Why do "LCD e-Book reading devices" keep coming

[JeremyZ]

Originally Posted by hgwlackey

It's great that you're happy with eInk. A lot of people are. But it's not the One Technology To Rule Them All. Stop trying to invalidate other peoples' experiences. "I honestly do not believe that. Sorry." Thanks so much!

I don't think he/she was trying to invalidate the opinion. He/she was calling him/her a liar. I don't believe it either.

So far, (according to the poll results) we have a few outliers here; the people who think LCDs are easier on the eyes.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

There were two, and only two, reasons why e-Ink ever took off: the battery life is phenomenal, and it's really cool-looking if you like to read books

The battery life thing is *huge.* The difference between 3-5 hours battery life, which has to be carefully allocated, and 10-15 hours like the Jetbook or iPad, is notable, but not overwhelming. The difference between those and "several days" is incredible.

It doesn't just mean "you can take your ebook camping." Not a lot of people care about reading on a camping trip. (Some do, but they're not a large market.) But there are a lot of people who have four hour plane trips, with two hours at the airport before that, followed by a 45-minute taxi trip to the hotel, an hour to shower & change before attending a three-hour business conference dinner with boring speakers. Not having to worry about running out of batteries is wonderful.

And while careful watching of one's battery life should cover that, for the better LCD devices, not having to be careful is *precious.* The e-ink readers mean you don't have to remember to plug the device in that first night; it'll still work on your lunch break tomorrow.

For soccer moms, they don't have to remember to take it out of the purse to charge it in the morning so it'll be ready in time for today's team practice. Nor again for tomorrow's. Unexpected trip to the doctor's office? Two hours' reading in the waiting room is covered. The convenience of *it always works, just like a book* is something none of the LCD devices offer yet.

I suspect that "cool looking paper-like display" draws people in, and then becomes irrelevant. As nice as good typography is, we do manage an awful lot of reading of pixelated fonts on message boards & blogs.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

I don't think he/she was trying to invalidate the opinion. He/she was calling him/her a liar. I don't believe it either.

So far, (according to the poll results) we have a few outliers here; the people who think LCDs are easier on the eyes.

"So far, (according to the poll results) we have a few outliers here; the people who think LCDs are easier on the eyes."

So jeremyz, any result that does not fit your predisposition can be counted as an "outlier". How very logical of you.

Or just an out-and-out liar!

[madmaxmedia]

Eyestrain/reading experience is based on many variables, not just screen technology. The lighting conditions are a big factor, and eink and LCD tend to work best in the lighting the other technology is not so good at. Adjusting LCD brightness based on lighting conditions also helps mitigate eyestrain with LCD.

So I think typical usage conditions will have a big role in what a specific user prefers.

I guess the other thing is that 'overall reading experience' supercedes eyestrain (although obviously significant discomfort is a huge negative in overall reading experience). Many people here don't like the 'flashing' that occurs with turning pages on eink readers. It doesn't cause eyestrain but impacts overall reading experience.

Finally, to categorize those who prefer 'eink' as simply outliers, is not much different than claiming eink is outright superior. How much eyestrain are we talking about? Of course how much more eyestrain one tech causes than another will vary from person to person. At depending on how often they use the device, the difference in eyestrain may not ever be noticeable. User preference will then depend on other factors- (battery life, color, page refresh speed/flashing, etc.)

Personally, I think eink is here to stay, primarily because prices have finally come down. Whatever the benefits of eink, it would have never gone mainstream with devices remaining at 2008 price levels. I can't wait for the Kindle 4!

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

As for the discussion in general, I think it is pointless. I find it hard to believe anyone that says that reading in a LCD screen is exactly the same as reading in a eink display. Sorry, but that is a thing i cannot believe.

I have the feeling that people that say that they read in LCD screens without problem, either don't read a lot, or don't read the same way one reads a real paper book. They were close to the truth when they called Eink "electronic paper", and that makes a huge difference.

You can feel as well as believe what you want, but I"m a voracious reader and I love reading on the iPad. I started first with a K1, then a K2, onto PRS-600, then PRS-900, then PB360, and only then did I get an iPad. I love it. I have no eyestrain issues. I don't know what you mean by I "don't read in the same way" but I don't know what's different. My only iPad complaint is the crappy organization of books, which sucks for my 2000 ebook library. It's the one thing I really miss from my Sony readers.

I still love my PB360 for its portability, customizability and long battery life, but the iPad is my favorite.

-Marcy

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JeremyZ

I don't think he/she was trying to invalidate the opinion. He/she was calling him/her a liar. I don't believe it either.

So you've already decided what is reality, and will ignore or insult anyone whose experience doesn't fit with that reality. So exactly what conversation are you looking for, one where everyone agrees with you?

I bought an eInk device over an LCD one for battery life/weight (you trade one off for the other). The screen technology was a slight disadvantage, as I do much of my reading in the dark, for which eInk is a poor choice. I read on LCD before eInk, and I'm reading on it afterwards.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by leebase

Do not presume that reading on the iPad is the same as reading on your computer. It just isn't. I can't read a book on my computer, but I've read over 20 on my iPad so far.

Just check out the Apple section, far and away most iPad owners are having no problems with eye strain.

Both options are viable for reading. There are some that simply can't use one or the other, but very few. I caution folks to not assume they know how the iPad reads by how their computer does.

Lee

Why can't you read a book on your computer? I do.

[hidari]

How about this. Some of us like LCD and some of us like eink.... and it the market continues to grow in both areas then many of us will be happy customers.... We all like to read at MR.... I would say that is the one thing we all agree on.....me thinks....

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by hidari

How about this. Some of us like LCD and some of us like eink.... and it the market continues to grow in both areas then many of us will be happy customers.... We all like to read at MR.... I would say that is the one thing we all agree on.....me thinks....

I think only jeremyz and Salgueiros would disagree with that concept.

[Salgueiros]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

I think only jeremyz and Salgueiros would disagree with that concept.

Huummm.... i might disagree indeed... i'll sleep on it.

[Lemurion]

I read on both - both work for me.

However I'm with Elfwreck on the sheer brilliance of the extended battery life of E-Ink. I recently went on a 6000 mile road trip, and while I only really read for one day on the trip, the Sony still stunned me with its battery life.

We left Virginia on 8/6 and my Sony was fully charged. What with family obligations and the like I didn't get to read on it until 8/16 when I spent most of the day lying in a park reading outside. As I write this the battery is still showing two out of four bars on 8/26.

No LCD device can do that.

Yes, I didn't read that much, but I still have a decent charge after twenty days!

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

I read dozens of books on my Sony PRS-505 and I loved the way the text looked on the screen. I thought, "well, this will be much better on my eyes." Now that I've had my iPad, I've read several books, including reading for many hours straight, and I haven't felt any eye strain problems. There are many who prefer eink, but I think once actual scientific data is collected, the amount of difference in eye strain between the two types of devices will be relatively small.

You might not feel the strain but opticians and doctors will tell you staring directly at a light source is not good for your eyes.

I don't get why Ipad users feel like they have to defend their reading on Ipad.I didn't read the whole thread but the OP was talking about LCD based readers not muti purpose devices like the Ipad.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

You might not feel the strain but opticians and doctors will tell you staring directly at a light source is not good for your eyes.

I don't get why Ipad users feel like they have to defend their reading on Ipad.I didn't read the whole thread but the OP was talking about LCD based readers not muti purpose devices like the Ipad.

Hearsay aside, you believe that LCD based readers (but not iPad users) need to defend their choice? Even if they have no discomfort, and find the use of their reader choice fits their needs best?

And opticians also stare directly at a light source everyday. You know that, right?

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

You might not feel the strain but opticians and doctors will tell you staring directly at a light source is not good for your eyes.

And some parts of this thread have been about establishing what "eye strain" is, what "staring directly at a light source" means in the context of staring at an LCD (what "light sources" were used in any studies), and just which opticians and doctors say this (and what they base it on). This is not to say that such doesn't exist, but that sourcing this evidence has not always been forthcoming, and so, experiences of "strain" to the contrary, like something reinforced by repetition rather than evidence.

I don't get why Ipad users feel like they have to defend their reading on Ipad.I didn't read the whole thread but the OP was talking about LCD based readers not muti purpose devices like the Ipad.

The OP's original post asks the question, "Are you able to read a book up to 8 hours on lcd without problems?", and iPad users here, as a significant number of users of "LCD based readers" (multipurpose means that, as indicated, one of the purposes is as a "reader") are responding. Others are responding to statements that might apparently state that "LCDs cause eyestrain", and pointing out their contrary experience.

Ultimately, however, I think your premise that the OP was talking about single-purpose "LCD based readers" is incorrect. The OP appears to explicitly include them via their statement regarding the release of the "last one from samsung today", which, I believe, refers to a "multi purpose device like the iPad". They also explicitly call them out with, "I don't know anybody personal who is able to read a book for example on an iPad". So, I am unsure as to why you would want to exclude iPads, or state that the OP wasn't talking about them. They would certainly seem to be very much a valid part of the discussion.

Cheers,
Marc

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

I think that kjk suggested you to make a forum search before because such polls have already been done, and I think there are many. Maybe too many. The LCD vs eInk debate is a dead horse now.

As for LCD vs CRT, as far as I know (which is little) CRT went bye bye because:
a) LCD consumes less electricity
b) LCD can have brigther colours
c) LCD has a higher refresh rate and progressive scan
d) an LCD screen produces less heat

Also, European laws (I don't know about the rest of the world, though) are pushing companies to produce devices who consume less energy and less waste. That's why LCD is being (very slowly, to tell the truth) abandoned too, in favour of LED, OLED and AMOLED screens.

1) Right
2) Brighter, but less accurate. The only good more brightness does you is in ambient light. Anyone that has calibrated a home theater will tell you that most devices are set WAYYYYYY to bright and out of whack. It has to do with catching the eye at the store. And color accuracy still lags CRTs, plasma and DLP.
3) Wrong. 90% of LCDs have a 60hz refresh. In the PC gaming world that means you have to use Vsync more often which is a performance hit and creates more display lag. My FW900 100hz at a lot of resolutions, and 85-92hz at recommended resolution. Progressive scan - wrong - CRT monitors are progressive devices. Only old school TVs were interlaced, along with some early CRT HDTVs. Very few devices actually do 120hz these days, which is an improvement (most interpolate to 120 from other rates).
4) Fine, but so what? Good for datacenters. Less heat = less AC. But it means more heat needed in the winter

Lastly: There is no such thing as a LED screen. There's a LED backlit LCD screen - it is still an LCD - it's just backlit with LEDs instead of a CCFL.

P.S. I'm a home theater hobbyist with a DLP projector. CRT went away because LCDs are "sexy", thin, and very sharp (perfect geometry). But they are inferior technology to CRTs in color accuracy, black level detail, refresh rate. And like almost all digital displays, they are one-resolution devices that require scaling to display any other resolution, which looks terrible compared to a CRT at native rez on older sources. This is totally offtopic though