If the maximum size is 13.3" as shown here, then no... they are not ready for prime time. That is big for a tablet or e-reader, but small for a laptop, and tiny for something called a monitor (outside of a colo).
E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
51–60 of 95 posts
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#52Looking forward to installing emacs on http://fread.ink once that's possible.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lasers are just a method of creating light of a single wavelength. The light itself from the laser is still defined by its wavelength and intensity. Polarization is just related to the orientation of the electromagnetic waves, and it is a property I didn't mention, you're correct. I don't think it really matters here, though. It's kind of like which direction you shine a light, except whether the waves are all orient…
You were suggesting light doesn't have any other 'intrinsic properties' and that's not the case - phase (a laser is not just a monochromatic light source) and polarization come to mind. Whatever it is you're trying to argue, 'light is just wavelength and intensity' is not a sensible starting point.
Is it not sensible, though? People are trying to argue that light from a backlight is inherently more dangerous than reflected light. The easiest way to dispel this notion is to establish that the light from a backlight is just light like any other, which it is. At most, it varies in spectrum and intensity. Polarization is affected by filters outside of the light source. The phase that's hitting your retina varies entirely based on irrelevant things like when the light source was turned on and how far away it is.
Starting by pointing out that intensity and wavelength are the only intrinsic properties is a great starting place.
You still haven't pointed out any additional properties that have any bearing on how your retina is affected. I was wrong the say that there were no other properties, since we can endlessly discuss the quantum nature of light or how it experiences no flow of time since it travels at the speed of light or all sorts of other properties...
but none of these things change based on the light source. Light is light, except for the intensity and wavelength. Unless we're willing to consider things which could affect reflected light just as much as they could affect emitted light, since they're the same thing. Light.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything related to reflectivity vs. backlight illumination. Most of the discussion is around the wavelength of light (blue) and its effects.
does light have any other intrinsic properties besides spectrum/wavelengths and intensity (EDIT: properties that vary based on the light source alone)? It doesn't matter if it came from a backlight or reflection, the electromagnetic waves are still electromagnetic waves. If the color spectrum is unpleasant, it's possible to use Night Shift or other features to shift the spectrum. If the intensity is unpleasant, just…
Yes, I know what electromagnetic waves are. I found your response very off-putting.
The question is whether the intensity is discussed in the link. My point was that the discussion is more to do with the frequency of light than with intensity.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#55I would LOVE if E-Ink monitors became a thing. Spending all day indoors sucks. I'd love to be able to work outside in the sun for an hour or two.
Tried it this summer with 13'' Onyx Boox 2 as hdmi display and standalone. Both worked as expected, but somehow getting things done didn't really work well.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
does light have any other intrinsic properties besides spectrum/wavelengths and intensity? Sure, think of things like polarizing filters, lasers, etc.
Lasers are just a method of creating light of a single wavelength. The light itself from the laser is still defined by its wavelength and intensity. Polarization is just related to the orientation of the electromagnetic waves, and it is a property I didn't mention, you're correct. I don't think it really matters here, though. It's kind of like which direction you shine a light, except whether the waves are all orient…
I really don't understand what your point really has to do with the original discussion.
Ok, light can be described by its intensity and wavelength. So what? Can you tie this to the original parent post?
You can break it down further - intensity is just the "number" of packets (photons). So, really, light is just frequency and travels at max speed (C) because photons are massless.
Where are we going with this discussion?
Edit: I am not able to respond to you below so I am responding here. You're right on this one - it doesn't matter what the originating source is, light is light whether it is reflected or emitted.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were suggesting light doesn't have any other 'intrinsic properties' and that's not the case - phase (a laser is not just a monochromatic light source) and polarization come to mind. Whatever it is you're trying to argue, 'light is just wavelength and intensity' is not a sensible starting point.
Is it not sensible, though? People are trying to argue that light from a backlight is inherently more dangerous than reflected light. The easiest way to dispel this notion is to establish that the light from a backlight is just light like any other, which it is. At most, it varies in spectrum and intensity. Polarization is affected by filters outside of the light source. The phase that's hitting your retina varies en…
Light is light, except for the intensity and wavelength.
I'm not sure why you're so set on this obviously inaccurate thing and are now moving the goalposts to stuff about retinas and what the meaning of 'intrinsic' is. All I'm saying is both light and especially the perception of it are fairly complicated. You can just read up on it like everyone else instead of building a weird messageboard logic hill fort.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lasers are just a method of creating light of a single wavelength. The light itself from the laser is still defined by its wavelength and intensity. Polarization is just related to the orientation of the electromagnetic waves, and it is a property I didn't mention, you're correct. I don't think it really matters here, though. It's kind of like which direction you shine a light, except whether the waves are all orient…
You were suggesting light doesn't have any other 'intrinsic properties' and that's not the case - phase (a laser is not just a monochromatic light source) and polarization come to mind. Whatever it is you're trying to argue, 'light is just wavelength and intensity' is not a sensible starting point.
Also, if we go a little deeper, then intensity is really not intrinsic property of photons themselves. Photons radiate through space and are carriers of electromagnetic force. They have momentum but no mass. Its energy and momentum is a function of frequency (or wavelength). Furthermore, they also have spin angular momentum which is truly intrinsic as it does not depend on frequency.
So, the saying that light is just "intensity and frequency" is naive and flat-out incorrect.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lasers are just a method of creating light of a single wavelength. The light itself from the laser is still defined by its wavelength and intensity. Polarization is just related to the orientation of the electromagnetic waves, and it is a property I didn't mention, you're correct. I don't think it really matters here, though. It's kind of like which direction you shine a light, except whether the waves are all orient…
I really don't understand what your point really has to do with the original discussion. Ok, light can be described by its intensity and wavelength. So what? Can you tie this to the original parent post? You can break it down further - intensity is just the "number" of packets (photons). So, really, light is just frequency and travels at max speed (C) because photons are massless. Where are we going with this discuss…
The argument is that since the light is the same, it can't have different effects. Reflected light cannot be inherently healthier than light from an LCD.
Re: E-Ink Monitors: Ready for Prime Time?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not sensible, though? People are trying to argue that light from a backlight is inherently more dangerous than reflected light. The easiest way to dispel this notion is to establish that the light from a backlight is just light like any other, which it is. At most, it varies in spectrum and intensity. Polarization is affected by filters outside of the light source. The phase that's hitting your retina varies en…
Light is light, except for the intensity and wavelength. I'm not sure why you're so set on this obviously inaccurate thing and are now moving the goalposts to stuff about retinas and what the meaning of 'intrinsic' is. All I'm saying is both light and especially the perception of it are fairly complicated. You can just read up on it like everyone else instead of building a weird messageboard logic hill fort.
Yet you fail to point out the inaccuracies... I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm just clarifying where they were to begin with. You pushed them as far as you could within the wording of my original message, instead of taking the "strongest plausible interpretation" of my original message.