Re:E-ink is so Retropunk
by FirmwareBurner on Saturday August 26, 2023 @04:25PM
(#37276552)
>E ink is almost identical to LCD and probably slightly easier to make
False. E-ink film, especially color, is definitely more complex to get right than LCDs.
Re:E-ink is so Retropunk
by dredmorbius on Saturday August 26, 2023 @04:55PM
(#37276830)
Acronym-expansion as a service:
TFT: Thin-film transistor
LC: Liquid crystal
ITO: Indium-tin oxide
LCD: Liquid crystal display (though this one's widely known).
Re:E-ink is so Retropunk
by DemocracyFTW2 on Sunday August 27, 2023 @02:04AM
(#37279840)
TINAPHHOHN [ti:nafo:n]
This Is Not A Popular Habit Here On HN
But it should be
YMMV
Re:E-ink is so Retropunk
by dredmorbius on Sunday August 27, 2023 @05:58AM
(#37281097)
You are NTHWNBTHWD.
(Not the hero we need, but the hero we deserve.)
Aside from the ink capsules and higher voltage (though still very low), E ink is almost identical to LCD and probably slightly easier to make. There's a TFT (which can have a larger footprint, since it doesn't need to be transparent) on the back, an LC or E ink capsule layer, and an ITO electrode. Dead pixels are almost always caused by damage or defects in the TFT.
I wouldn't say it's artificially out of reach, though- setting a line up to produce large panels is a high opportunity cost. If anything is artificial about it, it's that you presumably can't buy E ink capsules yourself. With enough effort you might be able to separate the top glass from an LCD TV, dissolve the LC, and replace it with E ink, but I have no idea how you'd do that. No promises it wouldn't burn out the TFT immediately.