6 ms·

> > ...has a color gamut ideally reaching 60,000 > given the rest of the text («four color pigments - cyan, magenta, yellow, and white - [are] used to achieve

> > ...has a color gamut ideally reaching 60,000 > given the rest of the text («four color pigments - cyan, magenta, yellow, and white - [are] used to achieve a full color gamut at each pixel»). What units did you think the 60,000 color gamut represents? Because going from that to number of colors per pixel and assuming bit depth for each color is not a reasonable jump. For example, I can have a printer that prints the most intense CMYK but only those 4 colors and then I can claim I have a huge gamut but it just has 4 colors per pixel with 1 bit depth.

mdp2021 5y ago
> I can have a printer that prints the most intense CMYK but only those 4 colors and then I can claim If you had a 1bit resolution over four inks, you would get 16 "colours" (not the amount you wrote). The interpretation of «gamut» as the term given by E-Ink is not trivial: some reporters have translated it into simply "colours", which we have used for many decades in IT as "options in colour definition" (and there the addition of "gamut" makes sense as "...and effective expression"), and the number (60,000) makes sense (as the rounding of the quite familiar 2^16), consistent with previous details - that the dot switch in traditional B/W E-Ink uses 16 options (4bits - used 4 times it's 16 bits, all fits). Of course this is just an educated guess, explicit and/or verified information being missing - as usual, and as explicitly expressed with «seems». The indication of a "gamut" in subtractive synthesis (hence in press releases, for communication of effectiveness and positive information) can make additional sense, given that, for example, full CMY-, full ---K and full CMYK are different (sets of) "colours" in the physical and perceptive sense, they are different "colours" in the informatical sense, but they could be considered the same in a simple idea of "colour" (all blacks, instead of the more complex "saturated dark", "pure black", "saturated black" that make no sense in the addictive synthesis framework nor in what some users may expect to be a "colour").
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > consistent with previous details - that the dot switch in traditional B/W E-Ink uses 16 options (4bits - used 4 times it's 16 bits, all fits). What previous details are you referring to? B/W E-Ink and CMYK ACEP are not remotely similar. > The interpretation of «gamut» as the term given by E-Ink is not trivial: That's why I asked why you so confidently said 65536 colors. It seems like that's completely wrong. I think it will be closer to 4 colors. And yes, I mean 4, not 2^4 colors. E-Ink colors doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. There's no subpixel arrangement the way Bayer RGB or other LCD arrangements work.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > and CMYK ACEP ACeP is not CMYK. > It seems like that's completely wrong From what. > I think it will be closer to 4 colors Why, on which basis? Have you seen the photo of an ACeP rendering? Where do the "extra" colours come from, full-pixel-level dithering? > B/W E-Ink and CMYK ACEP are not remotely similar Source? What does it mean, «remotely»? > confidently What level of confidence does 'seem' suggest? It's an educated guess. Shaky? Well provide some argument then. > There's no subpixel arrangement the way Bayer RGB or other LCD arrangements work Why should that even be any one's assumption? ACeP has subpixel complexity: every pixel contains many particles of all the four pigments. That is of course perfectly apt, further implementation constraints aside, to represent the full logical range of combinations within a single pixel. Edit: also: If the capacity of ACeP is restricted to the basic («4 colors»), what would be the difference between "ACeP E Ink Gallery" and "ACeP E Ink Gallery Palette", the latter being «the same full-color ePaper film [but] driven by simpler electronics to support cost sensitive applications that do not require the full-color performance of ACeP [thus] supports the seven most frequently used colors in advertising and signage, namely: Black, White, Red, Yellow, Blue, Green and Orange»? See: https://www.eink.com/color-technology.html https://www.eink.com/color-technology.html
    - robinsoh 5y ago
      > Have you seen the photo of an ACeP rendering? Where do the "extra" colours come from, full-pixel-level dithering? What do you mean "ACeP rendering"? Like artificial photo? I've seen ACeP at SID 2019 in real life and I could see from the zoom that there were only a small number of actual colors, less than 10 for sure. > ACeP has subpixel complexity: every pixel contains many particles of all the four pigments. That is of course perfectly apt, further implementation constraints aside, to represent the full logical range of combinations within a single pixel. Where do you see any statement that they can achieve "full logical range of combinations within a single pixel"?
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        Sorry for the delay. For «photo of an ACeP rendering» I meant some "witnessing" representation of the results of ACeP's workings; you have seen it live: good. I have not, and I am relying on the available material. From the pictures I could see, the apparent colours are many. Traditional B/W E-Ink displays achieve that (i.e. pixels rendering grey shades) through in-pixel dithering - within the cell you get an amount of B-particles and an amount of W-particles. To get similar "detail", or "effect of more colours being shown", with out-pixel dithering, you would need a proportionally high resolution. Some available photographic material taken of ACeP displays "in action" seems to exclude out-pixel dithering, hence work as one would suppose - you cannot get that richness with a "mosaic". This, especially if implicitly compared with some displays of similar technology that use fully discrete colour states (e.g. B/W/R). So, if the ACeP you saw at SID 2019 revealed using discreet states of primary colours (e.g. BWRGBYO), is it possible that you saw an implementation similar to the "ACeP E Ink Gallery Palette" instead of the "full" "ACeP E Ink Gallery"? Because: again: what is the difference between the two, if they both were "discreet BWRGBYO", without any "traditional" in-pixel dithering? Of course, judging from the pictures can be tricky: the Waveshare WS-18295 as seen at https://www.waveshare.com/5.65inch-e-Paper-Module-F.htm https://www.waveshare.com/5.65inch-e-Paper-Module-F.htm seems to show many more colours than the seven full-discreet. The small palette is much more evident in the corresponding E Ink AB1024-EGA ("E Ink Gallery Palette 4000"), as seen at https://shopkits.eink.com/product/5-65%cb%9d-e-ink-gallery-palette-4000-epaper-display-ab1024-ega/ https://shopkits.eink.com/product/5-65%cb%9d-e-ink-gallery-p... . Such gross dithering is of course expected as that product is explicitly an "ACeP-EIG*P*". Edit: and by the way, to achieve that effect of richness in colours that the available "photos" show is increasingly difficult using only "four inks and a base": there is no (e.g.) native yellow and orange in state-of-the-art "E Ink Gallery Plus ACeP"... > Where do you see any statement that they can achieve "full logical range of combinations within a single pixel" I have never expressed that and the idea to "achieve a logical range" makes no sense in the context. I said that subpixel complexity in ACeP is logically sufficient to represent a full range of combination without bringing on the table ideas of colour composition imported from heterogeneous technologies such as LCD.

mdp2021 5y ago

> I can have a printer that prints the most intense CMYK but only those 4 colors and then I can claim If you had a 1bit resolution over four inks, you would get 16 "colours" (not the amount you wrote). The interpretation of «gamut» as the term given by E-Ink is not trivial: some reporters have translated it into simply "colours", which we have used for many decades in IT as "options in colour definition" (and there the addition of "gamut" makes sense as "...and effective expression"), and the number (60,000) makes sense (as the rounding of the quite familiar 2^16), consistent with previous details - that the dot switch in traditional B/W E-Ink uses 16 options (4bits - used 4 times it's 16 bits, all fits). Of course this is just an educated guess, explicit and/or verified information being missing - as usual, and as explicitly expressed with «seems». The indication of a "gamut" in subtractive synthesis (hence in press releases, for communication of effectiveness and positive information) can make additional sense, given that, for example, full CMY-, full ---K and full CMYK are different (sets of) "colours" in the physical and perceptive sense, they are different "colours" in the informatical sense, but they could be considered the same in a simple idea of "colour" (all blacks, instead of the more complex "saturated dark", "pure black", "saturated black" that make no sense in the addictive synthesis framework nor in what some users may expect to be a "colour").

robinsoh 5y ago
> consistent with previous details - that the dot switch in traditional B/W E-Ink uses 16 options (4bits - used 4 times it's 16 bits, all fits). What previous details are you referring to? B/W E-Ink and CMYK ACEP are not remotely similar. > The interpretation of «gamut» as the term given by E-Ink is not trivial: That's why I asked why you so confidently said 65536 colors. It seems like that's completely wrong. I think it will be closer to 4 colors. And yes, I mean 4, not 2^4 colors. E-Ink colors doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. There's no subpixel arrangement the way Bayer RGB or other LCD arrangements work.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > and CMYK ACEP ACeP is not CMYK. > It seems like that's completely wrong From what. > I think it will be closer to 4 colors Why, on which basis? Have you seen the photo of an ACeP rendering? Where do the "extra" colours come from, full-pixel-level dithering? > B/W E-Ink and CMYK ACEP are not remotely similar Source? What does it mean, «remotely»? > confidently What level of confidence does 'seem' suggest? It's an educated guess. Shaky? Well provide some argument then. > There's no subpixel arrangement the way Bayer RGB or other LCD arrangements work Why should that even be any one's assumption? ACeP has subpixel complexity: every pixel contains many particles of all the four pigments. That is of course perfectly apt, further implementation constraints aside, to represent the full logical range of combinations within a single pixel. Edit: also: If the capacity of ACeP is restricted to the basic («4 colors»), what would be the difference between "ACeP E Ink Gallery" and "ACeP E Ink Gallery Palette", the latter being «the same full-color ePaper film [but] driven by simpler electronics to support cost sensitive applications that do not require the full-color performance of ACeP [thus] supports the seven most frequently used colors in advertising and signage, namely: Black, White, Red, Yellow, Blue, Green and Orange»? See: https://www.eink.com/color-technology.html https://www.eink.com/color-technology.html
  - robinsoh 5y ago
    > Have you seen the photo of an ACeP rendering? Where do the "extra" colours come from, full-pixel-level dithering? What do you mean "ACeP rendering"? Like artificial photo? I've seen ACeP at SID 2019 in real life and I could see from the zoom that there were only a small number of actual colors, less than 10 for sure. > ACeP has subpixel complexity: every pixel contains many particles of all the four pigments. That is of course perfectly apt, further implementation constraints aside, to represent the full logical range of combinations within a single pixel. Where do you see any statement that they can achieve "full logical range of combinations within a single pixel"?
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      Sorry for the delay. For «photo of an ACeP rendering» I meant some "witnessing" representation of the results of ACeP's workings; you have seen it live: good. I have not, and I am relying on the available material. From the pictures I could see, the apparent colours are many. Traditional B/W E-Ink displays achieve that (i.e. pixels rendering grey shades) through in-pixel dithering - within the cell you get an amount of B-particles and an amount of W-particles. To get similar "detail", or "effect of more colours being shown", with out-pixel dithering, you would need a proportionally high resolution. Some available photographic material taken of ACeP displays "in action" seems to exclude out-pixel dithering, hence work as one would suppose - you cannot get that richness with a "mosaic". This, especially if implicitly compared with some displays of similar technology that use fully discrete colour states (e.g. B/W/R). So, if the ACeP you saw at SID 2019 revealed using discreet states of primary colours (e.g. BWRGBYO), is it possible that you saw an implementation similar to the "ACeP E Ink Gallery Palette" instead of the "full" "ACeP E Ink Gallery"? Because: again: what is the difference between the two, if they both were "discreet BWRGBYO", without any "traditional" in-pixel dithering? Of course, judging from the pictures can be tricky: the Waveshare WS-18295 as seen at https://www.waveshare.com/5.65inch-e-Paper-Module-F.htm https://www.waveshare.com/5.65inch-e-Paper-Module-F.htm seems to show many more colours than the seven full-discreet. The small palette is much more evident in the corresponding E Ink AB1024-EGA ("E Ink Gallery Palette 4000"), as seen at https://shopkits.eink.com/product/5-65%cb%9d-e-ink-gallery-palette-4000-epaper-display-ab1024-ega/ https://shopkits.eink.com/product/5-65%cb%9d-e-ink-gallery-p... . Such gross dithering is of course expected as that product is explicitly an "ACeP-EIG*P*". Edit: and by the way, to achieve that effect of richness in colours that the available "photos" show is increasingly difficult using only "four inks and a base": there is no (e.g.) native yellow and orange in state-of-the-art "E Ink Gallery Plus ACeP"... > Where do you see any statement that they can achieve "full logical range of combinations within a single pixel" I have never expressed that and the idea to "achieve a logical range" makes no sense in the context. I said that subpixel complexity in ACeP is logically sufficient to represent a full range of combination without bringing on the table ideas of colour composition imported from heterogeneous technologies such as LCD.