Reflective displays vs Emissive displays

[4691mls]

Why is it that every time this topic comes up, at least one person insinuates that people who have eye issues reading on LCD are too stupid to have tried adjusting the brightness?

When I got my smartphone a couple years ago I tried to read on it because I thought it would be handy to just carry around one device. Of course I adjusted the brightness down! But I found I could not comfortably read on the phone for long periods of time. However, I can read for hours on e-ink. I actually mentioned this at an eye doctor appointment and the doctor advised me to stick with e-ink.

Obviously there are plenty of people who can read comfortably on LCD - if you are one of them, great. But please don't imply that I'm an idiot just because my eyes prefer e-ink.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

...When I got my smartphone a couple years ago I tried to read on it because I thought it would be handy to just carry around one device. Of course I adjusted the brightness down! But I found I could not comfortably read on the phone for long periods of time...

What reading application did you use on the phone and how, and how much did that reading app allow you to lower the brightness?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Turn the brightness way down. LCD/OLED displays have orders of magnitudes better contrast than E Ink so one can have the screen brightness much lower than that from a reflective screen. Don't use your eye issue as an excuse.

I can't turn my LED screens down any further and still read them.

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

The better reading apps (PocketBook and Moon+ Reader, for example) allow one to reduce the brightness to very low levels. In a lit room they will reduce the brightness to a level where the screen background is basically dark but which in a dark room provides a very low level glow. Again, because of their contrast abilities one can read on them with much lower illumination than reflective displays.

Not comfortably. At least not for me. There's got to be enough contrast for me to see the letters.

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

The main issue with LCD/OLED is that people just do not know how to set them up and so blame the display, whereas E Ink works out of the box but that within the limits of its less capable display. One can see something similar in the threads on the recent upgrade of Calibre Viewer, people cannot work out even the most basic things for themselves and then claim the upgrade is rubbish . Similar applies to PC displays, people complain of headaches, eye discomfort, etc. and when investigated it is because of too bright a display; it is not unusual to find that the display brightness is set as high as 100%.

Coincidentally, I'm not gaga over the new reader in Calibre. As a matter of fact I'm planning on finding a way to get and use the old one. (I like page numbers.) As for "not knowing how to set up LCD screens..." I don't really want to make a career out of learning the art of doing that — this is something I don't have to worry about on eInk screens. This sounds a lot like Microsoft blaming the user for Blue Screens of Death in Windows. "Well... if only you had made a detailed study on how to keep our crap running..."

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

But I know, one will never convince E Ink fans that any of that is so, psychological capture and promotion of the "wonders" of their reflective displays by ereader manufacturers. I am not married to either of transmissive or reflective, I use both transmissive and reflective displays but choose that which is most technically competent for the task - in the case of reading transmissive is the most competent when set up properly.

Why should you WANT to convince anybody of anything? I'm happy with my low-maintenance, easy to use, eInk readers. If you want to waste your time finding the "competent way" to set up LCD screens for the optimal LCD reading experience... knock yourself out. This is a not a problem for me.

I'll keep reading with the devices that don't give me dry-eye. Non-problem solved.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Why is it that every time this topic comes up, at least one person insinuates that people who have eye issues reading on LCD are too stupid to have tried adjusting the brightness?

When I got my smartphone a couple years ago I tried to read on it because I thought it would be handy to just carry around one device. Of course I adjusted the brightness down! But I found I could not comfortably read on the phone for long periods of time. However, I can read for hours on e-ink. I actually mentioned this at an eye doctor appointment and the doctor advised me to stick with e-ink.

Obviously there are plenty of people who can read comfortably on LCD - if you are one of them, great. But please don't imply that I'm an idiot just because my eyes prefer e-ink.

Exactly. I'm not stupid. I know that lower light on LED will help with eyestrain. I also know I have to be able to actually see the words or the screen is completely worthless to me. I've learned to break away from my computer and tablet LCD screens on a regular basis, which helps.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

What reading application did you use on the phone and how, and how much did that reading app allow you to lower the brightness?

If you asked me this question i would just say, "too much busy work to worry about." I've got no desire to test LCD screens for the ultimate reading experience. I already know it's uncomfortable. It's not just reading (for me) it's surfing the web or watching videos on my tablet. I still do these things... obviously, but I've found taking frequent breaks are necessary. When I read, I like to read for hours at a time. I can do this with an eInk reader "out of the box." Maybe, if I put an eye-patch on my right eye, got the "just right" app, turned the light down way low and squinted, I could do it on an LCD device, but I don't want to do that. It's too much work.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Why is it that every time this topic comes up, at least one person insinuates that people who have eye issues reading on LCD are too stupid to have tried adjusting the brightness?
.

Not everyone who reads is tech savvy. The studies that purport to show reading on devices harm the eyes...never mention turning the brightness down. People who have testifies as to why they don’t like reading on devices have brought up computer monitor reading...where it’s not as easy to adjust brightness.

And most importantly.....even those of us who like reading on devices get tired eyes if our device brightness is too high. So why wouldn’t one at least ask the question? Have you tried turning down the brightness? Or choosing light on dark instead of black on white.

There is a reason why I get car sick watching first person immersive games. Has to do with they eyes communicating something different than what the ears expect with regard to motion. Doesn’t affect everybody but does affect me.

I’m still trying to peg just what it is that folks who don’t like reading on devices are reading too. It’s not “direct light vs bounced light”. Is it the refresh rate? It can’t be the dpi as screens long have surpassed eInk in that and contrast,

Is there something different about the light spectrum?

It’s gotta be something as enough people report the problem. However, it’s nothing that I’ve heard put forward as a large majority would share the experience if the usual suspects were indeed the problem.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

...
And most importantly.....even those of us who like reading on devices get tired eyes if our device brightness is too high. So why wouldn’t one at least ask the question? Have you tried turning down the brightness? Or choosing light on dark instead of black on white.

Don't you think that those who uncomfortable reading LCD screens would figure out how to use the brightness setting? It didn't take me long to grasp that. The problem is there's a point where an LCD screen is too dim to read comfortably. So you're "between a rock and hard place" as they say.

Originally Posted by leebase

...

I’m still trying to peg just what it is that folks who don’t like reading on devices are reading too. It’s not “direct light vs bounced light”. Is it the refresh rate? It can’t be the dpi as screens long have surpassed eInk in that and contrast,

Is there something different about the light spectrum?

It’s gotta be something as enough people report the problem. However, it’s nothing that I’ve heard put forward as a large majority would share the experience if the usual suspects were indeed the problem.

Well, in my case it's probably caused by Bell's Palsy and the the issues it caused in my right eye. But I would imagine people who've never had Bell's Palsy (or something else) might just be more sensitive to emitted light than they are to reflective light. I don't know what the science is or is supposed to be, I just know what is, personally, in my case.

What I don't understand is why anyone should care what device someone is comfortable or uncomfortable in using. Dedicated eReader (used ones) are plentiful and cheap (as are tablets). I figure whichever works best for the one reading, that's what they should use.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rcentros

..Why should you WANT to convince anybody of anything?..

Because there needs to be some input to these forums to counter the love of E Ink devices promoted here and which more often than not is very misleading and unsoundly based. Anyone new to readers coming here for advice just sees a flood of rabid promotion of E Ink readers and that being so represents a disservice to those coming to browse here thinking they are going to see good advice.

If I was promoting E Ink, many would be lapping up every word as being wonderful no matter how incorrect the claims in them were .

[leebase]

I don’t care why someone prefers one thing over another. I do care when misinformation is given out - like claiming that reading on devices harms eyes.

And yes...some people,didn’t know to turn down the brightness or change the background color. I’ve been participating in this topic for 10 years and counting. I remember how LOTS of folks were so cocky sure that reading on phones or tablets would never be much of a thing because eInk was obviously superior.

Some people have at least come to realize that the vast majority of people have no problem at all. Most people have let the discussion become “I like my way, you like yours”.

But every once in awhile someone will trot out Science! with <insert scary headline here> or “serious readers read on eInk” pablum. And if I’m bored, I’ll join in and retread these old old arguments

[AnotherCat]

There is one forumite who has, in my opinion, a very balanced approach to the use of devices and advice. They generally read on a LCD/OLED display device and so reap the benefits of those devices, but because they periodically hike away for extended periods from possible device charging opportunities they have a reflective device for that use and so reap the low energy usage benefit of that display type. In their position I would probably try to do the same (of course, though, many cannot afford two devices for reading).

Contrast that with the plain anger of some in this thread (and in others too) when the advantages of LCD/OLED are stated and the claims of "too bright" are contradicted. How often does one see such anger directed at the often unscientific claims of some E Ink promoting forumites? Perhaps people who try to take a rational stance balancing the advantages of both display types without anger find themselves gravitating to LCD/OLED?

And regarding my claim that people generally have displays too bright and that many do not know how to correctly set it for long term comfort, that is not something I have made up (it sure does create anger in some here though ). I have seen overly bright displays for years everywhere on all sorts of devices, PCs and instrumentation, in offices and in industry, in darkened and even completely dark environments, and in sunlight. And the associated headaches, sore eyes, etc. too.

But in those environments the personnel are not married to some self fancied display type that they feel some strange need to defend, they need to do a job in comfort so are open to suggestions of turning down brightness, getting their eye checked, for example. Suggestions are not fobbed off by them as being a fault of the display although they may find it hard to believe in the first instance that taking such easily implemented advice will work.

Oh, and as leebase, I too do not care what people use. But I do care though that when a new person to reading devices browses these forums to help them in their decision should see advice that is not skewed. If one has an eye disease then if one is going to give advice then in my view one should disclose ones disability to qualify ones advice (as rcentros has done). If one claims they get headaches from WiFi, as several in these forums do, then perhaps they should be self aware enough to consider themselves incompetent to give sound advice on any technology, or at least make clear their tendency to psychosomatic disorders if they insist.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Because there needs to be some input to these forums to counter the love of E Ink devices promoted here and which more often than not is very misleading and unsoundly based. Anyone new to readers coming here for advice just sees a flood of rabid promotion of E Ink readers and that being so represents a disservice to those coming to browse here thinking they are going to see good advice.

If I was promoting E Ink, many would be lapping up every word as being wonderful no matter how incorrect the claims in them were .

I'm sorry, but if there is anyone "rabid" it's those who say things like "rabid promotion of E Ink readers..." Honestly that's the reason I get involved in these endless LCD vs eInk threads... because it seems like it's not good enough for you (and others) to state your preference for LCD tablets or smartphones, you've got to denigrate who disagree with you? Why?

What you call "misleading" I call sound advice. I KNOW (I don't guess, I don't make it up) that I get dry-eye when reading on LCD devices. Just the facts. Obviously others have similar issues, if you don't have these issues -- that's great, more power to you. But that doesn't make these issues any less real.

And this is just ONE of the reasons I prefer eReaders to tablets. (No need to rehash the other reasons in this thread).

If you could refrain from using words like "rabid" when describing those you don't agree with, I could gladly refrain from posting in these endless eInk/LCD debates.

Again, I don't care what you like. I KNOW what I like and why. And I don't have to apologize to anyone for it.

And no, I wouldn't be "lapping up your every word" if you referred to those who liked LCD screens as "rabid." I think using this kind of language over something this trivial is a bit unhinged.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

...
Some people have at least come to realize that the vast majority of people have no problem at all. Most people have let the discussion become “I like my way, you like yours”.

But every once in awhile someone will trot out Science! with <insert scary headline here> or “serious readers read on eInk” pablum. And if I’m bored, I’ll join in and retread these old old arguments

Apparently more people than you want to admit DO have problems reading on LCD screens. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

I'm one of those who does have problems with LCD screens. Which is why I'm very happy that dedicated eInk readers exist.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Technically the brain comprises of the brain stem (the smallest part of the brain, located beneath it), the cerebellum (located lower rear of the brain) and cerebrum (the main mass of the brain). It does not include the retina, but you can add any part of your anatomy to it that you like.

Technically your information is outdated, is no longer state of the art, ignores latest research. What I "claim" is not even that new, I learned about in 2001/2002 in school. I no longer have free access to academic research, if you do, it should be easy for to verify.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by leebase

Not everyone who reads is tech savvy. The studies that purport to show reading on devices harm the eyes...never mention turning the brightness down.

To add to this, as I've mentioned before on mobileread, the much-vaunted study that "proved" that "ebooks are bad for your sleep" had their subjects reading for hours on iPads cranked to full brightness in a dim room. Reading under these (hideous) conditions delayed sleep onset by about ten minutes.

[slex]

Of course, no one who reads on an e-ink screen has ever considered turning the LED's monitor brightness down. Or tried using dark mode.

Irony aside, there might actually be some people who don't know how to regulate the brightness and to somehow fail to connect it to their eyestrain and/or headaches but:

1) I really doubt that a person who doesn't know how to tweak the settings of the LED screen will be even aware of e-ink screens as an alternative, let alone making the step to actually buying such a device.

2) In the light of 1) the proportion of users who were lead from LED to e-ink for this particular reason with be really small and yet from the discussion so far I infer the claim that somehow this is the case in general.

The fact is, there are lots of people who handle e-ink better than LED (even at favourable settings), myself included.