PocketBook 740

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

The unique MOON Light technology enables one to use the device in the dark or under poor lighting conditions. When this function is used, soft luminescence of the screen (comfortable for reading) is being generated.

As the others have stated, I was commenting on how the lighting works, not whether it was lit or not. And thanks to rcentros's links, the light is described as:

MOON Light technique uses a reflective light distribution. The light-conducting layer is located over the display. The light goes through this layer and is reflected towards the screen being absorbed by the dark elements of the image and then this reflected light enters the eyes. On sensations this light is similar to the reflected light from an external source. This kind of lighting is significantly more comfortable for reading than backlit LCD displays.

With some added emphasis to show it is described as frontlit and compared to backlit devices.

Now, perhaps you are simply being pedantic but my device is certainly an e-ink device and it certainly can be read in the dark.

No pedantry. I probably would have ignored your original statement that it was backlight. But, when you questioned the correction of your statement, you were going to get an explanation of why your statement was wrong. I was just the first to come along.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is not pedantry, but a fundamental difference between lighting systems.

Maybe to save these corrections (and side issue discussions) we could just refer to eInk eReaders as lit or non-lit?

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by davidfor

As the others have stated, I was commenting on how the lighting works, not whether it was lit or not. And thanks to rcentros's links, the light is described as:



With some added emphasis to show it is described as frontlit and compared to backlit devices.



No pedantry. I probably would have ignored your original statement that it was backlight. But, when you questioned the correction of your statement, you were going to get an explanation of why your statement was wrong. I was just the first to come along.

Guess what? Don't care. It fits the term for pedantry to me. My device is readable at night in the dark. Perhaps I should have watched my words more carefully but as an owner of such a device, it's "backlit" enough for me. It works exactly as I described, I don't need a "front light" as the term would commonly be expected to mean, so it's "back lit".


Feel free to not like it.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody said the eInk devices can't be illuminated, just that they can't be backlit. "Backlighting" is - as its name suggests - having a light source behind the screen, which shines through the screen. You can't backlight an eInk screen for the very simple reason that it's completely opaque.

Illuminated eInk devices are frontlit. That is, they have LEDs above the screen, whose light is directed onto the screen from above by a light diffuser.

This is not pedantry, but a fundamental difference between lighting systems.

I don't need a front light. It appears to be back lit and pleasantly so. That's good enough for me. The rest applying, of course.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I don't need a front light. It appears to be back lit and pleasantly so. That's good enough for me. The rest applying, of course.

Mind explaining in what way the light is from the "back"?

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Mind explaining in what way the light is from the "back"?

When I turn it on, the screen glows as if illuminated from within. Regardless of how it's achieved, that's good enough for me.

I have devices that have no "backlight" at all so you have to shine a light from a source located above the screen in order to see.

These devices are not like that.

In the case that I was referring to, if you ever had a Casio indiglo watch, the effect is like that.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

When I turn it on, the screen glows as if illuminated from within. Regardless of how it's achieved, that's good enough for me.

I have devices that have no "backlight" at all so you have to shine a light from a source located above the screen in order to see.

These devices are not like that.

In the case that I was referring to, if you ever had a Casio indiglo watch, the effect is like that.

Being in a nitpicking humour again, your Casio watch may have an electroluminescent panel as a backlight but it's not Indiglo as that is a Timex trademark with Casio using Illuminator for both electroluminescent and LED backlight technology. Pedantry is ever so much fun.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I don't need a front light. It appears to be back lit and pleasantly so. That's good enough for me. The rest applying, of course.

Again an eInk panel is not going to be backlit. Take that lightsource you use with a non-illuminated ereader. Hold it behind the ereader. Not bloody much use, is it? eInk needs a light source in front of the screen as the displayu is opaque. LEDs at the edge of the screen and a rather complex lightguide supply that light source. Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for E_Ink and check out the layout of the capsules. A light shining from the back would pass through both the white and black particles.

Perhaps nitpicking but such inaccuracy should be corrected much like correcting a Flat Earther must be done. It may be a waste of breath but the attempt has to be made.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Being in a nitpicking humour again, your Casio watch may have an electroluminescent panel as a backlight but it's not Indiglo as that is a Timex trademark with Casio using Illuminator for both electroluminescent and LED backlight technology. Pedantry is ever so much fun.

Thank you for the education!

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Perhaps nitpicking but such inaccuracy should be corrected much like correcting a Flat Earther must be done. It may be a waste of breath but the attempt has to be made.

What's hilarious is that I absolutely get your point. You obviously aren't anywhere close to understanding mine. Good luck and have fun with that.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

What's hilarious is that I absolutely get your point. You obviously aren't anywhere close to understanding mine. Good luck and have fun with that.

No one would take issue with you if you just said that your device has a light. You don't have to say "frontlight" if you don't want to (which I can understand, because that also refers to the external clip-on lights). However, the light is actually shining on the front of the screen. The claim that "backlight" is valid because you can read it in the dark like an LCD screen isn't a compelling argument in my view.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Perhaps nitpicking but such inaccuracy should be corrected much like correcting a Flat Earther must be done. It may be a waste of breath but the attempt has to be made.

Originally Posted by sealbeater

What's hilarious is that I absolutely get your point. You obviously aren't anywhere close to understanding mine. Good luck and have fun with that.

Sadly, I get your point. What I have trouble understanding is why someone would prefer to be inaccurate when they don't need to be.

The same type of thinking that in one local case, had a person arguing they were entitled to a HOV OK sticker since their car had a battery (having a HOV OK sticker allows the driver of a hybrid or electric vehicle to use the high occupancy lane while not meeting the occupancy requirement).