News Dasung Touts World's First Color E-Ink Computer Monitor

[Admin]

A company by the name of Dasung launched an Indigogo campaign promoting its first-ever E-ink computer display that will support color. The monitor will come in a 25.3” display size with a resolution of 3200 x 1800.

Dasung Touts World's First Color E-Ink Computer Monitor : Read more

 

[voyteck]

It should be great for astigmatic people (no subpixels [?], narrow gamut). Anyway, LCD aren't eye-straining per se. If the display is flicker-free and the user isn't astigmatic, it's all about adequate (or non-adequate) back wall lighting and the contrast between text and background . E-ink, obviously, won't be much brighter than it's surroundings and the contrast won't be too high.

 

[salgado18]

I'd get one for coding, using a second regular monitor to view the results.

 

[InvalidError]

I wouldn't use an e-ink display for anything interactive like editing text where lines would flicker across the screen as they are being edited but would certainly love one for things like reading datasheets or putting some up as references if they didn't cost a stupid amount per square inch for their limited usability beyond reusable paper and ability to keep stuff displayed even when powered down.

 

[bit_user]

I wouldn't use an e-ink display for anything interactive like editing text where lines would flicker across the screen as they are being edited

Yeah, it would drive me nuts, when I'm trying to scroll around in a file. Probably almost like trying to edit a file over a video conferencing link, if you've ever remotely watched someone share their desktop and procede to scroll around, rapidly.

but would certainly love one for things like reading datasheets or putting some up as references

Yeah, I often have a web page or PDF of an API spec or some reference pages open on a second monitor.

 

[10basetom]

There is a market for color e-ink monitors (eye health, for one), but not at the price it will likely go for.

 

[kyzarvs]

doesn't appear to hit anywhere close to 60Hz, so don't expect to have a great viewing experience watching blockbuster movies

Not many movies above 24fps...

But - I can see a market as a second / third display. I often print documents to read if they are long, for that kind of work and analysis I would be very interested

 

[voyteck]

It should be great for astigmatic people (no subpixels [?], narrow gamut). Anyway, LCD aren't eye-straining per se. If the display is flicker-free and the user isn't astigmatic, it's all about adequate (or non-adequate) back wall lighting and the contrast between text and background . E-ink, obviously, won't be much brighter than it's surroundings and the contrast won't be too high.

I stand corrected: there still might be subpixels so the problem of separate multi-color light sources (even if the light is reflected) would probably still exist.

 

[Endymio]

Anyway, LCD aren't eye-straining per se. If the display is flicker-free and the user isn't astigmatic...

Compared to e-Ink displays, they are. Not only does e-Ink have a higher contrast ratio, that ratio improves as the surroundings brighten. LCDs do the exact opposite-- in a very bright room, their contrast drops to near-zero. Plus, there is no such thing as a fully "flicker-free" LCD display. Your LCD's refresh rate indicates exactly how fast the pixels are flickering.

 

[bit_user]

there is no such thing as a fully "flicker-free" LCD display. Your LCD's refresh rate indicates exactly how fast the pixels are flickering.

Um, no. Not if you don't have backlight strobing, which only tends to be found on gaming displays.

The "refresh rate" of LCDs is just an upper limit on how frequently the pixel can change. It doesn't mean the crystals are oscillating at that frequency.

 

[voyteck]

Compared to e-Ink displays, they are. Not only does e-Ink have a higher contrast ratio, that ratio improves as the surroundings brighten. LCDs do the exact opposite-- in a very bright room, their contrast drops to near-zero. Plus, there is no such thing as a fully "flicker-free" LCD display. Your LCD's refresh rate indicates exactly how fast the pixels are flickering.

My Kindle has definitely lower contrast ratio than the black text against white background on my display before I set up, say, 65% black (for example in Word). With high enough resolution LCD shouldn't cause more eye-strain than e-ink provided that the screen isn't brighter than the wall behind it and the text isn't 100% black. The problem arises when one suffers from astigmatism (then the higher the pixel density and the narrower the gamut, the better; that said, bright text on dark background doesn't help). The thing is the wider the gamut, the bigger the difference between wave lenghts of the three subcolors and the distance between subpixels only aggravates the problem of refraction angles.

 

[voyteck]

Anyway, as a full-time copy editor (disclaimer: English is my second language), proud owner of an astigmatism-free pair of orbs, user of a 27-inch Ultra HD display sitting in front of a strongly lit wall and an obsessive bookworm I can tell you that I don't see any substantial difference between my NEC, my Kindle and printed books.

That being said, I wrote that LCDs don't cause eye-strain per se, nothing more. Yes, they require healthy eyes (or at least proper correction), adequately lit back wall, bumping up the black level of text and high pixel density.

Also, in front of a monitor one has tendency to blink less (more interactive or engaging content) and usually can't move his or her sight further than the back wall but those issues can be easily addressed.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I have a slight astigmatism and I have a combination of near-sighted and far-sighted vision (one eye has one, the other has the other). Although it's not enough to require glasses all the time, so I usually don't wear mine unless I'm going out.

The thing for me with eyestrain is I haven't had a problem with it and I basically sit in front of a computer most of my time. But it's likely a combination of:

• Keeping the brightness down. I keep the brightness of all the monitors I use to about 25-50 (out of 100), which I guess is around 150-200nits from a 400nit display.
• I don't look at it in a completely dark room. I always have some sort of light source around be it my room light or a desk lamp
• I tend to look away from the monitor regularly, like every 10-15 minutes, sometimes up to 30 minutes. It was sort thing that just happened, but apparently you're supposed to do that anyway.

I will say also low contrast themes are nice to look at and was part of why I hated the dark theme craze a few years ago because people kept thinking "oh just put white on black" I think it makes it worse because your pupils dilate, making the white text a little more piercing. But something like Monokai or Zenburn is perfect.

 

[Endymio]

My Kindle has definitely lower contrast ratio than the black text against white background on my display

The manner in which you frame that statement is itself indicative of the misunderstanding. Under what conditions did you test? In a perfectly dark room, your Kindle has 0% contrast ratio, while your monitor has its full rated contrast. Now take the two devices outside into bright sunlight and the situation is reversed: the Kindle's contrast ratio is enormous, while an LCD monitor is virtually unreadable.

 

[Endymio]

Um, no. Not if you don't have backlight strobing, which only tends to be found on gaming displays.

The "refresh rate" of LCDs is just an upper limit on how frequently the pixel can change. It doesn't mean the crystals are oscillating at that frequency.

Technically true, but remember CCD-lit LCD monitors have an electronic ballast, and even most LED-lit monitors use PWM to implement local dimming, both of which generate high-frequency flicker. And while a low refresh rate itself isn't generating "true" flicker, it does cause eye strain. If LCD monitors didn't flicker, there would be no point to certifications for them such as the "Rheinland-certified flicker-free" designation.

 

[bit_user]

In a perfectly dark room, your Kindle has 0% contrast ratio, while your monitor has its full rated contrast.

e-readers have backlights too, you know? Just because you can read them with external light doesn't mean it's the only option.

 

[bit_user]

remember CCD-lit LCD monitors have an electronic ballast,

You mean CFL-lit? I'm looking at a CFL-backlit monitor and I don't see multiple images as I flit my eyes across it. I did once have a monitor at work that had a weird checkerboard flicker-pattern.

even most LED-lit monitors use PWM to implement local dimming,

Most LCD monitors don't have local-dimming, but I guess you mean they use PWM to implement variable brightness? That could be, but LEDs have an extremely high switching frequency and you can easily put the fundamental frequency well beyond where it would be perceivable as flicker.

Back in the CRT era, I could see flicker at 60 Hz and found it rather uncomfortable. Maybe that was specific to multi-sync computer monitors, if they had lower-persistence phosphors than TVs, but I found I had to run my monitors >= 75 Hz to avoid perceivable flicker. I say that because I've never noticed flicker on a LED-lit LCD monitor.

while a low refresh rate itself isn't generating "true" flicker, it does cause eye strain.

Source? I'm skeptical it has anything to do with the actual refresh rate, on non-gaming monitors.

 

[Endymio]

e-readers have backlights too, you know?

Some do, yes. It doesn't change the principle here-- the brighter the ambient light, the higher the contrast ratio for e-Ink displays, and the lower the contrast for LCDs.

You mean CFL-lit?

Cold-cathode vs. cold-flourescent -- the terms are synonymous,.

I'm looking at a CFL-backlit monitor and I don't see multiple images as I flit my eyes across it.

Flicker isn't related to "multiple images flitting", though I appreciate the snarky response.

Once again: many LCD monitors have some form of flicker, albeit faint. The "flicker free" certifications exist for a reason. From Asus.com:

"

What is display flicker?​

Flicker is caused by the rapid on/off cycle of the LED backlight as it tries to maintain the brightness of the display. Flicker is more noticeable when the display is set to low brightness settings...."

EYE CARE TECHNOLOGY

ASUS Eye Care Monitors Receive Most Number of TÜV Rheinland Low Blue-Light Emissions and Flicker-Free Certifications. ASUS Low Blue Light Monitors feature a OSD menu that allows you to access four different Blue Light Filter settings onscreen. ASUS Flicker-Free technology uses Smart Dynamic...

www.asus.com

 

[bit_user]

Flicker isn't related to "multiple images flitting", though I appreciate the snarky response.

When a display is visibly flickering, if I stand back from it and scan my eyes across as fast as possible, there would be multiple images of the screen projected on my retina that I can clearly perceive. On the other hand, if the backlight is constant or flickering at a high enough frequency, there's just a continuous streak.

If you've never noticed this, then perhaps we might be more different than alike. I tend to notice stuff like that.

Once again: many LCD monitors have some form of flicker, albeit faint.

Well, if you're no longer saying they flicker at the refresh rate, then I think we're done. It was really the part about flickering at the refresh rate that concerned me.

The "flicker free" certifications exist for a reason. From Asus.com:

"

What is display flicker?​

Flicker is caused by the rapid on/off cycle of the LED backlight

Yes, that's what I was saying - it's the backlight and not the pixels refreshing.

 

[voyteck]

The manner in which you frame that statement is itself indicative of the misunderstanding. Under what conditions did you test? In a perfectly dark room, your Kindle has 0% contrast ratio, while your monitor has its full rated contrast. Now take the two devices outside into bright sunlight and the situation is reversed: the Kindle's contrast ratio is enormous, while an LCD monitor is virtually unreadable.

No, it's not enormous, it's very low, the same for a traditional photo, 300 : 1 at best. First of all, the e-ink isn't 100% black and the background isn't snow white. Second, when you lit the reader/photo/book with external light, no matter how black is the black (in practical terms, we are not talking about blackholes or exotic materials), the contrast ratio goes kaboom.

 

[Mapewilli]

It should be great for people with long-term computer use. Also, the ink display lacks backlight so it reduces the eye strain. These may be helpful for people who are reading, coding, or working on documents continuously. I think e-ink also has only minimal flickering It could be a dream come true for those who spend long hours working on their computers, reading, or even indulging in multimedia content.

 

[bit_user]

It should be great for people with long-term computer use. Also, the ink display lacks backlight so it reduces the eye strain.

Are you sure about that? I have an e-ink based reader and it sure looks like a backlight and not a front light.

Obviously, you don't have to use the backlight if the external lighting is good. That's what's nice about it being a reflective display technology.

I think e-ink also has only minimal flickering

LOL, the pixel response time would be measured in seconds, not milliseconds! The downisde of this is that page flips are annoyingly slow.

or even indulging in multimedia content.

I don't know what you mean by that, but you're sure not going to watch an videos on them.

 

[InvalidError]

Are you sure about that? I have an e-ink based reader and it sure looks like a backlight and not a front light.

e-Ink elements are opaque, the screen has to be front-illuminated, be it internally using a flat light guide to dispense light from the front or ambient light.

LOL, the pixel response time would be measured in seconds, not milliseconds! The downisde of this is that page flips are annoyingly slow.


I don't know what you mean by that, but you're sure not going to watch an videos on them.

Actually, many newer e-Ink devices can play video to some degree of success at 10-15Hz. Old e-Ink displays where the whole erase-draw cycle could take a second or three were painful to use.

 

[Mapewilli]

Actually, many newer e-Ink devices can play video to some degree of success at 10-15Hz. Old e-Ink displays where the whole erase-draw cycle could take a second or three were painful to use.

I respect you offering that knowledge about displays. You are totally right, all through time changes in e-ink display technology have improved their capabilities.