I've just had my Kindle Paperwhite for a few hours, so briefly:
No, the screen is not perfect. Compared to the iPad three's, it's less sharp and less even.
But I do think it's the best non-backlit screen we've had yet. (And it's hardly fair to compare it directly with the best screen broadly available.)
And more importantly for me, since as you know I never liked the dark e-ink screens, early evidence seems to point to that with the front light, this is a device I can use for longer stretches of time than I can backlit screens.
I am still curious as to why exactly it should be like that, but it's true, there's still something about backlit screens which makes it just a bit more of an effort to look at them.
For quick reading (like typical on the web) and many other things, they are just great. But... I was just listening to Iain M. Banks' new book on audio, and I decided to read along on the Paperwhite. I stopped the audio to take it a slightly puzzling sentence... and then several pages later I discovered I had forgotten the audio book and just been reading on the KPW. Somehow I had the feeling it wouldn't have happened with the iPad, there is just this small, odd strain...
It'll be interesting to see how this affects my book-reading, because while I always read a lot, in recent years a lot of it has either been articles, or audiobooks, or, well, unfinished books.
Update:
TTL says:
Simply put: reflected light excites the brain in a different way than direct light. Reflected light provides 3D information of the object/scene, while direct light provides merely a 2D image.
Watching direct light is tiring because, for one thing, the brain can not detect the distance of the object (text). Also, the image of the page becomes a kind of a "hole" in the scene. It doesn't reflect light from the environment, so it can not be integrated with the scene.
-
3 comments:
I am still curious as to why exactly it should be like that, but it's true, there's still something about backlit screens which makes it just a bit more of an effort to look at them.
This subject has been beaten to death already here and on your other blog.
Simply put: reflected light excites the brain in a different way than direct light. Reflected light provides 3D information of the object/scene, while direct light provides merely a 2D image.
Watching direct light is tiring because, for one thing, the brain can not detect the distance of the object (text). Also, the image of the page becomes a kind of a "hole" in the scene. It doesn't reflect light from the environment, so it can not be integrated with the scene.
Similarly, when you have direct light in a photograph, it rarely looks good. But the same light reflected and refracted from other objects in the scene provides information that lets the brain perceive the depth, dimension and materials of said objects.
Direct light is torture for the eye/brain. Reflected light is pleasant.
Apparently not fully to death, because I don't think I heard these things before! Thank you, very interesting, I can see it.
Where did you find these data?
Where did you find these data?
I channeled it! :-)
Post a Comment