On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:20 -0400, rickman <
gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote on 9/17/2017 12:53 PM:
>LCD sucks because it gives eyestrain over longer reading sessions. ePaper
>is better with much higher contrast, not unlike paper, hence the name.
Agreed and good timing. I just bought an ancient (2009) Kindle DX
reader (with a very dead battery) for $40:
<
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=kindle+dxg>
It has a 150 dpi (1200x824) 9.7" diag Perl e-paper screen which looks
great for MOBI or AZW formatted documents. However, for viewing PDF
formatted documents, it's barely readable. I'm investigating the
cause and cure as time permits.
ePaper is certainly easier on the eyes (and battery) but the Perl
e-paper display is only good for 10:1 contrast ratio. The more recent
Carta displays have twice the resolution (300 dpi) and somewhat better
15:1 contrast.
<
http://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/2013/11/11/screen-comparison-e-ink-carta-vs-e-ink-pearl/>
Meanwhile, a TN LCD display is good for 1000:1 contrast ratio, and the
latest IPS display can do 1,000,000:1.
<
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10874/panasonic-develops-ips-panel-with-10000001-contrast-ratio-1000-nits-brightness>
So, it's not the contrast ratio that makes e-paper easier on the eyes.
It's the dot resolution that makes e-paper easier on the eyes.
I'm currently writing this on a 24" diagonal 1920x1200 LCD display.
<
http://lcdtech.info/en/data/pixel.size.htm>
That's only 94.3 pixels/inch while my Kindle DX is 150 dpi and the
latest e-paper is 300 dpi.
I've somewhat confirmed this by spending a few days behind one of the
newer high resolution displays. At 21" and 3840x2160 dots, that works
out to 210 pixels/inch. It was very easy on my eyes and there was no
sign of eyestrain (except when I stupidly sat at the machine for a 3hr
session and forgot to occasionally focus on some distant object).
Also, I use an Acer Chromebook 14 (CB3-431-C5EX) for reading. It's
advertised as a 1920x1080 IPS display, but will do a much higher
resolution:
dots pixels/inch
1536x864 126
1920x1080 157
2400x1350 197
These are far better than the 94.3 pixels/inch of my 24" desktop
monitor. Despite the tiny size of the characters in the highest
resolution, everything is perfectly readable with minimal eye strain.
It's the pixels/inch, not the contrast ratio that makes things more
readable.
However, there's a fly in the ointment. The industry's addiction to
semi-transparent desktops results in low contrast text, especially
when displayed in faded pastel colors. Despite the improved pixel
density, such text is a PITA to read. I find myself using the high
contrast color schemes and using "reader view" in the browsers, just
to defeat this latest assault on my eyes by the screen artists. Blah.
>That said, I don't read much longer than a magazine article these days. So
>LCD is mostly fine for me. I would like to have an ePaper screen, but I'm
>not willing to give up ownership of my reading material, so no Kindle for me.
I just plug my various Kindle's into a USB port. The Kindle shows up
as a drive letter. I copy the file from my desktop to the Kindle
documents directory. I turn off auto-sync. The files magically
appear on the reading list without ever seeing the Amazon servers. I
can also send a file directly to a Kindle via email, but that could be
read by Amazon, which seems to intercept the file, and instead send me
an email informing me that the file is ready to download. It wasn't
always that way and I'm suspicious.
>> Of course, the skools are even more conservative, even bordering on
>> reactionary. Electronic textbooks really cut into the textbook
>> vendors profits.
>
>Nonsense. Electronic media *increases* profits due to lower production costs.
Rubbish. The problem is piracy by students. No sooner does a book
become available, that it's scanned, converted to various formats, and
distributed:
"How to Digitize Your Textbooks"
<
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hack-college/how-to-digitize-your-text_b_730879.html>
Here's a video of a Canon Imagerunner 5000 scanning one of my manuals
on both sides of the page in one pass.
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/CanonImageRunner5000.wmv> (4.1MB)
>One thing that caught my attention when reading about the differences is the
>idea of connecting emotionally with a book. I realized that I have done
>this. The act of picking up a book to read creates a strong association
>between a book and its contents. This doesn't happen with ebooks because
>the reader is connected to so many other books and if the reader is a
>laptop, so many other tasks.
That also happened to me for many years. I had a small collection of
my favorite references that I would go to for everything. However, as
I moved away from books and into electronic media, the attachment went
away because electronic media was electronically searchable, while
paper media was a painful slog through the index and table of
contents. I didn't realize how far away I had gotten from paper books
until I had to look something up in one, and realized what a painful
exercise searching for content in a paper book really was.
There's also a question of size. I have a few file cabinets and
bookshelves full of books and magazine clippings. I also have a few
flash drives and a USB hard disk full of scanned (and searchable)
eBooks, captured web pages, and images. Basically, much of my working
library in my pocket. As more of what I have on my bookshelf becomes
available in electronic format, more of my paper books will become
donated or recycled.