14 ms·
Because it’s bad compared to every other digital display. They’re always on the order of seconds, and get even worse the more colors there are. Tri-color displa
by colejohnson66 6y ago
Because it’s bad compared to every other digital display. They’re always on the order of seconds, and get even worse the more colors there are. Tri-color displays (red, white, and black) are sometimes up to a dozen seconds or worse. For example, [0] has a refresh time of fifteen seconds! I’d be surprised if this isn’t an order of magnitude worse than that.
[0]: https://www.good-display.com/product/223.html https://www.good-display.com/product/223.html
- GekkePrutser 6y agoBad yes. But that makes improvements even more important! Especially linked with partial refresh could make this really feasible for stuff with small text updates happening etc.
- Mayzie 6y ago> Because it’s bad compared to every other digital display. DASUNG seems to have a very fast refresh rate on their e-paper displays, enough so that they’re marketing an e-paper monitor.[0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGblzUc_Z1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGblzUc_Z1I
- mromanuk 6y agoIs Dasung using patents from E-ink?
- m-p-3 6y agoIsn't that because of this? I guess it could be improved by making a better waveform for that specific display? I'm not saying that's a trivial task. https://goodereader.com/blog/e-paper/e-ink-waveforms-are-a-closely-guarded-secret https://goodereader.com/blog/e-paper/e-ink-waveforms-are-a-c...
- aembleton 6y agoreMarkable 2 is 21ms: https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/remarkable-2-review https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/remarkable-2-review