Which better on reading super Amoled or ips

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Apart from the Fire HD 10, what other high res 10" tablets are there that are still in production and in the $100-200 price range? There are plenty of things to dislike about Apple but I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find a tablet with hardware as good as the basic iPad in the $250-400 price range never mind half the price.

It wasn't the hardware which led me to recommend the iPad, but the "GoodReader" app. It really is one of those very rare apps that's worth buying a device specifically for.

Originally Posted by barryem

In short the two tablets are very close to being equal for my purposes and the Ipad and the Pencil cost nearly twice as much. I can't really say I'm sorry I got it but I would have been happier if I'd gotten a second Samsung.

Barry

That's a really good practical review from a hands-on usage perspective; thanks for that. I'll keep that in mind as I'm comparing Ipad with various Samsung models. Samsung is still the front-runner for me in most cases, as I just like their products in general, and it keeps me on all Android.

So for reading purposes, the lower res on that Galaxy Tab A does not bother you? What's the resolution exactly, and do you notice it during reading?

[barryem]

The Galaxy Tab A is 1920x1080. I've never used it for reading. I read on my Kindle or my phone. I do sometimes read a comic book on it but I'm not really into comic books that much. But for comic books the resolution is just fine. I suspect that if it's good enough for comic books it's good enough for ebooks. It's harder to read hand-drawn text than printed text and I can read it just fine.

Barry

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by maximus83

So for reading purposes, the lower res on that Galaxy Tab A does not bother you? What's the resolution exactly, and do you notice it during reading?

Until recently I used a Tab A 10.1 2016 for all reading, display size is 218x136mm, 1920x1200 pixels, 224 pixels per inch.

I currently use a Tab A 10.5 for all reading (fiction, non-fiction, manuals, art, etc.), display size is 226x141mm, 1920x1200, 216 pixels per inch.

The human eye cannot resolve pixels on either of these tablets at reading distances.

If one takes the minimum angular resolution of the eye and does the trigonometry (and if one cannot do the trigonometry then one is not qualified to give advice on resolution ) one will see why the human eye cannot resolve the pixels at normal reading distances. Other aspects of the screen are more important to the clarity of the display for reading (after all many seem happy with E Ink displays which are, in comparison, poor quality displays).

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by barryem

I bought a Galaxy Tab A 10" for $250 about a year ago. It's cheaper than that without the S Pen but I wanted something for drawing.

In short the two tablets are very close to being equal for my purposes and the Ipad and the Pencil cost nearly twice as much. I can't really say I'm sorry I got it but I would have been happier if I'd gotten a second Samsung.

Yeah, I've never really cared about the Apple Pencil and without accessories, pricing of decent Android tablets are comparable to the basic iPad. Apple pricing is generally expensive but add in the accessories and it gets even crazier.

Plus, I really do much prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio for web browsing, PDF and 2-column landscape reading so for me, the choice was between the more expensive Galaxy Tab S3 and the iPad. That coupled with tablet apps being more polished on the iPad (really more like apps being designed specifically to take advantage of the larger display)...

Originally Posted by barryem

The Galaxy Tab A is 1920x1080. I've never used it for reading. I read on my Kindle or my phone. I do sometimes read a comic book on it but I'm not really into comic books that much. But for comic books the resolution is just fine. I suspect that if it's good enough for comic books it's good enough for ebooks. It's harder to read hand-drawn text than printed text and I can read it just fine.

Technically, I believe that's 1920x1200 (16:10). Which is actually almost perfect for comic books (15:10 or 3:2).

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Until recently I used a Tab A 10.1 2016 for all reading, display size is 218x136mm, 1920x1200 pixels, 224 pixels per inch.

I currently use a Tab A 10.5 for all reading (fiction, non-fiction, manuals, art, etc.), display size is 226x141mm, 1920x1200, 216 pixels per inch.

The human eye cannot resolve pixels on either of these tablets at reading distances.

Between those two, sure.

Mind, I've read manga on a PW2 (212ppi) and PW3 (300ppi) and text is noticeably sharper and more legible on the PW3. Same on Aura HD (264ppi) although on that one, better legibility is a function of both display size and pixel density.

Of course, the ~10" display size on tablets often more than make up for lower pixel densities. To a point, of course. I wouldn't enjoy reading on 10" 720p/WXGA but 10" 1080p/WUXGA is more than fine for most tasks.

I love it when I've read these articles of the type saying: the human eye cannot distinguish resolutions higher than X, or more colors than Y.

Uh, yes it can. :-) I absolutely grasp the theoretical principles behind why you shouldn't, in theory, be able to tell the difference between an HD and a UHD movie when sitting more than about 4 feet from your TV. But I can--and everyone I know can. Same thing between a 200 DPI screen, and a 300 DPI screen. Or photos take at 12MP, and those take at 20MP. The difference is not hard to distinguish, particularly if you work in front of screens all day as I have for over 25 years.

Maybe everyone doesn't CARE enough about higher resolution to spend the money for it, and maybe it doesn't make a huge difference in the end--that I'll buy. That's a value decision. But people can tell the difference between 200 and 300 DPI, HD and UHD, and non-HDR and HDR pictures. I love the crispness on the 323 PPI screen of my Nexus 7, for instance, and can tell a clear difference on text clarity between that and cheaper Samsung and Amazon tablets at Best Buy I've seen in the ~200 PPI range.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by maximus83

I absolutely grasp the theoretical principles behind why you shouldn't, in theory, be able to tell the difference between an HD and a UHD movie when sitting more than about 4 feet from your TV. But I can--and everyone I know can.

For me personally, the point at which I stop being able to tell the difference on a reading device occurs somewhere between 250 and 300ppi. I could see a clear difference in smoothness going from a 167 to a 260ppi screen, but no improvement going from 260 to 300.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For me personally, the point at which I stop being able to tell the difference on a reading device occurs somewhere between 250 and 300ppi. I could see a clear difference in smoothness going from a 167 to a 260ppi screen, but no improvement going from 260 to 300.

For me, 300ppi is when I stop noticing a difference. I can still see minor jaggies on 264ppi at my normal reading distance (~15-18") albeit they're fine enough to not be distracting.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For me personally, the point at which I stop being able to tell the difference on a reading device occurs somewhere between 250 and 300ppi. I could see a clear difference in smoothness going from a 167 to a 260ppi screen, but no improvement going from 260 to 300.

It also depends on display technology, font hinting, anti-aliasing etc. Even 200 dpi in one bit monochrome is ghastly. Yet 122dpi on an LCD with sub-pixel addressing, anti-aliasing and good hinting can look about the same as 300 dpi on eInk for sharpness, though even a 167dpi eink is less tiring to read for two reasons*
The eink has no sub-pixel addressing and very poor ability to do anti-aliasing as the 6 to 14 shades of grey between black and white are problematic. So eInk, like a sharp laser printer benefits more from higher resolutions than full range colour/greyscale screens.

*
1) Ability to hold it at your own ideal distance, tricky for a Laptop or PC, though possible with a phone or tablet.
2) Ambient light illuminated displays are easier on the eye than light emitting. Even an eInk front light is poorer than decent ambient light.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by maximus83

I love it when I've read these articles of the type saying: the human eye cannot distinguish resolutions higher than X, or more colors than Y.

Uh, yes it can. :-) I absolutely grasp the theoretical principles behind why you shouldn't, in theory, be able to tell the difference between an HD and a UHD movie when sitting more than about 4 feet from your TV. But I can--and everyone I know can. Same thing between a 200 DPI screen, and a 300 DPI screen. Or photos take at 12MP, and those take at 20MP. The difference is not hard to distinguish, particularly if you work in front of screens all day as I have for over 25 years.

Maybe everyone doesn't CARE enough about higher resolution to spend the money for it, and maybe it doesn't make a huge difference in the end--that I'll buy. That's a value decision. But people can tell the difference between 200 and 300 DPI, HD and UHD, and non-HDR and HDR pictures. I love the crispness on the 323 PPI screen of my Nexus 7, for instance, and can tell a clear difference on text clarity between that and cheaper Samsung and Amazon tablets at Best Buy I've seen in the ~200 PPI range.

If you reread my post you will see that I did not use the word "resolution" in any way at all associated with displays and I think that has confused you into thinking the angular resolution of the human eye is in some way related to "screen resolution"; they are, in fact, different things. I only referred to the angular resolution of the eye; and the fact is that while there is some small variability between people it controls our ability to resolve adjacent small points.

It has become practice to use the term "screen resolution" when referring to the pixel density of displays. Pixel density has no ability to control the angular resolution of the human eye, it is a matter of fact that the eye's resolution is angularly limited and that means (if one does the trigonometry) that individual pixels at the densities of the display examples I gave cannot be resolved by the human eye at the reading distances of those displays.

As I pointed out (without any reference to "screen resolution") that "Other aspects of the screen are more important to the clarity of the display for reading" and another poster has also made a similar point regarding quality.

You refer to TVs, I am not sure why because TV displays are of quite poor quality (note that when I say "quality" I am not referring to pixel density) compared to even middle range small device LCD displays from a name maker so do not bear comparison. Then if you are comparing 1080 to 4k as you are then the main thing you are seeing is the result of higher bandwidth available allowing better encoding, fewer artifacts, less compression, etc. If one has the opportunity to review professionally produced 1080 video uncompressed you may be surprised at how well it compares to 4k that you see on a TV set even though 4k has twice the pixel density.

You also refer to photography - I think informed photographers familiar with in camera sensor technology, in camera processing and digital post processing will be able to tell you that camera sensor resolution in pixels is not a good indicator as to the "resolution", as the eye perceives it to be, of the finished output (when the same camera optics are used). That applies also to the Raw output from the camera (even when no in camera compression of the Raw file is performed by the camera software). In fact photography is one area where being mesmerized by megapixels does not inflict informed users in the way it does with uniformed users of consumer grade products - a very simple example is the ready acceptance of the informed camera community to 24megapixel full frame (35mm) sensor cameras (say) generally being better than the much smaller APS-C sensor but still 24 megapixel sensor cameras despite the smaller sensor having a much higher pixel density.

If your claim as to your working for over 25 years in front of screens has any relevance to ones knowledge of display technologies then you will have to concede that I am considerably more informed than you as I have spent many more than 25 years in front of displays of various technologies in many services (including industrial applications and the more common desktop applications).

But again I am not claiming that pixel density cannot be important, just that despite it being disputed by you it is actually a physical fact that for the examples I gave in my earlier post then at normal reading distances the eye cannot resolve the pixels. And that the quality of the display (and the processing before it) has much to do with how we perceive "resolution".

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

But again I am not claiming that pixel density cannot be important,

Oh good. So we can return to the subject of the thread.

[barryem]

I remember hearing a songwriter being interviewed on a talk show a few decades ago and giving examples of how he does his job. He was demonstrating on a guitar and said something like "And now I switch to this chord for the first time. The listener can't really tell unless they have perfect pitch but that doesn't matter. They're affected by it anyway".

I can't tell the difference in 212ppi and 300ppi and I'm not aware of being affected by it but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I was in some subliminal way.

Or maybe not. It's hard to really know.

Barry

[ant_gamal]

As i mentioned it is ips vs Almedo
Ipad or e-ink not in my decision
Also for tablet 10 inch

Reading pdf browsing some youtube maybe some games
I prefer movies on my tv

So could help me

Originally Posted by HarryT

It wasn't the hardware which led me to recommend the iPad, but the "GoodReader" app. It really is one of those very rare apps that's worth buying a device specifically for.

@Harry, I'm interested in this now since I'll be getting an iOS device and want a tool for light, occasional PDF editing.

Curious as I saw some reviewers of the Goodreader app also mention this other PDF reader and light markup editor. Have you tried it?

Reader:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pdf-...le/id743974925

Full editor for Mac platform:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pdf-...55273043?mt=12