Tablets won

[cfrizz]

When you can provide the PROOF for this statement, (and I'm not just talking about people's preferences!) then maybe YOUR claim will hold some weight. Until then it is just YOUR preference which doesn't mean squat!

Originally Posted by l_macd

The problem is, you are comparing a mulit-function device with a single use device and trying to say one is better than the other. Your argument is totally flawed.

An e-reader is better for reading books than a tablet.

[FanciFreez]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sorry, you've got nothing here.

That tablets outsell ereaders says nothing inherently about which is a better reader, any more than the fact that tablets outsell the Xbox mean that tablets are a better gaming system.

I've purchased several tablets since purchasing my ereader, but I still do all my reading on the ereader.

+1.. I have iPad 4, Nexus 7.2 and Nook HD+, but when it's time to read a book.. I pull out my Paperwhite 2 or Kobo Aura HD.. no comparison and a more realistic book experience with the e-Ink reader vs the Tablet.. I think I should buy another KPW 2 just in case everyone quits producing e-Ink readers.. I'm scared.. I forgot to mention eye strain and glare issues on the tablets....

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

Suffice to say: if you really don't understand that there are other qualities of light that effect our eyes and brains besides brightness then you might want to consult a photographer.

So true. When taking landscape pictures waiting *a minute* can have a vast effect on the lighting (for better or worse), especially at sunrise and sunset. Even the angle of the incoming light makes a HUGE difference to how the picture looks.

Combine those two, and moving a few steps and/or waiting half a minute can make the difference between just a picture and a one in a lifetime shot...

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by ApK

The "it's all just photons" comment reminds of those people who think that a digital signal can't ever degrade or be effected by cables or connections because "it's all just ones and zeros.". Suffice to say: if you really don't understand that there are other qualities of light that effect our eyes and brains besides brightness then you might want to consult a photographer.

While I agree with your comment and its sentiment, I believe that you've somewhat misrepresented what those people are saying about cables. Most people who say that are countering the "you need a $150 super-duper-gold plated cable to 'get the best picture'". While it's true that TOO MUCH signal degradation will impact your image quality, it's not the same kind of impact as an analog signal. Digital signals can be cleaned up quite a bit before any information is lost, and even if a few bits are lost there are error correcting bits carried on the wire that help reconstruct the lost bits. As long as you stay below this threshold, a lot of noise can be introduced before there will be ANY visible difference. In contrast, an analog signal will have audible/visible degradation much sooner, thus there is much more value in gold plating to avoid corrosion, lower resistance, etc. In digital, if you got the signal (or a correctable version of it), you got it, and no difference in cable is going to affect hue or contrast or the timbre of the violins.

[ApK]

We can take the finer points over to the AVS forum, but I'm basically with you. I do think that the in some systems the timbre of the violins CAN be effected if too much EMI gets in to a poorly shielded cable, and alters the electrical signal enough to make the error correcting mechasim do too much grunt work and guess work.
OK, back to reading....

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

We can take the finer points over to the AVS forum, but I'm basically with you. I do think that the in some systems the timbre of the violins CAN be effected if too much EMI gets in to a poorly shielded cable, and alters the electrical signal enough to make the error correcting mechasim do too much grunt work and guess work.
OK, back to reading....

With regard to that, sitting too close to a magnetic source can garble the text on your e-reader; nothing fancy to look at; it just swaps some of the letters, and makes lines look a bit wavey. If you move away from the source, everything will be normal again. It's just the magnetism pulling at the E-Ink.

Tablets are not affected by this phenomenon; therefore I only use my Galaxy Tab as a reader when traveling in the maglev train

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Tablets are not affected by this phenomenon; therefore I only use my Galaxy Tab as a reader when traveling in the maglev train

Wouldn't the Faraday effect protect you while traveling in the train? I'd think you'd only need to use the tablet to read when you travel by hanging on beneath the train.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

Wouldn't the Faraday effect protect you while traveling in the train? I'd think you'd only need to use the tablet to read when you travel by hanging on beneath the train.

I don't know... never hung below the maglev. Maybe I should try that next time, to see how strong the magnet's pull really is.

Maybe it's just as strong as me pulling your leg. Then my e-book gets really messed up

[ApK]

Honestly I was just joking back. I have no idea if the Faraday effect has anything to do with magnetic shielding. I just thought it sounded good.

[Jessica Lares]

Tablets only won because they're cheaper than ever now. And cellphones are only getting better in screen clarity and function too.

When I got my Kindle Keyboard, we were looking at a little over $100 for it, and just about every iPad and Android tablet was in the $400-500 range of cost still until the Kindle Fire was announced that year.

[FanciFreez]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There are already some tablets that are starting to use reflective LCD's.

At some point, the 6-8 inch e-reader and 6-8 inch tablet market will just merge; after the display tech gets to the point that one device can do it all. The dedicated e-reader may be replaced by a tablet that has a screen that can do on it's own what e-ink and LCD do seperately now.

What you just stated is going to happen.. just a matter of time...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by FanciFreez

What you just stated is going to happen.. just a matter of time...

The problem is that tablets are so cheap now --- new screen technologies don't stand a chance. Unless Samsung, Apple, or Amazon decide to push them. So we will just see incremental improvements for a while.

[Mivo]

E-ink readers are still cheaper than tablets. I certainly bought more e-ink devices in the past couple years than I bought tablets. Picking up a new e-ink device for €100 is something I find easy to justify. €250+ for a new tablet, not quite. I may just be irresponsible with money, though.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

"Bogus" meaning "not something you experience", right?

"Bogus" probably came across as more dismissive than I meant - apologies if that caused offence - what I was referring to is the argument some people make that eye strain is caused by light being shone into your eyes by the backlight, and that in some way light reaching your eyes via reflection is different and more benign. Direct light bad, reflected light good.

Reflection can indeed change the nature of the light (e.g. it can be polarized to a greater or lesser extent depending on how near the angle of incidence is to the Brewster angle), but the eye can't detect polarization so it seems unlikely this could cause a problem.

I do believe that at least the vast majority of eye strain issues with backlit LCDs is down to inappropriate brightness.

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by ApK

The "it's all just photons" comment reminds of those people who think that a digital signal can't ever degrade or be effected by cables or connections because "it's all just ones and zeros.".

People who claim that a digital signal "can't ever degrade" are clearly wrong, but that's not the claim that is usually made. The point is that digital signals degrade in a completely different way from analogue signals. An analogue signal starts degrading as soon as there is any the addition of noise, and degrades progressively more with the addition of more noise. A digital signal will be immune to some amount of noise (up to the noise margin for that signal). Once that margin is reached, bit-errors will appear in the raw signal. However, depending on the rate and distribution of bit errors, and the error-correction coding scheme in use, the original signal may well still be able to be recovered with no errors. If the noise level gets sufficiently high, then the error rate will get too high for the correction mechanism to cope with, and errors will appear in the corrected output.

There are a few relevant points about this.

Firstly, if you're getting any noticeable level of uncorrectable bit errors in any sort of normal domestic installation, something has gone terribly wrong. Think about your computer and all the devices it talks to error-free over digital cables. You'd soon notice if all your apps were loaded with random bit errors - these things need to be 100% error free to function. If you are getting bit-errors, it'll generally be obvious (the effect won't be a subtle one) and there will usually be an obvious cause (e.g. a mobile phone next to a cable).

Secondly, even if there are bit errors, the visual/audible effect they will have on the picture or sound is very different from the artefacts you get from analogue degradation. I've had a sales assistant try to convince me to buy an expensive HDMI cable because it would give "more saturated reds" than the cheap cable I was buying. This is clearly garbage.

/JB