To Onyx: Stop using e-Ink! Use ClearInk instead!

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

> ...that does not mean that the technology is bound to that resolution...
AGAIN, it is probably just as well that I didn't state that.

Probably because you failed to read the sentence for what it meant «that does not mean that the current possibility of implementation of the technology is bound to that resolution». You cannot state that for now they can produce 100dpi screens - not based on the fact that they did produce one. The equation is: how much does (did) it cost to produce a (single) better screen and how big is the advantage if we do, constrained by the actual resources.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

And as it this appears to be about the ONLY hard data we have on this technology's capabilities, it is not unreasonable to base analysis

Yes, generically, NO, not in the case of the resolution, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

And the basis for this "hope" is?

I hope that in spring with come out what was supposed to come out in January.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Where the prototype is all we have, it cannot help but be the basis for any analysis of a technology's capabilities

No you can't, the prototype is a cheap proof of concept of the plan. ( = "cheaper", as needed.)

Originally Posted by Hrafn

In fact the only basis we have for even speculating on such improvements is the speed at which prior technologies achieved them -- hence my eInk discussion -- which you appear to have ignored

No, not really - not in simple terms -: you cannot compare simply the evolution of different technologies. Same as for electrowetting and TIR.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

I would not call the end result of 5 years and millions of dollars worth of research "cheap"

I would not call that the result!

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Prototypes are generally the most expensive single devices a company makes

Nonetheless, they remain cheap, in the context.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Also, a prototype IS, by definition, the "state of the art". It is the very best implementation of the technology that they have been able to turn from theory into reality

That definition is formal, sterile and meaningless! Whatever one has done before enacting a plan is not representative of the goal.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

If 8 to 4096 color improvement is so easy

It's not an improvement ( = "of the technology"). Do not take the prototype as a parameter.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

, then why [...] haven't they come out with a new prototype demonstrating this improvement?

Prototypes are not a goal. They are a proof of concept, I suppose to attract investors.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

then they will be trial-manufacturing based on the original prototype

I really hope they will be trial-manufacturing following an engineering plan.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Yes, but lacking any factual basis, such speculation is worth about as much as this speculation: next year we will see a new technology, called HrafnInk, that will have 1000dpi, 16M colours, 60fps and negative energy usage (as it will also act as a solar panel).

No, the factual basis is the engineering plan (plus the patents etc. ... Not to mention the identities composing the team.).

[Hrafn]

Originally Posted by mdp

Probably because you failed to read the sentence for what it meant «that does not mean that the current possibility of implementation of the technology is bound to that resolution». You cannot state that for now they can produce 100dpi screens - not based on the fact that they did produce one. The equation is: how much does (did) it cost to produce a (single) better screen and how big is the advantage if we do, constrained by the actual resources.

Does that word salad come with French Dressing?

Yes, generically, NO, not in the case of the resolution, in my opinion.

Special pleading -- fallacious.

I hope that in spring with come out what was supposed to come out in January.

So your basis is nothing more than wishful thinking. I hope that I will be a millionaire in the spring.

What is your basis for stating that it "was supposed to come out in January"?

No you can't, the prototype is a cheap proof of concept of the plan. ( = "cheaper", as needed.)

No, it is not.

"prototype: n.: The first full-size working version of a new vehicle, machine, etc., or a preliminary one made in small numbers so that its performance and methods of mass-production can be evaluated."

Because it is used to evaluate "its performance" and potential for "mass-production", it would be counterproductive to create a prototype that was intentionally inferior ("cheaper") to the intended product that would be based on it.

No, not really - not in simple terms -: you cannot compare simply the evolution of different technologies. Same as for electrowetting and TIR.

Then we know nothing about how long it might take to improve the resolution.

And by this same logic, we cannot even know if the resolution can be improved at all.

I would not call that the result!

It is the only tangible result we have.

Nonetheless, they remain cheap, in the context.

No, per above.

That definition is formal, sterile and meaningless! Whatever one has done before enacting a plan is not representative of the goal.

Words have meanings. If you don't like the meaning, then you're welcome to pick another one.

It's not an improvement ( = "of the technology"). Do not take the prototype as a parameter.

If you make a reader that can play 8 colours, and then make a newer reader that can play 4096, then that is an obvious improvement.

Likewise it is also an improvement to take a technology that only theoretically can produce 4096 colours and create a device that can do in reality. Observable reality is always an improvement over mere theory.

Prototypes are not a goal. They are a proof of concept, I suppose to attract investors.

Prototypes are an immediate goal. They are what allows you to tell if your theory is possible in reality, and is something that is practical to manufacture. That is their main purpose.

I really hope they will be trial-manufacturing following an engineering plan.

A plan that will be based upon their prototype, and what they learned from making and testing it.

No, the factual basis is the engineering plan (plus the patents etc. ... Not to mention the identities composing the team.).

Yes, but as you have not seen the engineering plan, you have no idea as to what is in it. Not having seen this plan, you have absolutely no factual basis for your speculation!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by norweger

E-ink has a bright future.

I just attended a dinner party where we got talking about books. Most of the guests were avid readers, two of which were part of reading groups. But none had heard of e-ink without a back-light. Everyone read dead tree books.

So, I told them where to get e-books and that there were actually were Android e-readers on the market. Everyone was interested and two of the women brought out their notebooks to jot it down, as they had to get it.

In America a Kindle is okay to use for reading. Sure, the backlight makes it not as good for the eyes as an Onyx, but you can buy most book titles as ebooks. But in Europe you have to get your books from various sources, and then you'll need an Android e-reader (you'll get your books from Amazon, local online e-book stores, the regional library also has e-books and the national library has many more). But alas, there are no major local stores that carry Android e-readers. So, when an Android e-reader comes for sale at local stores, I think it would do very well.

What I decide whether I think a screen is good, my priorities are.
1) Is it good to read books on?
2) Is it good to read books on?
3) Is it good to read books on?

If such a color display you propose makes it slightly less suited for book reading, then I'd rather keep the e-ink. But, sure there are times when color would be nice.

IMHO, you don't need an Android based Reader if the purpose of the Reader is to read. You just need good software that works well for reading. I've seen plenty of Linux based Readers fit for purpose. In fact, better than many Android based Readers/tablets for reading.

Also, outside of the US, an ePub based Reader that uses RMSDK (ADE) is best because then you can borrow eBooks if your local library has Overdrive support.

[JSWolf]

Before you tell Onyx to use ClearInk, it needs to be ready for use and it needs to be better than eInk regardless of color. S for now, ClearInk is not ready so stop trying to tell Onyx to use it.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Does that word salad come with French Dressing?

I do not understand. If you mean what you think, contexts bring their own dressing.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Special pleading -- fallacious.

No, no, no! From the prototype, you get the notion that it's doable; from those prototypes, you cannot in any way suppose that their resolutions is what it can currently be achieved. It's not a special pleading!

Originally Posted by Hrafn

So your basis is nothing more than wishful thinking. I hope that I will be a millionaire in the spring. What is your basis for stating that it "was supposed to come out in January"?

They declared that in January 2018 kits (and other stuff) would be available. It did not happen, I think, so I say, "maybe in Spring". It is immensely more founded than you becoming a millionaire in Spring.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

No, it is not.

"prototype: n.: The first full-size working version of a new vehicle, machine, etc., or a preliminary one made in small numbers so that its performance and methods of mass-production can be evaluated."

Because it is used to evaluate "its performance" and potential for "mass-production", it would be counterproductive to create a prototype that was intentionally inferior ("cheaper") to the intended product that would be based on it.

Terms mean *nothing*. If you have to produce something to demonstrate feasibility, you produce what is cost effective, demonstrating what is needed. This is why I am stating that resolution is probably not a target of that item, hence you cannot relate "current TIR" and "hundredish dpi".

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Then we know nothing about how long it might take to improve the resolution. And by this same logic, we cannot even know if the resolution can be improved at all.

There is nothing to improve, you do not have any specification of the resolution. You may one day decide that you want to "improve the amount of colours", and pass from 4096 to n, but for now the resolution is ?. The whatever you saw in the video does not count.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

It is the only tangible result we have.

And it's nothing, to determine what resolutions can be achieved. Well, you can state that maybe we can get hundredish. You just raised that probability. Affecting nothing else.

Originally Posted by Hrafn

If you make a reader that can play 8 colours, and then make a newer reader that can play 4096, then that is an obvious improvement. // Likewise it is also an improvement to take a technology that only theoretically can produce 4096 colours and create a device that can do in reality. Observable reality is always an improvement over mere theory.

Your use of 'improvement' is futile if you focus on those dumb prototypes. Look, put it this way: they were not meant for you! They were meant for investors. Maybe you can just forget about them?

Originally Posted by Hrafn

Yes, but as you have not seen the engineering plan, you have no idea as to what is in it. Not having seen this plan, you have absolutely no factual basis for your speculation!

Which speculation?!?!?!?? I have not made a single statement, but that I am slightly concerned about the rainbows on the whites, and even that does not count in context!

[Randy11]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

IMHO, you don't need an Android based Reader if the purpose of the Reader is to read. You just need good software that works well for reading. I've seen plenty of Linux based Readers fit for purpose. In fact, better than many Android based Readers/tablets for reading.

Also, outside of the US, an ePub based Reader that uses RMSDK (ADE) is best because then you can borrow eBooks if your local library has Overdrive support.

I prefer a pure Linux solution, but nothing with a big size like the Max2. The M92 was a pure Linux, but the software was never given, too many parts was keep by Onyx.

What reader on Linux do you know ?

[mdp]

Originally Posted by Randy11

I prefer a pure Linux solution

If you prefer it for sheer reading as per JSWolf's, options are limited, but if it is to run some specific software (yes, I know, that's not "pure" Linux), it's promising. As you know Sogaiu has obtained results one way (termux), I am trying the other one (XServer XSDL) in real time - I have a worrisomly stuck "gconf" setup at the moment, but for the rest...

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Randy11

I prefer a pure Linux solution, but nothing with a big size like the Max2. The M92 was a pure Linux, but the software was never given, too many parts was keep by Onyx.

What reader on Linux do you know ?

Kobo, Kindle... and yes, the OS is Linux.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Before you tell Onyx to use ClearInk, it needs to be ready for use and it needs to be better than eInk regardless of color. S for now, ClearInk is not ready so stop trying to tell Onyx to use it.

Supposing the technology actually files and a set of products will happen, the CEO stated that they aims to niches and does not want to enter in other consolidated realms. Which means that any application to readers may be delayed. With an unclear statement: they declare an interest towards educational material (the Chinese awakening towards the health impact of current technologies on the young), and I cannot understand what it can mean if not multi-purpose reader-tablet hybrids as I see e.g. the Onyx products.

By the way: I think I saw around reflective watches already, in the past few weeks (also E-Ink, but I mean LCD-like)?

[DaleDe]

Actually a ppi of 106 is likely near the best it can do. Remember it uses filters to make color so a ppi is going to be near half of a dpi. This is similar to the E Ink Triton as described in our wiki.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Actually a ppi of 106 is likely near the best it can do. Remember it uses filters to make color so a ppi is going to be near half of a dpi. This is similar to the E Ink Triton as described in our wiki.

To the best of my understanding, the filters used by ClearInk are the same used for LCD manufacturing - hence, they go from 96dpi to "a lot". The filters per-se are not an obstacle.
But the observation is right: there must be subpixels - each logical composed by more physical, smaller than the logical. On the other hand, all colour displays I can think of have subpixels, with the exception of common e-ink and, I understand, AcEP. Surely, it would have more resolution as monochrome, but neighbouring technologies do not seem to have particular problems achieving high resolutions... Although, as DuckieTigger noticed, there are "optical micro lenses" involved.

On this regard, I am not sure how to get the white out of it: you get white on light-emitting displays by fusing red green and blue, and in TIR you have no light emission but an effort to have maximum reflection... Is that reflected light enough to get a good white? The less convincing effect of the videos to me was in the white rendering.

Also, I remember some statement like "we get double luminosity of epaper, but after the color filtering we get even" (very broadly, I have not re-checked the source).

[mdp]

Speaking of the rainbows, and the whites...
If that (attached) is the real effect, and the background was supposed to be white, it could be a problem.

EDIT: in other images it is much less evident. Maybe it depends on the orientation.

[mdp]

Originally Posted by mdp

But the observation is right: there must be subpixels

...In fact, Dale's observation about subpixels is interesting for what regards the resolution:
a colour pixel would have resolution k, but a black dot resolution 2k - every subpixel can become black. That black is useful for text, so, controlling the subpixels, in some way the resolution of text could remain double the resolution of the colour display - a 100dpi (for example) colour screen would have 200dpi text. The same would be valid for Triton.
It remains to be seen, in this regard, how nice that black defining fonts remains with neighbouring coloured dots (if, as I understand, a subpixel which is not black takes the tint of the filter).

[pdurrant]

I think I ought to mention two things.

1. The OP hasn't posted again in this thread.
2. I changed the title to better reflect what I thought the OP intended, as the original title was "Onyx stop e-Ink ! GO ClearInk".

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by mdp

Also, I remember some statement like "we get double luminosity of epaper, but after the color filtering we get even" (very broadly, I have not re-checked the source).

One colour filtering plan is to have groups of four sub-pixels, one of which is without any filtering, and the others are Red, Green and Blue.

If the base ClearInk white has twice the reflectance of E-Ink white, then the ClearInk colour display white will have around the same reflectance as E-Ink.

Assume that the colour filters let through 1/3 of the incident light. Then the total light reflected by the three coloured sub pixels is equivalent to the reflected light from one white sub-pixel, so the four sub-pixels in a colour display reflect half as much light as four 'sub-pixels' in a B&W display.

So the white subpixel is twice as reflective as E-Ink, but the colour filter cuts reflectance in half. So the 'white' of the colour display will be about as white as an unlit E-Ink display.

It sounds promising. But so did Liquavista.