> The most recent one (the Carta 1300) has significantly improved contrast over the 2021 era panel, the Carta 1000. It's trivial to see that, and nobody looking at the most recent Kobo B&W would claim that it has less contrast than a 2021-era device.
Well, I have linked an article making such claim. But how much has Carta 1300 improved the contrast, exactly? eink has stopped publicizing the contrast ratio on the public specs, just the marking BS that says the contrast ratio is improved (over what?), so I'm fearing the worst. I bet you it's still 15:1 (as Carta was on 2013) on paper or rounding-error level close to that, which explains why most users would see contrast as becoming worse.
> The Remarkable 1 uses a custom co-developed version of the Canvas panel [...] has reduced the thickness of the touchscreen layers and other layers above the eink pane
This is marketing BS. No such thing as canvas panel. It's Carta.
Also, RM1 has no other layers. Stylus input is wacom (below substrate) and there is no frontlight. On RM color pro they made stylus input capacitive AND added frontlight which may arguably have increased touchscreen layer thickness, leading to the perceived reduction in contrast. But ironically enough even eInk spec says Gallery has lower contrast than Carta (around 1:12 for Gallery 3), so no comparison is needed there. Unsurprisingly, all reviews say contrast has taken a hit.
> you would be amazed at how much contrast even the 1st gen panels have
The early panels were utter crap. There's a reason you couldn't not even put glass on top of them and things like "infrared touchscreens" were a thing on ancient e-readers (google for them, if you're curious). The improvements since ancient panels have been significant -- they used to have contrast ratios worse than 8:1, and Pearl and Carta raised that to 15:1. However, it is still ridiculous compared to contrast in most other screen technologies (even memory LCD can reach 20:1 https://www1.futureelectronics.com/doc/SHARP/LS013B7DH03.pdf). And has it improved at all in the last decade?
Not blaming eInk: there is a physical limit to contrast for their tech.
> Both the AMOLED and the Solar Watch are separate SKUs with the display in the name. There is no "base" Fenix 8 anymore
If you google, or if you click on the product, you or if you choose the cheapest one, or if you walk to a physical store... you will be offered the AMOLED one. It used to be that you had to go out of your way to get the AMOLED line. Now it's all in your face. I do not have product sales numbers but it's still rather obvious to me they're focusing on the AMOLED one.
> Seriously dude, if tranflective LCDs got better battery life and had competitive contrast to eink panels, do you really think that every ereader company including Amazon would still be using eink panels over cheaper transflective LCD panels?
Memory LCD panels are _not_ cheaper, and most definitely not at this size. I'm not even sure they are manufactured at such sizes, either.
ebooks are the only thing that defies the overall trend, maybe because e-ink practically defines the product line; but they are becoming even more of a niche market -- most people seem to have no problem doing their reading on a backlighted LCD iPad.
Yeah, I mistyped with the Remarkable 1 display. I meant to say it's just a custom co-developed Carta panel that they were calling Canvas because it had significant proprietary changes from Remarkable.
even memory LCD can reach 20:1
For a screen 1.25" diagonal. Not competitive unless your ereader is dedicated to haikus. Carta 1000 was 15:1, Carta 1200 claimed a 20% improvement, and Carta 1300 claimed another 15% improvement, which puts Carta 1300 at a 20:1 ratio, which is about right based on real-world reviews of the most recent Kobos. And this is for devices with 7 to 13 inch screens, not 1.25 inch screens. Kaleido adds a color layer on top, which reduces contrast in Kaleido devices. Gallery has higher contrast when using color (but you would be correct that when sticking to B&W only Gallery has lower contrast).
And has it improved at all in the last decade?
Yes, significantly. You have decided it does not and reject all evidence to the contrary.
If you google, or if you click on the product, you or if you choose the cheapest one, or if you walk to a physical store... you will be offered the AMOLED one.
Definitely false. REI will try to sell you the Solar one (for obvious reasons). Best Buy will sell you whichever one you want, but will try to steer people toward cheaper watches like the Forerunner or Instinct that people are more likely to actually buy.
Memory LCD panels are _not_ cheaper, and most definitely not at this size. I'm not even sure they are manufactured at such sizes, either.
Alibaba says otherwise, and that's just a 5-second search. It appears that I can order 10 10-inch transflective displays for $200....which is about what it costs to acquire a single 10-inch Kaleido 3 screen. Or in other words, transflective screens are about 1/10th the cost of a comparably sized e-ink panel. Which brings us back to this: If transflective LCDs were actually superior to eInk panels for the e-reader use case, why is every ereader company sticking to eink? Why is notoriously cost-conscious Amazon sticking to eInk, when transflective LCDs would be far cheaper to make at scale? (Hint: it's because eInk is better for the ereader use case.)
> For a screen 1.25" diagonal. Not competitive unless your ereader is dedicated to haikus.
> Alibaba says otherwise, and that's just a 5-second search. It appears that I can order 10 10-inch transflective displays for $200....which is about what it costs to acquire a single 10-inch Kaleido 3 scree
Do not confuse memory LCDs with generic reflective LCDs. Memory LCDs are the ones I mention as having lower power usage during refresh, as well as the ones I mention as having higher price than eInk, as well as the ones I mention as not even being available in larger sizes AFAIK.
> Yes, significantly. You have decided it does not and reject all evidence to the contrary.
What evidence? The only thing I have explicitly discarded is PR's "XX% improvement" messaging because it is imprecise and has been wrong in the past. For example, Gallery 3 contrast ratio is around 11.7:1 ( see Table1 of https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event-img/idw2022/EP1-02/publi... ) , significantly worse than Carta . I cannot find a similar measurement for Carta 1300, so I am at a loss, and since the last published number is 1:15, and reviewers mention the new screens as being _worse_...
> Definitely false. REI will try to sell you the Solar one (for obvious reasons). Best Buy will sell you whichever one you want, but will try to steer people toward cheaper watches like the Forerunner or Instinct that people are more likely to actually buy.
Sigh... What point are you trying to make here? You do not agree that Garmin is pushing the AMOLED ones over the reflective LCD ones? Do you realize the Forerunner and the Instinct series are also AMOLED or getting replaced by AMOLED? You disagree that Garmin 's trend is clearly towards AMOLED? In that case, you should definitely go and extinguish a couple fires happening on the Garmin user communities...
> Which brings us back to this: If transflective LCDs were actually superior to eInk panels for the e-reader use case, why is every ereader company sticking to eink?
Because e-ink is cheaper! I have said it even on my original post: eink is the only one who survives because they're the cheapest one. Plus, I believe, because e-readers are anyway becoming a niche mostly tied to e-ink, and getting utterly displaced by, e.g., phones and tablets in the market.
Well, I have linked an article making such claim. But how much has Carta 1300 improved the contrast, exactly? eink has stopped publicizing the contrast ratio on the public specs, just the marking BS that says the contrast ratio is improved (over what?), so I'm fearing the worst. I bet you it's still 15:1 (as Carta was on 2013) on paper or rounding-error level close to that, which explains why most users would see contrast as becoming worse.
> The Remarkable 1 uses a custom co-developed version of the Canvas panel [...] has reduced the thickness of the touchscreen layers and other layers above the eink pane
This is marketing BS. No such thing as canvas panel. It's Carta.
Also, RM1 has no other layers. Stylus input is wacom (below substrate) and there is no frontlight. On RM color pro they made stylus input capacitive AND added frontlight which may arguably have increased touchscreen layer thickness, leading to the perceived reduction in contrast. But ironically enough even eInk spec says Gallery has lower contrast than Carta (around 1:12 for Gallery 3), so no comparison is needed there. Unsurprisingly, all reviews say contrast has taken a hit.
> you would be amazed at how much contrast even the 1st gen panels have
The early panels were utter crap. There's a reason you couldn't not even put glass on top of them and things like "infrared touchscreens" were a thing on ancient e-readers (google for them, if you're curious). The improvements since ancient panels have been significant -- they used to have contrast ratios worse than 8:1, and Pearl and Carta raised that to 15:1. However, it is still ridiculous compared to contrast in most other screen technologies (even memory LCD can reach 20:1 https://www1.futureelectronics.com/doc/SHARP/LS013B7DH03.pdf). And has it improved at all in the last decade?
Not blaming eInk: there is a physical limit to contrast for their tech.
> Both the AMOLED and the Solar Watch are separate SKUs with the display in the name. There is no "base" Fenix 8 anymore
If you google, or if you click on the product, you or if you choose the cheapest one, or if you walk to a physical store... you will be offered the AMOLED one. It used to be that you had to go out of your way to get the AMOLED line. Now it's all in your face. I do not have product sales numbers but it's still rather obvious to me they're focusing on the AMOLED one.
> Seriously dude, if tranflective LCDs got better battery life and had competitive contrast to eink panels, do you really think that every ereader company including Amazon would still be using eink panels over cheaper transflective LCD panels?
Memory LCD panels are _not_ cheaper, and most definitely not at this size. I'm not even sure they are manufactured at such sizes, either.
ebooks are the only thing that defies the overall trend, maybe because e-ink practically defines the product line; but they are becoming even more of a niche market -- most people seem to have no problem doing their reading on a backlighted LCD iPad.