3 ms·
Fair. I'll admit that I spent about 1/50th the time Googling it as we've now spent so far discussing it.
by CydeWeys 6y ago
Fair. I'll admit that I spent about 1/50th the time Googling it as we've now spent so far discussing it.
- slg 6y agoHaha, no problem. You had me flashing back to college wondering how I screwed up my unit conversions again.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- CydeWeys 6y agoWell on the plus side we now have figures for the annual electricity cost of both the 32" model and the larger 55" model. $100/year is probably still more than I'd want to pay on a picture frame though, I gotta say. That's about the same cost as basic Netflix.
- slg 6y agoI am right there with you. I can't say I would jump to purchase either but the $600 upfront and $100 per year option is less outrageous to me than the one that costs $2700 upfront but is practically free in perpetuity.
- sammorrowdrums 6y agoBut light box type backlit art just doesn't look right, it's a cool comparison and worth doing, but with e-ink you get contrast that is proportional to the ambient light (and unless art mode changes significantly the refresh which it might, I haven't checked, LCD screen will still not photograph or film well). It won't photograph as well with flash etc. either. And obviously most important: if you have friends who are pretentious enough to turn up at your house wearing sunglasses, it'll look good for them too... I get it's sort of priced as an intangible piece of art, that is worth wildly different amounts to different people, but to the people it's worthwhile to, the difference is everything. Yes, I'm also a sucker for e-ink. I just love the aesthetic. Thanks for digging into the costs and info then, it's been an interesting conversation to follow.
- joking 6y agomeanwhile, the e-ink display is black and white, so for the newspaper or some other kind of art might be enough, but the lcd screen on the other side is much more versatile, It can even show animations and video.