4 ms·

> 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

> 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. I don't agree at all. Zoom in to the pictures of any of that 5.65 panel. It is literally very visibly dithered and shows discrete 7 colors only! There is no "subpixel complexity". You can choose one value of 7 colors for any pixel and that's it. You can't mix. You don't have "range" within each color. https://www.waveshare.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/5/_/5.65inch-e-paper-f-2_2.jpg https://www.waveshare.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/imag...

mdp2021 5y ago
> I don't agree at all. Zoom in... You can choose one value of 7 colors for any pixel and that's it But that was not the point. The point was «judging from the pictures can be tricky»: the Waveshare WS-18295 ones were just examples. That there could be better examples is irrelevant. Of course in that Waveshare WS-18295 «You can choose one value of 7 colors for any pixel and that's it»: it's explicitly declared - it's called "ACeP 7-Color", and its "greyscale" specification is "2"... That does not mean that other displays may not be more complex. But incidentally, again about dithering (internal and external) and the difficulty of judging from pictures of that scale and focus: in that very Waveshare of the cheap range, where ACeP internally remains with fullest probability a CMYW, while functionally a BWRGBYO, pigment composition is invisible in those pictures, and this while the mixes are not trivial - both R and O must come from Y+M, through different amounts (from different voltage switch tricks)... Other material insists that they have more capabilities in the park of achievements: the article https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-e-ink-developed-full-color-epaper https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-e-ink-developed-full-color-epa... , for IEEE Spectrum (22 Jan), insists that «By stopping the particles at different levels, we can use these particles to create up to 50,000 colors». While the theoretical difficulty of moving precisely four classes of particles through the same input of "voltage variation in time" remains, if that statement did not mean that they can actually somehow determine where to move the particles "halfway" (more states than just halfway) through the microcups - well, there would be no reasonable straight interpretation of that statement. This given, while "60000" strongly suggests "2^4*4", it remains a mystery how they could have achieved that - again, because what they seem to have remains "voltage switch tricks over different sized and charged particles in the microcups".
- robinsoh 5y ago
  "By stopping the particles at different levels, we can use these particles to create up to 50,000 colors" This is the strongest point you have made. To be frank, I don't believe them at all, but I have to grant that you have correctly pointed out that statement contradicts my belief. I guess we will only truly know once these things get out beyond the realm of marketing and R&D imagination.

mdp2021 5y ago

> I don't agree at all. Zoom in... You can choose one value of 7 colors for any pixel and that's it But that was not the point. The point was «judging from the pictures can be tricky»: the Waveshare WS-18295 ones were just examples. That there could be better examples is irrelevant. Of course in that Waveshare WS-18295 «You can choose one value of 7 colors for any pixel and that's it»: it's explicitly declared - it's called "ACeP 7-Color", and its "greyscale" specification is "2"... That does not mean that other displays may not be more complex. But incidentally, again about dithering (internal and external) and the difficulty of judging from pictures of that scale and focus: in that very Waveshare of the cheap range, where ACeP internally remains with fullest probability a CMYW, while functionally a BWRGBYO, pigment composition is invisible in those pictures, and this while the mixes are not trivial - both R and O must come from Y+M, through different amounts (from different voltage switch tricks)... Other material insists that they have more capabilities in the park of achievements: the article https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-e-ink-developed-full-color-epaper https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-e-ink-developed-full-color-epa... , for IEEE Spectrum (22 Jan), insists that «By stopping the particles at different levels, we can use these particles to create up to 50,000 colors». While the theoretical difficulty of moving precisely four classes of particles through the same input of "voltage variation in time" remains, if that statement did not mean that they can actually somehow determine where to move the particles "halfway" (more states than just halfway) through the microcups - well, there would be no reasonable straight interpretation of that statement. This given, while "60000" strongly suggests "2^4*4", it remains a mystery how they could have achieved that - again, because what they seem to have remains "voltage switch tricks over different sized and charged particles in the microcups".

robinsoh 5y ago
"By stopping the particles at different levels, we can use these particles to create up to 50,000 colors" This is the strongest point you have made. To be frank, I don't believe them at all, but I have to grant that you have correctly pointed out that statement contradicts my belief. I guess we will only truly know once these things get out beyond the realm of marketing and R&D imagination.