Screen's quality downgrade?

[viceant]

Sorry if my english isn't very intelligible.

In a forum in spanish, some people said old e-ink screens are whiter than newer ones. Initially I didn't believe it cause, you know, here in Spain (is pain) many people are not worthy to confide in and there are many jokers.

But maybe they are right. They state that newer e-readers have light and it disguise their lack of a whiter screen, meanwhile older ones (specifically a PRS-T2 with pearl screen) weren't able to dissimulate and manufacturers had to exert theirselves to make them as white as possible. How did they do it? I don't know, but they maybe put best layers, or more accurately, that make them touchable in order to don't worse their quality of white.

what do you think about it?

[JSWolf]

Wrong. I've had Readers the original eInk screen and Pearl eInk screens. My current Reader is a Kobo Aura H2O and it uses a Carta screen. The Carta screen has more contrast then the previous Pearl screen. I've also seen the Kindle Touch Kindle non-touch both with Pear screens. The PW3 with a Carta screen also has more contrast. So those people are just plain wrong. Ignore them.

[rkomar]

Better contrast doesn't necessarily mean a lighter background. You can get better contrast by making the "blacks" darker, even if the background is slightly darker.

[issybird]

I wonder if they're referring to a certain fuzziness added by the light layer? I thought the text crisper on my older unlit devices when I got my first lit device. However, I no longer think that with the current crop of lit devices with a display with 300 ppi.

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by issybird

I wonder if they're referring to a certain fuzziness added by the light layer? I thought the text crisper on my older unlit devices when I got my first lit device. However, I no longer think that with the current crop of lit devices with a display with 300 ppi.

Definitely this, and the fuzziness of the light layer did effect the lightness of the screen as well. I remember putting my Kindle PW2 against the Kindle Keyboard it was replacing, and the screen of the KK did look a little whiter, the text blacker and sharper. Only when the light was at its lowest on the PW though, as soon as the light was on, the PW screen looked better.

Particularly when the lighted readers were first released there were lots of people who didn't upgrade because of this (and there are still some now, I know one of them personally ).

I agree it's not so much the case now, I compare my Voyage to a KK now and the Voyage is so much better looking. I still read occasionally on my Kobo Mini, and I hate the greyness of the screen!

[Sirtel]

My personal experience is that if I look at an old Pearl screen and an unlit modern screen side by side, then the Pearl screen is whiter. But if the frontlight is on (even at a low level), then there is no comparison. The modern frontlit screen looks much better.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by viceant

what do you think about it?

I only have older, Pearl Screen Readers. The Kindle Touches (original model), that I own or have owned, consistently have the "whitest" background. My Kindle 5 (non-touch) comes in second. A Sony T2 is close to the Kindle 5 (Basic, no touch). My Nook Simple Touch (first eBook reader I owned) and new Kindle Basic (8th generation) have the dullest backgrounds – the newest Kindle actually slightly grayer. The grayest (with light off) is a Nook Simple Touch with GlowLight (which is really only usable when the backlight is on, then it's a nice screen).

I can't speak for the 300 ppi screens because (when on display) they all have white screens with front light on. But it does seem like the older Pearl screens were built "whiter" than the newer Pearl screens. Probably because, originally, they were the cutting edge screens and now the Pearl screens are for cheap, low margin readers.

I'm in the process of comparing a Kindle Touch with a Kindle Basic (8th generation). The original Kindle Touch is actually coming out ahead, the "whiter" screen is one reason why.

That said, all these screens are pretty good (except the NST with Glowlight, when the light is turned off). But they are noticeably different.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Better contrast doesn't necessarily mean a lighter background. You can get better contrast by making the "blacks" darker, even if the background is slightly darker.

Carta has a lighter background.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

I wonder if they're referring to a certain fuzziness added by the light layer? I thought the text crisper on my older unlit devices when I got my first lit device. However, I no longer think that with the current crop of lit devices with a display with 300 ppi.

I've compared a rather good Pearl screen to my H2O screen with the same font used. The H2O was sharper and had more contrast and no front light was in use. I've seen that a hi-res Carta screen is much better to read with than an 800x600 Peal screen. You don't need the light to make the current Carta based Readers have a better screen.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

My personal experience is that if I look at an old Pearl screen and an unlit modern screen side by side, then the Pearl screen is whiter. But if the frontlight is on (even at a low level), then there is no comparison. The modern frontlit screen looks much better.

I don't know what Reader you were comparing to an old Reader with Pearl, but you should not be seeing the Pearl screen looking lighter.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't know what Reader you were comparing to an old Reader with Pearl, but you should not be seeing the Pearl screen looking lighter.

Well, I did. I've compared the Voyage and both the Oases with my old Basic Kindles from 2011 and 2012. Mind you, the Carta looks darker and yellower only with the frontlight off. With the frontlight on it's much lighter than the Pearl.

[barryem]

I think there are two main considerations in all this. It is true that ereaders with a capacative layer and a light guide layer are more fuzzy than those without. Not much. My eyes used to be good enough to tell the difference but only if I compared them carefully. It wasn't a difference I'd notice if it wasn't called to my attention.

The other consideration is that with the light today's ereaders have a lot better contrast. It really is like reading ink on paper and often better than ink on paper.

I think the light more than makes up for the small fuzziness it introduces. And today's ereaders have such high pixel density that I suspect they're sharper than the early readers without a light or touch layer.

The new Glowlight 3 is bringing this subject to the fore because it doesn't have a capacative layer, having an infra-red touch screen, and that reduces it's fuzziness by quite a bit, making it sharper than the competition. And since it's a 300 ppi screen with a good light it's contrast is good. All the reviewers mention how good it's screen looks and that's probably led to the comments you referred to.

I began reading on e-ink with the Kindle Keyboard, long before lights came along and before I knew there were touch screen readers. I was perfectly happy with it and couldn't see anything about it that could ever be improved. To me ereaders had been perfected had nowhere else to go. What a dummy I was.

Today's ereaders are far better. I wouldn't go back. I think maybe I'd like to have that new Glowlight 3 but I don't think that's a step back at all.

Barry

[viceant]

What I fear about lit devices is that they can reflect too much light if you want, so, what's the difference with LED screens? Reflected light can damage eyesight too and that is why wear sunglasses is recommended if you go skiing, isn't it?

Without any doubt, eink readers manufacturers are interested in maintain the creedence eink is less damaging, but with more light reflected it couldn't be true if you don't turn up much the LED brightness.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by viceant

What I fear about lit devices is that they can reflect too much light if you want, so, what's the difference with LED screens? Reflected light can damage eyesight too and that is why wear sunglasses is recommended if you go skiing, isn't it?

Without any doubt, eink readers manufacturers are interested in maintain the creedence eink is less damaging, but with more light reflected it couldn't be true if you don't turn up much the LED brightness.

Then don't turn the brightness up so much? If it bothers your eyes, why do it?

Some people like the light at a higher level, some like it at a lower level. That's why the light is adjustable.

Isn't it wonderful that we all have choices?

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by viceant

What I fear about lit devices is that they can reflect too much light if you want, so, what's the difference with LED screens? Reflected light can damage eyesight too and that is why wear sunglasses is recommended if you go skiing, isn't it?

Without any doubt, eink readers manufacturers are interested in maintain the creedence eink is less damaging, but with more light reflected it couldn't be true if you don't turn up much the LED brightness.

There is a big difference between a HUGE light source reflecting off a super bright white and a small light showing a screen. You get more light in your eyes with a tablet.
Just don't turn the light on the PW up to glowing.