121–130 of 208 posts
E-ink is the coolest tech with the worst business practices. The availability of affordable e-ink tech is just not there. I understand the research-intensive nature of these displays, but the company itself has been holding back the e-ink market by just operating poorly in so many ways. My biggest worry is that they'll fold at some point, leaving all the e-ink patents in the hand of a troll that will hold tech back f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article details where they're at now. They do have a product using a CMYW scheme, but the refresh and saturation are not good enough. The consumer-acceptable product is a standard monochrome with color filters and a front light, which is better, but has lower resolution. I suppose with intensive R&D they might figure out how to have acceptable refresh and saturation at competitive resolution, but absent a really…
1 ms = 1/1000 of a second. 500ms = half a second. "Less than half a second" is probably something like 450 ms, based on my assumption that if it was closer to 1/3 or 1/4s they would have said that instead. Film is traditionally 24 frames/second, or about 41.6ms/frame. A lot of animation is "on twos", which means one drawing is exposed twice for an effective frame rate of 12 fps, 83.3ms/frame. Which is very close to t…
Another thing I pulled from the article that I forgot earlier - they talked about their current-gen color E-Ink being able to represent 50k colors. Not quite a 16 bit color palette. We're getting to where LCDs commonly advertise support for a billion colors (10 bit panels). They have a long way to go before people will consider the color reproduction acceptable for general use.
If and when E-Ink gets to the point where color LCDs are today, we're probably going to be able to make "8K" high-refresh microled or self-emissive quantum dot displays. The reflective low-power nature of E-Ink will always have a place IMO but it's just hard to see people in volume valuing that over the speed, resolution, and color reproduction of a contemporary emissive display.
The article misses a significant device: Onyx Nova 3. The major difference between its prior color offering (poke 2) is the integration of a Wacom layer that makes this very good for note taking. The other hardware and software improvements appear to be incremental. Of particular note with all Onyx readers is that they run Android, opening up the ecosystem of the Play store and particularly your note-taking app of ch…
It's worth noting that Onyx violates the Linux kernel license, and has a ton of telemetry that phones home to China. Major down sides for otherwise interesting tech.
So what's the over-under on E-ink replacing our current computer monitors much like we've come to replace cathode ray tubes.
I've described e-ink this way:
- Persistence is free. Once set, the display will show that content indefinitely without power.
- Pixels are cheap. Display resolutions are in the 200--300 DPI range (effectively competitive with laserprint), and could be pushed higher at a cost. Line-art and halftone images render beautifully. Gradient-shaded images are limited by greyscale ranges (1--16), and require dithering for best effect.
- Paints are expensive. Both in terms of energy, it's changing the display which costs. These costs are fairly modest, though for mobile devices that's a concern.
- Refreshes are slow. And dependent on display quality: higher quality -> slower refresh. Rates tend to be 1--16Hz for most present devices. Screen animations and even video are possible, though generally strongly discouraged.
- Colour is limited, often nonexistent. Most devices are monochrome with limited greyscale ranges (as noted above). Where colour does exist, it is low-saturation and low-fidelity --- useful for distinguishing elements, but not a faithful high-saturation reproduction. Any graphic design dependent on colour will tend to fail badly on e-ink. Foreground/background contrast is also somewhat limited --- constrained more in the dark "white" value than the by a lighter "black".
- Pagination is strongly preferred to scroll for navigation. Changing the entire screen at once is both faster and much less confusing than scrolling with many repeat updates.
- Display is reflective rather than emissive. On-device lighting is possible, but best effects are with external illumination. Devices perform far better under bright and full sunlight than emissive technology. This is in fact their preferred use mode. This affects both where devices are used and usable (generally increasing options), and the specific qualities of typographic and graphic designs.
These are ultimately properites of the medium, and both designers and users should work with them.
For text and data use, with limited animations, and limited lo-fidelity use of colour, e-ink is very well suited. Large-ish displays (up to 13" and larger) can be hand-held, or fit to a stand rather than permanently mounted on a desk. They're available as external displays for desktop and laptop computers. Power draw is quite low. Outdoor use is excellent. Use as incidental informational displays is also well-suited, e.g., news and weather wall-mount, information, messages, or notifications.
As tools for image, video, or video-based gaming, e-ink is far less suitable.
Back in the day, a frequent refrain of Linux enthusiasts was "Linux is not Windows" --- the two operating systems have different capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
In the same vein, e-ink is not emissive. There are strengths and weaknesses. Attempting to use e-ink for tasks to which it is poorly suited will end badly. On the other hand, it has capabilities which emissive displays cannot hope to match. Play to its strengths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not seem like a difficult problem to solve, compared to the actual engineering, production, and scaling challenges.
The problem would require turning the entire global IP & supporting legal systems on their head. WTO, nation-specific laws, etc. Technology seems to move a lot faster than paradigm shifts in government.
While it is most certainly a good idea to do that, you don't need to wait until the process is complete to include these items in your diet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess they didn't look hard enough. I would have bought the tech for $1.
I realize you are mostly joking, but even having their lawyers go over the licensing contract would cost them far more than 1$. Actually transferring the knowledge of how to manufacture this stuff would probably require low 7 figures for them just to break even on the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 ms = 1/1000 of a second. 500ms = half a second. "Less than half a second" is probably something like 450 ms, based on my assumption that if it was closer to 1/3 or 1/4s they would have said that instead. Film is traditionally 24 frames/second, or about 41.6ms/frame. A lot of animation is "on twos", which means one drawing is exposed twice for an effective frame rate of 12 fps, 83.3ms/frame. Which is very close to t…
This is a tangent but I wonder if 24fps is what you should consider acceptable today. Yes, movies are 24fps, but I've always felt like that was a byproduct of economics which we're stuck with now because of tradition. No one wants a 24Hz desktop monitor, that's for sure; when the first 4k displays became generally available and the connection standards of the time could only push them at 30Hz, people absolutely notic…
I would be pretty happy with an e-ink display that's about as reflective as nice ink on glossy paper even if it's not 300dpi, I've been waiting to be able to sit out in the sun and work without my screen's light having to try to overpower the sun for a long time.
Every time an E Ink article is posted the patent defeatism is inevitable. I’m curious if there are other techniques to implement reflective(?) displays being explored that wouldn’t fall within the scope of E Ink’s defensible moat, or, if their parents are simply so broad as to stifle most hopes of accessible solutions and broader consumer/professional adoption. Frankly, I’m quite sick of straining my eyes and circadi…
Qualcomm are sitting on a reflective display technology "mirasol" that: 1. Doesn't hit E-ink's patents 2. Is colour 3. Has fast lcd-like refresh rates The reviews of the few devices that were made were excellent. The main problem seemed to be the quality of other aspects of the devices that featured them. I find it incredibly frustrating that this hasn't made it into the mainstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been waiting for e-ink displays to become affordable since the first Raspberry Pi came out. I'm still waiting.
What's your budget / price-point? New devices are available for Used or displays are in the $50--$100 range, quite possibly less. Pricing depends on size, resolution, greyscale ranges (1--16 bits, 4 is common for many smaller isplays), and refresh rates.
I was expecting 2022 to have $10 e-ink displays I could use to replace the 2x16 and 4x16 LCD screens in my Arduino projects.
But nope, anything over 2" is tens of dollars still - as it was 10 years ago.
Every time an E Ink article is posted the patent defeatism is inevitable. I’m curious if there are other techniques to implement reflective(?) displays being explored that wouldn’t fall within the scope of E Ink’s defensible moat, or, if their parents are simply so broad as to stifle most hopes of accessible solutions and broader consumer/professional adoption. Frankly, I’m quite sick of straining my eyes and circadi…