Why do "LCD e-Book reading devices" keep coming

[JeremyZ]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

"When a light is shined at the human eye, it creates eye strain."

The only time light is not shined into the human eye is when they are closed. And that makes it very hard to read. But maybe you are correct, and we should all be looking for the next braille ereaders.

Do you really believe that seeing ambient light reflected from paper or an eInk display is the same as looking at a light source? C'mon now, let's be reasonable. If that were the case, Sony & Amazon would have used an LCD when they launched their eBook readers. Do you think they didn't do any research before they decided to invest in this new technology? LCDs are cheaper to make now than eInk. Do you really think that they just used it because it is new & posh?

To answer the earlier question as to why Nook didn't just go pure LCD, it is because B&N also knows that eInk is easier on the eyes than LCD. Obviously, they could've done it cheaper with just LCD.

Apple has got you guys thinking that LCD is as good for mass reading as eInk simply because their device is so elegant. eBook reading is a side show for the iPad. I agree, it is a super-cool device, but lets not kid ourselves that it is equal to an eInk reader for long-term reading comfort.

If this hasn't already been proven, it will be soon. Then all your eInk nay-sayers will change your tune to: "But my xxx also does yyyy!"

[JeremyZ]

My workplace is trying to go paperless. We all have nice LCD screens, though some are only 17". I feel guilty when I need to print things, because of the environmental impact. (our paper is only 30% recycled content) But it just makes things so much easier to read, I'm doing it more and more.

I wish they'd make an eInk monitor just for those of us who work with documents a lot.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

Do you really believe that seeing ambient light reflected from paper or an eInk display is the same as looking at a light source?

Speaking from a purely physical point of view, the light emitted from a light source and the light reflected by an opaque body is identical except for its intensity (aka its energy) and the frequencies involved (the frequency spectrum of light is what gives us the perception of colors).
Photons are photons are photons, to put it in internet language. When light is reflected from an opaque body, some of its energy heats the body and some is reflected: the reflected part is the light that your eyes catch.
If you diminish the intensity of the light of a light source, you can reach the same intensity of light "usually reflected" by opaque objects: in case of a Samsung LCD computer monitor, it means to reduce its brightness to 21% and raise its contrast to maximum (remember, contrast is not brightness).

But yeah, the photons remain photons.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

Do you think they didn't do any research before they decided to invest in this new technology?

One would have also expected Apple to make extensive research on the effects of skin contact on an antenna before placing it in a position which every other electronics company avoided for 30 years

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
But seriously, don't expect electronics companies to make "extensive researches" on everything. I work in one (as an antenna engineer, that's why I'm so bitter towards that particular Apple error ), and I can assure you that 80% of the time a company trusts what other companies "certified" and doesn't make any research on its own, and sometimes even accept blindly what another company says if the new technology "looks cool" or is already adopted by others.

Intel tells me that its microchips work in temperatures that range from -X° to +Y° ---> I trust them, I don't make expensive tests on it.
ParaWave tells me that the CTS strip antenna has a very high gain but uses half of the power of other antennas, and I discover that a competing company "already uses" these very antennas ---> I make one test just to check that the power used by that antenna is indeed inferior (doesn't matter if it actually is half), and quickly adopt it, because "my competitor already does".

Seriously, it works this way. So I can easily imagine Sony saying "oh! oh! Amazon already uses e-ink, we must adopt it too!"
(I actually don't know who of the two adopted e-ink first, it's just an example).

[hgwlackey]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ;

Apple has got you guys thinking that LCD is as good for mass reading as eInk

Yep, they've sure got me fooled. I'm reading book #42 on my iPad, whereas in the six months I owned a Kindle 2 I read all of 10 books on it. Gray-on-gray may be ideal for YOU, but my eyes struggled with it.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

Do you really believe that seeing ambient light reflected from paper or an eInk display is the same as looking at a light source? C'mon now, let's be reasonable. If that were the case, Sony & Amazon would have used an LCD when they launched their eBook readers. Do you think they didn't do any research before they decided to invest in this new technology? LCDs are cheaper to make now than eInk. Do you really think that they just used it because it is new & posh?

To answer the earlier question as to why Nook didn't just go pure LCD, it is because B&N also knows that eInk is easier on the eyes than LCD. Obviously, they could've done it cheaper with just LCD.

Apple has got you guys thinking that LCD is as good for mass reading as eInk simply because their device is so elegant. eBook reading is a side show for the iPad. I agree, it is a super-cool device, but lets not kid ourselves that it is equal to an eInk reader for long-term reading comfort.

If this hasn't already been proven, it will be soon. Then all your eInk nay-sayers will change your tune to: "But my xxx also does yyyy!"

Jeremy, I am a fan of eInk, but I think you might be putting too much emphasis on one factor in the decision to use eInk of LCDs. There are a number of advantages that eInk has over LCDs that have nothing to do with eye strain. Lets not forget that it allows superior battery light, is readable in direct sunlight (making it much better for the beach than back-lit LCDs) and it more faithfully recreates the look of a printed page than LCDs. And lets not forget the novelty factor... I am sure more than one person has been turned onto ebooks when they see an eInk screen for the first time.

--
Bill

[kjk]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

C'mon now, let's be reasonable. If that were the case, Sony & Amazon would have used an LCD when they launched their eBook readers. Do you think they didn't do any research before they decided to invest in this new technology?

C'mon now, let's be reasonable. If Amazon, Sony, and B&N (and E-Ink) had research/proof that eInk was scientifically proven to reduce eyestrain compared to LCDs, we'd see the results in marketing material right now.

Personally, I think they have done the studies and research, as you noted. And the incredible battery life, sunlight readability, and visual acuity to paper is probably what drove them to invest in this new technology-all of which they do tout in their ads.
That the "scientific proof" about eyestrain isn't mentioned in their ads tells me something as well.

But kudos for bringing up both the "you'll wise up someday" AND the "Apple's got you thinkin" chestnuts. Those never gets old

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Speaking from a purely physical point of view, the light emitted from a light source and the light reflected by an opaque body is identical except for its intensity (aka its energy) and the frequencies involved (the frequency spectrum of light is what gives us the perception of colors).
Photons are photons are photons, to put it in internet language. When light is reflected from an opaque body, some of its energy heats the body and some is reflected: the reflected part is the light that your eyes catch.
If you diminish the intensity of the light of a light source, you can reach the same intensity of light "usually reflected" by opaque objects: in case of a Samsung LCD computer monitor, it means to reduce its brightness to 21% and raise its contrast to maximum (remember, contrast is not brightness).

But yeah, the photons remain photons.

I would say that a LCD emits a liiiitle light if it has its brightness reduced PLUS the light that is reflected coming from ambient conditions, never the same as a eink display. The amount of photons will never be the same, to be exact.

[Salgueiros]

As for the discussion in general, I think it is pointless. I find it hard to believe anyone that says that reading in a LCD screen is exactly the same as reading in a eink display. Sorry, but that is a thing i cannot believe.

I have the feeling that people that say that they read in LCD screens without problem, either don't read a lot, or don't read the same way one reads a real paper book. They were close to the truth when they called Eink "electronic paper", and that makes a huge difference.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

As for the discussion in general, I think it is pointless. I find it hard to believe anyone that says that reading in a LCD screen is exactly the same as reading in a eink display. Sorry, but that is a thing i cannot believe.

I have the feeling that people that say that they read in LCD screens without problem, either don't read a lot, or don't read the same way one reads a real paper book. They were close to the truth when they called Eink "electronic paper", and that makes a huge difference.

I read in LCD screens without problem, I read a lot. I don't know what you mean by "read the same way one reads a real paper book", though.

[JeremyZ]

Fair enough; those are some good points.

In the Wall Street Journal article from yesterday, they said that paper is read significantly faster, followed by iPad, followed closely by Kindle. (with the difference between iPad and Kindle not being statistically relevant)

That is reading speed. Not sure if that also equates to ease of reading.

[JeremyZ]

I'm going to post a poll here and see what the majority feeling on this is. Of course that will not make it a fact, but it will be interesting to know.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

Do you really believe that seeing ambient light reflected from paper or an eInk display is the same as looking at a light source? C'mon now, let's be reasonable. If that were the case, Sony & Amazon would have used an LCD when they launched their eBook readers. Do you think they didn't do any research before they decided to invest in this new technology? LCDs are cheaper to make now than eInk. Do you really think that they just used it because it is new & posh?

Yes. You have never worked for large companies marketing devices to masses of people, I take it. There were two, and only two, reasons why e-Ink ever took off: the battery life is phenomenal, and it's really cool-looking if you like to read books, so the tech is both new and attractive to their target market. I can absolutely 100% guarantee that Amazon and Sony couldn't give a flying rat's arse whether some technology is "easier on your eyes". Their research is based entirely on marketing, unit cost, and availability of mass production. You make them sound like they're some sort of altruistic corporations who really care about you and your eyesight.

To answer the earlier question as to why Nook didn't just go pure LCD, it is because B&N also knows that eInk is easier on the eyes than LCD. Obviously, they could've done it cheaper with just LCD.

The Nook went with e-Ink because they were a late player to the game and market conditions by that time as set by Sony and Amazon dictated that they HAD to use e-Ink if they wanted to hit their target market. Otherwise they would have been ignored by people like you and everyone else on these forums who dismiss anything out of hand that's not e-Ink.

I agree, it is a super-cool device, but lets not kid ourselves that it is equal to an eInk reader for long-term reading comfort.

I read for hours on my iPad and have no difficulties at all. Of course, I haven't been brainwashed into thinking that a backlit screen causes some ill-defined, nebulous thing called "eyestrain" because I have learned the art of filtering out totally meaningless but snazzy- and intelligent-sounding media buzzwords from technology reviews written by people who are just trying to drive traffic to their blogs.

If this hasn't already been proven, it will be soon.

Uh-huh. You betcha.

In any case, I'll be very interested in buying another e-Ink device if they ever manage to get the refresh rate up high enough so I can just flip through the pages like I can on an LCD, and when they get the dpi up into the 300 dpi range on a 9+ inch screen. Until the technology matures to those levels, though, there is nothing about e-Ink that is compelling enough to get me to carry multiple technogadgets around.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

I find it hard to believe anyone that says that reading in a LCD screen is exactly the same as reading in a eink display.

Speaking for myself, I've never argued that LCD reading is "exactly the same" as eInk reading. I personally love the static display of eInk. But the screen flash at every page turn is a distraction for me.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

I'm going to post a poll here and see what the majority feeling on this is. Of course that will not make it a fact, but it will be interesting to know.

You might want to do a forum search first