4 ms·
Much better for what? I'd never use that - absolutely hideous for the use-cases I'd use an e-ink for. I'd use the one in the article in a heartbeat, much more
by tjoff 7y ago
Much better for what? I'd never use that - absolutely hideous for the use-cases I'd use an e-ink for.
I'd use the one in the article in a heartbeat, much more elegant and no backlight. No it won't display a photograph as good as the Samsung but it will not be cheesy or look out of place (or consume tons of energy) - which the Samsung will if it is positioned anywhere else but in front of and in eye-level of a sofa.
The only thing it is good for is as a TV, which I guess is great if you want a TV.
- throwanem 7y agoI'd rather take a chance on the Frame's automatic backlight adjustment to match the ambient light level maybe working, than on e-ink which guarantees poor reproduction. It's just super odd to me to think about wanting to go to all the trouble of displaying an image at that size and scale, and also being willing to accept it looking as lousy as e-ink's awful contrast will necessarily make it. Sure, it's a lot easier to change the displayed image than it is with a paper print, but what's the benefit of that when they're all going to look equally bad? Granted I'm a photographer and I want my own work to look good, but it's not as if I had to develop that interest to want whatever I did put on my walls to look good...