Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

goodereader.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#131

Post by hestipod »

enriquto wrote: post #129
hestipod wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so myself because I don't have pain in full sunlight reading print or E-Ink which is much brighter "nits" than an LED backlight produces ....but even low settings on an LED backlit computer hurt. There is in my opinion a difference between looking into a light source and looking at things that are visible due to reflected light like E-Ink, paper, the objects around us even if I cannot quantify it with s…

This makes no sense to me. There is only one kind of light and it has just so many parameters: basically, the distribution of intensities along the spectrum. If reflected and emitted light have the same intensities there is no physical way to distinguish them.

Ok. Regardless of the intuition, staring into a light source feels different to everyone I have ever known that staring at normal objects reflecting light, like paper etc. Someone above claimed that reflected daylight was a lot more nits than a laptop could put out so I was going with the idea that this is true. I can look at paper in bright daylight with no eye strain. I cannot look at most LCDs even at low brightness without bad eye strain. It's not PWM in my case as I have ruled that out. Its much worse on LED displays. Fact remains that staring at backlit stuff gives people eye strain in ways printed or reflective never does and it seems logical that staring at the direct light source is a part of this.

I know its not scientifically measuring nits/lumens etc but stare into even a low wattage (15w etc) light bulb for a few min and see how it leaves you feeling...seeing spots etc. Then stare at a newspaper or book or E-Reader under a 250w lightbulb or even brighter sunlight outside...and notice how you do NOT have that same problem. Even with a much brighter light source there is something different about how/how much actually enters your eye. I'd love an answer as this is a major life problem for me.

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#132

Post by hestipod »

dorfsmay wrote: post #123
hestipod wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too...E-Ink/Clear Ink/Mirasol whatever I don't care...just something reflective and not an LED backlight shining in my eyes. I am angry the patent greed has stunted this for so long. There is no physical reason we cannot have laptops and desktop displays with this tech, it's all business bullshit.

Is it a patent issue?

E-ink has been mired in patent stagnation for a long time. I remember 5+ years ago when the Kindle was getting huge there were rapid increases in contrast, color prototypes like Mirasol that just disappeared etc. I supsect someone bought them and quashed it so they can ensure low production costs and high sales as they are the only "legal" source and don't have to spend money creating manufacturing for larger/better tech. At least that's my cynical view of it. ClearInk has been teasing relflective color prototypes for a while and a purchasable tablet is always "right around the corner" for years but I am not holding my breath. They said monitors are many years away so to me that means 10 with their progress so far. There is no technological block to large E-ink/reflective tech panels...they don't use some rare or exotic materials or have some super expensive manufacturing process using unicorn blood. We could easily have desktop displays using them but it's far more profitable to sell 6-9" e-reader displays to Amazon etc that have a high profit margin.

This company https://www.visionect.com/blog/32-inch-eink-development-kit-... makes a 32" product for signage that doesn't seem to have any input for normal computer use...but its 3500eur. I don't know if they paid huge licensing fees etc or what but the pricing is mental for the tech/materials involved and seems to be purely business/supply stuff. The largest I have seen otherwise is the Dasung stuff that's 13" and 1000eur or the Onyx Boox MAX 13" that is a self contained E-reader and has terrible lag when used as a monitor. I have not found anything between the 13" and this singular 32" available and nothing but the small Dasung designed to be used as a monitor.

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#133

Post by cptskippy »

dfox wrote: post #108
cptskippy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen a reflective black and white LCD matrix that didn't suck. Think TI-82 calculators. That being said the segmented LCDs like those found in 4 function calculators and wrist watches usually look fantastic.

IMO you do not have to go that far for graphical reflective LCD that didn't suck: TI-89 has one. Also LCDs in Psion handhelds were quite reasonable.

I can't find my TI-89 to compare but I have a TI-85 and TI-83 from the late 90s and the newer 83 has a noticably better screen so you're probably right. I recall being impressed by the TI-92's screen but I sold mine long ago so I have no basis for comparison.

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#134

Post by enriquto »

hestipod wrote: post #131
enriquto wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense to me. There is only one kind of light and it has just so many parameters: basically, the distribution of intensities along the spectrum. If reflected and emitted light have the same intensities there is no physical way to distinguish them.

Ok. Regardless of the intuition, staring into a light source feels different to everyone I have ever known that staring at normal objects reflecting light, like paper etc. Someone above claimed that reflected daylight was a lot more nits than a laptop could put out so I was going with the idea that this is true. I can look at paper in bright daylight with no eye strain. I cannot look at most LCDs even at low brightne…

I think the difference may be in the contrast between the letters. A printed paper under the sun is very bright, but the black letters absorb most of the light and they are very dark and easy to tell apart. For a bright computer monitor, both the black and the white pixels are very bright, forcing the eye to strain itself to distinguish between two very bright intensities, which is difficult. Does it add up?

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#135

Post by hestipod »

enriquto wrote: post #134
hestipod wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Regardless of the intuition, staring into a light source feels different to everyone I have ever known that staring at normal objects reflecting light, like paper etc. Someone above claimed that reflected daylight was a lot more nits than a laptop could put out so I was going with the idea that this is true. I can look at paper in bright daylight with no eye strain. I cannot look at most LCDs even at low brightne…

I think the difference may be in the contrast between the letters. A printed paper under the sun is very bright, but the black letters absorb most of the light and they are very dark and easy to tell apart. For a bright computer monitor, both the black and the white pixels are very bright, forcing the eye to strain itself to distinguish between two very bright intensities, which is difficult. Does it add up?

I am sure contrast is a variable but overall this still doesn't seem to solve the issue for me. A faint grey pencil on paper is not straining, but even the best contrast displays like OLED are very straining. It's literally again the light shining at you and the entire thing you are looking at being a light source that I believe is the problem. I don't see sparkles or glows or any of those sorts of things looking at printed text or reflective tech...but I do see it when an LCD display is backlit. Even the blackest black on an LCD, on a white background, has an illuminated feel vs a printed/flat feel. The only time reflective tech/paper bothers me is if there isn't enough light to see normally as with anyone. LCD's, esp most LED ones, it's nearly all the time.

If I look at a matte LCD display (glossy doesn't work in this example due to reflection) in bright sunlight there is a narrow window of display brightness where the things are bright enough to be readable but the sunlight overwhelms the "lit" effect and it appears sort of like you would expect color E-ink too...more flat and printed like the display is now reflective rather than backlit..but it's a very narrow sweet spot that's hard to maintain and I cannot seem to replicate well with artificial lighting inside as it takes a lot more than a 60w bulb even directed right at the display and glare starts to become a factor with a more concentrated light source vs ambient, indirect light from outside. Brightness too low and it's unreadable due to contrast, too high and you get the glow again. To me the root problem is the backlighting somehow...possible combined with dithering or other rendering games that cause even static images to be moving as far as the eye is concerned. But it's not a common enough issue for industry to care about, and as with most things, until individuals suffer from something themselves, they often refuse to believe it's an issue for others.

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#136

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

tlb wrote: post #92
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #53

Seems like a good use case for PID loops -- drive the pixel really hard for a brief moment to bring it to the target value faster than might otherwise be possible. Seems limited only by the voltages that just end up frying parts.

For a PID loop, you'd need to be able to measure the position and velocity of the black dots. Velocity seems very hard. You could conceivably measure the position with a camera looking at the image, but will people want an ebook reader with a camera sticking out in front?

Good point. Maybe not a PID loop at all, but rather an well tuned open-loop controller that compensates for the natural time response of the e-ink pixel.

Re: E Ink Waveforms are a closely guarded secret

#137

Post by thomas »

nanomonkey wrote: post #128

Anyone interested in running linux on their Kindle should check out http://fread.ink Juul spent a good amount of time working out how to read the stored waveform configurations (different for each unit) and getting them to run at a reasonable speed.

I'm looking for an e-ink monitor (along the lines of https://cloudconfusing.com/2018/09/18/e-ink-monitors-ready-f... ). Would this work for that?
Post reply on HN