To Onyx: Stop using e-Ink! Use ClearInk instead!

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

My impression is that one of the heaviest migrations from dead-tree to eReading is in genre (i.e. Romance, SF&F, etc) fiction. I would therefore suggest that "the way {I} use {my} device" is hardly atypical.

What proportion of eReader users [...]

My point in fact was exactly that to just follow the trend of the bulk market would be Plato's democracy. And in fact, both Onyx and Clearink are clearly reasoning in terms of "some markets are already filled in".

Originally Posted by Hrafn

I am questioning the unsubstantiated assumption that "video-capable and colors" are the Holy Grail of eReading

No, they are the immediately evldent lack of light-friendly displays.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

What is the market for color on an eReader? Comic reading?

Information rich content. It benefits from an extra dimension. (It was for example the point of failure of the Onyx tablet used as GPS based map browser.) Information conveyed through a flowing logic expressed in text paragraphs hardly benefits from colours, the rest does.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

If so, the colors on Clearink would have to be very vivid

I am actually more concerned about the quality of black and of white in displays made for sustained reading.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

> ...and the important matter is what /will/ be valid technologies having matured...
>This might be a valid assertion if

No, what I meant is that once the technology will be there, it will see adoption. Availability "creates" a market.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

>High framerates and the dimension of color (and battery efficiency) _are_ important for an always-ready display.
>You have not provided any evidence that this is sufficiently ubiquitously true in terms of how people use their eReaders for your emphatic "_are_" to be valid.

No, read again: <<always-ready display>>, not <<eReaders>>. (And nothing to do with ubiquity, as expressed earlier.)

Originally Posted by Hrafn

I would also point out many uses of tablets/phablets/smart-phones, involving such things as as high-quality video playback, wireless and cellular communications, gaming, etc tend to have a fairly heavy battery draw, limiting the ability of a battery-efficient display to contribute to a battery-efficient device under such usage patterns.

There are many scenarios in which the display has the highest impact on the battery drain. It is very important for a mobile device. For intensive use of other drainers in other scenarios, well, shall the user manage them intelligently, will he.
Which by the way brings me to the statement I often read "OLED consumes more then other technologies when mostly displaying whites". Who is the cleverboy that uses it to display mostly whites?
First you need the capability, then the "baculty" - the two sides of "ability"!

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Yes, but this makes a case for caution and market research, rather than simply jumping on the latest bandwagon.
[...]
It remains ludicrously premature to say "To Onyx: Stop using e-Ink! Use ClearInk instead!"
--
That assumes that they've learned sufficiently from past failures. Only time, and the availability of actual products for review, will determine if this assumption is valid.

If not following the first, the Onyx people would be neurally deficient; if the second, the ClearInk people would. Instead, I see achievements and CVs...

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

targeting the "eSchoolbook" niche, rather than products Onyx is currently selling

You sure? I was oriented towards understanding the opposite...

Originally Posted by Hrafn

>If you listen carefully, you will hear that the screens are playing 30 frames per second, but only showing 8 colors. That is rather basic compared to the average tablet, which can play video for hours and hours and show millions of colors.

The *prototype* was using 8 colors, the technology is made for 4096.
4096 (12 bits, I guess 16 shades per tint like e-ink) is plenty, and with high resolution and dithering it means perceptually more than the usual 24 bits, the millions of colours (to instead answer other criticism in a different thread).
30 fps is plenty, we have been using 24 (? memory) for the final deliverable for a century, and the frame switch consumption should be minimal ("the enegy to move a single particle for half a micron") so hours and hours should be more than granted.

[norweger]

Originally Posted by Duolive

Hello,

it's clear that e-ink technology cannot be the future of e-paper, so I think it's the time to work with ClearInk technology or others with video-capable and colors.

https://www.clearinkdisplays.com/

E-ink has a bright future.

I just attended a dinner party where we got talking about books. Most of the guests were avid readers, two of which were part of reading groups. But none had heard of e-ink without a back-light. Everyone read dead tree books.

So, I told them where to get e-books and that there were actually were Android e-readers on the market. Everyone was interested and two of the women brought out their notebooks to jot it down, as they had to get it.

In America a Kindle is okay to use for reading. Sure, the backlight makes it not as good for the eyes as an Onyx, but you can buy most book titles as ebooks. But in Europe you have to get your books from various sources, and then you'll need an Android e-reader (you'll get your books from Amazon, local online e-book stores, the regional library also has e-books and the national library has many more). But alas, there are no major local stores that carry Android e-readers. So, when an Android e-reader comes for sale at local stores, I think it would do very well.

What I decide whether I think a screen is good, my priorities are.
1) Is it good to read books on?
2) Is it good to read books on?
3) Is it good to read books on?

If such a color display you propose makes it slightly less suited for book reading, then I'd rather keep the e-ink. But, sure there are times when color would be nice.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by norweger

E-ink has a bright future

Brighter than its whites... (As it should!*)
*With which pretty obscurely I mean, "E-Ink contrast could probably be improved but it is already near where it should be".

Originally Posted by norweger

What I decide whether I think a screen is good, my priorities are.
1) Is it good to read books on?
2) Is it good to read books on?
3) Is it good to read books on?

Yes, that goes without saying. We are discussing emerging technologies. They will have no market if they do not fulfill that (with the possible exception of watches and barometers).

Not even the exceptional perimetral and bounary-pushing cases will buy it if it's not good for reading.

[norweger]

Originally Posted by mdp

Yes, that goes without saying. We are discussing emerging technologies. They will have no market if they do not fulfill that (with the possible exception of watches and barometers).

Not even the exceptional perimetral and bounary-pushing cases will buy it if it's not good for reading.

Way too often companies makes compromises. If they get a new feature they could, say live with it being somewhat less suited for reading. Almost all have better eyes than me, so I find the Kindle Paperwhite somewhat hard on the eyes because of the light, and the reMarkable easy on the eyes. Those with good eyes wouldn't see much of a difference, hence why I think it's important to make it optimal for reading. If it's suboptimal because a new feature is introduced, then it's not worth it.

[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by norweger

1) Is it good to read books on?
2) Is it good to read books on?
3) Is it good to read books on?

Originally Posted by Hrafn

...according to this post, ClearInk is currently only "106 dpi".

I think that may answer your question. The lowest resolution I've read on was 150ppi (5+ years ago, on my original eReader, a PB360). I would also point out that 150ppi also seems to be the lowest resolution on the cheapest tablets -- making it more difficult for ClearInk to compete with them as well (e.g. for the eSchoolbook market).

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

I think that may answer your question. The lowest resolution I've read on

Hrafn, you sound like your rebuttals are to "Let's now switch now..."
Nobody defended the absurd... You sound like you are taking the OP literally.

>We are discussing emerging technologies
A "technology" is not a "product", and "emerging" is not just opposite of "consolidated", it does not even cover "available"!

The technology employed, for what we know, allows for over 500ppi. It spins off LCD!
Their demo prototype was a video loop from the fifties!

If you want to discuss possibie limitations, check again the whites in the filmed prototypes and enjoy the rainbows. Which, again, I would not prematurely attribute to the final product.

[Marinolino]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

I would also point out that, to the extent they are targeting eReading (as opposed to Wearables, Smartphones/Tablets, Signage, Automotive displays and Electronic Shelf Labels), ClearInk is specifically targeting the "eSchoolbook" niche, rather than products Onyx is currently selling.

...

If J.Bezos saw them as a serious competition, he would target them with an adequate amount of m-paper, putting eSchoolbook/Tablets development in the well locked drawer for the next 2-3 years, at least.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Marinolino

If J.Bezos saw them as a serious competition, he'll target them with an adequate amount of paper, putting eSchoolbook development in the well locked drawer for the next 2-3 years, at least.

He could just employ the product.
Anyway, that would be rehiring former personnel.

[Marinolino]

Originally Posted by mdp

He could just employ the product.
Anyway, that would be rehiring former personnel.

Yep, unless Google or someone else offered even more, actually starting with a mass production immediately, but it still could e.g. at the beginning be displays only for the Army instead for the public.

[Hrafn]

A few points:

• "To Onyx: Stop using e-Ink! Use ClearInk instead!" certainly appears to be treating CI as a "product" (available for immediate implementation), not a "technology" (that needs further development), so I can hardly be faulted for addressing CI in that context.
• Clearink uses both Electrophoretic technology (similar to eInk), and a TFT (same as LCD). It therefore cannot be assumed that this combination can achieve the same resolutions as simple TFT/LCD. The commenter from the original thread that noted the 106ppi, also stated "And in all the videos posted, nobody once asks what the hardware limitation is concerning resolution. I am sure they can probably get better, but it is still optical micro lenses." (I would also point out that the CI website does a very poor job of explaining how their technology achieves color.)
• How many years, and how many tens of millions of dollars does it take to get a technology from 106ppi to 300ppi, even assuming that the market stands still in the mean time?
• I would note that the CI website seems to be very light (entirely lacking?) on technical specifications of their technology. This makes it rather hard to track whether, and how fast, it is improving its specs. It also makes me wonder how far beyond vaporware it has actually gotten.
• Amazon already has a color reflective display technology: Liquavista, which they may be in the process of shutting down. If even a technology backed by such heavyweights as first Philips and then Samsung and then Amazon has trouble making headway, then I'd suggest that an independent startup without such backing, that is most probably years from producing a competitive product, is likely to struggle.
• In terms of 'immediate mass production', what are the likely uses the US Army would have for a low-resolution color display? The most obvious uses for a color display would be map-reading and satellite/aerial surveillance feeds -- but that would likely require higher resolution.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

certainly appears to be treating CI as a "product"

As you know, there's no product.
"Onyx, reading is clearly not the future... Why have you not hexachrome in your screens?" Sorry, I am bad at absurd, I can never beat natural samples.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Clearink uses both Electrophoretic technology (similar to eInk), and a TFT (same as LCD). It therefore cannot be assumed that this combination can achieve the same resolutions as simple TFT/LCD

Yes, we are speculating... What certainly cannot be stated, is that their product would be "100dpi" or anything - It would be utterly false. There is no product!
The showcase demo cannot be representative - it is there to prove the technology, not represent possible product specifications. They remain on paper until production.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

How many years, and how many tens of millions of dollars does it take to get a technology from 106ppi to 300ppi

I think probably very little time and very little unplanned costs... I do not see why their technology should be limited to that amount of ppi. The showcase demo does not count.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

hard to track whether, and how fast, it is improving its specs

We do not really have the specs... I am not informed of anything to be improved. They are in trial-manufacturing, but we do not get to get the results. I think this phase is of preparation of the planned product, I have not recorded what it is meant to be. Specifications of the first products will probably strongly vary accordingly (watch vs tablet vs label)...

Originally Posted by Hrafn

If even a technology backed by such heavyweights

It's not the same technology. That's electrowetting.
Do not forget the point in time. Maybe good electrowetting will be trivial in 15 years. It is not now.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

that would likely require higher resolution

Higher than what? Current widespread targets are more than sufficient.

[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by mdp

As you know, there's no product.
"Onyx, reading is clearly not the future... Why have you not hexachrome in your screens?" Sorry, I am bad at absurd, I can never beat natural samples.

My apologies for addressing the actual topic of this thread.

What certainly cannot be stated, is that their product would be "100dpi" or anything - It would be utterly false. There is no product!

Then it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

What I did state is that the technology is at 106dpi now, and suggested that it would take time (during which the market will inevitably evolve, both with other new technologies entering, and customer needs and expectations evolving) and money to improve it.

The showcase demo cannot be representative - it is there to prove the technology, not represent possible product specifications. They remain on paper until production.

That a technology can be 'proved' to exist (which is all the "showcase demo" did) does not prove that it has the potential to be competitive.

Liquavista's technology also exists, as does Mirasol's, and bare existence hasn't done either much good. Showcase demos are far more frequent in this market than demos that turn into viable products.

I think probably very little time and very little unplanned costs... I do not see why their technology should be limited to that amount of ppi. The showcase demo does not count.

I congratulate you on your boundless optimism.

I wish I could share it, but you appear to be 'whistling past the graveyard' (of moribund technologies).

I would also suspect that, if resolution improvements were just around the corner, that CI would be pushing that fact.

ADDENDUM: The fact that CI has been around since 2012 would seem to indicate that progress is slow, and that we are unlikely to see sudden jumps in resolution. It took eInk 10 years to get from its original patent to its first commercial product (150ppi) eInk Vizplex, and then a further 7 years to get to 300ppi (eInk Carta HD).

We do not really have the specs...

And that is really the problem. No specs = no idea whether this technology can be competitive.

Until we have specs, we have little more than vaporware and speculation.

It's not the same technology.

Then it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

I stated that it was "a technology" (which it clearly is), which was backed by a series of industry heavyweights. CI, on the other hand is getting investment from far smaller players. When a product isn't ready for (non-trial) production, deep pockets matter.

Higher than what? Current widespread targets are more than sufficient.

Higher than the only confirmed resolution we have for CI: 106dpi.

What "widespread targets" are you talking about? How are they applicable?

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

What I did state is that the technology is at 106dpi now,
[...]
we are unlikely to see sudden jumps in resolution.
[...]
Higher than the only confirmed resolution we have for CI: 106dpi.
[...]
What "widespread targets" are you talking about? How are they applicable?

DuckieTigger reported <<106 dpi on the color display prototype>>, that does not mean that the technology is bound to that resolution, not even for the batches of this spring (hoped for). The prototype does not count to define such limits: you build a prototype according to budget, not to demonstrate a "state of the art". The prototype is reasonably cheap. The specification for the colour ranges is available - while that of the resolution I could not find -, yet the prototype was built to show 8 colours! They are in trial-manifacturing right now, the prototype happens much earlier...

> Until we have specs, we have little more than vaporware and speculation.
Right, including the achievable resolutions: the prototype is not enough.

[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by mdp

...that does not mean that the technology is bound to that resolution...

AGAIN, it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

DuckieTigger reported <<106 dpi on the color display prototype>>

And as it this appears to be about the ONLY hard data we have on this technology's capabilities, it is not unreasonable to base analysis on this, rather than untethered speculation on what the technology might one day be capable of.

not even for the batches of this spring (hoped for)

And the basis for this "hope" is?

The prototype does not count to define such limits...

Where the prototype is all we have, it cannot help but be the basis for any analysis of a technology's capabilities. anything else is pure speculation. Yes, improvement is possible (but ***NOT*** certain), but how much improvement, how quickly, and at what cost is beyond our knowing.

In fact the only basis we have for even speculating on such improvements is the speed at which prior technologies achieved them -- hence my eInk discussion -- which you appear to have ignored.

...you build a prototype according to budget, not to demonstrate a "state of the art". The prototype is reasonably cheap.

I would not call the end result of 5 years and millions of dollars worth of research "cheap". Also, having spent all this time and all that money on the technology, one does not skimp on the prototype. Prototypes are generally the most expensive single devices a company makes.

Also, a prototype IS, by definition, the "state of the art". It is the very best implementation of the technology that they have been able to turn from theory into reality.

The specification for the colour ranges is available - while that of the resolution I could not find -, yet the prototype was built to show 8 colours!

If 8 to 4096 color improvement is so easy, then why (in the ten months since they showed the original prototype last year) haven't they come out with a new prototype demonstrating this improvement?

They are in trial-manifacturing right now, the prototype happens much earlier...

Yes, but you need to prototype any new improvement before you can 'trial-manufacture' it. So, unless there is a new prototype with improved specs, then they will be trial-manufacturing based on the original prototype.

> Until we have specs, we have little more than vaporware and speculation.
Right, including the achievable resolutions: the prototype is not enough.

Yes, but lacking any factual basis, such speculation is worth about as much as this speculation: next year we will see a new technology, called HrafnInk, that will have 1000dpi, 16M colours, 60fps and negative energy usage (as it will also act as a solar panel).