or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Barnes & Noble e-reader rumored to be merging of Kindle, iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barnes & Noble e-reader rumored to be merging of Kindle, iPhone - Page 2

post #41 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

LCD eyestrain usually occurs when the LCD is is large and covered by a sheet of reflective glass, such as a 24 " iMac. That is why Apple is switching back to matte/ non glare hopefully on each of its devices.

Oh please!

most of us here use computers for hours at a time, with no eyestrain.

If eyestrain is a problem, it's bot because of the screen, but because of the way the screen is used.

If people put their monitors high up so that they have to look up constantly, that results in neck, back strain, and eyestrain.

If a monitor is too bright, that can result in eyestrain.

With all handheld e-ink screens, you don't have the placement problem (as you shouldn't with any small device). You also can't set the brightness too high, because the inferior brightness, due to the fact that it relies on ambient light, doesn't have the capability.

There are far more negatives to current e-ink than positives.
post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Okay, I wasn't going to comment on this any more, but this is precisely what I was talking about.

This is a total BS, made-up "factoid" about LCD eyestrain above. I see stuff like this all the time and most people just nod their heads.

Why do people have such an aversion to facts and knowledge? What prompts someone to just make up crap like this and spew it out on the Internet as fact?

It's so easy to just "say stuff."
(and so hard to actually make sense and think about things apparently)

So now you know what strains my eyes? And others too?
HA- now I think I've heard it all. Talk about total BS.
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Well we're really talking a reading specific device. Laptops play music but are rthey competing against iPods and Zunes?

That's an interesting question.

The answer is not reallyfor most people. But, there have been numerous articles written as to how people are leaving their laptops and notebooks at home, in favor of their iPhones and Touches. So there is obviously some overlap, depending on needs.

We have no idea of what Apple may come out with next year, if they even do come out with something.

But right now. I've got over a dozen books on my iPhone, and have read several dozen since I purchased it early late summer after it first came out.

There are always going to be some people who aren't happy about doing new things, but will do them if the new things aren't too different from what they've been doing before.

The Kindle seems to be a compromise. But really, and I don't know if you've ever really used it, or if you have, for how long, or under what circumstances, it isn't any easier to read than anything else, and is often harder. The only time there's an advantage in in sunlight.

But, even there, whenever you have problems because of the high ambient light levels with reading "real" books, you will have a problem with the Kindle as well.

The truth is that in very high glaring ambient light, reading is difficult, and sunglasses become a requirement.

But not polarizing versions. They cause almost as much of a problem with e-ink as they do with LCds.

So how will Apple compete in the future?

Articles have said that Apple's device will allow publishers to have full color, and that IS a big advantage. It will allow video, music, motion graphics. These are all things that magazine publishers are interested in bringing to the electronic reader market.

If the product is light enough, and has decent battery life, I see 10 hours being bandied around as being sufficient, then hopefully, people will want to carry it around with them.
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So now you know what strains my eyes? And others too?
HA- now I think I've heard it all. Talk about total BS.

I don't think that YOU know what strains your eyes, and that's the problem.

You, and some others, attribute it to one thing, when it's actually something else.
post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Oh please!

most of us here use computers for hours at a time, with no eyestrain.

If eyestrain is a problem, it's bot because of the screen, but because of the way the screen is used.

If people put their monitors high up so that they have to look up constantly, that results in neck, back strain, and eyestrain.

If a monitor is too bright, that can result in eyestrain.

With all handheld e-ink screens, you don't have the placement problem (as you shouldn't with any small device). You also can't set the brightness too high, because the inferior brightness, due to the fact that it relies on ambient light, doesn't have the capability.

There are far more negatives to current e-ink than positives.

All I'm saying is on a small portable device it doesn't matter but on a large stationary device it does.
post #46 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think that YOU know what strains your eyes, and that's the problem.

You, and some others, attribute it to one thing, when it's actually something else.

Glare is glare - even YOU can't change that fact.
post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

All I'm saying is on a small portable device it doesn't matter but on a large stationary device it does.

But only for the reasons I gave in another post. It's not a generic thing that's endemic to the screen type.
post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Glare is glare - even YOU can't change that fact.

Glare only happens under certain circumstances. Glossy glass screens don't have glare built in. It a reflection of the environment (pun intended)

We have two 24" glossy iMacs here, and neither has a problem with glare.
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

So, we now get Barnes and Noble news too? This isn't about Apple!

Glad to see more e-ink devices, and more competition for the Kindle. Don't know how I feel about the LCD in this device though. Sounds like a screen just for the UI instead of a UI built for the screen.

That just shows how one (me in this case) can make assumptions based on our perceptions.

When I heard that the B&N reader had both E-Ink and LCD, I figured that one would be layered on top of the other-- giving a display that could display either or both. When LCD calculators first came out (1970s) it was a common practice for teachers to remove the back of the device exposing the clear LCD screen (except the areas displaying numbers). The teacher would then place this on an Overhead Projector and display the enlarged view on a screen or whiteboard.

I guess I just figured the same would be true of a layered E-Ink / LCD-- the one not being used would be turned off and would be transparent.

The suggested 2-display (separate but unequal) approach, suggested in the article, is doomed IMO.

Though, I do believe that CoverFlow will be an excellent UI for navigation a Tablet. It is my understanding that Apple bought the company that created CoverFlow and now owns the IIP rights.

*
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That just shows how one (me in this case) can make assumptions based on our perceptions.

When I heard that the B&N reader had both E-Ink and LCD, I figured that one would be layered on top of the other-- giving a display that could display either or both. When LCD calculators first came out (1970s) it was a common practice for teachers to remove the back of the device exposing the clear LCD screen (except the areas displaying numbers). The teacher would then place this on an Overhead Projector and display the enlarged view on a screen or whiteboard.

I guess I just figured the same would be true of a layered E-Ink / LCD-- the one not being used would be turned off and would be transparent.

The suggested 2-display (separate but unequal) approach, suggested in the article, is doomed IMO.

Though, I do believe that CoverFlow will be an excellent UI for navigation a Tablet. It is my understanding that Apple bought the company that created CoverFlow and now owns the IIP rights.

*

I do think that this reader, if the shown specs are real, is better than the Kindle and Sony readers.

The color LCD display is much better than the keys on other devices. It's much more versatile.

But, you're right about your first assumption. I had the same one!
post #51 of 82
Just out of interest, and I don't know if there is any evidence behind this, but I wonder if eyestrain on LCD screens is a factor of how old you are, or how good your eyesight is normally?

I do suffer eyestrain if I try to read non-stop on the laptop for a couple of hours (which is a rare event), but I don't with the Kindle. I'm only 33, but I do have to wear glasses because my eyesight isn't that great.
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Just out of interest, and I don't know if there is any evidence behind this, but I wonder if eyestrain on LCD screens is a factor of how old you are, or how good your eyesight is normally?

I do suffer eyestrain if I try to read non-stop on the laptop for a couple of hours (which is a rare event), but I don't with the Kindle. I'm only 33, but I do have to wear glasses because my eyesight isn't that great.

If you've been reading the posts, you'll see some reasons.

If your screen is set too brightly, then you can suffer eyestrain. It's like being outdoors on a bright sunny, cloudless day. You squint to keep that brightness and glare out of your eyes. Or, as I do, you wear a hat with a brim, or sunglasses.

If people understood more about how much brightness they needed from their screens, then there would be much less eyestrain.

Also setting the monitor height is important for desktops. The top of the screen should be level with your eyes, if possible. Looking up results in strain on your back, neck, and the muscles of your eyes, as they have to look upwards constantly, which strains them.
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

e-ink also is reflective, rather than emitive so it can be read in direct sunlight. A huge advantage, I think.

Yes and no. It can indeed be read in bright sunlight, which LCDs can't. But I have a Kindle, and direct sunlight is something of a trick phrase in mine at least. If I have direct sunlight shining on the display as the screen is drawing a new page, the e-ink is VERY pale where the sunlight is shining on it. When I turn pages, I need to tilt the device so the face is shaded. Not a huge issue, but annoying. (I don't know if this is universal. I've only ever seen one other in the wild, and I never talked to the guy about the issue).
post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Oh please!

most of us here use computers for hours at a time, with no eyestrain.

If eyestrain is a problem, it's bot because of the screen, but because of the way the screen is used.

If people put their monitors high up so that they have to look up constantly, that results in neck, back strain, and eyestrain.

If a monitor is too bright, that can result in eyestrain.

With all handheld e-ink screens, you don't have the placement problem (as you shouldn't with any small device). You also can't set the brightness too high, because the inferior brightness, due to the fact that it relies on ambient light, doesn't have the capability.

There are far more negatives to current e-ink than positives.

I am sorry. This is incorrect. LCD screens cause eye strain to me personally and to many people I know, not because of their ergonomics but because of the nature of how they function emitting light. I find it impossible to read for any length on them. I have two wink devices and they are great to read on. that said I am eagerly awaiting for apples tablet. just for an internet on the go device it will be great, much better than this bastardized barnes and noble thing. And I hope apple come up with a great screen and a very usable device, I am sure they will. but it will be for casual reading not booklengthwise. e ink is the way of the future and anyone who's used such a device will attest to how easier it is to read on it than LCD screens.

and let's make this our mantra too for the changing times:

NO DRM for BOOKS, FREE DIGITAL COPY for EVERY PHYSICAL BOUGHT.

this is VERY important because amazon and publishers want to pull a fast on us like the music biz, to have us buy our books like vinyl and cd twice over. It's INEXCUSABLE how the have de facto managed to sell us physical copies of books without a free digital version if available and how they expect us to buy twice a book just for the priviledge of having a lighter bag and reading some pages of a book you already have on the go.

DEMAND IT NOW. NO DRM, NO DOUBLE PRICE.
post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Yes and no. It can indeed be read in bright sunlight, which LCDs can't. But I have a Kindle, and direct sunlight is something of a trick phrase in mine at least. If I have direct sunlight shining on the display as the screen is drawing a new page, the e-ink is VERY pale where the sunlight is shining on it. When I turn pages, I need to tilt the device so the face is shaded. Not a huge issue, but annoying. (I don't know if this is universal. I've only ever seen one other in the wild, and I never talked to the guy about the issue).

I don't get that with my irex digital reader. actually in bright sunlight the screen looks as paperlike as it can. really stunning.
post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you've been reading the posts, you'll see some reasons.

If your screen is set too brightly, then you can suffer eyestrain. It's like being outdoors on a bright sunny, cloudless day. You squint to keep that brightness and glare out of your eyes. Or, as I do, you wear a hat with a brim, or sunglasses.

If people understood more about how much brightness they needed from their screens, then there would be much less eyestrain.

Also setting the monitor height is important for desktops. The top of the screen should be level with your eyes, if possible. Looking up results in strain on your back, neck, and the muscles of your eyes, as they have to look upwards constantly, which strains them.

this is a very informative post. thanks for the pointers. but enlighten me on how I can keep my 24 iMac level with my eyes unless I sit on a four to five cushions on top of my desk chair.
post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes it is. There has already been a study showing that more books are sold to iPhone and Touch users than to kindle users.

Can you provide a link to this study? Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Under certain circumstances e-ink is better, and under others, LCD's or OLEDs will be better.

Our eyes and brain doesn't know whether the light is reflected or emitted. It's all the same. What makes a difference is how bright it is, what the contrast is, the colors etc.

I can set my most of my iPhone readers to emulate the exact look of the Kindle screen (which I've used). I don't like that look, too dim, with too little contrast, but it can be done.

My God, you can't be serious.

After perhaps two years of reading on a Sony and an iLiad reader, usiing an iPhone or other phone to read makes me cry.
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

I am sorry. This is incorrect. LCD screens cause eye strain to me personally and to many people I know, not because of their ergonomics but because of the nature of how they function emitting light. I find it impossible to read for any length on them. I have two wink devices and they are great to read on. that said I am eagerly awaiting for apples tablet. just for an internet on the go device it will be great, much better than this bastardized barnes and noble thing. And I hope apple come up with a great screen and a very usable device, I am sure they will. but it will be for casual reading not booklengthwise. e ink is the way of the future and anyone who's used such a device will attest to how easier it is to read on it than LCD screens.

It's a complete fallacy that emitting light has anything to do with eyestrain.

Can you try to explain how the eye "knows" that photons coming from the surface of a screen are bouncing off it, or are coming through it?

They can't. It has nothing to do with it. It's all a matter of brightness, contrast, distance, angle of view, and other factors.
post #59 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

this is a very informative post. thanks for the pointers. but enlighten me on how I can keep my 24 iMac level with my eyes unless I sit on a four to five cushions on top of my desk chair.

Well, I recall reading a couple of years ago an article in the NY Times about (then) recent research on this topic and the conclusion was that it was actually best to sort of be slouched back in your desk chair so that you are naturally looking slightly up at your monitor(s). This position apparently reduces strain on your lower back, and is much better for you than sitting straight up, or, worse yet, leaning forward. It works for me. I think there may have also have been something in the article (can't find it now) about having something to prop or brace your feet against, but maybe that was just for shorter people, or if your chair is high.
post #60 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Can you provide a link to this study? Thanks

I can point you to a bunch of things, but this one should give you an idea.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/02/sta...002stanza.html

Quote:
My God, you can't be serious.

After perhaps two years of reading on a Sony and an iLiad reader, usiing an iPhone or other phone to read makes me cry.

My god, yes I am!
post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, I recall reading a couple of years ago an article in the NY Times about (then) recent research on this topic and the conclusion was that it was actually best to sort of be slouched back in your desk chair so that you are naturally looking slightly up at your monitor(s). This position apparently reduces strain on your lower back, and is much better for you than sitting straight up, or, worse yet, leaning forward. It works for me. I think there may have also have been something in the article (can't find it now) about having something to prop or brace your feet against, but maybe that was just for shorter people, or if your chair is high.

This is only if you have a high back chair with a headrest.

In that case, you aren't actually looking up at all, as the angle of your back and head are looking forwards at the slightly tilted down monitor.

It amounts to the same thing.

But studies done in the EU have shown that sitting upright is best for your back and neck.

http://www.fitness-programs-for-life...r-posture.html

I know that the site also sells things, however its advice is not unique to it, but you can find many similar articles from those that don't, such as this one:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comp...positions.html
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Can you try to explain how the eye "knows" that photons coming from the surface of a screen are bouncing off it, or are coming through it?

They can't.

Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.

Yes. It's muscle strain. The iris is also affected very strongly.

The brightness of the light, and the contrast differences do that. Also focus changes at short distances can cause strain.

The fact that can recognize reflected vs transmitted images has nothing to do with it. We recognize many things.

The brain doesn't think "Ooh, a transmitted image, wow! What a headache I'm going to get from that!"

Light is light. It's the amount that the problem.
post #64 of 82
wonder how they made multitouch on the device and if so is apple going to act on it? Even if its not direct competition. But they seemed to have made a lot of fuzz about their patents but nobody so far has stepped so much into multitouch side so i wonder if they are just scared of getting into legal trouble. Nokia implemented a screw zoom etc... But is see that if apple isnt going to defend their patents then others will start moving into that territory... That said this device might have produced some other methods of multitouch.....
post #65 of 82
I think this brewing battle of the e-readers is going to be more about content, pricing and accessibility than screen quality or eyestrain. iTunes always worked great with our own rips of previously-bought music and I suspect that an Apple e-reader will be designed to work better with our existing libraries. Not that everyone is going to go out and buy a book scanner but whoever charges the least for their downloads of new and public-domain digital copies will figure largely in this. I think that will mean Project Gutenberg and Google Books too, both places I'm not sure Amazon or Barnes and Noble want you going to.
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

and let's make this our mantra too for the changing times:

NO DRM for BOOKS, FREE DIGITAL COPY for EVERY PHYSICAL BOUGHT.

this is VERY important because amazon and publishers want to pull a fast on us like the music biz, to have us buy our books like vinyl and cd twice over. It's INEXCUSABLE how the have de facto managed to sell us physical copies of books without a free digital version if available and how they expect us to buy twice a book just for the priviledge of having a lighter bag and reading some pages of a book you already have on the go.

DEMAND IT NOW. NO DRM, NO DOUBLE PRICE.

I'm not sure I really understand this argument. If I'm buying a physical book, I don't expect a free download of the audiobook version. If I'm buying a Blu-Ray disc, I don't expect to get a digital download of it for free.

If the world was how you wanted it, maybe we'd all be living in a communist society where you could trade up media formats from ten or two thousand years ago for free...

It's your choice whether to buy something twice or not...and surely e-readers and their content are designed to replace books anyway Stick to one format or the other, and don't switch between the two part way through the book is surely the answer.

And where do you draw the line? If I bought a Penguin physical copy of A Tale Of Two Cities, could I have the digital download if the only one available was the Wordsworth Classic edition? After all, it's the same book, based on your argument...
post #67 of 82
I happened to look at these comments (admittedly, I wondered why the heck anyone thought they even needed to "comment" on a column about a potential reading device from B&N) and found some of the comments hysterical. The self-important declarations about trivialities are a riot, as are the efforts to "one-up" those with different positions. But without calling out screen handles, some of you sound like the biggest dorks in the world, with way too much time to puzzle about things that will be irrelevant in six months. I have a feeling there aren't many readers of Foreign Policy in this group.

I mean, taking time to point out that someone misspelled a word. Are you kidding me?
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

I am sorry. This is incorrect. LCD screens cause eye strain to me personally and to many people I know, not because of their ergonomics but because of the nature of how they function emitting light. I find it impossible to read for any length on them. I have two wink devices and they are great to read on. that said I am eagerly awaiting for apples tablet. just for an internet on the go device it will be great, much better than this bastardized barnes and noble thing. And I hope apple come up with a great screen and a very usable device, I am sure they will. but it will be for casual reading not booklengthwise. e ink is the way of the future and anyone who's used such a device will attest to how easier it is to read on it than LCD screens.

and let's make this our mantra too for the changing times:

NO DRM for BOOKS, FREE DIGITAL COPY for EVERY PHYSICAL BOUGHT.

this is VERY important because amazon and publishers want to pull a fast on us like the music biz, to have us buy our books like vinyl and cd twice over. It's INEXCUSABLE how the have de facto managed to sell us physical copies of books without a free digital version if available and how they expect us to buy twice a book just for the priviledge of having a lighter bag and reading some pages of a book you already have on the go.

DEMAND IT NOW. NO DRM, NO DOUBLE PRICE.

I am over 70 (years, lbs, inches, MPH...). I have been looking at computer displays since the 1960s (IBM 2260 CRT terminal with orange characters on a dark gray screen-- AIR, 20 lines of 60 7x9-dot characters & no graphics).

I sit at a computer probably 8 hrs a day. In spurts, I read lots of books. I write code-- presently iPhone apps and [experimenting with] iTunes LPs. I am constantly surfing or reading reference material.

I used to do this on microfiche or technical manuals (with mono-spaced text for code) reproduced from dot-matrix printers or core dumps from computer line printers).

I don't get eyestrain from LCDs. In the bad old days (above) I was able to avoid eyestrain (and stay awake) by looking away, periodically, and taking a moment to digest what I just read. This has become a habit that serves me well for most reading-- I find it more enjoyable and have much better comprehension and retention.

I like reading books on the iPhone, because:

1) I can read in bed, at night, in any position, without fiddling with lights.

2) my books are always with me, exactly where I left off

3) I like to look at the pictures, especially the color ones

4) I can adjust the type face, type size, background, brightness, etc., and pan/zoom when desired.

5) I can get a new book in minutes without even getting up from my chair

6) it is more convenient, less expensive, more efficient.


As to the DRM. I have the Kindle app for the iPhone, and it allows a single-copy-purchased eBook to be read concurrently on at least 5 devices.

That seems more than fair to me!

*
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

So, we now get Barnes and Noble news too? This isn't about Apple!

@camroidv2 from signature
I am free from the confines of Apple's small little world.
Apple free since '09! Go Linux, Stay Open.

If you are free from Apple why worry about what AI reports - I would think you would be much more interested in a Linux site!

P.S. I know what a hemorrhoid is but what is a camroid?
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by star-fish View Post

I'm not sure I really understand this argument. If I'm buying a physical book, I don't expect a free download of the audiobook version. If I'm buying a Blu-Ray disc, I don't expect to get a digital download of it for free.

If the world was how you wanted it, maybe we'd all be living in a communist society where you could trade up media formats from ten or two thousand years ago for free...

It's your choice whether to buy something twice or not...and surely e-readers and their content are designed to replace books anyway Stick to one format or the other, and don't switch between the two part way through the book is surely the answer.

And where do you draw the line? If I bought a Penguin physical copy of A Tale Of Two Cities, could I have the digital download if the only one available was the Wordsworth Classic edition? After all, it's the same book, based on your argument...

And if we do what the media companies want, we'd be purchasing separate versions of media for consumption on our home computer, mobile computer, iPod, iPhone, Television and so forth. While I might agree that purchasing a physical book does not entitle me to a digital copy, I do believe that once I have a digital copy, I ought to be able to use it on any digital device that I own.
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

It also pointing out how long Apple has taken to get in the game IMO. First the iTab was to take on Netbooks now its to take on e-readers. It has a lot to live up to at this point.
But as we all know Apple will do it right and it will all just work at least by the 2nd or 3rd gen.

@teckstud
As far as I am aware Apple has announced nothing about ANY tablet. Your spew about "1st Netbooks, now eBooks..." is all RUMOR. Don't blame it on Apple - blame it on the media and rumor-whores like yourself.
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes. It's muscle strain. The iris is also affected very strongly.

The brightness of the light, and the contrast differences do that. Also focus changes at short distances can cause strain.

The fact that can recognize reflected vs transmitted images has nothing to do with it. We recognize many things.

The brain doesn't think "Ooh, a transmitted image, wow! What a headache I'm going to get from that!"

Light is light. It's the amount that the problem.

I think you're being more than a bit naive here. The point is that there are obviously differences in transmitted and reflected light. It's also a bit ridiculous to think that one's brain (consciously or unconsciously) has to 'think', "... What a headache I'm going to get from that!" for you to get a headache. If you can distinguish between the two, that means they are in some way not identical and there may be effects on the related muscles of which you are unaware.

As you rightly admit, it's muscle strain. As you also say, "...focus changes at short distances can cause strain." One difference between reflected and transmitted images is that when one is in focus the other is often out, so, one possibility is that reflections cause one to rapidly shift one's focus between the reflected and transmitted image, resulting in muscle strain. Reflected light is also more scattered than transmitted light so that the overall effect of the two may have different effects. If I bothered to take the time, I could probably produce a very long list of differences, and there are many possible effects that could be occurring of which we are unaware.

So, while you could be correct in your overall argument, the assertion that reflected and transmitted light can't possibly have different effects because the individual photons are indistinguishable is utterly unsubstantiated, rash, and indefensible.
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post

I happened to look at these comments (admittedly, I wondered why the heck anyone thought they even needed to "comment" on a column about a potential reading device from B&N) and found some of the comments hysterical. The self-important declarations about trivialities are a riot, as are the efforts to "one-up" those with different positions. But without calling out screen handles, some of you sound like the biggest dorks in the world, with way too much time to puzzle about things that will be irrelevant in six months. I have a feeling there aren't many readers of Foreign Policy in this group.

I mean, taking time to point out that someone misspelled a word. Are you kidding me?

So what is your contribution? Every thread on every web site has pointless comments. This is no different.

Did yours just ADD to the discussion, or was it just more of the same?
post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think you're being more than a bit naive here. The point is that there are obviously differences in transmitted and reflected light. It's also a bit ridiculous to think that one's brain (consciously or unconsciously) has to 'think', "... What a headache I'm going to get from that!" for you to get a headache. If you can distinguish between the two, that means they are in some way not identical and there may be effects on the related muscles of which you are unaware.

As you rightly admit, it's muscle strain. As you also say, "...focus changes at short distances can cause strain." One difference between reflected and transmitted images is that when one is in focus the other is often out, so, one possibility is that reflections cause one to rapidly shift one's focus between the reflected and transmitted image, resulting in muscle strain. Reflected light is also more scattered than transmitted light so that the overall effect of the two may have different effects. If I bothered to take the time, I could probably produce a very long list of differences, and there are many possible effects that could be occurring of which we are unaware.

So, while you could be correct in your overall argument, the assertion that reflected and transmitted light can't possibly have different effects because the individual photons are indistinguishable is utterly unsubstantiated, rash, and indefensible.

I don't think I'm that naive. I have a Masters in biology, a Masters in psychology, and have been in the commercial photography and publishing industries since 1969.

You are making an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever. If you can actually prove what you say, then please do so.
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think I'm that naive. I have a Masters in biology, a Masters in psychology, and have been in the commercial photography and publishing industries since 1969.

You are making an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever. If you can actually prove what you say, then please do so.

Well, you are the one making the unsubstantiated claim. I'm the one saying you have no foundation to support it. If you do have the foundation to support it, then present it. Otherwise, don't make the claim. So far you haven't presented anything to back it up other than "photons are photons" and I don't think, for reasons already given, that justifies the assertion. However, I'm not claiming that there absolutely is a difference, just that you've given no evidence to support the claim that there isn't, and I've pointed to a couple, of many, possibilities as to why you could possibly be wrong in your assertion. So, in this instance, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, you are the one making the unsubstantiated claim. I'm the one saying you have no foundation to support it. If you do have the foundation to support it, then present it. Otherwise, don't make the claim. So far you haven't presented anything to back it up other than "photons are photons" and I don't think, for reasons already given, that justifies the assertion. However, I'm not claiming that there absolutely is a difference, just that you've given no evidence to support the claim that there isn't, and I've pointed to a couple, of many, possibilities as to why you could possibly be wrong in your assertion. So, in this instance, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

The problem is that it doesn't work that way.

Users of e-ink devices are the ones, along with the manufacturers of such devices, who are making the claims. Therefor you are the ones responsible for proving them.

I can offer a rebuttal, but you are the one required to bring the proof.

If you, and others didn't FIRST make the claim about the screens readability qualities, I, and others here, wouldn't have posted replies.

The ball is in your court. You can't weasel out of that.
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem is that it doesn't work that way.

Users of e-ink devices are the ones, along with the manufacturers of such devices, who are making the claims. Therefor you are the ones responsible for proving them.

I can offer a rebuttal, but you are the one required to bring the proof.

If you, and others didn't FIRST make the claim about the screens readability qualities, I, and others here, wouldn't have posted replies.

The ball is in your court. You can't weasel out of that.

No, the ball is most definitely in your court. Here's the claim you made:

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a complete fallacy that emitting light has anything to do with eyestrain.

Can you try to explain how the eye "knows" that photons coming from the surface of a screen are bouncing off it, or are coming through it?

They can't. It has nothing to do with it. It's all a matter of brightness, contrast, distance, angle of view, and other factors.

Your key point being that unless the eye can somehow distinguish the source of individual photons that, "It has nothing to do with it."

You've offered no evidence that the ability of the eye to distinguish the source of individual photons is at all key, or even relevant, to whether reflected light is, or that reflected images are, identical in its/their effects to transmitted light. It's at least plausible, and I think probable, that your assertion is incorrect. However, I'm not asserting the opposite, just saying that you haven't offered any supporting evidence for your assertion, nor probably made any effort to empirically verify it. There's really nothing here for me to prove, other that there are possibilities that you would need to rule out to be able to state the above assertion as fact, and I've done that.

Simply put in other terms, I have not asserted that there is a difference, while you have asserted there is none, and I believe it's usually customary for the one making the assertion to support it.
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, the ball is most definitely in your court. Here's the claim you made:



Your key point being that unless the eye can somehow distinguish the source of individual photons that, "It has nothing to do with it."

You've offered no evidence that the ability of the eye to distinguish the source of individual photons is at all key, or even relevant, to whether reflected light is, or that reflected images are, identical in its/their effects to transmitted light. It's at least plausible, and I think probable, that your assertion is incorrect. However, I'm not asserting the opposite, just saying that you haven't offered any supporting evidence for your assertion, nor probably made any effort to empirically verify it. There's really nothing here for me to prove, other that there are possibilities that you would need to rule out to be able to state the above assertion as fact, and I've done that.

Again, you don't understand.

YOU are the one claiming that it can. YOU have to offer proof that it does. I can tell you that you're wrong as many times as I like, but YOU must first prove your claim. If I disagree with that proof, then I must offer an alternative.

That's the way it works.

Quote:
Simply put in other terms, I have not asserted that there is a difference, while you have asserted there is none, and I believe it's usually customary for the one making the assertion to support it.

But you have.
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Again, you don't understand.

YOU are the one claiming that it can. YOU have to offer proof that it does. I can tell you that you're wrong as many times as I like, but YOU must first prove your claim. If I disagree with that proof, then I must offer an alternative.

That's the way it works.



But you have.

It's a sad state of affairs when the moderators start to sound like techstud.

Please point out where I made a claim one way or the other, as opposed to criticizing yours, your categorical claim that it cannot, as unfounded.
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's a sad state of affairs when the moderators start to sound like techstud.

Please point out where I made a claim one way or the other, as opposed to criticizing yours, your categorical claim that it cannot, as unfounded.

A quote from you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Not to really weigh in on either side of this issue but, a) "eye-strain" isn't strain of the retinas and, b) clearly the brain can recognize reflected vs. transmitted images, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that reflected light can have a different effect -- i.e., cause more or less muscle strain around the eyes -- than transmitted light.

I believe that's how the two of us started this.

It's those who have e-ink devices who have started this debate about viewing quality, and reflected vs. transmitted light, whether it was you or someone else doesn't matter.

Whoever takes the side of those beginning the argument is required to prove it, either as a group, or singly, it doesn't matter.

You've taken up their argument, I've just been responding to it.

So, if you have any real evidence, please show it.

Don't play a game of saying that I'm the new Techstud. That's silly, and doesn't win you any points.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Barnes & Noble e-reader rumored to be merging of Kindle, iPhone