End of 167 ppi (800x600) screens?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I thought Vizplex was the first generation of the eInk screens though the name was also used to refer to the early Pearl and Triton displays. The early controllers only handled 2 bits per pixel so 4 level gray scale.

The Sony Reader PRS-500 and the Kindle 1st Generation both used the same eInk screen that was out before Vizplex. Veizplex was first used on the 505 and the K2.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I thought Vizplex was the first generation of the eInk screens though the name was also used to refer to the early Pearl and Triton displays. The early controllers only handled 2 bits per pixel so 4 level gray scale.

You might be right about Vizplex. My memory may be wrong about a previous name. The controllers were the early limitation except for the iRex iLiad that had 4 bits per pixel with its own custom display. We are talking about 2007.

Dale

[DaleDe]

I did some research in Wikipedia and it confirms the use if Vizplex as a retrofitted name for the first generation and temporarily of all versions. The name came into use in early 2007 but was applied retroactively to earlier devices even though there were several changes made.

Dale

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I did some research in Wikipedia and it confirms the use if Vizplex as a retrofitted name for the first generation and temporarily of all versions. The name came into use in early 2007 but was applied retroactively to earlier devices even though there were several changes made.

Dale

Vizplex came about after the 500 and K1 were made.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The Sony Reader PRS-500 and the Kindle 1st Generation both used the same eInk screen that was out before Vizplex. Veizplex was first used on the 505 and the K2.

When I checked on eInk's site, the first generation eInk imaging film was called Vizplex as was apparently a slightly improved 2nd generation. Then came Pearl, Carta and their variations.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And unless you reduced the resolution of the hi-res graphics (aka cover, title page, maps, etc), your old nook would slow down, freeze, or reboot. They don't have the processor speed and/or enough working ram.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I was curious to test your assertion, as I think you are way overstating it. But I couldn't find the spare SD card.

I suspect the old Simple Touch would work just fine. I know it wasn't a powerhouse, but I don't read image heavy stuff on my readers anyway.

I ordered an SD card. When it arrives, I'll load the Nook ST up and see how it goes.

The typical resolution for book covers for me is around 1650X2200. I also don't have many books that have maps or heavy illustrations, so the only thing I can choke the reader with is the cover. I'll let you know what happens.

I also wondered how many books the Nook ST database could handle?

[rcentros]

This is why I think the Kindle Basics 167 ppi screen is on the way out. Because it gives Kobo the high ground in the "spec war." And I think Amazon is starting to treat Kobo as real competition. I really don't understand why the Kindle 10 didn't upgrade the Basic's screen resolution when it went to a front-lit screen. (Maybe so they could have a feature to tout in the newest "all new" Kindle?)

At any rate, from a positive review of the Kobo Nia (positive Kobo reviews seem rare in this country – maybe that's changing as well).

With the Nia, Kobo is undercutting Amazon with a $99.99 eReader. Despite coming in below the $100 ceiling, the Kobo Nia actually ups the ante over the Kindle in several key areas. Its 8GB of onboard storage is double the 4GB the Kindle offers — enough capacity for up to 6,000 eBooks. More importantly, the Nia’s 6-inch E Ink display is higher resolution, with a density of 212 PPI (pixels per inch) to the Kindle’s 167 PPI. That’s a big enough difference that text is going to appear considerably sharper on the Nia’s display. In testing, I found Kobo didn’t cut corners on the processor, either. When flipping pages, screen redrawing is fast, and the touchscreen is responsive. The ComfortLight illumination is adjustable, and evenly lights the screen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmoo.../#5ca4453e285c

The review is a bit "gushy" (seemingly the writer completely forgets the Kobo Aura 2 ever existed) and fails to note that new Kindle Basics seem to be coming with 8 GB of storage now...

https://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/20...f-storage-now/

...but his main point is that (to the reviewer) the Nia is superior to the Basic because of the 212 ppi screen.

I can't see the new Kindle 11 coming out without a 212 ppi screen. But it's just an assumption and I've been wrong a lot in my predictions.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

At any rate, from a positive review of the Kobo Nia (positive Kobo reviews seem rare in this country – maybe that's changing as well).

I haven't done a deep dive, but I do think that's changing.

Maybe the Walmart partnership helped Kobo more than we think (well, not MUCH more, but a little). Maybe the OverDrive integration made Kobo more appealing. But I do think reviews for Kobo's more recently trend away from the 'shame it's not a Kindle' sentiment that used to be common.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And unless you reduced the resolution of the hi-res graphics (aka cover, title page, maps, etc), your old nook would slow down, freeze, or reboot. They don't have the processor speed and/or enough working ram.

So I loaded up some books on my old Nook STwGlowlight. Honestly, I think it still looks pretty good. The only quirk I ran across was on an image title page that measured 1206X1609. The Nook only displayed the corner. Though it had no trouble displaying the cover, which is 1364X2200. If I cared, I could probably figure out the title page weirdness.

I also had trouble with the Nook not liking condensed margins in the stylesheet. So I had books where stylesheet said:

margin: 0

I had to change that to:

margin-bottom: 0;
margin-left: 0;
margin-right: 0;
margin-top: 0

Though the Carta screens have a clearly whiter background, I was surprised how good the Simple Touch looked.

Here's a comparison of the 167ppi Pearl Simple Touch compared to the 300ppi Carta Glowlight Plus and Kobo Clara. I have all three using Malabar (it was the only font all three readers have) and I set the light to about 50% on each. The Simple Touch fonts are darker.

The light has clearly improved since the Simple Touch days. Also, mine has a crack that is annoying. But screenwise, that old 167ppi thing still looks pretty good.