New Kobo Aura HD eInk eReader 1440x1080

[Barty]

Originally Posted by taming

I am not weighing in on the truth of that--I have no idea. I do know that the page turns on my Aura are much faster and it took less than a minute to process/add the 60+ books on my SD card into the Aura Db when I moved the card from the Glo to the Aura. That is a huge improvement in speed.

Page refresh is probably low level function done by the controller, not the CPU. The CPU probably only does stuff like pagination and layout. The amount of text on an 6.8" page isn't signicantly more than a 6" page. So the CPU is hardly doing any more work.

This is not like a high dpi tablet where you need to decode, upscale 1080p video, and pump it out at 30fps.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by Barty

Page refresh is probably low level function done by the controller, not the CPU. The CPU probably only does stuff like pagination and layout. The amount of text on an 6.8" page isn't signicantly more than a 6" page. So the CPU is hardly doing any more work.

This is not like a high dpi tablet where you need to decode, upscale 1080p video, and pump it out at 30fps.

Excuse a question from a technically-challenged browser, but what is the difference in the amount of text on the 6.8" cf the 6"?

[jiminrussell]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Excuse a question from a technically-challenged browser, but what is the difference in the amount of text on the 6.8" cf the 6"?

It isn't just the size alone that gives you more text I don't think, the fact the resolution is also much higher at 1440 x 1080, allows for more text as well, though if the font is too small to read it doesn't do you much good. I think I saw on the kobo site somewhere that you can fit 30% more text on the page. Will have to see if I can find that reference somewhere and post a link if I find it.

Edit: Cannot find the reference to this on the kobo website so maybe I saw it in one of the many reviews (some of which are very poorly done) so not sure how accurate that 30% number might be.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by jiminrussell

It isn't just the size alone that gives you more text I don't think, the fact the resolution is also much higher at 1440 x 1080, allows for more text as well, though if the font is too small to read it doesn't do you much good. I think I saw on the kobo site somewhere that you can fit 30% more text on the page. Will have to see if I can find that reference somewhere and post a link if I find it.

Edit: Cannot find the reference to this on the kobo website so maybe I saw it in one of the many reviews (some of which are very poorly done) so not sure how accurate that 30% number might be.

I think the Aura screen is about 30% larger in area than the Glo/Paperwhite screen:

Aura: 1440x1080 at 265dpi is about 22.15 sq. in.
Glo/PW: 1024x758 at 212dpi is about 17.27 sq. in.

[Feher]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Excuse a question from a technically-challenged browser, but what is the difference in the amount of text on the 6.8" cf the 6"?

Calculating by just the screen size, aura HD offers 28.4% more screen space.
6.8" and 6" are diagonal lengths. So to make comparison between these screen sizes, we apply this approximate method = (6.8 x 6.8)/ (6 x 6) = 1.28444

Also higher resolution means that smaller font will be more crisp & clear.
So we will be able to read comfortably about 30-40% more amount of text than a 6 inch ereader

[Mikeyboards]

Originally Posted by Feher

Calculating by just the screen size, aura HD offers 28.4% more screen space.
6.8" and 6" are diagonal lengths. So to make comparison between these screen sizes, we do this = (6.8 x 6.8)/ (6 x 6) = 1.28444

Is that really how the math works, when the screens are rectangular? I thought you'd have to take the actual measurements of 2 sides of the screen for one device, multiply those measurements by each other to obtain the area, then do the same for the other device (and divide those areas of the 2 device's screens by each other).

I'm probably just ignorant of this sort of shortcut you've used to obtain the difference between their areas; I'm definitely no mathematician. But could you help me out on this a bit? (Perhaps you're effectively making 2 squares out of the diagonals, by multiplying them by themselves, and this somehow can deliver the overall difference in their areas. ? )

Oh, BTW, I'm just referring to the relative screen areas, not the part about trying to figure in how much more text based on the increased resolution.

[Feher]

Originally Posted by Mikeyboards

Is that really how the math works, when the screens are rectangular? I thought you'd have to take the actual measurements of 2 sides of the screen for one device, multiply those measurements by each other to obtain the area, then do the same for the other device (and divide those areas of the 2 device's screens by each other).

I'm probably just ignorant of this sort of shortcut you've used to obtain the difference between their areas; I'm definitely no mathematician. But could you help me out on this a bit? (Perhaps you're effectively making 2 squares out of the diagonals, by multiplying them by themselves, and this somehow can deliver the overall difference in their areas. ? )

Oh, BTW, I'm just referring to the relative screen areas, not the part about trying to figure in how much more text based on the increased resolution.

(I should have written approximate)
You are right. It works when the length to width ratio is same in both the devices. Usually most of the devices have similar shape. Even if they had a slightly different shape - the difference will be very less, so this shortcut works

[Fourl29]

Here are the numbers wrt screen real estate differences, and a really nice visual comparison for anyone who want to get a feel on how the screen size differences compare.

http://www.displaywars.com/6-inch-4x3-vs-6,8-inch-4x3

For kpw owners, because I had it measured in mine, roughly imagine the top bezel (from the corner onwards) also becomes screen real estate, as does the right bezel, again from the corner upwards.

Another way to say this is, take out the L formed by the left and bottom bezels, and imagine the rest, screen included of course, as the new screen size, approximately.

[Mikeyboards]

Originally Posted by Feher

(I should have written approximate)
You are right. It works when the length to width ratio is same in both the devices. Usually most of the devices have similar shape. Even if they had a slightly different shape - the difference will be very less, so this shortcut works

Thanks for the response/explanation, and for not starting out with "You idiot, don't you know that..." (which I was worriedly anticipating, with my limited knowledge of math/geometry).
That approximation sounds good enough to me, as it's apparently a more accurate value than the "30% more" that Kobo has boasted!

[Jozawun]

Thanks everyone.
So, all things being equal, we're looking at c.25-30% more text per page.
And more if the higher res makes the use of smaller fonts comfortable.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Thanks everyone.
So, all things being equal, we're looking at c.25-30% more text per page.
And more if the higher res makes the use of smaller fonts comfortable.

Indeed, but that is the entire problem: Most variables are not equal... the Kobo seems to much more space for its page number indication as compared to the Kindle, which uses up a significant part of the screen, and the Kindle seems to be able to set a smaller line spacing without using hacks. Therefore it could be that the "about 30% more text" turns out to be only "10% more text".

[Mikeyboards]

Originally Posted by jiminrussell

...I think I saw on the kobo site somewhere that you can fit 30% more text on the page. Will have to see if I can find that reference somewhere and post a link if I find it.

Edit: Cannot find the reference to this on the kobo website so maybe I saw it in one of the many reviews (some of which are very poorly done) so not sure how accurate that 30% number might be.

Yes, I kept remembering seeing the Kobo reference to 30% early on. Finally found the statement on a Kobo page, and am happy to see they did use the "a" word! As follows:
"The durable 6.8” reading surface is approximately 30% larger than other eReaders."
(It's here: http://www.kobo.com/kobo-aurahd.html)

[Fourl29]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Thanks everyone.
So, all things being equal, we're looking at c.25-30% more text per page.
And more if the higher res makes the use of smaller fonts comfortable.

I wouldn't think a 20% increase in resolution would make smaller fonts that much more comfortable, I think you'd still go with the smallest font size you normally can handle in print books.

All the more so since the nature of the eink matrix is unlike an lcd screen. That is an X ppi lcd screen is worse than an X ppi eink screen, and not just by virtue of the transmissive vs. reflective technology, but due to the eink capsules underneath.

But I do think it will make the text more well defined for sure at any specific size which is a great advantage. And that the increase in screen real estate is more than enough to notice a considerable difference. I always thought that 6.8" inches was what should have been the minimum for readers to come close with your average paperback.

[Katsunami]

For some reasons, I can read fonts that are a tad smaller in Paperbacks as compared what I would use on the Kindle.

At the moment, I prefer DejaVu Serif, modded to be a bit fatter, on my Kindle.

If I set the line spacing and font size to exactly match what (most of) my paperbacks use, which is font size 3 and line spacing 2, then I can read the paperback somewhat better. The Kindle reads better than the book at font size 4 and line spacing 1.

[Fourl29]

I 've found that the built in light allows me to enjoy reading more on my kindle nowadays, what with my growing astigmatism, that I don't have to position a light somewhere to read too. And I find the overall contrast just better, even compared to good quality white paper hardback books.