5 ms·
Small rant. Are display manufacturers (especially eINK/ePaper ones) alergic to a size that matches a standard A4?
by mhitza 3y ago
Small rant. Are display manufacturers (especially eINK/ePaper ones) alergic to a size that matches a standard A4?
- hammyhavoc 3y agoOnyx Boox Tab X?
- mkl 3y agoThe screen of that seems to be about 203mm×270mm (13.3 inch diagonal, 1650×2200 pixels). Smaller and with a different aspect ratio (3:4 instead of 1:√2).
- hammyhavoc 3y agoInterestingly, several major reviews on page 1 of Google call it "A4-sized", but only one review actually called it "near A4-sized". Standard of writing these days is horrendous for such a key spec.
- mkl 3y agoFujitsu seem to use the same non-A4 display for some of their e-paper devices, and they call it A4 in the product name: https://fujitsuquaderno.com/products/fujitsu-quaderno-a4-2nd-gen https://fujitsuquaderno.com/products/fujitsu-quaderno-a4-2nd...
- Mindwipe 3y agoWhich standard A4? (Which might be the problem.)
- vanderZwan 3y agoShow me a paper standard other than ISO 216, aka the international standard for paper size, that uses "A4" as the indicator for its default letter size.
- Cu3PO42 3y agoDIN 476 does use the same indicators. Of course that's just the original German standard that ISO 216 was based on and defines the exact same sizes, so it really doesn't matter. (Also it is superseded by DIN EN ISO 216, which is just ISO 216 backported.)
- vanderZwan 3y agoMaking sure we are technically correct is appreciated, thank you. But yes, that's a bit of a "structural vs nominal typing" distinction, and we seem to agree that a "structural typing" interpretation makes most sense here.
- KeplerBoy 3y ago210 x 297 mm.
- mgdlbp 3y agoThis thread nerd-sniped me into looking up the exact definition of the dimensions. Neither standard gives the formula used to obtain the specified sizes (for A4, precisely as above, ±2 mm). But what's interesting is that we can tell from the rounded values that it is _not_ the geometric sequence that the stated principles imply, x(n) = 1000 * 2^(-1/4 - n/2) y(n) = 1000 * 2^( 1/4 - n/2) y(0) = x(-1) = 1189,2 would map to the 1189 mm long side of A0 and short side of 2A0 in the standard; y(1) = x(0) = 840,9 to 841 mm; and y(2) = x(1) = 594,6 to 594 mm -- inconsistent with any common rounding scheme. This also rules out evaluation of the recursive form with intermediate rounding, and/or starting with the approximations 1,414; 0,841; and 1,189 as written in the standard. Instead, a form that _is_ consistent is: x(0) = 841 = round(1000 / sqrt(sqrt(2))) y(0) = 1189 = round(1000 * sqrt(sqrt(2))) x(n) = floor(y(n-1) / 2) y(n) = x(n-1) Which makes sense - once A0 has been calculated, only halving and doubling are needed to determine the other sizes. B0 is even easier to memorize: 1000 mm x 1414 mm
- occamrazor 3y agoThat’s exactly how itvwas calculated. A0 is defined to have the right proportions, rounded to 1mm. The smaller formatsround always down, because this way it‘s possible to make two A(n*1) sheets by cutting an An sheet in two halves and possibly cutting away a thin stripe from the long side.
- sokoloff 3y agoThe ISO 216 A4. What other A4 standard is there?
- Tade0 3y agoA stack of A4 to which I could load even static content wirelessly would really be something.
- aikinai 3y agoIs this a wireless printer?
- Tade0 3y agoBetter: a wireless printer that doesn't complain that you're out of cyan.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoBrother laser printers. I'm at least a thousand pages into the starter cartridge that came with it. I got a notification that it was low on toner a year ago, dismissed it once, and that same toner is still chugging along
- dfadsadsf 3y agoI would say that there are at least two good reasons. A4 is not a relevant standard in the biggest market (USA) and A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated).
- niklasrde 3y agoSeeing that this product is not targeted at the US and might never even make it there, I'm not sure that's relevant. A4 documents will either be cut off or squished into a smaller space to fit all, so the proportions of the screen are also not really relevant when that's the proportions of the document.
- mkl 3y ago> A4 proportions are objectively not great for reading (too elongated). This statement is purely subjective. It is false in general and there's nothing objective about it. I've read thousands of pages of A4 with no problems, and in fact I'd say it's great.
- red_trumpet 3y agoAlmost no books are published in A4 format, even in Europe. I think that has a reason.
- mkl 3y agoNo one mentioned books, but standard paperback book sizes are actually even more elongated than A4 (but smaller). A4 is used a lot in academia for papers, theses, lecture notes, etc., and that's mainly what I've read in that size.
- red_trumpet 3y agoIt's not about the aspect ratio, but the total line length measured in characters. If you pay attention you will realize that most published papers either have two columns or large margins, like the standard LaTeX article layout.
- orlandohill 3y agoDasung make an A4-sized e-reader. They also make e-ink monitors, 25.3 and 13.3 inches in size. https://shop.dasung.com/ https://shop.dasung.com/
- mkl 3y agoNo, they don't make an A4-sized e-reader, they just falsely claim to (as does Fujitsu with apparently the same display). Per their specs, the 13.3 inch screen is 202mm×270mm.
- orlandohill 3y agoThe e-reader itself is slightly larger than A4, at 224mm×302.6mm. Since the front case of the device is white, zooming in slightly would give a reading experience similar to holding an A4-sized piece of paper, when reading documents with white margins.
- swores 3y agoWow, I had no idea there was an eink monitor as big as 25.3" available! If it was <$500 I'd probably impulse buy it immediately, I wonder how long it will take for prices (either of this screen or future alternatives) to drop from its current $1,800 price...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]