Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

eInk Evangelists May Have to Rewrite Their Sermon...

bobob

bobob

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jan 11, 2008
3,437
2,520
There seems to be a number of fervent supporters of eInk who believe that it is unchallengeably, always the best screen technology for reading text...

...but today's NY Times seems to cast some doubt on this gospel truth.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain? is an article quoting doctors and researchers on the various benefits of the current selection of screen technologies and also compares them to good old fashioned ink & paper books.

It's a short and interesting read, and provides some facts for your next debate with the true believers in the eInk congregation...
 
did you actually read the article?

it says NOTHING. you were pretty much bamboozled by an op-ed piece that presented very little information.
 
bobob said:
There seems to be a number of fervent supporters of eInk who believe that it is unchallengeably, always the best screen technology for reading text...

...but today's NY Times seems to cast some doubt on this gospel truth.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain? is an article quoting doctors and researchers on the various benefits of the current selection of screen technologies and also compares them to good old fashioned ink & paper books.

It's a short and interesting read, and provides some facts for your next debate with the true believers in the eInk congregation...
Click to expand...

I'm glad the NYT was unbiased - as opposed to you - who clearly isn't based on your thread topic and reference to eInk being "religion"

You could easily slant your post to say that those thinking the iPad will be better than print or eInk are in for a shock.

I do recommend the link you posted. I don't however think you had anything of value to add. But that's my opinion
 
The OP better go and reread the article because it does not really say anything negative about eink other then maybe this
E Ink has a very low contrast ratio. Although it can offer an excellent reading experience in bright sunlight, the screens can become uncomfortable to use in dark settings because of the lack of contrast and backlighting on the screen.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for reading a book or newspaper.

Likewise the IPS panels are not all that great
LCD screens, meanwhile, have long struggled to offer good viewing angles for reading. Apple’s latest IPS LCD screens include extremely wide viewing angles, but the reflective glass on the screen could be a hindrance in brightly lit situations.
Click to expand...
Viewing angles and glossy screens (and using it outside) are the negatives associated with most LCD panels.

So again the OP better stop drinking the apple koolaid and realize that eink isn't evil
 
I don't need a study when I know from years of experience that reading on a screen simply cannot be compared to reading paper.
 
cube said:
I don't need a study when I know from years of experience that reading on a screen simply cannot be compared to reading paper.
Click to expand...

Of course eInk evangelists will have to rewrite their sermons because you cannot read it in the dark :p
 
I believe that OP's point is that while "eink evangelists" believe that eink is unconditionally superior to lcd screens, the NY Times article says that eink is not necessarily better at reducing eye strain. Therefore, if we accept what is stated in the NYT article, then eink proponents would have to rethink / rephrase their position.
 
I've not come across that line of thought, I've heard that is much better then other technology (other then paper and ink) but no technology is the best, they all have short comings in various areas.
 
bobob said:
There seems to be a number of fervent supporters of eInk who believe that it is unchallengeably, always the best screen technology for reading text...

...but today's NY Times seems to cast some doubt on this gospel truth.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain? is an article quoting doctors and researchers on the various benefits of the current selection of screen technologies and also compares them to good old fashioned ink & paper books.

It's a short and interesting read, and provides some facts for your next debate with the true believers in the eInk congregation...
Click to expand...


I've tangled with Kindlers more times than I can count, over their fervent preference for a low contrast, non backlit screen. I've seen numerous e-readers with that type screen and for the life of me can't understand why the Kindlers prefer it. The contrast is so freakishly low that it's annoying to me to look at it. And the lack of a backlight and color is unacceptable. I downloaded a book of photography on my Touch and after browsing through it a bit, wondered what Kindler in their right mind would purchase ANY type of book with color illustrations or photos. Magazines are out of the question, since they rely so heavily on color.

Kindlers constantly mention 2 things in discussions: battery life, and "easy on the eyes". I say nonsense to both--I have yet to see my Touch's battery die before I'm done with reading sessions extending well past the 90 minute mark. I have no issues reading a Touch screen. No eyestrain, it's crisp, and most importantly, I can read without turning on interior lights. I mostly read in bed with all lights out.

Does e-ink tech provide longer battery life? Sure it does. And for that one feature, there is much that e-ink (currently) screens don't provide--color, backlighting, video. Heck of a trade-off, IMO!!!
 
E-ink is used because it doesn't have to be constantly refreshed, and can maintain a page with no additional power. It's about battery life.

No Kindle owner would refuse a color screen if it was the same cost and consumed the same low energy of the 16 gray scale e-ink now on Kindles.
 
I like e-ink. I recently purchased a new sony reader to replace my old sony reader (3 years old) I fully intend to buy an iPad still not sure if I need/want the 3G one but I will get an iPad of some sort. I don't see the iPad replacing my reader in any way. I don't read magazines, or comics, or books on photography. I just read books. I read books for hours at a time on it and due to the screen and the ergonomics of it I find reading on it a most pleasant experience. Plus it fits in my inside coat pocket and goes everywhere with me. I can't see that being the case with the iPad.

They both have their place. Reading outside in full daylight though, I'd take the reader any day. Glossy screens are just a nightmare in anything other than controlled lighting.
 
maflynn said:
The OP better go and reread the article because it does not really say anything negative about eink other then maybe this

The same can be said for reading a book or newspaper.

Likewise the IPS panels are not all that great

Viewing angles and glossy screens (and using it outside) are the negatives associated with most LCD panels.

So again the OP better stop drinking the apple koolaid and realize that eink isn't evil
Click to expand...

From the section you quoted, there is nothing actually wrong with the panel. They state "extremely wide viewing angles" so there is no problem with the actual panel. Nowhere in that quote does it say the panel is the problem. It's the bloody glass that causes the problem. Nothing an anti-glare screen protector won't fix. Works like a dream on my iPhone and cost $15 for a two pack. I believe some manufacturers have already announced them for somewhere in the $20-30 range.

It's surprising to me how many people on these forums have no experience with IPS tech. Though when I think about it and remember that many of you aren't designers, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at all. In-plane switching is superior to most any other LCD technology out there, perhaps aside from H-IPS, which is what my 26" DoubleSight has, along with a polarizer. IPS contains some of the best color reproduction ability and widest viewing angles available. If the iPad's screen is even half as good as an Apple Cinema Display, people will be amazed at it's quality. I just hope that Apple will eventually allow people to calibrate their own display on devices like this. But I doubt that will happen any time soon. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a good factory calibration on my unit. The iPhone leaves much to be desired in that area, but it's only a phone. This iPad is something more, and is meant to be used to show off photos. Being able to keep my entire portfolio on here is important to me and having at least somewhat accurate color reproduction would be a big plus.
 
As you can see from the fervor of the responses to my use of the religious allegory to introduce the linked article, debating the merits of screen technology really isn't that far from a holy war...

;)
 
The reason eInk appears to be "easier on the eyes" is because its not backlit, just like paper. However, it has a grayish background that makes it difficult to read in dimly lit rooms. Eye strain can occur under those conditions, just as-if you were reading from paper. You can attach a book light to an eink display, but it will produce some glare, again causing eye strain.

LCD's are, of course, backlit. Eye strain will develop over long reading sessions. Sharper, larger, serif type, can delay eyestrain for a bit. The question is, is there something in the way the iPad is programmed, designed, etc, that reduces the back-lighting to the effect that eye strain is further delayed for all by the heartiest readers.

I know people talk about reading for hours, but realistically, who really has the time or attention span for that? A small % of the book reading population which isn't that big anyway. Most iPad reading will be Web, email, magazines, comic books, newspapers -- all things that are read in bursts.

I fully expect there will always be eInk "purists," just like there are vinyl album "purists." The general population, however, will go with the most flexible technology and adapt to it's flaws since no technology is perfect.
 
bobob said:
As you can see from the fervor of the responses to my use of the religious allegory to introduce the linked article, debating the merits of screen technology really isn't that far from a holy war...

;)
Click to expand...

You appear to be wanting it to be a religious war since that's the phraseology you chose to use to title and start the thread. On top of that, in typical religious manner, you read an interpretation supporting your own view into a fairly neutral article debating the strengths and weaknesses of both types of screen. If this thread is a religious war, you started it by choosing unnecessarily provocative language, so duh :rolleyes:
 
I don't need a study. E-ink and LCDs can be (and are) compared over and over again, with each having it own benefits. I say look at the screen before you buy it. Buy the one that's easiest to read. ;)
 
bobob said:
There seems to be a number of fervent supporters of eInk who believe that it is unchallengeably, always the best screen technology for reading text...

...but today's NY Times seems to cast some doubt on this gospel truth.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain? is an article quoting doctors and researchers on the various benefits of the current selection of screen technologies and also compares them to good old fashioned ink & paper books.

It's a short and interesting read, and provides some facts for your next debate with the true believers in the eInk congregation...
Click to expand...

steve-p said:
...in typical religious manner, you read an interpretation supporting your own view into a fairly neutral article debating the strengths and weaknesses of both types of screen.
Click to expand...

Referring to my original post above, can you please detail:

1. My "interpretation" of the article
2. My "own view" that this interpretation was supporting.

Thank-you in advance.

:)
 
bobob said:
Referring to my original post above, can you please detail:

1. My "interpretation" of the article
2. My "own view" that this interpretation was supporting.

Thank-you in advance.

:)
Click to expand...

cut out this passive aggressive bull. just admit you were wrong
 
chill. said:
cut out this passive aggressive bull. just admit you were wrong
Click to expand...

My, you are testy! It is an interesting issue, but a no brainer for me. I repeat, for me. Others may have different needs.

I think the article shows that neither technology has absolute merits over the other for ebook reading. Read the Kindle in bright light or outdoors and it may be superior. Turn down the lights and it is inferior. I read indoors and in the evening with the light low or in bed.

I personally just won't spend several hundred dollars for a device that only allows me to read books. The iPad, however, is getting more interesting to me everyday.
 
Present Apple devices with IPS screen?

I have a current generation MBP and tomorrow I'll get an iPhone 3GS. Does this mean I haven't yet used an IPS screen? I LOVE the LED display on my MBP, and even like the screen on my 2G iPhone, but I'm curious if there's a noticeable benefit from IPS technology. Guess I'll find out tomorrow.

Apple's MBP spec page doesn't mention IPS.

Only the 3GS and new Cinema Display have IPS presently? 27" iMac?
 
nightfly13 said:
Apple's MBP spec page doesn't mention IPS.
Click to expand...

I have only seen cheap TN screens on laptops in recent years. Look at your laptop screen from below, does it darken dramatically or invert? Then it is TN.

If it doesn't, then you have IPS or VA, it gets hard to tell the difference between those, but they are close in quality (I still prefer IPS).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back