Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/29/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
* evil laugh *
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
* yawn *
I just don't get it, people. Why in the hell are we excited about grey, grey, grey displays? Why do we think that a murky, terribly-low contrast background is somehow magically better than a brighter/whiter LCD display? If we saw a book published on grey paper, instead of white, we'd trash it as defective.
I truly believe we are all being sucked into the ridiculous media hype--that these dim bulb screens are supposed to be "easier on the eyes"--fostered by the eInk consortium. Good lord, NO! If your LCD display, with its suitably white background, is too bright for reading, it's only because you've got the brightness set unnaturally high--turn it down! Make it look like the reflective white of real paper, it CAN be easily done.
03/18/09
I am pretty sure you never used an ebook reader then
It truly is easier on the eyes than a LCD screen because the there is not constant refreshes on the eInk
03/18/09
Oh, hogwash.
I, for one, am in front of LCD displays as much as 10-14 hours a day, every day, and have been for at least 6 years. I've never experienced any eye strain of any type, at all, not even to the slightest degree. And I certainly don't claim to have any X-Men-type mutations to account for super-powered eyesight.
This whole "LCD screens cause eye strain because of constant refreshes"...oh, yeah? They do? And these refreshes are discernible to human eyes? Then show it to me. Demonstrate this insidious refresh problem, if you can. Yes, I know LCD screens do refresh, but they do it at an extremely high rate that is not apparent to human eyes.
It seems to me the "eye strain" issue--and, granted, there probably are people who genuinely have problems--is far more likely the result of people running their backlit LCD screens as bright as light bulbs. Yeah, stare at a too-bright light source for any length of time, you just might experience eye strain. But, attributing eye strain issues to properly adjusted, contemporary, non-bargain-basement quality, high refresh-rate displays? Hogwash.
Am I a doctor? An optician? A scientist? Do I know more than so-called professionals? No. All I have on my side is common sense and the ability to recognize what I see as being a mild form of mass hysteria from people who set their LCD screens as if they were tanning booths and then buy into eInk's advertising scare tactics.
In its current form, this eInk emperor has no clothes. And until eInk backgrounds can be paper-white, they are inferior to both LCD screens AND reflective white paper.
03/18/09
But that's not the issue here. The reason epaper is so good for things like the kindle and other ebook readers is power consumption. Updating and persisting an epaper display costs tits all as far as power is concerned. This makes it a very good candidate for ebook readers since it drastically improves battery life and how long you can read one at a time.
03/18/09
@UnexpectedEOF: "...reading text continuously on an LCD DOES cause eyestrain ...It's not that the refreshes are visible..."
Thank you. The refreshes are NOT visible.
"...but the fact that both subpixel font rendering and just straight up font rendering DO cause eyestrain, just one less than the other."
Sorry, you lost me. Are you saying that one type of screen has subpixel font rendering and the other has straight up font rendering? If so, which screen technology does which and what is the difference? Why is one easier on the eyes than the other?
"But that's not the issue here. The reason epaper is so good...is power consumption... drastically improves battery life..."
Well, no argument from me there. Still, that was not related to my entire rant about dark, murky screens and readability.
Let's see. Next...
@Morberis: "If you want data go and google it,"
OK, I just did. I entered "lcd eye strain". Here's a quote from the number one hit, a Q&A thread on Slashdot regarding eye strain (emphasis added):
Hmm... OK, here's the number six Google hit, from a Whirlpool monitors forum discussion:
Interesting. Here's the very next hit, from Ergo In Demand:
I could go on here with many, many more and similar entries, but I think you get the point. It is not at all universally agreed that LCD screens have a refresh/eye strain connection. Rather, there is the possibility that this whole issue is an (mistaken) carryover from low-refresh-rate CRT screen days. At least in part.
And now I'll take a breather and see if anyone is still reading this thread.
03/18/09
You sure talk about shit you don't know about.
Clearly you have not seen E-paper, go look at a magazine or book. E-paper replicates that experience, and if you actually saw it you would understand it.
The problem with LCDs isn't just the refresh rate, it also the fact that you have a very bright white background against black text. The high contrast can be tiresome to the eyes after extended periods of time.
When is the last time you read a book on your LCD screen?
03/19/09
Yes, there is a problem here with someone making unsupportable statements. Let's see who that is, shall we?
"Clearly you have not seen E-paper, go look at a magazine or book. E-paper replicates that experience, and if you actually saw it you would understand it."
I have seen E-paper and I do understand it. Someday, hopefully soon, it will become what everybody wants it to be, including me. But it is not there, not yet. In its current form, E-paper absolutely does not replicate the experience of reading a printed book or magazine.
Do you still read printed books? I do. Books and magazines are printed on white paper, not gray. And unless and until E-paper can mimic the reflective properties of white paper, it cannot be said to "replicate the experience of a book or magazine".
"The problem with LCDs isn't just the refresh rate, it also the fact that you have a very bright white background against black text."
Wow. If only our LCD technology allowed us to control the brightness of our screens. Oh, wait--they do. And I believe that was one of my arguments earlier--TURN DOWN THE BRIGHTNESS TO A LEVEL APPROPRIATE FOR READING.
"The high contrast can be tiresome to the eyes after extended periods of time."
Do you understand that there is a difference between brightness and contrast? Your statement suggests you do not. High brightness can lead to eye strain, not high contrast. To the contrary, too low of a contrast is a source of eye strain.
"When is the last time you read a book on your LCD screen?"
Yesterday, on my MacBook Pro. In fact, for several days now I've been reading Sharon Zardettos E-book, Take Control of Fonts in Leopard. It's a great read from Take Control Ebooks. And last week I read the Using Freeway 5 Reference Guide, a 468 page PDF book from Softpress. (Well, OK, I admit I have not finished it yet, but I am making progress.) Oh, and thanks for asking.