New basic Kindle

[Glorfindel]

They probably got that info from MR

Yep! If one early reviewer states something, even if it is totally incorrect, it often gets picked up and repeated by so many others that people start assuming it is true. I've seen/heard total rumors that were reported by less than trustworthy reviewers get picked up and reported on major news sites as facts!

I don't remember much about the original Kindle Touch other than it had a brownish screen, at least mine did. But the Sony PRS-x50 series of readers from a few years back had an IR touchscreen that worked well with a stylus. Maybe if this new Kindle does have an IR touchscreen a stylus will also work with it. The bad thing about capacitive touchscreens is that a stylus will not work with them unless it is a capacitive one, and those are pricy and don't work that well.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by jswinden

The bad thing about capacitive touchscreens is that a stylus will not work with them unless it is a capacitive one, and those are pricy and don't work that well.

Even the cheap capacitive styluses work as well as the more expensive stylus/led flashlight/ink pen 3in1 combinations. Even those ink pen styluses are not that expensive - at least wholesale. Why? Lately companys (e.g. some banks) have adopted to give those away as free advertising - much better than the previous ink pen only. The ones we got definitely get more use out of them than the cheap ink pens.

IR still has the advantage of no added layer and works with gloves. Disadvantage being less accuracy and less multi touch compared to capacitive. But then on the Kindle Basic Touch it won't matter - if it can do 2 point multi touch for changing font size that will be plenty enough.

[induna]

The bezel in the pictures looks exactly like my old PRS-350. I'm betting it is IR. The IR screens worked really well. The only issues I ever encountered were rare spontaneous page turns under very specific and transitory lighting conditions, and the fact that insects or other objects on the screen can turn pages. For $79 it looks to me like a really solid e-reader with great software and a very good price.

[susan_cassidy]

Now, if they only sold a 3G version, I would be interested in the new Basic KT2.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by induna

The bezel in the pictures looks exactly like my old PRS-350. I'm betting it is IR. The IR screens worked really well. The only issues I ever encountered were rare spontaneous page turns under very specific and transitory lighting conditions, and the fact that insects or other objects on the screen can turn pages. For $79 it looks to me like a really solid e-reader with great software and a very good price.

My thoughts too when I saw it. Just like the Sony readers it is a deep bevel at about a 45 degrees angle.

[Sirtel]

I wonder if its screen contrast is as good as on my little non-touch Basic, and if its text is as dark. I would be interested if that's the case. Of course, no one knows before October. The Voyage is too expensive, although those page press thingies look tempting... and I'm afraid it probably has lighter/greyer font than my present baby kindle, which I adore.

[robko]

And apparently the Kobo Aura H2O has a less deep bevel even though it still IR touch so technology keeps changing.

[jashsu]

Originally Posted by dsmid

167 ppi * 6 inches = 1000 pixels diagonally
and 800^2 + 600^2 = 1000^2 according to good old Pythagoras

I've never heard of PPI numbers being used for diagonal measurements.

But the numbers look right. 800px/(167px/in) = 4.79in 600px/(167px/in) = 3.59in. sqrt(4.79in^2 + 3.59in^2) = 5.97in

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by jashsu

I've never heard of PPI numbers being used for diagonal measurements.

But the numbers look right. 800px/(167px/in) = 4.79in 600px/(167px/in) = 3.59in. sqrt(4.79in^2 + 3.59in^2) = 5.97in

The way you calculate makes a little bit more sense since you base your calculations on length. If you try to "calculate" PPI over the diagonal you are in for a surprise - Pythagoras will fail you. Imagine a square display (10x10 pixel) and you draw a diagonal through it. According to Pythagoras you would get about 14.14 pixel (10 x sqrt(2)), but yet if you do it on grid paper it still is only 10 pixels. It just doesn't make sense to say that there is 14 pixel (my example) or 1000 pixel (dsmid calculation) diagonally. I am pretty sure that dsmid is aware of his flaw in calling it 1000 pixel per diagonal, but it does give correct results trying to estimate horizontal and vertical PPI. The only reason PPI is only one number any more is because nowadays pixel are usually square.

[haydnfan]

My problems with the original Kindle Touch were two fold: (a) it was too slow, especially compared to the Kindle 4, and (b) that silver bezel was just the worst. I really wanted to love it, but those two things held it back for me. I don't want or use the light on my paperwhite. If I could have a kindle with the black bezel and pearl screen that pops like the Kindle 4 black, and have the touch interface without the sluggishness of the original Touch that would be awesome! I've preordered this to replace my Kindle 4 Black.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The way you calculate makes a little bit more sense since you base your calculations on length. If you try to "calculate" PPI over the diagonal you are in for a surprise - Pythagoras will fail you. Imagine a square display (10x10 pixel) and you draw a diagonal through it. According to Pythagoras you would get about 14.14 pixel (10 x sqrt(2)), but yet if you do it on grid paper it still is only 10 pixels. It just doesn't make sense to say that there is 14 pixel (my example) or 1000 pixel (dsmid calculation) diagonally. I am pretty sure that dsmid is aware of his flaw in calling it 1000 pixel per diagonal, but it does give correct results trying to estimate horizontal and vertical PPI. The only reason PPI is only one number any more is because nowadays pixel are usually square.

Your a bit confused. Here is the actual formula used to calculate diagonal ppi:

SQRT(horizontal pixels^2 + vertical pixels^2) / screen diagonal distance in inches = ppi

SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

SQRT(360,000 + 640,000) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

SQRT(1,000,000) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

1,000 / 6 = 167 ppi

ETA: Pixels are not necessarily square. Look at the specs for various devices and you see that the horizontal pixel dimension is often different from the vertical pixel dimension. This part of the equation SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) calculates how many total pixels could theoretically stretch across the entire diagonal length of the screen. Since we want to determine ppi (pixels per inch) and since the screen is 6" across the diagonal measurement, we divide SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) by 6 to get 167 ppi.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Your a bit confused. Here is the actual formula used to calculate diagonal ppi:

SQRT(horizontal pixels^2 + vertical pixels^2) / screen diagonal distance in inches = ppi

SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

SQRT(360,000 + 640,000) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

SQRT(1,000,000) / 6" diagonal distance = 166.66666667 ppi

1,000 / 6 = 167 ppi

ETA: Pixels are not necessarily square. Look at the specs for various devices and you see that the horizontal pixel dimension is often different from the vertical pixel dimension. This part of the equation SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) calculates how many total pixels could theoretically stretch across the entire diagonal length of the screen. Since we want to determine ppi (pixels per inch) and since the screen is 6" across the diagonal measurement, we divide SQRT(600px^2 + 800px^2) by 6 to get 167 ppi.

You are correct, pixels are not always square. And when they are not the horizontal and vertical resolution (ppi) is different. Across the diagonal is something else entirely, especially as the angle changes with aspect ratio of the entire screen. If you only allow a non-aliased line as diagonal, then that line is only made up by as many pixels as the longer of both sides has. In 600x800 screen that would be 800.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that the screen has 167ppi diagonally.