For what it's worth, some people have hacked around with the Kindle to try to make this a reality, but as you say, the refresh rate is the bottleneck. [1]
I hate the eye-strain that the iPad causes when I use it outside in nature. Sometimes I go back to my Kindle, but it is too slow and too small for my complex PDFs.
On February 6, 2014, Sony announced that it is closing its North American Reader Store in late March, migrating all its customers to the Kobo Reader Store.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Reader#Models_and_availabi...
Unfortunately, all the books I really want to read with my eyes are too heavy to tote around or take on plane trips, which is almost the only time I have time to read them.
I need a REALLY GOOD reader. I wish I had a lightweight, clipboard-sized, hi-rez, B&W, PDF reader with the flick scrolling, pinch resizing, etc. of an iPad with the battery life to last a whole delayed flight from San Francisco->Tokyo->Singapore, door to door. I might be able to make do with a jumbo tablet if the USB ports that some airlines now put in the seats can power it.
Have you seen the Sony Digital Paper System[0]? It seems to fit the bill perfectly but the price point high.
[0]: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-DPTS1/?PID=I:digitalpap...
Apparently, it doesn't scroll, but I'm sure scrolling takes a lot of energy to do all the refreshes. I assume that a large, hi-rez reader can offer scrolling, thinness/lightness, or long battery life, pick two.
I tried a lot of options before just settling on an ipad for a reader when it comes to anything that resembles a technical manual or text book.
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has any other better suggestions, as far as that goes.
I guess you could go the route of bringing an external lithium ion battery w/ usb charger cord, but those are always kind of kludgy
Big plus that kindle have over others is e-ink that will make it easy on eyes. It is hard to read (and not good for eyes) on other devices for long.
e-ink I find just a gimmick -- there is no scientific research that shows it being any better than a typical monitor for the eyes (Amazon also retracted such statements IIRC). The only real benefit was resolution (which retina/hi-dpi solved) and reading in the sun (which e-ink retains as an advantage).
Sure, one reflects light and the other has a light source embedded. But a photon is a photon in both cases (and you can blind yourself with a white paper too, if you hold it at the right angle to the sun) -- and you can set the tablet display at the desired, equivalent to reflectef light, brightness.
If you can find some specific scientific argument why e-ink is "an essential requirement" (besides personal choice) then it's just cargo cult.
I listed fairly accurately were e-ink is better, namely reading in sunlight. And battery life, which I forgot.
For reading inside, it's advantages of yore, like resolution have been matched by hi-dpi screens. The only other advantage is better default contrast, which is a configurable setting on a tablet.
That's not how science works, and your comments are abrasive and offensive for no good reason. Things exist before scientists can prove them, and that's why research is done.
Although a quick Google search led me to find a paper backing your argument, I find you way too quick to dismiss other readers as doing "cargo cult". Why not believe them when they say they feel less strain?
Research WAS done though. And didn't find much in advantage.
>Why not believe them when they say they feel less strain?
Because that's not how science works either. Subjective feelings are a dime a dozen. Users of homeopathic "drugs" also "feel less strain" but they're just drinking water. People can be led to believe (and "feel") anything by marketing, religion, snake oil merchants, etc.
- Non e-ink displays have a refresh rate, therefore continuous "activity" on the screen. People can have different sensitivities to this.
- Non e-ink displays tend to have higher contrast and/or brightness. This would normally be considered an advantage, but again perhaps not for prolonged use.
I don't need scientific papers to tell me I find e-ink more comfortable or not, it becomes very quickly apparent when I try to read a book on a tablet. Obviously you have a different perception, that does not invalidate mine.
1. Less brightness as measured in nits. Emmissive displays are often tuned to much higher brightness than normal objects around us including reflective displays like E-ink.
2. Reflective displays and paper often have significantly lower front-surface reflection than LCDs/OLED displays. Add touch-screen and it gets ruined beyond repairs.
The first one is easy to tune by reducing brightness levels. However (A) that makes the second one worse as the brightness of the displayed content reduces but the brightness of reflection does not, and (B) displays are often too bright even at their lowest brightness levels allowed. Put a white paper in the front of white background on the screen, and you'll see what I mean.
Well, without science to back it up, it's mostly good ole superstition. Subjective feeling doesn't say much (that's why placebo work too). The same things ("I don't need science to back this up, I know I feel better with it") are also said for "magnetic bracelets", homeopathy, and tons of similar things.
The word has a defined meaning/usage.
Taking marketing claims for technical superiorit with regards to readability as gospel without any scientific evidence of their validity (and even evidence to them being nothing much) qualifies.
You say it like it's a bad thing.
Isn't trying to get people to agree to some objective/scientific fact an attempt to "apply opinion-constraints"?
As long as there is no violence or legal restrictions involved (e.g you don't force anyone by anything else than your arguments) then I'm all for applying opinion constaints on that nature.
When I was on a cruise, I read something like four or five books on it and only got halfway through the battery life. I could have plugged it in at night, but it's nice to be able to just forget about it.
Ereaders are also a great option when you're hiking/camping. If I ever go back on the appalachian trail, I'm def bringing an ereader with me.
Anecdotally, they feel more comfortable to me to read long books, but that's really just comparing it to an ipad, which is way heavier, and part of that is probably subconsciously buying into the old info on eye strain.
So, unless you adjust the brightness and contrast appropriately and have a hi-DPI laptop, e-ink will come on top for reading. There's also the convenience in holding the reader vs using the laptop to read.
So cannot really compare it to a common laptop. To actually compare like to like, compare an e-ink reader with a hi-dpi ("retina") tablet, with the brightness/contrast configured appropriately.
Agreed about the ergonomics: it's more comfortable to hold a kindle than a laptop. However, I'm not sure I could replicate the experience with a tablet: I'd have to lower brightness a lot, increase contrast, and shine a light on it, at which point LCDs stop being comfortable to read.
However, in my experience, resolution matters too. I increased the font-size on my monitor and saw a clear impact on readability.
With backlit LCDs you are getting fluorescent light, whereas with e-ink you can choose to have reflected daylight or incandescent ... i.e. broad spectrum sources. Definitely different on my eyes.
It's the refresh rate / responsiveness that kills the experience.