“First of all: doctors say that reading on a screen won’t cause any harm.,” Nick Bilton reports for The New York Times. Yet, “there is a lively debate among fans of e-readers and paper books about which type of reading experience is most friendly to the eyes. It turns out the answer isn’t as black-and-white as we might assume.”
“Doctors and researchers note that in most instances, paper can offer more visual sophistication than a screen. But certain types of paper, including inexpensive newsprint and the paper in softcover books, can actually provide an inferior reading experience for our eyes than the electronic alternatives,” Bilton reports. “With e-readers, there are currently numerous display technologies available, from the black-and-white E Ink technology found in Amazon.com’s Kindle and the Barnes & Noble Nook, to the coming full-color IPS LCD display that will come built into Apple’s iPad. And then there’s old-fashioned paper. Does one offer a better reading experience than the others?”
“Michael Bove, director of the Consumer Electronics Laboratory at the M.I.T. Media Lab, says different screens make sense for different purposes,” Bilton reports. “‘It depends on the viewing circumstances, including the software and typography on the screen,’ said Mr. Bove. ‘Right now E Ink is great in sunlight, but in certain situations, a piece of paper can be a better display than E Ink, and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.’
“Apple’s latest IPS LCD screens include extremely wide viewing angles, but the reflective glass on the screen could be a hindrance in brightly lit situations,” Bilton reports. “Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab, said the 120 Hz refresh rate typical of modern screens is much quicker than our eyes can even see. ‘The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,’ Mr. Taussig said. ‘Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.'”
Full article here.
Kit eaton reports for Fast Company, “E-ink’s position as the key display tech in e-readers may be brief, simply because Apple’s newest gizmo is going to drive some serious multi-purpose innovations into the tablet PC/e-reader market… and portable devices with an e-ink screen just won’t match up.”
Full article, “Will E-Ink Go the Way of Plasma? iPad Bets Yes,” here.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple iPad’s LED-Backlit IPS (in-plane switching) display is a high-resolution (132 pixels per inch) 9.7-inch screen that’s remarkably crisp and vivid. Due to its use of IPS, iPad has a wide 178° viewing angle, so users can hold it almost any way and still get a brilliant picture with excellent contrast and color.
but, but, but a black and white, flickering one second every time you turn a page awesome e-ink technology is so much better on the eyes everyone keeps telling me at engadget, zdnet and gismodo. what’s going on? you mean all those pundits are wrong (again)?
I don’t know of anyone that wants to bring an e-reader whilst sunbaking…
cause they know it’ll get stolen as soon as you hit the waters to cool down
iPad is just an HP slate with an ereader. Funny how MDN can review a product they haven’t even touched yet.
MDN whats your review of the next iPhone?? Just as well post it now. Its not going to get any more positive when its announced.
178 degrees is nothing. Let me know when they get the whole 360 viewing angle.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@ralph from berlin
Yeah, AND they all seem to have miraculously formed these hardened opinions without ever seeing, holding and/or using an iPad.
Easy now, big guy or gal. It’s quite a fall from that high horse you’re on.
Fact: Everyone from Amazon to Microsoft to Dell to Asus to HP to Gates to Nokia to RIM to Gateway to Dvorak to Palm to Motorola to Acer to Lenovo to Nintendo to Sony to Enderle to . . . ad infinitum . . . has already reviewed and detailed the iPad’s shortcomings. Correct? AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS TOUCHED OR SEEN ONE FIRSTHAND. Also correct?
So, back off a bit and let free and open analysis prevail, even if it’s not up to your lofty journalistic expectations. (Oh, and DO remember to dump all of your equities from the above companies as soon as possible. It ain’t gonna be pretty this year and next.)
Don’t be afraid, troll. The future is coming, but you will survive it. (Your HP slate will not.)
In addition, with the iPad, you can also increase font size to make reading easier for old guys like me. Paper cannot do this.
I own IPS displays and 2 Kindles and they are so full of it that brown is leaking from their ears.
Won’t iPad ebook apps be able to change the text and background colors like you can with an iPhone? Say white text on a black background, brown text on a sepia background? That sure helps me when reading on my iPhone in different situations and I’d expect it to be the same for the iPad. Apple better have taken it into consideration for iBooks, too.
MDN Didnt post s review, they posted specs. Specs are the same whether you’ve touched the device or not.
“iPad is just an HP slate with an ereader.”
Uh…what? One is a wanna be iMac version of a laptop, trying to run Windows 7.
The other does not try to be that and is an attempt to bring the apparently popular experience of consumer smartphones to tablet device.
“Funny how MDN can review a product they haven’t even touched yet.”
Review?!?! Please quote the review. While they are throwing in an opinion about the screen that is likely not from experience (I have no idea if they were at the iPad announcement), the rest is just quoting tech specs.
Did you see Colbert at the awards show? Pictures show him holding the iPad at a very oblique angle, and yet you can see the screen easily. Incredible viewing angle.
@bioness
“cause they know it’ll get stolen as soon as you hit the waters to cool down”
Take a friend with you or ask someone to watch your iPad while you cool off. Most folks at the beach that I meet are not likely to walk off with your precious.
iPad Readability
Cons:
No fingerprints on Paper
Easier on the Eyes
A realistic feel and a tangible hold
Pros:
I got my iKlenz for the fingerprints
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
IPS and Resolution Color Bliss
Is it really a 1/2″? Internet in my hand baby
We read so much email and #$% like these comments on the screen these days anyway. A modern screen like the iPad can only be an improvment for most of the world.
I mean how many of us are either still on CRT or on cheap lower rez Dell or Samsung LCD’s at this point anyway.
The iPad will blow these away.
“iPad is just an HP slate with an ereader.”
And, an iPod is just a zune with 75% market share.
“And, an iPod is just a zune with 75% market share.”
HYSTERICALLY FUNNY!
Interesting that the iPhone ppi = 163 and higher than the iPad. If they’d used the same density on the iPad and squeezed the bezel back by a millimetre or two they could have managed 720p on the iPad
@RP3
“Funny how MDN can review a product they haven’t even touched yet.”
– First it was hardly a review, it was an observation.
– Second how do you know that they haven’t touched one? MDN provided live updates from the launch* event which means someone from or representing MDN was there. As soon as the event ended attendees were able to adjourn to another hall for a short time where hands on access was provided.
* http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/23814/
> he human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds <
So a millisecond is a unit of speed now. What sort of idjuts do these people take their readers for.
‘and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.’
Of course, because the LCD is backlit. This goes in the “so obvious it hurts” category.
If you’re using a device without backlighting in low light…of course it’s going to be harder to read than one with backlighting! In those situations, you’ll be squinting to see the text.
Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.
Gray to gray doesn’t count, and that says nothing about the impact of backlighting on eyestrain.