Reader with minimal coating over the display?

[JohnDae]

Hi all, first post.

I got into E-ink device game with Pocketbook Touch HD 2. While I'm satisfied with the display quality I notice there are a few millimeters of transparent coating on top of the letters. It mostly shows up under high quality light at some angles. Also at steep angles the letters get more and more blurry unlike paper.

My question is would there be a device where the letters would have less coating on top, which would make it even more like paper?

Also, since this device doesn't use a capacitive touchscreen layer unlike e.g. newest high end Kindles and Kobos I doubt it would be better there. But maybe some entry level device without capacitive touch screen and without lighting like basic Kindle or cheapest Pocketbooks?

I also got a change to compare to Pocketbook Touch Lux 3. Touch HD 2 was a tad whiter (less brown) and much sharper. I'm not sure if both devices have that light guide layer or not, which might explain the coating I see.

[rcentros]

My eyes have trouble with the front-lit readers (I guess it's the light layer), which is why I'm pretty much stuck with "old tech."

Kindle Keyboards and the Kindle "no-touch" 4th and 5th generations can usually be found pretty cheaply and they have sharp screens (for 167ppi) – but you're stuck with a basic font (which I, personally, don't mind). The original Kindle Touch and the 7th and 8th generation Kindle Basics can also be found pretty cheaply, but I never thought their fonts were as sharp and dark as the Keyboard or the "No Touches" – though, with the original Kindle Touch, you could add fonts via a simple hack, which helps.

I think the best font rendering available (in old tech) was done by the Sony x50 series (350, 650, 950) and T1, T2 (and, probably, the T3). The T3 has the highest resolution of all of these, but they're pretty expensive for old tech and (usually) used and I've never personally seen one. The T2 has a sharp, "whiteish" screen, probably the best screen I have. I embed Constantia via Calibre (you pretty much have to embed fonts with Sonys if you like dark fonts). The 350, 650 and 950 are not far behind. The T1 has a good screen but they had some issues with the dictionary that, as far as I can tell, never got resolved. Both the Sonys and Kindles (mentioned above) use the Oxford dictionaries. (Sonys are rarer and more expensive, but 350s are often available on eBay.)

The Nook Simple Touch (without Glowlight) had a clear, sharp screen – but the fonts aren't rendered quite as well as the Sonys. Even the original Kobo Wireless has good, sharp fonts, if you embed your fonts via Calibre.

If you're looking for a new reader, an inexpensive one without a front light is the InkBook Classic 2 which, until recently (?) was available on Amazon for $80. (I can't personally vouch for this one.)

[JohnDae]

By specifications (Carta vs Pearl), any modern non-capacitive-touch non-frontlit device should have better screen than those older devices. But I guess in practise manufacturers might coat newer devices with blurry plastic if for no other reason but to put them on par with their frontlit devices. Or E-ink might supply lower quality Carta screens for 167 an 212 PPI than older premium 167 Pearl screens.

I guess I would need to buy one of those older premium Kindles and some modern Carta device, both non-frontlit and non-capacitive-touch, and compare to what I have. Or find someone here who has seen all of these devices to give a comment on the comparative lack-of-display-coating / ink-on-paper likeness?

I do prefer 300 PPI, it really added a lot of crispness over 212 PPI to images, pdfs and serif text. But for reading just text with the right font 167 would be fine.

[Sirtel]

I have several older Kindles with Pearl screens and without frontlights, both touch and non-touch. In very well-lit environments (direct daylight, directly under a good lamp) they still look pretty good and I wouldn't say there's much difference in screen quality compared to modern devices. In dimmer environments it's another story, though. There you can clearly see how much better the modern frontlit screens with sharper resolutions are.

I personally don't read on my older Kindles anymore, because I do most of my reading in late evening and the room is just not bright enough for those old screens to look nice. But I have compared them with my newer Kindles in daylight and they still looked good enough to me in those conditions.

[Sirtel]

As for ink-on-paper experience, that really depends. There are many, many paper books with pretty weak and faded ink, any old e-reader would stand head and shoulders above them. Of course there are also books with very good print quality and no e-reader can really compete with those. It's all pretty relative.

[JohnDae]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I have several older Kindles with Pearl screens and without frontlights, both touch and non-touch.

Could you also compare the coating, e.g. how close the letters are to the display surface when comparing old non-frontlit non-capacitive-touch device vs modern frontlit device? One could evaluate this by looking at the shadows cast by particles or water drops on screen. Ideally the shadow would not get separate from the particle which would indicate lack of thick coating. Side-by-side comparison photo would help also.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JohnDae

I do prefer 300 PPI, it really added a lot of crispness over 212 PPI to images, pdfs and serif text. But for reading just text with the right font 167 would be fine.

I don't think you're going to find any 300 ppi non-front-lit eReaders. I think there are a couple 212 ppi readers without a front light (the Sony PRS-T3 being one of them) and that's about it. By the time front-lit eReaders came out, non-front-lit ones were considered "bottom line" and they usually only got the 167 ppi screens.

I've attached some pictures of my Sony PRS-T2 screen in moderate, indoor lighting, using an embedded Constantia font. I think this is the best screen I have (it's 167 ppi). I would imagine the T3 (at 212 ppi) would be noticeably better. (I've added one with a water drop on the screen.)

[JohnDae]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've attached some pictures of my Sony PRS-T2 screen in moderate, indoor lighting, using an embedded Constantia font.

Thanks for the pictures. I should have been more clear though - I now attached a photo that highlights how the shadows get casted with coated device like this vs real paper. The letters are way under the actual display surface. I didn't see any shadows casted by objects on the display in pictures of the Sony device so I can't tell anything about the possible coating.

I think your font looks better than mine. It looks somehow clearer.

I also attached another picture that shows text on this device. At best, the display looks sharp and somehow like a rubbery surface. At worst, it looks like cheap plastic with blurry letters under.

[Sirtel]

I checked the shadow casting. My non-touch non-lit Kindle is better in that regard than my Oasis (which displays a similar shadow to your Pocketbook), but still not the same as a paper page. It still has a layer on top of the letters, after all, as do all e-readers. So none of them will display a shadow like a printed page in a paper book does.

Sorry, no photos, perhaps later.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JohnDae

Hi all, first post.

I got into E-ink device game with Pocketbook Touch HD 2. While I'm satisfied with the display quality I notice there are a few millimeters of transparent coating on top of the letters. It mostly shows up under high quality light at some angles. Also at steep angles the letters get more and more blurry unlike paper.

My question is would there be a device where the letters would have less coating on top, which would make it even more like paper?

Also, since this device doesn't use a capacitive touchscreen layer unlike e.g. newest high end Kindles and Kobos I doubt it would be better there. But maybe some entry level device without capacitive touch screen and without lighting like basic Kindle or cheapest Pocketbooks?

I also got a change to compare to Pocketbook Touch Lux 3. Touch HD 2 was a tad whiter (less brown) and much sharper. I'm not sure if both devices have that light guide layer or not, which might explain the coating I see.

You didn't mention your location. I'm assuming you aren't US based because of your mention of Pocketbook devices.

Have you ever checked out a Kindle Voyage? Yes, it is lighted and has a capacitive touchscreen, but the screen on it is very, very good. Reviews at the time noted the letters seemed closer to the surface of the screen than it is on other devices.

I believe the Oasis has a similarly nice screen, though I've seen more of the Voyage than the Oasis.

[JohnDae]

Yes, outside of US and in Europe.

Kindles were one of the first devices I considered. However, not being able to turn off the frontlight with paperwhite was a deal breaker for me. And the basic seemed too old tech. The higher end Kindles were on the other hand too expensive. This device I got cost about the same as Kindle paperwhite but has infrared touch, warm light leds, page turn buttons, 3.5" audio out, micro SD card slot, support for my native language and support for DRM epubs and pdfs. At the same time the other hardware specs are the same (CPU, RAM, etc.).

I'd be nice to compare to Kindle Voyage's screen side-by-side though and in general compare the software experience.

I have noticed now that the key to making this screen look decent is bright enough soft light, such as sunlight from windows or a very diffuse lamp. Even then the reading angle is very important, any glossy reflections make the ugly coating visible. And I'd still like to find out if this is a "feature" of all E-ink devices or just the ones with light guide layers. I assume this one has a light guide layer although it definately is very different from the one in Kindle paperwhite based on screenshots.

[radius]

Originally Posted by JohnDae

Kindles were one of the first devices I considered. However, not being able to turn off the frontlight with paperwhite was a deal breaker for me.

On my PW2, the lowest setting is VERY dark. Like I can barely make out letters when I am under the covers in my bedroom at night dark.

With eye straining effort I can read at level 4 in the dark and have to go up to 6 to read in semi-comfort.

So while in theory they backlight never goes off, in practice, the lowest level is minimal lighting. Certainly you will never be able to tell under even dim light that it is on.