Kindle 4 screen is THE SAME as K3.

[shinew]

Alright, I can't help myself but to reply for one last time(hopefully), because this seems like it might go out of control...
Below's Zeebra's picture to "proof" that the older(top one) kindle is superior to the newer one(bottom).

Originally Posted by Zeebra

For those still doubting about differences in Kindle screens from 2010 to 2011, here are 2 Kindle 3's (Kindle Keyboards). Both have the same case, so no "optical illusions" based on different coloured backgrounds around the screen. Tell me you see no difference.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=458

I guess it's hard for some to believe that taking a picture and compare them does not proof or mean anything (unless you know what you're doing).

For those who can tell the differences from the pic above, good for you because they are different. But it might not be for the reason you think.

Here they are:
1) Blacker/More contrasty texts: the top one has better "contrast" because the camera focusing is obviously on the top one, everything for the underneath reader is out of focus and blurry(I don't mean to sound like a snob but I should add that this might not be obvious for some untrained eyes). Notice even the white "amazonkindle" text on the bezel on the top seems clearer, whiter and more "contrasty" than the one on the bottom? I guess that must prove the later manufactured kindle has a inferior bezel text etching from switching to worse manufacturer for cost saving
2) Whiter background: Yes some part of the top screen is brighter(read:whiter, FYI they have no differences in hue) than the bottom one, about 3% brighter. Note that how bright the illuminated subject is entirely depend on the distance it is from the light source. The closer you get to the light source, the amount of difference magnifies significantly in millimeters! For example, on a sunny day it doesn't matter if you stand at Time Square or Central Park in NYC, if you take out a book to read, they'll have identical brightness because you receive the same amount of light at the same time despite that they're miles apart. But if you're standing in front of a lamp at night, few feet away could make the book look much dimmer. That's because the Sun is a light source very far away and the lamp is a light source that is close-by.

Notice the lower part of the screen is darker than the top one? yea they're further from a close-by light source, so is the bottom screen...
Below are the copied screen background patches from the above photo with no color/brightness manipulation added, just enlarged. Anyone care to guess which one is from the newer screen and which is from older one?

Spoiler:

A: Newer model(bottom)
B: Older model(top)

Or just think of it as holding one book closer to the light source, the other further, everyone knows which one will have a brighter("whiter") background.

So I cannot dispute what Zeebra(or anyone else) is seeing with his own eyes and how he interpret what he sees, as that depends on many factors such as age, eye condition, and just as importantly, one's understanding on how various factors affect visual perception, etc... and maybe everyone who says older Kindle is better is right! (not true based on my observation/measurements though) My point is, again, that for your own sake, please please please do not judge the screen quality base on what you're seeing in the picture! or video!

[JoHunt]

Thanks for your well detailed explanation.

I have compared my K3 ("old" model) to my KT in various light conditions and there is no difference whatsoever in the brightness of the screen. If one appeared brighter, I switched positions and the other appeared brighter.

This is not to discount the possibility that there may be some bad units out there, but I'm convinced the screens are the same on both of mine.

[blue_skies]

If one appeared brighter, I switched positions and the other appeared brighter.

That's exactly what happened when I compared old and new K3s.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by shinew

So I cannot dispute what Zeebra(or anyone else) is seeing with his own eyes and how he interpret what he sees, as that depends on many factors such as age, sensitivity to hue changes, and one's understanding on how various factors affect visual perception, etc... and maybe everyone who says older Kindle is better is right(not true based on my observation/measurements though)! My point is, again, that for your own sake, please please please do not judge the screen quality base on what you're seeing in the picture! or video!

Overall, good advice imho. Seeing is believing!

In my case, the differences between my whiter-screened +14 month old K3 aqd DXG compared to my grey-screened K4nt is a lot more obvious when viewed in person.

The contrast on my K3 and DXG are so good that I can easily read them in a lightly lit room. I cannot do this with my K4nt and I need a pretty good reading light (and often need to increase the font size) to make it comfortable to read under those lighting conditions. So, for me, it's pretty obvious that these screens are not the same quality.

All the cases discussed in this thread are mainly personal observations, not based on any 'hard' scientific facts or controlled testing (including yours in my opinion). Until any user actually sees the newer K4nt screen contrast, they will never really know for sure, esp. if they do not have an older white-screened K3 or DXG to compare it with. Either way, they will either like it (and keep it), or they will dislike it (and return it).

Cheers,
Tom

[shinew]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

All the cases discussed in this thread are mainly personal observations, not based on any 'hard' scientific facts or controlled testing (including yours in my opinion).

hmm... based on your comment, I assume you must be an expert in understanding how color science works, and of course know what a spectrophotometer is, how it works, and how it's used?

The one I have is used by thousands of professional print shop world wide and it's been tested/used for far more demanding job than for this purpose. If that's not up to your standard for "scientific" and "controlled testing", could you explain what you would do to improve the testing methodology and perhaps show us the correct way? I have access to quite a few color related instruments. If it makes sense, I'll modify my method and report back the result. I'm more than happy to learn something from all of this.

[soulfuldog]

It's pretty subjective. People are probably seeing all these images differently on the various different equipment we each use to browse these forums. Scientific calculations aside, the only way to compare is to hold the two different Kindle's in your hands and see what you think (although apparently even if you do that it'll look different in a brightly lit shop compared to normal daylight/your indoor lighting at home etc!).

[sieg66]

In my opinion the measures made by shinew are correct, but it's not the quality of pure black or pure white that is the problem but the way the letters are drawn, as someone else already suggested. On the k4 they seem blurrier. But it's true that the k4's white seems somewhat blue, and that the K3's seem's rather beige.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by shinew

hmm... based on your comment, I assume you must be an expert in understanding how color science works, and of course know what a spectrophotometer is, how it works, and how it's used?

The one I have is used by thousands of professional print shop world wide and it's been tested/used for far more demanding job than for this purpose. If that's not up to your standard for "scientific" and "controlled testing", could you explain what you would do to improve the testing methodology and perhaps show us the correct way? I have access to quite a few color related instruments. If it makes sense, I'll modify my method and report back the result. I'm more than happy to learn something from all of this.

You still don't get it. You're so caught up in wanting people to bow down to the scientific method that you don't understand that what people see is what matters to them as far as the display goes. If a person can see that Display A looks better than Display B, then that is what he's going to be comfortable with. He's not going to read on what appears to him to be an inferior display because numbers say so.

[shinew]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

You still don't get it. You're so caught up in wanting people to bow down to the scientific method that you don't understand that what people see is what matters to them as far as the display goes. If a person can see that Display A looks better than Display B, then that is what he's going to be comfortable with. He's not going to read on what appears to him to be an inferior display because numbers say so.

Sigh... no you don't get it.

You(and some others) seem to confuse two things as one, which is personal opinions and objective observation(facts). You can say that in your eyes the older K3's background is brighter than the sun for all I care and I'm not going to dispute with that(as I've pointed out before). But to say it as fact that A is better than B, personal opinions are not enough, you need to show a methodical, objective, controlled and repeatable test results to support your view.
I thought this was common sense...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by shinew

Sigh... no you don't get it.

You(and some others) seem to confuse two things as one, which is personal opinions and objective facts. You can say that in your eyes the older K3's background is brighter than the sun for all I care and I'm not going to dispute with that(as I've pointed out before). But to say it as fact that A is better than B, personal opinions are not enough, you need to show a methodical, objective, controlled and repeatable test results to support your view.
I thought this was common sense...

No, it isn't. People aren't going to qualify every personal opinion with an "in my eyes". It's virtually a redundant phrase in everyday conversation. We aren't all publishing scientific papers or arguing in a court of law here.

[shinew]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

No, it isn't. People aren't going to qualify every personal opinion with an "in my eyes"...

So is this the level of discussion we're going to be at? picking on specific words? Instead of stating it as fact, how about "I think", "IMO", "to me", etc...? English is not my first language, and I have no problem making myself clear w/o the needs to fix an "in my eyes" before every phrase, surely most people here can express better than I do.

We aren't all publishing scientific papers or arguing in a court of law here.

Oh really? Do you really have to be publishing scientific papers or in the presence of a judge to be precise about what you're saying? I'm surprised...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by shinew

So is this the level of discussion we're going to be at? picking on specific words? Instead of stating it as fact, how about "I think", "IMO", "to me", etc...? English is not my first language, and I have no problem making myself clear w/o the needs to fix an "in my eyes" before every phrase, surely most people here can express better than I do.


Oh really? Do you really have to be publishing scientific papers or in the presence of a judge to be precise about what you're saying? I'm surprised...

You're trying to force these phrases upon people for the sole purpose of affording your process greater validity than the perceptions people have had. The point still stands that when it comes to displays, perception matters more than numbers. If the eye finds a certain display more pleasing than another, the mind won't care if the numbers show otherwise.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

You're trying to force these phrases upon people for the sole purpose of affording your process greater validity than the perceptions people have had. The point still stands that when it comes to displays, perception matters more than numbers. If the eye finds a certain display more pleasing than another, the mind won't care if the numbers show otherwise.

howyoudoin, I could not have said this better (or more politely) myself, lol! Thanks.

Cheers,
Tom

[shinew]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

...The point still stands that when it comes to displays, perception matters more than numbers. If the eye finds a certain display more pleasing than another, the mind won't care if the numbers show otherwise.

ah, and here lies the issue, AND precisely the need for objective observation.

The problem is that each individual sees color and shades differently(literally), who is to say that your perception is "more correct" than mine? or vice versa? It's absolutely impossible to have everyone's perception agree with each other. It'll be a mess if any display manufacturer build product based on individual perception.


It is true that in the end "numbers" serve the experience/perception(not individually, but averaged), but "numbers" are also not really just "numbers", they express perception under a controlled environment so that we'll have something to measure upon or as a baseline.

I hope you see the flaws in your logic here.

ADDED:
As for trusting my own validity more than others, I can assure you that it's not because of my ego. It's because I know how easily visual perception can shift and how unreliable it is(much more than other senses), so yes I trust precision instrument designed to handle such tasks more than my own eyes, and others'.

[ThomasC]

shinew,

Ok, you've made your point. Based on your measurements, there is little, or no difference. Further discussion of why you think many persons are wrong is a bit futile imho. I think it's time to give it a rest mate.

I lnow I've said all I'm able to on this topic and will now unsubscribe. I think that you should do likewise.

Cheers,
Tom