New basic Kindle

Originally Posted by ApK

Wait a sec, this is driving me batty:



The problem with that is you first calculate a result of 1000 by ASSUMING 167 dpi for the diagonal. Then you are using that result in the theorem as a given, but it's only based on your assumption in the first place.

The problem with using the Pythagorean theorem for diagonal dpi, is that the theorem uses scalar units that would measure the same in any direction. Pixels are in fixed positions in a matrix, so you can't equate them with scalar units like inches. You will count a different number of them per inch depending on the angle you measure them on.

I think, after going back and forth a few times, that DT is right.
And nomenclature-wise, where has any manufacture used the term "diagonal dpi?"

When was last time you bought a computer monitor, tablet, smartphone, or eInk reader that listed the horizontal and vertical dpi along with the horizontal and vertical screen widths? Probably never. You might find some info buried deep in the specs, but they don't advertise screens like that. Instead, computer monitors, tablets, smartphones, and eInk readers are advertised by their DIAGONAL lengths and a single dpi amount that just happens to equal that shown in the formula I listed. A 6" eInk screen is approximately 6" across the diagonal dimension. A 27" eInk screen is approximately 27" across the diagonal dimension. Et cetera. I agree that dpi would most likely vary in each direction you might measure it, and I agree that the dpi across the diagonal dimension probably isn't accurate, but that sure seems to be what they are doing to calculate the dpi. If you have the actual screen dimensions for vert. and horz. then you can easily calculate the true dpi based on the listed number of pixels in that direction. But eInk really doesn't have pixels like LCD screens. I seem to recall that they overlap in eInk and are not nice little rectangles. So a dpi for eInk is probably not the same as a dpi in LCD screens anyway. But even for LCDs, the dpi seems to be a calculation based on the Pythagorean theorem which takes into account the number of vert. and horz. pixels (dots, points, whatever) in relation to the diagonal screen size to give us a single dpi amount. Is it highly accurate? Probably not. Does it make a lot of sense? No. Does much in marketing make a lot of sense? No. Is marketing filled with lots of BS? Yes!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by jswinden

But even for LCDs, the dpi seems to be a calculation based on the Pythagorean theorem which takes into account the number of vert. and horz. pixels (dots, points, whatever) in relation to the diagonal screen size to give us a single dpi amount. Is it highly accurate? Probably not. Does it make a lot of sense? No. Does much in marketing make a lot of sense? No. Is marketing filled with lots of BS? Yes!

It SEEMS that way, because the way you're doing it makes it appear to work, but it doesn't:

800^2 + 600^2 = 1000^2 is meaningful if 800, 600, and 1000 are some kind of length units. mm, inches, whatever, because there is 1 inch per inch in any direction you care to measure. There are EXACTLY the same number of millimeters per inch measured vertically as there are measured at 45 degrees.
But that doesn't work when you're talking about pixels with a fixed position in 2D space. Even if we assume pixels that are the same size h & v (square or circle, etc, which I think is probably correct in most cases) there are a DIFFERENT number per inch vertically than there are diagonally,
by at least a factor of SQRT(2) assuming h=v.

Think of this way: regardless of any overlap or anti-aliasing technology or fuzzy pixels, or whatever eink may have rather than nice clean dots, I think we all agree that dot density is consistent all over the display. There are just as many dots per capital W at the upper left corner as in the middle, or anywhere else on the page, yes?
For the DPI figure to be right H, V and diagonally, which theorem would claim it is, there would need to be MORE dots filling that diagonal space than the H and V space, resulting in some complex Moire pattern of variable dot density. Why would anyone design such a thing?


The simplest explanation is that the addressable spaces are nominally the same size vertically as horizontally, therefore one dpi value is nominally correct for both directions, and makes a useful single figure to compare densities.

Diagonal measurements are the same, or they were when every TV and monitor in the country had a 4:3 aspect ratio, in that you could report one diagonal size number, and buyers could compare that one value across sets. It's less straightforward now with more widely varied aspect ratios available on modern portable devices, but, as you say, it's marketing.

Thanks, now I'm going to be up all night with my K3, a microscope and a ruler.

ApK

[snape]

The Basic is intriguing but I love the crispness of the screen on my K4NT (definitely better than my PW). Not sure if the new model will compete on that level so I'll hold off on making a buy decision until I can see the new hardware in person.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by snape

The Basic is intriguing but I love the crispness of the screen on my K4NT (definitely better than my PW). Not sure if the new model will compete on that level so I'll hold off on making a buy decision until I can see the new hardware in person.

Well that's not very adventurous of you.

[eSheri]

Originally Posted by snape

The Basic is intriguing but I love the crispness of the screen on my K4NT (definitely better than my PW). Not sure if the new model will compete on that level so I'll hold off on making a buy decision until I can see the new hardware in person.

The K4NT's screen is better than the PW?? 😳 Wow! I was about to switch my order from the New Basic Kindle to the PW! Maybe I won't.
Question: the PW that's on Amazon now, is this the 2nd or 3rd generation? (I missed the announcement)
Also do any of the new kindles read to you?
Lastly, can I do audible books on the New Basic Kindle?
(I watched the videos but couldn't find these answers)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eSheri

The K4NT's screen is better than the PW?? 😳 Wow! I was about to switch my order from the New Basic Kindle to the PW! Maybe I won't.
Question: the PW that's on Amazon now, is this the 2nd or 3rd generation? (I missed the announcement)
Also do any of the new kindles read to you?
Lastly, can I do audible books on the New Basic Kindle?
(I watched the videos but couldn't find these answers)

Some people prefer the K4NT's screen because it doesn't have a light diffuser, which makes the text a little sharper in good lighting conditions. Of course, the illuminated screen massively wins out in poor light. Depends what lighting conditions you do most of your reading in.

No current eInk Kindle has audio capabilities.

[copyrite]

The current Paperwhite on Amazon is wnd generation.

None of these current eink Kindles (Paperwhite, Basic, Voyage) have the ability to do audio - no TTS (text to speech) or Audio books.

Guess they want people to get a Fire for that capability.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by eSheri

The K4NT's screen is better than the PW?? 😳 Wow! I was about to switch my order from the New Basic Kindle to the PW! Maybe I won't.
Question: the PW that's on Amazon now, is this the 2nd or 3rd generation? (I missed the announcement)
Also do any of the new kindles read to you?
Lastly, can I do audible books on the New Basic Kindle?
(I watched the videos but couldn't find these answers)

In the terms of darker text yes and if you read in bright sunlight yes. The background isn't as clean as the PW. We don't know yet if the New Basic Kindle touch's background will be like so I would hold off till you can see one for yourself.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Blossom

In the terms of darker text yes and if you read in bright sunlight yes. The background isn't as clean as the PW. We don't know yet if the New Basic Kindle touch's background will be like so I would hold off till you can see one for yourself.

I've got a feeling it's going to look a lot like a Kindle Touch. I have both a Touch and K4BNT -- and I think the Touch's screen could be just as clear (or at least very close), but (I think) it has more to do with the fonts they selected for the Touch (and, I'm guessing, the PWs and Voyage). I like the Kindle 3 and Kindle 4 fonts better. They're darker. But I am curious to see what the new Kindle Basic looks like -- because, right now, I'm only guessing and making assumptions.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eSheri

Also do any of the new kindles read to you?
Lastly, can I do audible books on the New Basic Kindle?
(I watched the videos but couldn't find these answers)

Nope. No audio in any of the newer Kindles. You'll have to go back to the Kindle Touch if you want audio capabilities. (There are a lot of refurbished and used Touch's for sale on eBay or on Craigslist. I think you can even buy them directly from Amazon.)

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Touch-e...s=kindle+touch

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, not everybody. I've not heard of it being offered to anyone outside the US as yet.

Not sure what it is like for everyone else outside the states, but they seem far too busy telling me how much I would save if I signed up for a creditcard from them to have time to offer credit on an individual order.

[stutzj]

[Image violates guidelines for size - MODERATOR]

hmm...kindle 4NT's screen looks considerably better based on this picture. Darker text and more contrast. Of course the naked eye is the best judge but the picture doesn't assure me that the new basic kindle is an "upgrade".

Got this image here:

http://www.literaturcafe.de/ausfuehr...ouch-display#/

[Blossom]

Wow the difference is sad in that picture! At least this time they can't blame it on the bezel color.

[Sirtel]

The fonts are different: the old basic uses caecilia in this picture, the new one uses baskerville. The baskerville font is lighter and has poorer contrast. So we still don't know for certain.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The fonts are different: the old basic uses caecilia in this picture, the new one uses baskerville. The baskerville font is lighter and has poorer contrast. So we still don't know for certain.

Good eye! I didn't notice that on this laptop. Yes Baskerville is one font I wish they would replace on the Kindles.