New Kobo Elipsa ereader

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

And wherever I see people reading on electronic devices, I see - as I do - a reading distance of about twice the screen diagonal.

A rather different observation from what I see. Whether the person is reading on a 6" ereader, a 12.9" tablet or a broadsheet sized newspaper, in my experience, they tend to hold it at close to the same distance where they find it comfortable to read. I have never seen someone holding a 6" ereader at 30 cm. a 12.9" tablet at 66cm and a broadsheet newspaper at 192 cm.

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

And about your eyes: a distance setting to infinity does not fit the viewing distance of 34.3 cm from 2 different directions (distance of the two eyes) - some factor is strained excessively.

Since my eyes are are close to the same plane and I hold the ereader pretty much centred between my eyes, the difference in the distance between either eye and the surface of the device is pretty minuscule.

As for infinity? The prescription for my reading glasses was set so that with the ciliary muscles relaxed, my eyes are focused at 34.3 cm. You did bother to notice the brackets around the "for normal vision, that would be focused at infinity" with regards to the "my eyes are relaxed"? Are you having trouble reading your Google translations?

You do know that if, for example, you have your camera focused on infinity and you then place a +1.5 dioptre lenses in front of the camera lens, it would now be focused at .66 metres.

[ottischwenk]

- I am not aware that a "broadsheet newspaper" is an "electronic device," and
- I would have to squint quite a bit not to see a dot twice in 34.3 cm and this is quite exhausting with the eye lenses set to infinity* and
- what has squinting got to do with attachment lenses on a camera?
- I have never seen anyone using a 13.3 inch EInk device at less than 60 cm reading distance.

Apart from that, 227 dpi is not designed for a reading distance of 30-36 cm, unless the reader values a pixelated image - 0.11 mm are not clearly visible from such distances only by an extremely poor sighted person.

I suspect that here the pixel size plays a decisive role for the use of the reading distance.

Aber jeder, wie er glaubt!

* Edit: afterwards, I thought of another possibility why it might not be important for you - the eye lens is set to infinity and reading at a distance of 34.3 cm; there are people who see only with one eye despite having two functioning eyes - such a handicapped person naturally does not need to squint when seeing nearby.

[hollowpoint]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Personally I think 10" is too large to hold for casual reading. It's only useful for pdf. 7.8 is the sweet spot.

And really not even ideal for PDF, IMO. You can get by with this size and many do, but if you spend a lot of time marking up documents with a pen, you'll likely benefit from a larger screen closer to 13". The Elipsa, besides its weak hardware given the cost, is a 'tweener' size that doesn't appeal much.

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

And really not even ideal for PDF, IMO. You can get by with this size and many do, but if you spend a lot of time marking up documents with a pen, you'll likely benefit from a larger screen closer to 13". The Elipsa, besides its weak hardware given the cost, is a 'tweener' size that doesn't appeal much.

I prefer to do this kind of work with 7.8 inches, rather than with my 13.3s - the distance is too large for me (~ 55cm), so that I don't have to admire the individual pixels.
Since the pixel size of the 10.3 is almost the same, the necessary distance would also be very similar (~ 50 cm).
7.8 has the same pixel count as 10.3 - there I see the same thing at the working distance of ~ 30cm, which is very comfortable for me.

With regard to inferior hardware equipment, I have to agree, of course.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Personally I think 10" is too large to hold for casual reading. It's only useful for pdf. 7.8 is the sweet spot.

One advantage that could be worth my hard-filched piasters: If the infinitesimal photos and illustrations that taunt you with tininess on a smaller e-screen were somehow legible and could even be enlarged on an Elipsa. I nearly stopped reading bios of Alice Bradley Sheldon and Jean Rhys to avoid the extra irks.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Do the same with 7.8 and hold the device at a distance of 76% - then there is no difference.
And that can be proven physically.

I guess that depends on your vision. If I hold something closer to my eyes it is harder for me to see. I guess I would need to hold it at a distance of 124%? Or...I could just use whatever size screen and distance that is comfortable for me...since, you know, everybody's eyes (and preferences) are different.

Shari

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by shalym

I guess that depends on your vision. If I hold something closer to my eyes it is harder for me to see. I guess I would need to hold it at a distance of 124%? Or...I could just use whatever size screen and distance that is comfortable for me...since, you know, everybody's eyes (and preferences) are different.

Of course - but there is also the resolution of the eye, which is on average 1 arcminute = 0.1 mm at a viewing distance of about 35 cm, which is at least 40 cm for a 10.3 inch device, where no single pixel is seen.
Sharp-sighted people see up to 30 arcseconds - need twice the distance.
The individual reading distance is the one you strive to see the unpixelated text as comfortably as possible.

And the unpixelated text can be seen at 7.8/10.3 of the 10.3 reading distance - the fact that one has to squint more for this is unquestionable and also makes it more uncomfortable.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by shalym

I guess that depends on your vision. . . .[E]verybody's eyes (and preferences) are different.

Shari

I always hope that will be a point of understanding between people who disagree on use cases when pursuing a hobby. There's so much demand for sociopolitical opposition in the vicious present, and so much assumption of the worst motives on everyone's part, that it's nice to come here and find other members to talk to about ereaders and ebooks from the vantage of mutual affinity.

But now I realize I'm on the wrong thread and should look for a conversation about ereaders and/or formatting that makes illustrations in an ebook more viewable. Carry on.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

It's possible I'll get an Elipsa if it there's a fire sale someday, but I might have to move first and perhaps get a long banquet table -- the sort where Powell and Loy used to side-face each other while pretending to be hung over and baffled by their newspaper sections over twelve-course breakfasts.

If you use the code PERKOPOLIS you can save 10% on pre-ordering the Elipsa.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Personally I think 10" is too large to hold for casual reading. It's only useful for pdf. 7.8 is the sweet spot.

Is 8" too large? That would be the Forma if 8" is not too large.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Of course - but there is also the resolution of the eye, which is on average 1 arcminute = 0.1 mm at a viewing distance of about 35 cm, which is at least 40 cm for a 10.3 inch device, where no single pixel is seen.
Sharp-sighted people see up to 30 arcseconds - need twice the distance.
The individual reading distance is the one you strive to see the unpixelated text as comfortably as possible.

And the unpixelated text can be seen at 7.8/10.3 of the 10.3 reading distance - the fact that one has to squint more for this is unquestionable and also makes it more uncomfortable.

I guess my eyes must be really bad, then. I can't see pixels, even on my Kindle 3, no matter how far away I am. The only way I've ever been able to see the pixelation on any Kindle is if someone takes a pictures and zooms in very close. For me, it's not pixelation that's the problem, it's lack of contrast. and thickness of the fonts.

Shari

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by shalym

For me, it's not pixelation that's the problem, it's lack of contrast. and thickness of the fonts.

Thanks for the hint - a clear contrast difference is of course a prerequisite for my previous statement.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

The individual reading distance is the one you strive to see the unpixelated text as comfortably as possible.

And the unpixelated text can be seen at 7.8/10.3 of the 10.3 reading distance - the fact that one has to squint more for this is unquestionable and also makes it more uncomfortable.

If you need to use more than +1.5 (or maybe stronger) reading glasses, the only comfortable distance is that the glasses are designed for. They'll sell you different glasses if you regularly use a screen twice as far away. I sit and position my computer screen so it's book reading distance away.

Few people can see pixels at 300 dpi and almost no-one at normal viewing distance. But the 167 dpi approx eink is noticeably poorer.

The difference in the Original H2O resolution and the 300 dpi is not normally noticeable, but obvious with smaller fonts than the regular body font, like marginalia or footnotes or inline quotes.

Also rendition of grey shades for antialiasing helps, hence Black, White and 14 Greys of eink at 167 dpi is better than 200 dpi fax as it is only black or white. Laser printers and inkjets are better than they used to be at 300dpi, 360 dpi or 600 dpi due to ability to vary the dot size. An LCD or CRT at 120 dpi can look good due to thousands of shades allowing far better antialiasing, and for LCD and OLED the subpixel addressing.
See / and \ under magnification.

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by Quoth

If you need to use more than +1.5 (or maybe stronger) reading glasses, the only comfortable distance is that the glasses are designed for. They'll sell you different glasses if you regularly use a screen twice as far away. I sit and position my computer screen so it's book reading distance away.

Well I am farsighted and have astigmatism of 1 diopter 90° on both eyes and use glasses in three different strengths. The near vision glasses range from about 20 cm to 3 meters, the medium from about 50 cm to infinity at moderate brightness and the night vision glasses from about 3 meters.
The consideration of our ophthalmologists is that the eyes must remain in training.
By the way, with both glasses I can still see single pixels at a distance of about 45 cm on my Likebook Alita as well as on the Boox Note Air - that's why I also use them at a greater distance

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Aber jeder, wie er glaubt!

* Edit: afterwards, I thought of another possibility why it might not be important for you - the eye lens is set to infinity and reading at a distance of 34.3 cm; there are people who see only with one eye despite having two functioning eyes - such a handicapped person naturally does not need to squint when seeing nearby.

You don't seem to be able to understand the effect of placing a lens in front of the eye on vision. As mentioned, "The prescription for my reading glasses was set so that with the ciliary muscles relaxed, my eyes are focused at 34.3 cm." That ciliary muscle relaxation without the corrective lenses and with 20/20 vision would have the eyes focused at infinity. Sadly I don't have 20/20 vision and I do wear corrective lenses.

I'm not sure if you are wilfully misunderstanding what I wrote or just so convinced of your rightness that you don't need to read for comprehension.

And for your other weird theory, both my eyes are functioning and I have a bit of an issue trying to understand why you appear to believe that having a single functioning eye would remove the need to squint when seeing nearby.