Quote:
Originally Posted by kandwo
I find it extremely unlikely that they intentionally lowered the contrast so as to not offend the eyes of some extremely sensitive readers. It's much more likely that they've just failed to develop a screen that's matte enough not to act as a mirror, but that still will let through the right amount of light. They have historically used sunken screens, so it's probable that they haven't found the right kind of glass layer to use yet.
No e-ink screen comes even close to having too much contrast. All of them are significantly worse than printed paper books on that front. I welcome Carta 1300 and all better glass layers.
|
I'd agree with most of that. But for printed books it depends on the paper and print quality.
I've some actually 19th books that must be decent paper and were well printed. Excellent contrast and sharpness.
I've paperbacks that must be nearly 100% wood pulp, seriously orange and lower contrast than eink.
I've some printed books that lack ink density, thus are poor contrast and I had a couple of books I binned as the text was smudged.
The PW3 is certainly poorer contrast (with front light off) than any new paper back and most of the old hardback on quality paper.
Some eInk fonts can be too bold, or not 150 dpi or 167 dpi screens. But I refuse to believe any eink panel has too high contrast.
I'd endorse this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kandwo
I find it extremely unlikely that they intentionally lowered the contrast so as to not offend the eyes of some extremely sensitive readers. It's much more likely that they've just failed to develop a screen that's matte enough not to act as a mirror, but that still will let through the right amount of light
|
I've seen all sorts of crazy claims backed up with neat looking graphs. Usually the measurement techniques are suspect or not properly explained.
Note that subtle changes in font outline, anti-aliasing, resolution and aspects of "sharpness" can affect perception of contrast and vice versa.