Good time for Oasis?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

So you agree that the screen position is not the only reason for screen differences, and often not even the main reason. There are others - glass vs plastic, lighting, probably other factors most of us may not even be aware of. It's not merely flush vs recessed.

No, I do not agree. I no longer have my Oasis, but at the time I had both the Oasis and H2O, I never felt that that the Oasis had a better display. If anything I thought the H2O had a very slightly better display in it's natural state, i.e, with the lighting off. E-ink displays are always evaluated qualitatively with the internal lighting off. The Oasis has a better lighting system by miles, but that is a separate issue to the e-ink display.

All other things being the same, the recessed screen will always be superior because there are fewer layers on top of it to degrade the quality. You can put plastic or glass or micro etched glass on top of it, but it'll always degrade it to some extent, even if only minutely. How can a layer added on top of the bare e-ink display improve it? It cannot. One can argue that the degradation is too minute to care about -and that is a vey reasonable stance to hold- but it is wrong to say that there is no degradation possible at all.

Even the highest grade of glass on top will bend light. And if the glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display below, then this gets worse, because of the air gap. (This is why Apple has laminated displays on it's higher end iPad models, while the older and cheaper ones have the air gap). Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Oasis has the air gap too. The glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display.

Even within the category of recessed screens, the older ones that were touch based and used IR were superior to the later ones that are capacitive touch based, because the capacitive layer is laid over the bare e-ink screen on the later models. Extra layers always degrade quality. It's just physics. My old Aura H2O is IR based and the display is whiter and the text darker than both the Oasis and Libra H2O. It only loses out because of it's lower ppi and older white lighting.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

No, I do not agree. I no longer have my Oasis, but at the time I had both the Oasis and H2O, I never felt that that the Oasis had a better display. If anything I thought the H2O had a very slightly better display in it's natural state, i.e, with the lighting off. E-ink displays are always evaluated qualitatively with the internal lighting off. The Oasis has a better lighting system by miles, but that is a separate issue to the e-ink display.

All other things being the same, the recessed screen will always be superior because there are fewer layers on top of it to degrade the quality. You can put plastic or glass or micro etched glass on top of it, but it'll always degrade it to some extent, even if only minutely. How can a layer added on top of the bare e-ink display improve it? It cannot. Even the highest grade of glass on top will bend light. And if the glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display below, then this gets worse, because of the air gap. (This is why Apple has laminated displays on it's higher end iPad models, while the older and cheaper ones have the air gap). Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Oasis has the air gap too. The glass layer on top is not laminated onto the e-ink display.

The fact remains that both the Voyage and the Oasis 3 had better contrast than many readers with recessed screens (not the Oasis 2, which had relatively poor contrast, like the Libra H2O). No argument you can bring can refute what my eyes see when I compare two devices side by side. When I see that the Oasis or the Voyage has darker blacks than the Libra H2O (for example), and most other people see it as well - moreover, when it can be clearly seen even on photos - then that's what counts to us, not technical evaluations and measurements.

And yes, I posted photos with the Oasis 3 and the Libra H2O side by side a while ago. Don't remember the thread, but the difference in contrast was pretty obvious.

[zuma]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The PW4 is terrible. The screen is abysmal. The PW3 had a good screen but the PW4 does not. Amazon botched the PW4 by making it flush. The Libra 2 is not flush so the screen can still look good.

By raising the touch layer to make the screen flush, Amazon moved the touch layer away from the screen and that made the screen look muddy and less contrast. It's a disaster.

As for syncing on a Kindle, you do know that you will lose your covers.

A Kobo Libra 2 is better in almost every way vs a Kindle.

When my PW3 broke I actually bought a refurbished PW3 to replace it after looking at the PW4 at Best Buy. They really took a step backward with that one. To address OP, I have an Oasis 3 now but unless you really want the buttons, it's hard to justify it over the PW5. If you want buttons I'd hold out for a new Oasis at this point or look into the Libra 2 (I don't know much about it though). The PW5 makes it really hard to justify spending double the amount for an Oasis.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

The fact remains that both the Voyage and the Oasis 3 had better contrast than many readers with recessed screens (not the Oasis 2, which had relatively poor contrast, like the Libra H2O). No argument you can bring can refute what my eyes see when I compare two devices side by side. When I see that the Oasis or the Voyage has darker blacks than the Libra H2O (for example), and most other people see it as well - moreover, when it can be clearly seen even on photos - then that's what counts to us, not technical evaluations and measurements.

And yes, I posted photos with the Oasis 3 and the Libra H2O side by side a while ago. Don't remember the thread, but the difference in contrast was pretty obvious.

But you're still not comparing like for like. The Voyage and Libra H2O do not have the same e-ink display, so any comparisons between them are moot when it comes to ascertaining flush vs recessed. You can only compare them when they have the same e-ink display.

And just like your eyes see the same generation Oasis 3 display as being better than the Libra H20, my eyes see the opposite. So your or mine subjective assessment carries no weight.

Only the objective facts matter, which is that when the e-ink display is the same on two devices, then the one with fewer layers on top of it will be the better looking one. Your eyes can lie to you, and the fact that different people see the comparisons differently proves it so. But physics does not lie.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by zuma

When my PW3 broke I actually bought a refurbished PW3 to replace it after looking at the PW4 at Best Buy. They really took a step backward with that one. To address OP, I have an Oasis 3 now but unless you really want the buttons, it's hard to justify it over the PW5. If you want buttons I'd hold out for a new Oasis at this point or look into the Libra 2 (I don't know much about it though). The PW5 makes it really hard to justify spending double the amount for an Oasis.

The Libra 2 is easily the better purchase over the Oasis 3. The newer generation e-ink generation is a major major improvement, and the lighting on the Libra 2 is now very even and soothing as well. The Oasis has better ergonomics. The Libra 2 weight distribution is worse than that on the Libra H20.

If the purchaser prefers the Kindle software and ecosystem, then maybe the Paperwhite 5 with the new display is a good choice, but I have not held it in my hands personally to form a strong opinion on it. However one needs to keep in mind that the PW5 does have an extra layer on top of the display and has no buttons either.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

But you're still not comparing like for like. The Voyage and Libra H2O do not have the same e-ink display, so any comparisons between them are moot when it comes to ascertaining flush vs recessed. You can only compare them when they have the same e-ink display.

And just like your eyes see the same generation Oasis 3 display as being better than the Libra H20, my eyes see the opposite. So your or mine subjective assessment carries no weight.

Only the objective facts matter, which is that when the e-ink display is the same on two devices, then the one with fewer layers on top of it will be the better looking one. Your eyes can lie to you, and the fact that different people see the comparisons differently proves it so. But physics does not lie.

You're contradicting yourself in several posts now. The question was whether the recessed screen is always, automatically better than the flush one. You've admitted it actually depends on many factors - the eink panel itself, glass or plastic, lighting and so on. Then you turn around and say all those factors don't count. Of course they do. What matters to me and probably to most people is what our eyes perceive, subjective as that may be. I don't care that strict scientific measurements say one screen is not better than another when I see it is. My experience is what matters to me.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

You're contradicting yourself in several posts now. The question was whether the recessed screen is always, automatically better than the flush one. You've admitted it actually depends on many factors - the eink panel itself, glass or plastic, lighting and so on. Then you turn around and say all those factors don't count. Of course they do. What matters to me and probably to most people is what our eyes perceive, subjective as that may be. I don't care that strict scientific measurements say one screen is not better than another when I see it is. My experience is what matters to me.

How am I contradicting myself? "All things being equal, the recessed display will always be better than the one with layers on top of it" is as clear and self-evident a stance as it can be. Can you point to one single reason why that is not true? You're introducing confounding factors into it to muddy the waters and make it an unscientific comparison.

And considering that the experience from your eyes does not match up with the experience from other eyes clearly shows your assessment methods up to be awfully subjective. The truth is then only delivered by the objective.

[howyoudoin]

Here's a simple question.

Device A and Device B have the same e-ink display from the same manufacturer.

Device A is eCarta HD. It has a ppi of 300. It has a capacitive layer laid onto it and bonded to the display.

Device B is eCarta HD. It has a ppi of 300. It has a capacitive layer laid onto it and bonded to the display.

Difference:

Device A has no other layers on top of it. You are looking directly at the e-ink display with the capacitive layer on top of it.

Device B has an extra glass layer on top of the capacitive layer, and it also has an air gap in between the capacitive layer and the glass layer.

Which do you think looks clearer? If your answer is Device B, then please provide the scientific explanation for why that extra layer of glass, along with an air gap, makes Device B look clearer. We are only interested in the science, not the subjective and unreliable perceptions of your eyes.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Jon’s stance isn’t that it would be slightly better rather that it must be significantly better. And I can tell you that without doing a side by side comparison you won’t know the difference. Even in a side by side they’re neck and neck.

That boils down to exaggeration then. There are people who claim the exact opposite - that the recessed screen must be worse than the screen with more layers on top. Do you disagree with them? Because unlike Jon who's merely exaggerating something that is actually correct to a minor degree, those opposing him are actually stating something that is absolutely untrue.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Here's a simple question.

Device A and Device B have the same e-ink display from the same manufacturer.

Device A is eCarta HD. It has a ppi of 300. It has a capacitive layer laid onto it and bonded to the display.

Device B is eCarta HD. It has a ppi of 300. It has a capacitive layer laid onto it and bonded to the display.

Difference:

Device A has no other layers on top of it. You are looking directly at the e-ink display with the capacitive layer on top of it.

Device B has an extra glass layer on top of the capacitive layer, and it also has an air gap in between the capacitive layer and the glass layer.

Which do you think looks clearer? If your answer is Device B, then please provide the scientific explanation for why that extra layer of glass, along with an air gap, makes Device B look clearer. We are only interested in the science, not the subjective and unreliable perceptions of your eyes.

You may be interested in science, I'm not. To my eyes the Oasis 3 looks better than the Libra H2O and that's all I care about. Whether it's due to lighting, glass panel or ten other factors, I have no idea and don't particularly care either. Nor do I care what the screens looks like with the light off, as I never, in any conditions, read with the light off.

I acknowledge that measuring bare screens strictly alone, without any other factors, they may be equal. But I never read in those conditions either, there are always other factors. What matters to me is how I perceive the screen in my usual reading environment. And in this situation the Oasis 3 clearly has better contrast.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That boils down to exaggeration then. There are people who claim the exact opposite - that the recessed screen must be worse than the screen with more layers on top. Do you disagree with them? Because unlike Jon who's merely exaggerating something that is actually correct to a minor degree, those opposing him are actually stating something that is absolutely untrue.

It is absolutely untrue when you say the Libra H2O has a better screen than the Oasis 3.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That boils down to exaggeration then. There are people who claim the exact opposite - that the recessed screen must be worse than the screen with more layers on top. Do you disagree with them? Because unlike Jon who's merely exaggerating something that is actually correct to a minor degree, those opposing him are actually stating something that is absolutely untrue.

Actually no. Those opposing him are only saying he’s incorrect that the one is always better. If it’s always better it’s objectively better yet we find that even in the case of “like for like” (which is a fool’s errand here as there are other factors that aren’t the same) there’s still dissension about which is better. One such factor would be the size of the screens being compared (Libra 2 vs Sage), type of eink screen used (PW3 vs 4), manufacturers (Amazon vs Kobo and ironically even Kobo vs Kobo as they did use a different company recently for I think just the Elipsa). The list goes on and on. Which is why those who oppose Jon say it may contribute but the end result is not always objectively worse.

As far as I know there’s no actual like for like devices where the only difference is flushed vs recessed screens.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

So you agree that the screen position is not the only reason for screen differences, and often not even the main reason. There are others - glass vs plastic, lighting, probably other factors most of us may not even be aware of. It's not merely flush vs recessed.

But in the case of the PW3/PW4 it is recessed vs flush for the screen difference as it's the same top layer.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Even within the category of recessed screens, the older ones that were touch based and used IR were superior to the later ones that are capacitive touch based, because the capacitive layer is laid over the bare e-ink screen on the later models. Extra layers always degrade quality. It's just physics. My old Aura H2O is IR based and the display is whiter and the text darker than both the Oasis and Libra H2O. It only loses out because of it's lower ppi and older white lighting.

I disagree that the H2O loses out because of lack of the orange light. I have the Libra 2 and I don't use the orange light. I quite like the ligh on the H2O. I do think it's better then the light on the Libra 2.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But in the case of the PW3/PW4 it is recessed vs flush for the screen difference as it's the same top layer.

Yes, in their case it may be the only difference and the main reason as well. But that doesn't mean it is so in every other case.