with not much "forward vision" would think something like that. Today we should know better.

To be totally honest, I view an ebook reader and an emagazine reader as being two different things. Ebook readers would tend to be smaller in size, generally monochromatic and more portable, while emagazine readers would be larger, have color, possibly have web access (gotta be able to click those ads that fund that magazine you're reading), etc. Now, that said, I can certainly see the two converging for most people's needs, and I think they will. But as that happens, I think there will still be a (very small) niche market for dedicated book-reading devices.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

think it through...what color is the sky in your world.

I think what they meant was, in most cases, the technology hasn't gotten good enough yet and color tends to have a lower contrast.

It's not the color itself, but going to a contrast ratio of 6:1 is a step backwards from current eInk.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ekaser

What I've never understood is this: the eInk works by having a Sagan ("billyuns and billyuns") of tiny particles, coated white on one side and black on the other. Apply charge, flip them all one way, selectively apply charge to flip SOME of them back the other way.

So... why do they have to flash BLACK and then turn some white. Why can't they flash WHITE, and then turn some of them black. That would certainly make for a far more esthetically pleasing experience.

I'm sure there's a reason, but still, curiosity and the cat...

That's not quite the way it works. A single particle is not white on one side and black on the other, and you change the screen by flipping them. There are actually separate white particles and black particles. Each one of them is entirely a single color. When you apply a charge, one set of particles moves towards the screen and the other set moves away.

As far as flashing white/black/invert, it depends on the device. I think most of them do an invert though. It helps keep the separation of the particles clean so that you don't get a handful of them stuck on the wrong side (which is what causes ghosting).

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by fugazied

17" like the size of a computer monitor? The battery would be HUGE to power such a large screen so the weight would be about that of a laptop. Until battery technology improves we won't see portable 17" tablets of any decent battery life with low weight.

I think a 10" screen would be fine for most books. They have to worry about contrast as well, it seems to always be a compromise between contrast/pixels per inch/brightness/screen size.

I want it for military history books, and comics which are image intensive.
If the battery just gives me 3 days worth of page turns that would be acceptable - that is camping over a 3 day weekend.

Current Ereader sizes are to small to do comics well.

[Hellmark]

Although, really, to do comics and the like, you don't need a 17 inch screen. 13.9" on the diagonal is what is needed for 8.5x11 page reproduction (with the standard comic being smaller than that)

[jackau]

No one want a 15 inch screen for reading books, Personally I think a 9 to 10 inch is the ideal size for a proper read: Big font but still retain decent screen layout as the file ie, pdf originally intended for.
If the display can produce a blur less zoom or shrink, readers like me will be very happy. yet, it was not the case in today's devices. I can't read anything on a 6inch display with full screen on comic or engineering data sheet!

There will however be 17 inch + devices in the business, industrial front.

However, until 10 inch eink fast colour screened tablets can be thinner than 15 mm and lighter than 500g, ebooks will still be ebooks, notebooks (tablet) will stay as notebooks! Not something will happen in 3 years time!

[Hellmark]

I really doubt they'll be much of a market for 17" displays. It is just too big. Plus, it is larger than standard paper size.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I really doubt they'll be much of a market for 17" displays. It is just too big. Plus, it is larger than standard paper size.

If they are colour, they could very well work as digital picture frames

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's not quite the way it works. A single particle is not white on one side and black on the other, and you change the screen by flipping them. There are actually separate white particles and black particles. Each one of them is entirely a single color. When you apply a charge, one set of particles moves towards the screen and the other set moves away.

As far as flashing white/black/invert, it depends on the device. I think most of them do an invert though. It helps keep the separation of the particles clean so that you don't get a handful of them stuck on the wrong side (which is what causes ghosting).

Ah. Thanks, Shaggy. Been TOO long since I first read about the technology when it was first coming out of the lab, and I'd forgotten the details of the mechanism apparently. The flash makes more sense now.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by ekaser

Ah. Thanks, Shaggy. Been TOO long since I first read about the technology when it was first coming out of the lab, and I'd forgotten the details of the mechanism apparently. The flash makes more sense now.

And apparently there are always a few dots that don't migrate at all resulting in hot spots on the screen. There seems to be a quality grading of screens depending on how many hotspots there are. (There are always some as verified with a magnifying glass.) There seem to be A grade and B grade screens.


Dale

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by fugazied

17" like the size of a computer monitor? The battery would be HUGE to power such a large screen so the weight would be about that of a laptop. Until battery technology improves we won't see portable 17" tablets of any decent battery life with low weight.

I think a 10" screen would be fine for most books. They have to worry about contrast as well, it seems to always be a compromise between contrast/pixels per inch/brightness/screen size.

Ummm, why?

[Treven]

Definately I agree that if I wanted something bigger, I'd carry my 17" laptop around with me all the time, like I do with my 700.

Remember bigger isn't always better; that goes in bed or for a Kindle.