End of 167 ppi (800x600) screens?

[rcentros]

According to GoodEReaders (and it looks legitimate), PocketBook will soon replace their bottom-of-the-line Basic 3 with a Basic 4. The Basic 4 will have the newer style (smaller) case and weigh only 145 grams (no light or touch screen). It looks almost exactly like their Lux Basic 2. (This means the whole 6" line will use the same basic casing.) Unlike the Basic 3, the Basic 4 will use an "HD Screen" (212 ppi) instead of the 167 ppi screen. That means all the "lower-end" PocketBooks will use a 212 ppi screen now. Tolino's and Kobo's low-end readers are also using 212 ppi screens. The only 167 ppi "hold-out" seems to be Amazon's Kindle Basic.

https://goodereader.com/blog/product/pocketbook-basic-4

[JSWolf]

Amazon's Kindle Basic still uses an 800x600 screen.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Amazon's Kindle Basic still uses an 800x600 screen.

Yep. The last sentence in my post was... "The only 167 ppi "hold-out" seems to be Amazon's Kindle Basic."

The Kindle Basic has one feature the other "low-enders" don't... Bluetooth. Also, compared to the PocketBook Basic 4, the Kindle Basic has a touch screen and lighting – when compared to the Lux Basic 2, it has a touch screen. But then the Touch Lux 4 isn't much more expensive than the Kindle Basic, and it has a microSD slot and buttons (plus lighting and a 212 ppi touch screen).

[haydnfan]

Seems like an odd conclusion to declare the death of the 167 ppi screen when the Kindle 10 must outsell the Pocketbook by a hundred to one. I mean who even owns a Pocketbook??

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

Seems like an odd conclusion to declare the death of the 167 ppi screen when the Kindle 10 must outsell the Pocketbook by a hundred to one. I mean who even owns a Pocketbook??

More people own PocketBooks than you might think. PocketBook has about 80% of the Russian market, for example. But recently Tolino also replaced their 167 ppi bottom of the line reader with a 212 ppi one. I'm guessing the top 5 brands are (in order) Kindle, Kobo, PocketBook, Nook and Tolino (maybe Tolino than Nook?). Since Tolino Page 2s and PocketBook Basics sell cheaply (even though they've moved up to 212 ppi) it wouldn't cost that much for Amazon to do the same. It looks like they've quietly started producing 8 GB Kindle Basics instead of 4 GB, maybe they'll quietly start making 212 ppi Kindle Basics as well.

[Quoth]

My daughter got a Kindle Basic a couple of years ago as a present from my wife and I. Mysteriously it wasn't 167 dpi. I'd need to photograph side by side with the PW3 (and someone in the family might have a PW2?) to decide if it is 212 or 300. I did write down and post the model of it. Maybe Amazon ran out of screens that time and it's really a PW with the lighting disabled or missing?

The 800 x 600 is OK on a 4.3" or 5" screen, but certainly it's noticeably poorer for text on 6" than any 212 dpi on anything. You can't do the subpixel addressing and anti-aliasing tricks that are possible with LCD and OLED. Even antialiasing is limited on eInk as it struggles even to do 14 shades as well as black and white.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Quoth

My daughter got a Kindle Basic a couple of years ago as a present from my wife and I. Mysteriously it wasn't 167 dpi. I'd need to photograph side by side with the PW3 (and someone in the family might have a PW2?) to decide if it is 212 or 300. I did write down and post the model of it. Maybe Amazon ran out of screens that time and it's really a PW with the lighting disabled or missing?

That's odd, but kind of cool.

Originally Posted by Quoth

The 800 x 600 is OK on a 4.3" or 5" screen, but certainly it's noticeably poorer for text on 6" than any 212 dpi on anything. You can't do the subpixel addressing and anti-aliasing tricks that are possible with LCD and OLED. Even antialiasing is limited on eInk as it struggles even to do 14 shades as well as black and white.

The main thing I notice about higher resolution screens is that I tend to read with smaller fonts. So, even though I don't notice the difference (too much) when I just look at the screen, it's obvious that my eyes notice the difference when I'm actually reading. It works the opposite way on lower resolution screens, I'll start reading with the font size I'm used to and then gravitate to a larger font when it gets uncomfortable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

My daughter got a Kindle Basic a couple of years ago as a present from my wife and I. Mysteriously it wasn't 167 dpi. I'd need to photograph side by side with the PW3 (and someone in the family might have a PW2?) to decide if it is 212 or 300. I did write down and post the model of it. Maybe Amazon ran out of screens that time and it's really a PW with the lighting disabled or missing?

The 800 x 600 is OK on a 4.3" or 5" screen, but certainly it's noticeably poorer for text on 6" than any 212 dpi on anything. You can't do the subpixel addressing and anti-aliasing tricks that are possible with LCD and OLED. Even antialiasing is limited on eInk as it struggles even to do 14 shades as well as black and white.

There was a time when 800x600 was not poor. I remember when we liked it.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There was a time when 800x600 was not poor. I remember when we liked it.

Iirc, only reader where I found 800x600 tolerable was on the Sony PRS-350. The 800x600 at 6” looks like a dot matrix printout while newer 200-300 ppi displays look more like inkjet/laser.

Lower than 200 ppi and I’d rather read on my tiny 3.5” iPhone with backlight and 326 ppi display.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The Kindle Basic has one feature the other "low-enders" don't... Bluetooth. Also, compared to the PocketBook Basic 4, the Kindle Basic has a touch screen and lighting – when compared to the Lux Basic 2, it has a touch screen. But then the Touch Lux 4 isn't much more expensive than the Kindle Basic, and it has a microSD slot and buttons (plus lighting and a 212 ppi touch screen).

Maybe I’m just too used to Amazon’s frequent sales but I always found PocketBook to be more expensive compared to Kindles with the basic Pocketbook models selling for around the same price or more compared to the Paperwhite series.

Granted, the Kindles priced that low have SO but since I often just read DRM-free and don’t register my Kindles, I don’t receive ads.

[ottdmk]

I found my 800x600 Kobo Touch quite usable. Still, if we're into a situation where increases in the ceiling is also raising the floor, that's not such a bad thing.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Iirc, only reader where I found 800x600 tolerable was on the Sony PRS-350. The 800x600 at 6” looks like a dot matrix printout while newer 200-300 ppi displays look more like inkjet/laser.

Lower than 200 ppi and I’d rather read on my tiny 3.5” iPhone with backlight and 326 ppi display.

Did you have an 800x600 Reader when that was all there was?

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Did you have an 800x600 Reader when that was all there was?

Tried the Sony PRS-505 but didn’t like it. At that time, pretty much everything had low pixel density so that wasn’t an issue but the page turns were just way too slow compared to LCD.

A few years after that, I tried both PRS-350 and PRS-650 in-store and preferring the PRS-350 since it had less jaggies and was lighter. Alas, lack of built-in light meant I still used my iPhone 4 for night time reading (which comprised pretty much majority of my reading).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Tried the Sony PRS-505 but didn’t like it. At that time, pretty much everything had low pixel density so that wasn’t an issue but the page turns were just way too slow compared to LCD.

A few years after that, I tried both PRS-350 and PRS-650 in-store and preferring the PRS-350 since it had less jaggies and was lighter. Alas, lack of built-in light meant I still used my iPhone 4 for night time reading (which comprised pretty much majority of my reading).

I didn't have a problem with lack of built in light. I bought the light cover. Also, I didn't mind 800x600 at the time. But now, it will look worse then what I am used to.

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't have a problem with lack of built in light. I bought the light cover. Also, I didn't mind 800x600 at the time. But now, it will look worse then what I am used to.

I think that was because back in the day lcd screens looked like trash, they were too low res and it was very easy to see the screen door effect. And then you add in how organic eink looks, and how Amazon and Kobo's slab serif fonts are good at hiding aliasing and eink readers looked way better than the other screens.

But now all screens are pushing very high resolutions, and the tables have turned. If every screen you have looks smooth and detailed it is not as easy to go back to 167 ppi.