4 ms·

As a person who still wishes he could really replace his Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110, it pains me to note that: - they're dim (in comparison to an otherwise equi

As a person who still wishes he could really replace his Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110, it pains me to note that: - they're dim (in comparison to an otherwise equivalent display) - they don't showroom well (because they're dim) - marketing them is difficult --- not many folks are willing to pay a premium to avoid the need to do the "hipster dance" and shade their screen (or just wait a bit to use their device) The ideal would be for a retailer to set up a daylight viewing booth in all their spaces (expensive) and then convince folks to test/compare devices in what is essentially a suntan booth (health implications). I wish that someone would revisit the Lenovo Yogabook which had a secondary e-ink display as keyboard/drawing area/e-ink tablet as a reasonable compromise. EDIT: I will note that there are (or were?) some such devices available from specialty suppliers for nautical use, or in rugged devices intended for use on construction sites.

dangus 2y ago
I would also note that mass market display technologies are just getting so good. If you want a display that performs well in direct sunlight conditions with good battery efficiency mini-LED has you covered. These niche displays are offering less and less benefit compared to more mass-produced display technologies as time goes on. All of the upsides of transreflexive displays that are downsides for other displays can be overcome with a $10 battery pack, or by doing things like making the processing and LED backlighting/OLED displays more power efficient. How is transflexive LCD going to compete with emerging technologies like tandem OLED in terms of overall picture quality, brightness, and certainly having reasonable enough power efficiency? If you can surf the web for 10 hours without plugging in your iPad Pro what aspect of a transflexive LCD device is going to convince you to give up the best looking display on the market?
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Being able to see the screen at the beach in full, bright, direct sunlight? Are there any devices currently rating 2,000+ nits? In the past, my comment has always been, "Trying to outbright the sun on a battery-powered device is a stupid strategy" --- what device would you suggest trying to change my mind?
  - keyboardcaper 2y ago
    > Are there any devices currently rating 2,000+ nits? Wonderfully chosen limit, as the newest iPhone model now has a 2,000 nit screen.
    - WillAdams 2y ago
      I will accept that as meeting the specified criteria (which is what seems to be necessary to be visible in bright, direct sunlight). Will look forward to trying that when someone I know gets one, and look forward to the replacement for my Galaxy Note 10+ having a similar screen.
  - TimeBearingDown 2y ago
    The iPad 12.9” with double-stacked OLEDs is very good, but not as bright as miniLED. 1000 bits typical and 1600 in high brightness mode, says Apple. Of course that mode won’t last super long in the heat, on battery. I’m not sure what good portable bright miniLEDs exist. Cheap E Ink readers are such a natural fit for sun and sand. And yep - iPhone 15 and up have 1000 nits typical, 2000 in high brightness mode. Keep in mind it’s a logarithmic scale.
p1mrx 2y ago
> essentially a suntan booth Why would the booth need to emit UV light?
- WillAdams 2y ago
  It wouldn't, but it would need to simulate full, bright, direct sunlight for a valid comparison --- is that possible w/o UV?

dangus 2y ago

I would also note that mass market display technologies are just getting so good. If you want a display that performs well in direct sunlight conditions with good battery efficiency mini-LED has you covered. These niche displays are offering less and less benefit compared to more mass-produced display technologies as time goes on. All of the upsides of transreflexive displays that are downsides for other displays can be overcome with a $10 battery pack, or by doing things like making the processing and LED backlighting/OLED displays more power efficient. How is transflexive LCD going to compete with emerging technologies like tandem OLED in terms of overall picture quality, brightness, and certainly having reasonable enough power efficiency? If you can surf the web for 10 hours without plugging in your iPad Pro what aspect of a transflexive LCD device is going to convince you to give up the best looking display on the market?

WillAdams 2y ago
Being able to see the screen at the beach in full, bright, direct sunlight? Are there any devices currently rating 2,000+ nits? In the past, my comment has always been, "Trying to outbright the sun on a battery-powered device is a stupid strategy" --- what device would you suggest trying to change my mind?
- keyboardcaper 2y ago
  > Are there any devices currently rating 2,000+ nits? Wonderfully chosen limit, as the newest iPhone model now has a 2,000 nit screen.
  - WillAdams 2y ago
    I will accept that as meeting the specified criteria (which is what seems to be necessary to be visible in bright, direct sunlight). Will look forward to trying that when someone I know gets one, and look forward to the replacement for my Galaxy Note 10+ having a similar screen.
- TimeBearingDown 2y ago
  The iPad 12.9” with double-stacked OLEDs is very good, but not as bright as miniLED. 1000 bits typical and 1600 in high brightness mode, says Apple. Of course that mode won’t last super long in the heat, on battery. I’m not sure what good portable bright miniLEDs exist. Cheap E Ink readers are such a natural fit for sun and sand. And yep - iPhone 15 and up have 1000 nits typical, 2000 in high brightness mode. Keep in mind it’s a logarithmic scale.

p1mrx 2y ago

> essentially a suntan booth Why would the booth need to emit UV light?

WillAdams 2y ago
It wouldn't, but it would need to simulate full, bright, direct sunlight for a valid comparison --- is that possible w/o UV?