Is there an anti-LCD/pro-Eink bias on MobileRead?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

I generally disdain staring at backlit screens when their light output is incongruous to the surrounding environment. A bright backlight that improves apparent contrast and color saturation often far exceeds what ambient light would otherwise dictate.

However, if the backlight is handled well, I don't find it particularly uncomfortable.

Yep, the same here. When I read at night, the backlight of either of my devices is turned down to the minimum. I rather like my JE100 for that more than my PDA. The backlight can be turned lower than on my PDA. I yesterday got the remark from my husband who thought I was just laying in bed, reader in hand, without any lights on (neither the bed light, nor the backlight). While I was reading with the backlight turned on

[Abelturd]

Recently I bought a htc hero phone with capacitive touch screen and I've noticed that reading on it puts markedly less strain on my eyes than reading on ipaq 214 with a resistive touch screen. Has anyone else noticed the difference between capacitive and resistive touchscreens, or is it just me fooling myself and transposing my momentary liking for my new toy into this? Thanks.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Recently I bought a htc hero phone with capacitive touch screen and I've noticed that reading on it puts markedly less strain on my eyes than reading on ipaq 214 with a resistive touch screen. Has anyone else noticed the difference between capacitive and resistive touchscreens, or is it just me fooling myself and transposing my momentary liking for my new toy into this? Thanks.

As I've absolutely no idea what's the difference between them, I can't comment on it. But what's the resolution on your HTC and on your Ipaq? I notice less strain on my 3.4" Loox 720, with a 640x480 resolution than on my 3.4" Loox 600, with a 320x240 resolution...

[Abelturd]

Ipaq's res is 640x480, hero's is 480x320, hero's screen is smaller though, so the pixel per inch ratios are not that far off. Resistive touchscreens have more layers than capacitive, perhaps this could explain the lesser strain on eyes.
But I'm more interested if someone else subjectively perceives the capacitive touchscreen to be less eye-straining in comparison with the resistive one when it comes to reading.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Ipaq's res is 640x480, hero's is 480x320, hero's screen is smaller though, so the pixel per inch ratios are not that far off. Resistive touchscreens have more layers than capacitive, perhaps this could explain the lesser strain on eyes.
But I'm more interested if someone else subjectively perceives the capacitive touchscreen to be less eye-straining in comparison with the resistive one when it comes to reading.

I have both an Iphone 3G and a Touch Pro2 (800x480). Both are just bearable for reading when I read white text on a black background. No difference for me, just backups for when I don't have my reader with me.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Ipaq's res is 640x480, hero's is 480x320, hero's screen is smaller though, so the pixel per inch ratios are not that far off. Resistive touchscreens have more layers than capacitive, perhaps this could explain the lesser strain on eyes.
But I'm more interested if someone else subjectively perceives the capacitive touchscreen to be less eye-straining in comparison with the resistive one when it comes to reading.

I've no idea what system my devices use...

[Highroller]

Ok one more try here. Not all lcd ereaders have backlit screens. Have ANY of you tried the reflective TFT lcd screens. The stronger the light the easier they are to read at least for me. Hence they work GREAT in sunlight for me. Now I have VERY little experience with e-ink readers. That said, most people that like e-ink seem to use a variation of the following statement, "e-ink is almost as easy to read as a real paper book" I have a jetbook lite that has a tft reflective screen. For me it is EASIER to read in bed using a bedside lamp and causes less eyestrain than reading a paper book under same conditions. So assuming the e-ink devices ARE as easy on the eyes as a real book then for me I deduce my jetbook lite is better than an e-ink for me. For backlit lcd devices I agree they do seem to add to eyestrain. However the key thing in this lcd vs e-ink for me is how well an e-ink compares to a modern lcd that is NOT backlit. (by modern I am talking resolution) For me the only advantage e-ink has over a reflective lcd is battery life. I get some 23 hours between battery changes on my lcd device. I am quite happy with that.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by Highroller

Ok one more try here. Not all lcd ereaders have backlit screens.

...~~~ yada yada yada ~~~...

I am quite happy with that.

This was covered in this thread over a year ago! I'm glad you're happy with your Jetbook and I agree with your statements but and let this thread be.

Start a new thread if you like but stop digging up the dead.

Because the dates at the beginning of this thread were March 15/16 I thought this was a new thread, but aren't I foolish to be following someone else into the swamp of days past.

Since I can't delete this post at least I can make it relevant.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Highroller

Have ANY of you tried the reflective TFT lcd screens.
...
So assuming the e-ink devices ARE as easy on the eyes as a real book then for me I deduce my jetbook lite is better than an e-ink for me.

Have YOU actually seen an e-ink display in person?
Have YOU compared your Jetbook to an e-ink device side to side?
I feel I can see a very strong, unwarranted pro-reflective-TFT-LCD/anti-Eink bias in your post ;-)

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by kacir

I feel I can see a very strong, unwarranted pro-reflective-TFT-LCD/anti-Eink bias in your post ;-)

[Lemurion]

I read on both: I have a Sony 505 and now a Droid. The Sony is much easier to read for long periods of time, but the Droid is more flexible and always with me (the screen's smaller but the much higher DPI makes it usable).

I think people need to understand it's not a one size fits all situation. Different devices fill different needs for different people.

I have both, I use both. They each have benefits.

[Highroller]

Originally Posted by kacir

Have YOU actually seen an e-ink display in person?
Have YOU compared your Jetbook to an e-ink device side to side?
I feel I can see a very strong, unwarranted pro-reflective-TFT-LCD/anti-Eink bias in your post ;-)

Sigh. I already said I have very little experience with e-ink. What little direct experience I had of e-ink supported the generalized saying of it being "as good as a paper book".

What I DID say I had compared side by side was a paper book and reflective lcd. And I went on to say many people seem to say e-ink is almost as good/as good as reading a paper book when it comes to eyestrain.

What I have is strong bias against people that use statements that I know to be false such as the "fact" you cant read lcd in sunlight and the "fact" that lcd causes more eyestrain than e-ink. ie no qualifiers.

So in answer, no I haven't compared e-ink and reflective lcd side by side I compared them both to a paper book and drew a conclusion that applied to me.

Now, have you compared them side by side?
If so, what were your results?
Have you compared them both to paper books?

Unless an e-ink devices causes me considerably less eyestrain than a paper book does, for ME its not as good as reflective lcd. Because the reflective lcd DOES cause me a good bit less eyestrain than a paper book. I haven't seen anyone that stated e-ink was that much better than a paper book when it comes to eyestrain. Not saying its not possible for some people.

As for the age of this thread, to me its still valid. I haven't seen any substantial changes in reflective lcds or e-ink devices in the last year.

The crux of the e-ink supporters liking seems to be that it doesn't shine light in their eyes ie no backlite. Which is why I only compared reflective lcd to e-ink and agreed back lit lcds tend to cause more eyestrain.


So yes I have a bias but its not against e-ink its against the all encompassing claims made by certain e-ink supporters. Thankfully not as much of that here as on certain blogs.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Highroller

What I have is strong bias against people that use statements that I know to be false such as the "fact" you cant read lcd in sunlight and the "fact" that lcd causes more eyestrain than e-ink. ie no qualifiers.

I am afraid that there are many, many people that do not realize that there are non-backlit LCD displays. Lots of people can not understand that displays they see on calculators, old mobile phones, cheap digital watches and old palm organizers are too LCD, just different than their new TV or flat monitor. So when you hear that lcd can not be read pn direct sunlight you can see that that person does not understand what an LCD display is.

My calculator, my old digital watch and also my previous book reading device - Cassiopeia A-20 were perfectly readable on direct sunlight. Jetbook features display that is two generations ahead of my Cassiopeia screen, so I am pretty sure that its display is perfectly readable.
I just wouldn't go so far as claim that either display is clearly superior to the other one. The displays are different.

Let's have a look at some pictures that I found using google.
http://www.dobreebooki.pl/eczytniki_...jetbook_08.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/...d980557f_b.jpg
http://jim.pp.ru/wp-content/uploads/...b468b5a_xl.jpg
http://czech-dictionary.ectaco.name/...24-500x316.jpg

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by kacir

I am afraid that there are many, many people that do not realize that there are non-backlit LCD displays. Lots of people can not understand that displays they see on calculators, old mobile phones, cheap digital watches and old palm organizers are too LCD, just different than their new TV or flat monitor. So when you hear that lcd can not be read pn direct sunlight you can see that that person does not understand what an LCD display is.

My calculator, my old digital watch and also my previous book reading device - Cassiopeia A-20 were perfectly readable on direct sunlight. Jetbook features display that is two generations ahead of my Cassiopeia screen, so I am pretty sure that its display is perfectly readable.
I just wouldn't go so far as claim that either display is clearly superior to the other one. The displays are different.

Let's have a look at some pictures that I found using google.
http://www.dobreebooki.pl/eczytniki_...jetbook_08.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/...d980557f_b.jpg
http://jim.pp.ru/wp-content/uploads/...b468b5a_xl.jpg
http://czech-dictionary.ectaco.name/...24-500x316.jpg

The fact is, that even some backlit devices are perfectly readable in direct sunlight... Most people just want to ignore transflective screens. It's a technology on which the PixelQi screens are based upon...

[Lemurion]

I know that personally, the trade-off for back-lighting isn't worth it for a primary reading device. Reading in the dark is a nice benefit - and it's better on my Droid than the light-wedge on my Sony - but I don't like the battery life.