Flexible Electronic Paper

shri writes "E Ink has just announced a breakthrough in flexible electronic paper displays. The new display which has a 100DPI resolution and is only 300 microns thick has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information."

Comments

awesome.

[CDPatten]

Just imagine when this is a higher resolution and you can hang the sheet on your wall as a tv. so many possibilities.

Re:awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, higher resolutions and perhaps more than 4 levels of grey...

Besides, they have these 'awesome' wall-hangable TVs already: Plasma or LCD, depending on preference.

so many possibilities

Maybe, yet you picked the most retarded application for flexible, ultra-thin, low-quality displays.

Re:awesome.

[thiophene]

Four levels of grey I could probably handle for a TV, but the 1 Hz refresh rate that I would have problems with.

Re:awesome.

[somersault]

http://www.eink.com/news/releases/pr86.html wow. Yeah, I expect eventually you could paper your wall with this stuff and have a room that you can change as easily as your desktop background.. or a room that was your own home cinema :D

Re:awesome.

[hpavc]

Agreed, some sort of jacket/clothing would be awesome as well.

Re:awesome.

[Hakubi_Washu]

Cobine that with the prism foil used to achieve cheap 3D effects and the holodeck is coming! :-) Seriously, I'd love wallpaper from this stuff, Imagine displaying a realtime view from someplace outside, placing a screen "window" anywhere you need it to watch the news (Other projection technologies I've come across had their display following you around, so you could always continue watching a movie) or, combined with touch sensitivity, having virtual post-it's, posters, etc. just like a typical desktop UI. *sigh*

Re:awesome.

[pla]

Just imagine when this is a higher resolution and you can hang the sheet on your wall as a tv. so many possibilities.

Higher resolution?

A 15in display at 1280x1024 has a resolution of roughly 75DPI. A 32in 1920x1080 HDTV has a resolution of roughly 50DPI.

Or, turning that around, a 100DPI 1920x1080 TV screen would have a diagonal of only 16 inches. Okay for a kitchen or bedroom, but crap for a real enterntainment center TV.

Re:awesome.

[MullerMn]

What's the refresh rate of the paper you're using currently?

Re:awesome.

[thiophene]

The paper I'm using currently has a refresh of roughly 10^-2 Hz, depending on how good my eraser is.

However, the grandparent post was speaking of a television display type application. That's the point I was referring to.

Re:awesome.

[jacksonj04]

Having an entire wall as a touchscreen would be ideal for police for example (ala Minority Report). Having worked with data organisation and cross-referencing I can say that the ability to view all the data at once in at a sensible scale, combined with the ability to 'save' an entire wall's work whilst you check something else, videos, real-time info etc. would be absolutely invaluable.

Re:awesome.

[korgull]

Well, the application area for this is NOT TV.

E-ink has most advantage in applications when static images are displayed for a longer time because it doesn't consume energy in that state (only when switching basically).
So, this makes it perfectly suitable for low framerate applications like e-book readers, not TV sets.
It also doesn't pass light through the display as a LCD does, it reflects light, just like paper. Pointing an external light source on your TV set is also not very likely to give a good result.

Re:awesome.

[Mahou]

wtf? did people somehow colectively forget about FOLEDs? why do people see such hope in e-ink becoming some kind of awesome video display? organic leds are being developed for just that purpose and actually have a refresh rate. oleds would make way better hang-on-your-wall tv's and foleds would make a good laptop screen to roll up and take with you. so what gives? i thought e-ink was just to put in books to store multiple e-books or have newspapers (maybe with personlized preferences?) that can download the latest news.

Re:awesome.

[Irish_Samurai]

I'd tell you what I think would be awesome, but I'm busy patenting it and preparing for the ensuing lawsuits I'm going to file.

Re:awesome.

[RoadDoggFL]

I don't know anything about FOLEDs, but I know that one big deal about e-ink is that it doesn't require any power to maintain a static image. Hell, that would be great at higher resolutions and truer colors just because it would allow us to replace all the maps I have in the office closets that only get used once and are re-ordered when they're needed again.

Make mine writable..

[bigattichouse]

Make it pressure sensitive for interfacing (writing with a stylus and touch screen), and you got a deal mister!

Re:Make mine writable..

[halivar]

No, what you've got is a really, really expensive pencil and paper. All you save is eraser rubbings.

Re:Make mine writable..

[zymurgyboy]

Yes. And have a way to transmit text from a computer wirelessly, coupled with some basic navigation software to turn pages and then you've got a deal.

Especially if you could capture marginalia input from the stylus and do some versioning with the original. Then we'd approaching a realistic alternative to dead tree.

Re:Make mine writable..

[KillerDeathRobot]

All you save is eraser rubbings.

Or you save paint, or ink, or writing materials we couldn't dream of in the physical world. Not to mention that digital ink, paint, etc. can all be easily erased or transformed, unlike their real-world counterparts.

I think even more important than saving materials is the fact that you could annotate webistes, documents, whatever, making this (what the GP mentioned, not what the article speaks of) much more than really expensive pencil and paper.

Re:Make mine writable..

[somersault]

But a more intuitive interface than a mouse and keyboard for non-computer literate people. Or artists. But yeah I can write much faster with a keyboard than handwriting, and a pen's got to suck for playing any FPSs. But still a very funky idea, and it'll get cheap ;)

Re:Make mine writable..

[zymurgyboy]

Really? If you can include features like the parent describes, along with the ones in my earlier post in this thread, it could turn out to be less expensive in the end. Paper is only cheap up front. Storing paper is what makes it expensive. The cost of disk space is plummeting, while the cost of real estate is rising. Not to mention, the paper making process creates some of the most toxic chemicals known to man.

I'd think of the TCO for this the same way I do with shoes. Don't be afraid to spend the money on better quality. They'll last longer, you'll comsume less, and you won't have to replace them, nearly as frequently. A few pairs of carefully chosen, high quality shoes will save you more money than a closet full of cheap ones in the long run without sacrificing too much flexibility.

Re:Make mine writable..

[Blade80]

Now all we need is digital white out

Re:Make mine writable..

[MrShaggy]

But I think that there is (somewhere) something that points to how much material goes into making things. I think that for every PC there is almost ton used. So I think that anything that uses that much hugh-tech is going to be wasteful. I think that proper tree - managment plans, as well as reducing the font on the typeritten paper, would reduce the amount of trees being used.

Re:Make mine writable..

[zymurgyboy]

So I think that anything that uses that much hugh-tech is going to be wasteful.

Sure, prior to widespread adoption, and R&D to further refine the technology and manufacturing process. This is true of anything.

Re:Make mine writable..

[SilicaiMan]

what you've got is a really, really expensive pencil and paper.

Since when can you download E-Books onto a regular piece of paper?
This thing has tremendous potential. Too bad we've been hearing about these "breakthroughs" for such a long time, that I'm starting to feel that e-paper is the Duke Nukem Forever of the electronic display industry :-/

Re:Make mine writable..

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

No, what you've got is a really, really expensive pencil and paper.

Not quite, the previous poster wants pressure sensitivity. You are describing this: http://www.howstuffworks.com/magna-doodle.htm

Re:Make mine writable..

[Soul-Burn666]

and a pen's got to suck for playing any FPSs

Nintendo disagrees.

Re:Make mine writable..

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is really really expensive, I would feel really really uncomfortable using it around the office.

Leave it lying around and next thing you know--the janitor has thrown it into the recycling bin, secretary used it to photocopy notices of her son selling chocolate bars, the intern has it shredded to remove confidential information.

It'd be like tupperware of old. You'd be maniacally keeping tabs on it all the time. Likely, you'd freak out if any of the above happened.

No thanks. As if I didn't have enough stress from work already... and no, I do not work at Microsoft.

Re:Make mine writable..

[UltimaL337Star]

i say the etch and sketch is clearly the superior tool in this matter

Re:Make mine writable..

[somersault]

okay I agree that that sytem works okay for a handheld (yes I've got a DS and the demo of Metroid that came with it).. but I'm still happier with my mouse, as for voilent movements etc I'd just end up damaging the touch sensor by scratching or crushing it =P If we'd all been brought up using pens to play FPSs then it would be okay, but I find it better holding something more substancial that you can rest your hand on (making it too easy for you guys to make jokes here but I dont mind ;) ), a large touch pad you'd have to hold your hand up all the time to make sure it didnt touch the pad.. unless you played with your hand off of the edge and only the stylus touching a small area. Basically it'd just be awkward. And you wouldnt have any mouse buttons =p The mouse allows a lot of control. In fact with enough buttons on a mouse you could basically play the whole game with one hand. I've never heard of a stylus with buttons, but it could happen I guess, just wont be as comfortable as a mouse for games.

WOW!!!

[matr0x_x]

This is a HUGE accomplishment!!! 100 DPI is heads above the rest. Look out eBooks ;)

Re:WOW!!!

[Usquebaugh]

This is what I was thinking. Make a book out of this stuff, A4/US Letter size with 200 pages, the electronics could fit in the binder.

Re:WOW!!!

[BritneySP2]

I could not think of anything more stupid.

Re:WOW!!!

[oc255]

A book out of electronic pages would probably be a waste. On a single display, dual display -- maybe a book that flips out to only two pages, I can paginate electronically like a PDF reader. One page can represent and display multiple pages (though not at the same time without scaling or zooming).

I think there would also be interface problems/challenges with having multiple pages. You'd have to track which pages are hidden or folded down and which ones are active or shown. For example, if I'm on Page1 and I want to search the book, where does my search box pop up to? All pages? The first page?

Turning electronic pages physically would be a novelty I think. Books of paper have pages and page flipping because there is no other option. You can't store information in the same space because ink would overwrite other ink. On this e-paper though, I think you could design a better interface and improve on the book rather than try to emulate it. Emulation is a waste IMHO, like having an electronic keyboard with real strings in the back that don't do anything (well maybe not a great analogy).

Re:WOW!!!

[Catbeller]

I'm sure you could.

Look at from the perspective of book lovers, who perennially chant, "But nothing will ever replace the feeling of a good book, of turning pages with my fingers, sitting in my parlour on my straw-filled wingback chair by the light of my coal oil lamp, while my cleaning girl washes my clothes in the river."

An eBook that looks like a book sounds idiotic to a geek, but will sell well to people who simply can't wrap their heads around a new idea. And teachers love to see their students loaded down with the weight of at least one heavy book, suffering as they have suffered, serves the little buggers right. "Tonight you will need your English, Algebra, Economics, Webster's dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia Brittanica and your school desk when you do your homework assignments." No wonder we bus them to school. No child could lift the weight of all those dead trees for half a mile both ways.

Re:WOW!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget uphill both ways in the blistering heat/freezing snow at ungodly hours of the morning/night.

Re:WOW!!!

[modecx]

It dosen't sound idiotic at all, to this geek. I'd much rather flip the pages in a book than scroll with a scrolly deal. It's MUCH more intuitive. Plus, does one really need the 200 pages as the grandparent suggested? Make it 50 pages, such that once you reach the 50th page, you open the book from page one and you get page 51, and so on. This way, it's much less complicated, and much less bulky, but you still have the opportunity to go back and fourth as you see fit.

Plus, if it really gets good, make the sucker into a full blown PDA. The first few pages could be reserved for things like email, contact database, calendars, etc. that work like a PDA's, but much larger and at higher resolutions... It could be basically like a journal with typeface instead of ink scribbles--or if you like the scribbles you get a full page touch sensor that records and stores your writings--and it dosen't even have to translate your chicken scratch to ASCII.

I'd pick one up in an instant!

Re:WOW!!!

[BritneySP2]

It dosen't sound idiotic at all, to this geek

To this geek, maybe. But it is really idiotic anyway. Example: one of the big advantages of ebooks is being able to search the text. You'd need a mechanical page flipper to browse the search results, then.

Re:WOW!!!

[modecx]

Oh please, there is no thechnical limitation where you preceive one, assuming there is an imput to use to search, you could use one specific page to search with, with scrolly-deals, and hypertext-ish links to pages in the book which would update another page with the info you searched for. The book could be complete with full page B&W illustration in some raster or vector form, just like a real book. Let's see that with an ebook. Plus, with the paper, energy is only consumed when the page is refreshed. Assuming it dosen't take much energy to refresh pages, a battery, or a solar panel on the cover could power it for ages.

Naturally, this is a few years down the road, but I can totally see it happening, and it will be better.

FAX resolution

[acariquara]

100dpi = FAX resolution (low-quality)

144dpi = dot matrix

This technology will have to get a little better if it ever goes widespread.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that most of us are staring at a 96 DPI screen at the moment, I'd say that 100 DPI is pretty darn good for a digital screen. It's still behind paper, but not by too much. 150 DPI is excellent quality. Anything over that only increases sharpness and fidelity.

144dpi = dot matrix

This is somewhat misleading. Many dot matrix printers weren't able to produce dots without gaps, giving the paper a ridged appearance. As long as the pixels are flush on this display, you shouldn't have any problems.

Re:FAX resolution

[MaceyHW]

The fact that people have faxed important documents around for years (and still do) is proof that it's an acceptable resolution for a lot of activities. Fax resolution would be fine for ebooks, for example.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the monitor you are reading this on is more than likely only 72 DPI, so if this is acceptable then 100 DPI should be just fine for the time being.

Re:FAX resolution

[acariquara]

Sure, everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen. Also, a computer screen may have 96 dpi (17 inch LCD, thanks for asking) but it "fools" my eyes into having more than that by antialiasing text with subpixel rendering, takes lots of color matching in the process (what Microsoft calls ClearType). I doubt that would happen with a 4-shades-of-gray epaper, and THAT is why a printed fax looks so awful.

Re:FAX resolution

[SimilarityEngine]

It has a resolution of 600 by 800 pixels - better than the first digital cameras, better than the camera in my current phone in fact. If the dpi figure worries you, just hold the paper further from your face (joking ;-)).

Re:FAX resolution

[mwvdlee]

100dpi is roughly a 1280x1024 resolution on a 17" monitor.

The only thing that may be holding it back is the 4 levels of gray; good enough for text but too little for most else.

Re:FAX resolution

[Red Flayer]

" 100dpi = FAX resolution (low-quality)
144dpi = dot matrix
This technology will have to get a little better if it ever goes widespread."

Well, that depends on the intended use of the technology. If it is meant to be used to create presentation-quality displays, then sure. But for any other text-based documents, then 100dpi is no problem.

And by dot-matrix, I assume you mean inkjet/laserjet etc, not dot-matrix impact printers, which have dpis far, far lower.

Re:FAX resolution

[acariquara]

Sure, everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen. Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrome?

Also, a computer screen may have 96 dpi (17 inch LCD, thanks for asking) but it "fools" my eyes into having more than that by antialiasing text with subpixel rendering, takes lots of color matching in the process (what Microsoft calls ClearType).

I doubt that would happen with a 4-shades-of-gray epaper, and that is why a printed fax looks so awful.

Re:FAX resolution

[ucblockhead]

100 dpi is about what current LCD monitors run. To get a monitor that does 1600x1200, you generally need to by a 20" monitor. Such a monitor has a screen that is 16" by 12".

Higher end LCDs do better, but these are generally only available on laptops.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, a computer screen may have 96 dpi[,] but it "fools" my eyes into having more than that by antialiasing text with subpixel rendering

This is true, but only to a certain extent. Sub-pixel rendering improves readability, but that doesn't prevent readable fonts from being produced. For example, a Palm Pilot may only have 72 DPI, but it can still produce highly readble text on a 4 shade greyscale screen. Also, I would remind you that PostScript was designed around the 72 DPI printers that were common when it was invented.

(17 inch LCD, thanks for asking)

You're welcome.

I doubt that would happen with a 4-shades-of-gray epaper, and THAT is why a printed fax looks so awful.

A printed fax can look just fine with the right equipment. The fax equipment I use at our office produces very crisp results. The reason for the poor faxes have more to do with earlier models of Fax Machines that could only distinguish white and black, with nothing in between. This made any sort of color variation come across as if it were "smudged". More modern fax machines attempt to produce a better greyscale result.

Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrome?

Sure, I have the issue myself. There's no denying that computers use a piss poor resolution. However, it *is* highly readable, which is in direct opposition to your point.

everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen.

I can't speak for "everybody", but I do. I read quite a few books on my Palm Pilot, thank you very much. Feel free to visit the Baen Free Library some time for some modern books that may suit your fancy. And, of course, there's alway Gutenberg.

Re:FAX resolution

[dsginter]

100dpi = FAX resolution (low-quality)

Umm... no... Fax machines have crummy quality scanners and lossy compression techniques so they do not represent 100dpi well. Go scan a quality pic at 100dpi on a good scanner and let me know what you think of the quality.

Here's a sample at 100dpi.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without Cleartype or other subpixel rendering, 96dpi on an LCD monitor is perfectly readable. 100dpi should be just fine.

Re:FAX resolution

[acariquara]

"And by dot-matrix, I assume you mean inkjet/laserjet etc, not dot-matrix impact printers, which have dpis far, far lower."


Busted. 144dpi was the quoted best resolution a 9-pin impact printer could generate by interpolating pixels. Actual resolution was 72dpi at best. But hey, this is slashdot, I gotta give something for you to nitpick.

Re:FAX resolution

[KillerDeathRobot]

Sure, everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen.

The internet is MOSTLY text-based. People are reading tons and tons of stuff on computer screens, even if most people don't read books on them (I have read a few, and the reason I haven't read more on my computer screen is not a readibility issue, but an issue of wanting to lie down while I read). People sure read a lot of Slashdot comments!

Re:FAX resolution

[stud9920]

Yeah, this never occurs, when new product get launched you NEVER EVER get incremental updates for the several following decades.

Re:FAX resolution

[Red Flayer]

Your point is still valid, though, since 24-pin NLQ printers took over for the 9-pin printers until thermal printers really hit their stride. 24-pin dot-matrix impact printers (supposedly) had 360 x 360 dpi resolution, although the fonts were only 360 x 180 at best. Still far higher than 100 dpi, though.

Re:FAX resolution

[acariquara]

Here's a sample at 100dpi.

Okay, that is misleading. You offer a scan at MILLIONS of colors and 100dpi, and the article refers to 100dpi with 4 shades of gray.

This is fair comparison.

Re:FAX resolution

[Shano]

I don't know what sort of impact printers you've been using, but 72dpi was standard for 9-pin printers, and almost all could do two passes to achieve 144dpi (I believe it was also possible to obtain 216dpi horizontally, but it's a long time since I've used one).

24-pin printers normally used a base resolution of 180dpi, and could get 360 with two passes. Current inkjets get at least 720dpi, and the marketing blurb usually claims several times that.

Re:FAX resolution

[dsginter]

Ugh.. yes... my sample was misleading. If I had RTFA, I could have done better. In any event, though your sample is more representative of 4 color 100dpi, it probably doesn't represent the average content that will find itself on this paper.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, his sample is a crappy scan, not a representative sample. Note the dust showing up in spaces that should be empty, and the bumpiness around the letters. This is caused by the scanner picking up things that aren't actually visible. A 4 color greyscale picture shown on a 100 DPI display would look far better than that. Find a 300x300 GreyScale Palm Pilot sometime and look at the picture. You should find it to be more than acceptable.

BTW, here's a far better 4 color 100DPI scan: http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/riverplate/im ages/08-gauchos/1960_Elflein.txt4.100.jpg

Re:FAX resolution

[hey!]

While I agree that the technology hasn't reached the tipping point yet, I don't think that resolution is necessarily the limiting factor here, provided it could be scaled other ways. I'm more concerned about the contrast, which while enough to be pragmatic in certain circumstances is not going to incite technological lust among the early adopters.

Obviously, more resolution would offer more options, but I wouldn't benchmark against DPI as the only measure of capacity. Consider a business document. 300DPI is enough for an acceptable looking document provided color or half tones aren't needed. At 300DPI, an 8.5x11 inch US letter document potentially carries 8,415,000 bits of information, assuming no margin. A square display using this technology that was 14.5 inches on a side actually carries the same amount of information (four bits per pixel); assuming a 1 inch margin all around for our paper document, this display is very close to having the same amount of information capacity, if not pixel resolution. A 29" square display at this DPI has the same pixel capacity.

Provided that the contrast gets a lot better, I'd bet the tipping point would come when this display could be had for under five hundred dollars and showed something between five and ten megapixels; either by scaling overall size up or dot size down. At that point the applications will find the technology.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that is not 4 shades of gray, it's an 8-bit image. It's quite different.

Re:FAX resolution

[acariquara]

The internet is MOSTLY text-based.

Okay, please tell me with a straight face you have not seen a porn site, ever.

Maybe that's why this thing needs more dpi and colors. No one wants to look at two-bit pixellated boobies...

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a four color scan saved in a high color file. Granted, the JPG format automatically smooths away many abrupt artifacts (giving the nice gradient to the page), but you're looking at a true 4 color image. If you're worried about it, load it in GIMP and convert it to four color indexed. You'll get some pixelation where the page gradient is now, but you won't see much reduction in the readability of the text.

Re:FAX resolution

[trb]

This is fair comparison.

That's not a fair comparison at all. Here is a gray scale 16-level version of the original image. To change topics, here's what I found strange about the article: They say:

The contrast ratio is at a low 10:1 and the display can show 4 levels of grey. While this seems low, it is more than adequate for reading in well lighted conditions. Keep in mind that most printed books are at 2 levels (black and white).

The point about books being printed in 2 levels is silly, because they are printed at very high resolution (at least 2400 dpi instead of 100dpi, and you square that because it's a 2D surface, so it's a difference between 5760000 dots per in^2 vs 10000 dpi^2, or 576 times as many dots on the same size screen.

They also say ...keep in mind that thin materials can warp and melt quickly. Well, it's a flexible display. It's supposed to bend. Or when they say warp, are they talking about stretching?

The technology does sound promising, but this article seems to be written by a spin doctor.

Re:FAX resolution

[sickofthisshit]

PostScript was designed around the 72 DPI printers

This is complete BS. Postscript was designed around 300 DPI desktop printers like the first LaserWriter, with the idea that the same graphics could also be output on a 2400 DPI Linotronic imagesetter when you wanted something that was actual print-quality, as opposed to "better looking than dot-matrix."

300 DPI is tolerable, but still noticeably lower quality than conventional offset printing. 72 DPI is 10--12 dots per line of text; dot-matrix land.

Reading on a backlit LCD or CRT screen is far different from reading on a reflective medium in available light.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a fair comparison at all. Here is a gray scale 16-level version of the original image.

4 colors = 2x2 (b/w) colors
16 colors = 4x4 colors

I'd say mine was closer to the truth.

Re:FAX resolution

[trb]

Oops. I read 4-level image as 4-bit (16 level) image. The exmaple was still not fair, here's a 4-level gray image. Not as good as 16-level, but better than acariquara's image.

Re:FAX resolution

[intangible]

*cue the ASCII porn guys

Re:FAX resolution

[Brazilian Joe]

Eye strain only happens with active light sources, not pigments. e-Ink is a pigment-based tech, just like reading a book. When color e-paper arrives, advertisement agencies will flock to it so that they don't need to convert between cmykrgb when printing. E-ink has no 'frequency' except for the update speed. after the information is registered, it stays there even if the power is cut. no 60Hz induced headache in this tech. which is good.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, try again. Steve Jobs approached Adobe after the PostScript language had been completed. The language itself was based on the InterPress language which was designed for use in conjunction with various Xerox printers.

Yes, PostScript was intended to be able to scale up to any level of DPI by allowing for floating point units to be specified.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Most faxes I've used have an effective resolution of 200 dpi; that is also the resolution of the special TIF format of faxes.

What really matters is the difference between displaying pixels on a screen and putting dots onto paper to achieve a halftone. To simplify let's consider greyscale instead of full color.

On paper, shades of grey are created by breaking up black dots so that it looks light or dark grey. This is possible because our eyes interpret the screen of black dots as a shade of grey - and the quality of this illusion is completely a result of both resolution (dpi) and linescreen (lpi). The higher the dpi/lpi the better the illusion of grey.

A monitor (and I'm guessing that this "paper" too) will display actual grey pixels. No linescreen, just resolution. It's totally different, so the resolution really doesn't matter (much). It only matters in how smooth shapes will appear; but that's not the only quality issue. 100 dpi is fantastic...but don't expect it to look just like a magazine if you hold it close to your eye. Sort of ruins the illusion - you can easily see all the dots that create the illusion of continuous tone.

You can see these dots on printed images, too. But sometimes you need a loop (magnifying glass).

Re:FAX resolution

[Carnildo]

Sure, everybody reads books and newspapers in a computer screen. Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrome?

Also, a computer screen may have 96 dpi (17 inch LCD, thanks for asking) but it "fools" my eyes into having more than that by antialiasing text with subpixel rendering, takes lots of color matching in the process (what Microsoft calls ClearType).

I doubt that would happen with a 4-shades-of-gray epaper, and that is why a printed fax looks so awful.

I can read just fine on my black-and-white, front-lit, 72-dpi, no-antialiasing Palm Zire 21, with no hint of any form of eyestrain. The keys are (1) it is front-lit, not back-lit, and (2) there is no antialiasing.

Re:FAX resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusing DPI for LPI. In printing 150 DPI is very low however 150 LPI is what you find in quality art books. Newsprint is typially 65 LPI because higher would bleed causing dark and muddy pictures. LPI refers to the line screen used to optically convert pictures to spots of dark and light. These spots vary in size so it's difficult to create a conversion to DPI.

Re:FAX resolution

[sickofthisshit]

Read my post again, dimwit. I said LIKE the first Apple LaserWriter. Laserprinters existed before the LaserWriter; 300 DPI was the emerging standard at the time PostScript was developed. Font hinting, for instance, made 300 DPI barely acceptable typographically. 72 DPI printing is just a bad joke.

Nobody in their right mind was using Postscript to drive a 72 DPI printer. Postscript used up a lot of CPU in those days, anyway. You needed the equivalent of a $3000 computer at the time to run it; who the hell pays $3000 extra to use a 72 DPI printer?

Re:FAX resolution

[sickofthisshit]

Yes, but "analog" halftone screening and digital raster printing are different technologies altogether. A raster of 150 DPI will make total garbage out of a 150 LPI halftone screen. Black-and-white vs. color printing is also a whole different ballgame. Color vision has much poorer spatial resolution than "black&white" i.e. light & dark contrast vision.

Re:FAX resolution

[WaterBreath]

Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrom?

Yes, but the page you linked to presents a very oversimplified explanation of what it is, very likely designed as a marketing tool to convince anyone and everyone who uses a computer (who doesn't, nowadays?) that they need to run out and buy these things right away.

The pixel/focusing problem isn't the only thing that causes eye strain. There's also the fact that CRTs and LCDs are light-emitting, which most other surfaces we tend to focus on for more than an instant are not. This electronic paper will be reflective, like normal paper. There are also the fluctuations in the light and picture that happen with each refresh of a CRT or LCD screen. This e-ink stuff needs no refreshing because it requires no energy to remain static, only to change. Most computer displays are either too close or too far away from the reader's eyes, with little chance for adjustment compared to, say, reading a piece of paper (electronic or otherwise) that's in your hand. Finally, there is the fact that many people who use a computer have to look away from and back to the screen very often, which requires repeated neck and head motion to switch from the vertical display to differently oriented surface and back.

There's also the thing about people not blinking when they are looking at a computer. I don't understand this one, myself. Near as I can tell, I don't blink any less at the computer than I do while reading a book. And I have no idea why it would be the case that some people do.

Anyway, I don't see electronic paper replacing computer displays anytime soon, and if they did, it certainly wouldn't make anything worse. The only issue that would carry over from CRTs and LCDs is the pixel/focusing issue, which is just one factor among many. In addition, it would be better for power consumption. And maybe weight, since LCD screens tend to be quite space efficient, but still a bit heavy.

Personally, I would love to see e-paper integrated into an all-purpose reading device. I envision a small, thin rigid volume to house the electronics, such as a small battery, a microcontroller, a bit of memory, maybe a micro-SD card... This piece could be attached directly onto the roughly "standard letter" sized sheet of electronic paper. Or it could be attached by a small cord so that it doesn't compromise the display's felxibility in any way.

The whole thing would fit neatly and flexibly between the pages of a notebook (a real, paper notebook), or in a folder, or a briefcase, or a laptop bag.

Re:FAX resolution

[Dahan]

Fax machines don't necessarily have crummy quality scanners--those multifunction printers (all-in-one printer, fax, and scanner devices), for example, have pretty decent scanners. And faxes use CCITT G3 compression, which is lossless.

A repeat?

[harish]

I thought this was already posted?

Harish

Re:A repeat?

[strredwolf]

I belive so too. I belive they also have a Gumstix module for that too.

Re:A repeat?

[jzeejunk]

you must be new here ;) ... couldn't resist!

Re:A repeat?

[eln]

Well, an almost identical article about another "electronic paper" technology was posted somewhere around 1999, so that might be what you're thinking about.

Back then, the hype was that it would replace books. The only real use I can see for this sort of thing is if you can make it at a high enough resolution to replace the current wall mounted TVs.

Re:A repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that the benefit was you only needed to power it to change what it displayed. You load it up with the current news in the morning, then take it on the commuter train with you. You can read the newspaper with no power source and without the wasted paper.

Re:A repeat?

[LooseIsNotLose]

I believe the hype is *still* that it can replace books. We just haven't seen the advances necessary in the technology yet. Imagine if you had, say, a 200-page book, which looked like any other book except that its pages were blank. Imagine that you had a touch-sensitive interface on the inside front cover that let you scroll through thousands of volumes on the flash memory resident in the book's spine. And imagine that selecting one of those volumes filled the book with text and graphics that looked to the naked eye like a regular printed page. All of the storage capability of modern computers, with the highly refined, time-tested user interface of the book. Now imagine that those pages are pressure sensitive, so that you can also write on them.

Holy crap.

I am amazed that, here at the dawn of entirely new way of tying in computers to our normal lives, all people can do is carp about the first baby steps. It's as if the telegraph was just rolled out to your town and all you could do was point out that you yourself don't actually get to talk on the wire, or that it's slower than talking to someone next to you, or that it's far more expensive per word than a handwritten letter. Have some imagination! There's nothing about what I just described above that would take more than a few relatively minor advances in technology to accomplish (degree rather than kind). All of the pieces are coming into place--just give it 10-20 years.

what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[The Only Druid]

(Is it still vaporware?)
I know this isn't the traditional sense of vaporware - i.e. there are actual hardware prototypes of all these different e-ink/e-paper/e-tc. - but I cant help but wonder when an actual product with these things will break through.

I mean, after all, we keep seeing prototypes of Duke Nukem Forever but that doesn't mean there's an actual product coming. Similarly, all these companies are so proud of their prototypes but none (except for Sony's illfated attempt) have actually come out with a real product.

I'm just bitter: I want my digital newspaper that I can roll up and shove in my bag.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[shawn(at)fsu]

i was thinkin the same thing. I'm torn between the following two. Is it vapour ware becuase it still impossible to do well or is it vaopurware becuase their just really isn't a demand for it?

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[HEbGb]

Absolutely. We've been hearing hype from them about their "potential" for years, while there's still no product, while they meanwhile burn through $100 million in VC. Perhaps the recent hype is here because they need some new investors. Typical.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[mc900ftjesus]

Remember those crazy prototypes where they could read data off of a silver disc with a laser? Total vaporware, when the hell is that crap ever going to be available.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You do? Wait till you see one of those moving "hit the monkey" ads in Times or something.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[gmuslera]

eBurn that ePaper and you will have real vapourware. Of course, that it will be shown in an Apr of next year exposition means that will not be vapour for long.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[ded_guy]

This.

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[mcaycedo]

I know of three: Sony Librie: 1st attemp, not bad, but so DRM riddled that's unusable. You didn't purchase a book. You rented for 3 months, and the cost is similar to death tree A prototype made by e-ink engineers. I don't have a link, but It was in /. not so long ago http://www.jinke.com.cn/english/index.asp. Very similar to Librie, but, run on linux and has an aditional LCD display for commands (e-ink is loooooow)

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent! I propose we collectively adopt "Vaporware" for software, and "Phantomware" for hardware.

(--Terr)

Re:what's the vapor-equivalent of hardware?

[shri]

It is pretty real. Unfortunately the PR department of e Ink did not respond in time for us to publish pictures. Will have them online as soon as we get them.

smallest book

[Anonymous Coward]

one page can hold tons of books. coo.

wow another one

[drownie]

how many breakthroughs do we need to get real e-paper ? I like the graphic, looks like all the e-ink graphics I have seen in the last 10 years.

So where are they?

[EraserMouseMan]

Seems like a new company is announcing a new similar technology every month. Why can't I buy one yet?!!

Let's start mass-producing these babies!

Re:So where are they?

[ExistentialEngineer]

I know an amazing incarnation that even allows you to do drawings: Etch-a-sketch! http://www.gvetchedintime.com/Personal/aboutperson al/aboutpersonal.htm

Re:So where are they?

[roman_mir]

Sure you can, but the driveway at the store is raised to allow access for flying cars only and there is no staircase.

Re:So where are they?

[korgull]

You can only buy it when someone is willing to invest in the production first.
That have been E-ink/Philips/Sony and they are still doing that I think.
Adding flexibility to the screen is added value to make the market share larger. It will be easier to carry around, so more people will buy it. This however is not mass-production yet, but more high segment of the market I guess.
The problem with that is that factories that produce E-ink are basically LCD factories and probably can earn more by just making large volumes of LCD instead of E-ink.

Re:So where are they?

[superflippy]

If you really want to see one first-hand, you can always order the developer kit.

Re:So where are they?

[KillShill]

they haven't decided which standard to use to cripple it yet.

when they do, you'll be able to get one for the low low price of $999.00 and a low monthly fee of $99.00 and an erasure fee of $1.00 per page.

Re:So where are they?

[corprew]

It's more or less this company announcing a new future product with a partner every month, not a new company with a similar technology. They've shipped ebooks in Japan, and are working on various cell phones and similar things.

Re:So where are they?

[flonker]

The kit starts shipping November 1, 2005, for $3,000 + tax, shipping, & customs fees. "The kit comes pre-configured to operate as a simple electronic book reader."

First graders

[connah0047]

Now teachers will have a REALLY good reason to tell their first graders, "STOP EATING PAPER JIMMY! Didn't you learn when Ralph burned his tongue off last week?!"

Re:First graders

[tradjik]

Ok, you use Raplh, so here is the OSQ (Obligatory Simpsons Quote):
"I ated the purple berries. It tastes like burning"

Sounds good..

[GreyWolf3000]

Highlights of this display include a thickness of 300 microns and is reported as flexible as construction paper. The 10.1 inch display has a resolution of 600x800 and a pixel density of 100 pixels per inch. Most LCD / CRT monitor displays have a pixel density of 72-96 PPI. The contrast ratio is at a low 10:1 and the display can show 4 levels of grey. While this seems low, it is more than adequate for reading in well lighted conditions. Keep in mind that most printed books are at 2 levels (black and white).

Perhaps the low contrast ratio will help make it readable for long periods...much more important than whether or not it 'bends'

Re:Sounds good..

[elgatozorbas]

...much more important than whether or not it 'bends'

For humans: yes. For the device itself it is important that it can bend, i.e. will not break if you bend it (accidentally).

Agreed

[Hey Pope Felcher . .]

has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information.

Indeed, instead of holding the paper flat, I shall now use the double sided version of electronic paper and construct a moebius strip to read my information.

Re:Agreed

[TuringTest]

I'll wait for the Klein Bottle version. 3D screens rocks!

Re:Agreed

[SimilarityEngine]

Wouldn't that require a 4D office to embed properly?

Re:Agreed

[Shano]

Would that not be single sided, then?

I want mine

[BlueBat]

I want a rollable display with the ability to display HTML, Text, PDF and many other types of documents formats. Just have it roll into a tube that contains batteries and I will be able to carry it with me and have hundreds if not thousands of books to read. DRRROOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!! ;)

Only 300 microns thick?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought paper cuts were bad before... just wait until someone slices their fingers on THIS!

What about spelling?

[Anonymous Coward]

potential of truely changing the way we ...

spell?

That should be truly.

Re:What about spelling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes.
Paper with automatic correction of spelling.
Now that would be something.

Re:What about spelling?

[Mr. Underbridge]

potential of truely changing the way we ... spell? That should be truly.

Wow, what would we ever do without you around? Truely, all communication would grind to a halt.

Needs battery all the time ?

[karvind]

Pulled this from company's website:

The principal components of electronic ink are millions of tiny microcapsules, about the diameter of a human hair. In one incarnation, each microcapsule contains positively charged white particles and negatively charged black particles suspended in a clear fluid. When a negative electric field is applied, the white particles move to the top of the microcapsule where they become visible to the user. This makes the surface appear white at that spot. At the same time, an opposite electric field pulls the black particles to the bottom of the microcapsules where they are hidden. By reversing this process, the black particles appear at the top of the capsule, which now makes the surface appear dark at that spot. Pretty cool I should say.

One question though, if we remove the battery and hence the electric field - do particles move around again and we lose all the data ?

Re:Needs battery all the time ?

[SimilarityEngine]

According to this page, the paper retains the image when the power is removed. Even more info here (PDF).

Re:Needs battery all the time ?

[Blurfle]

Not if the fluid in which the coloured particles are suspended is viscous enough. You may need the electric field only long enough to change the distribution of the particles in the capsule, then let the viscosity of the medium prevent migration (blurring and fading). It might also react like an Etch-a-Sketch to very vigorous shaking :-)

I wonder what would happen if you placed a sheet in a centrifuge?

Re:Needs battery all the time ?

[greywire]

Even more importantly, if you flip the page over, do you see a reverse/negative image?

Re:Needs battery all the time ?

[pr0xie]

They should not. That is one of the benifits of this technology, you only apply power when you wish to change the picture. Think of it like an electronic etcha-sketch.

Re:Needs battery all the time ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

the future of aviation

[Anonymous Coward]

High tech paper airplanes, here we come!

Re:the future of aviation

[Gwyn_232]

With reactive camouglage!

Re:the future of aviation

[advocate_one]

Shsssh... don't give them any ideas... we'll never see e-paper if they snap that up. I still can't find any radar absorbent paint to stealth my car with...

Re:the future of aviation

[atomic_toaster]

Oh great. As if those planes that pull banners behind them and drop fliers weren't bad enough. Now we could potentially have high-tech paper airplanes launched en-masse from rooftops that soar/flutter/plunge down and bombard you with ever-changing spam content -- literally! And I thought pop-ups were annoying.

Not sure how feasible this is

[casualsax3]

It sounds nice on paper though.

Sweet! Where's the printer?

[GecKo213]

Now when can we get the printer to print on this new paper?

I can hear it now... "No, Grandma, you don't need a printer!"

Re:Sweet! Where's the printer?

[mwvdlee]

I believe it shall be known as the "USB bus" ;)

Re:Sweet! Where's the printer?

[Soul-Burn666]

Yea, this new electronic e-Ink will let you use the USB bus to type in the PIN number on the ATM machine.

Re:Sweet! Where's the printer?

[mwvdlee]

What are you talking about?
Will an ordinary printer help you type in the PIN on an ATM?
Have you even read the TS' post?

Re:Sweet! Where's the printer?

[Soul-Burn666]

I was trying to make fun of the poster saying "USB bus", coming from the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.

Oh and welcome to Slashdot.

04/06? Uses?

[dada21]

This isn't a paper replacement as it needs constant power. April 06? Vaporware?

I can't see how 4 shades of grey is useful unless it didn't require power to keep the display.

A 14-bit color version would be great for PDAs, watches, car stereos, and digital picture frames, but thinner != better for most purposes.

I think this is a great start, but we're still far from a viable product.

Also, what is the dot pitch, refresh rate, power requirement, and durability? Is there room for improvement?

Is it TRUELY?

[rock217]

The new display which has a 100DPI resolution and is only 300 microns thick has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information.

Too bad it isn't truly changing the way we spell check our articles.

No breakthrough

[Lord_Dweomer]

There's no breakthrough here, just a cut-and-paste press release. Same product, they're just presenting it somewhere. Nothing to see, move along.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I don't see the impact to the average user. The cost of these pages won't make them cheaper then paper...and you're still going to require some sort of processor/battery system to power it....and ultimately, you're still reading a screen. I remember when the e-book concept first appeared, and people were swearing it was the death of printed media....yet people still favor the old paper and print to a screen. Every 6 months, we seem to get a "new" break through in this field, that don't seem terribly new.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of these pages won't make them cheaper then paper

Yes, they will. A piece of paper can be written on once. For a novel, you need 200-300 of them, while you will only need one piece of e-paper.

So if an e-paper screen costs 100 times as much as a sheet of paper, a 300 page e-paper book will cost 1/3 as much as a printed book.

Plus, you can display more than one book on one. You could have the encyclopedia Britannica on a single page!

Some so-called "nerds" have little imagination and less intelligence. If People Magazine or the National Enquirer have an online version, that's the place for you. You only look silly at /.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that I'm going to do with a single sheet of paper in my hands? I want to have something like a book, with pages, not a single sheet of paper.

Price?

[Libor Vanek]

It's all question about price... If you can get A4-A3 size for 10$, then it has potential. If it's 100$, then it'll not be wide-spread and if 1000$, then it'll never go to production. Of course I'm NOT talking about price for some samples and I'm talking just about price of the "paper" + some controller, not about storage, CPU etc. etc.

yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they'll go making another crappy ebook like Librie, which is only available in japanese and, of course, uses a drm-like technology.

FYI

[Gruneun]

You can order a prototype kit, including Linux on a Gumstix, through the E-Ink website. Provided, you've got a spare $3,000 lying around.

If you have a spare $6,000, let me know. I'd love to try it out, too.

Re:FYI

[JohnFluxx]

I think you'd be far better, price wise, in buying a librie http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/LIBRIE/ and ripping the screen out of that :)

Re:FYI

[justins]

$3000? It's so remarkable that they haven't achieved economy of scale by making press releases for the last six years. What a mystery.

so convenient

[tehwebguy]

finally i can stop incinerating all my documents. when the fbi knocks on the door all i have to do is wave a magnet over my notebook. (p.s. i have no idea if that would work)

Re:so convenient

[SimilarityEngine]

You might have more luck rubbing it vigorously against your head/sofa/whatever - hopefully the build-up of static charge will disrupt the image. "Um, no officer, I was just drying my hair with my e-towel"

killer app for this?

[jkind]

I don't see the killer demand or application for this? Reading slashdot while on the can?? Although this is pretty cool to stare at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4602 -- an old story and pic

Re:killer app for this?

[NanoGator]

"I don't see the killer demand or application for this? Reading slashdot while on the can??"

Porn e-paper with a boss mode.

Re:killer app for this?

[zymurgyboy]

In a word: lawyers.

Or goverment agencies, or libraries, or anyone involved in a process that presently requires processing, review, markup, and storage of vast amounts of documents (i.e. file formats that have grown out of being traditionally comitted to 8.5x11, A4, etc.).

Preemtive TechTales.com entry

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Anything related to white-out on e-paper instead of on the computer screen

I can't wait for the popups

[foolish_to_be_here]

So there you are reading your favorite rag. After you turn to the next page of the article your reading and get settled in for more, an annoying flash generated addvertisment pops up, covering the page forcing it's self on you, preventing you from reading the article until it's finished. Let's just hope this type of technology doesn't get abused. lease don't

Why is this taking so long...

[mahdi13]

The new display which has a 100DPI resolution and is only 300 microns thick has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information."

Didn't they do this 4 years ago? Why hasn't it become mainstream yet?
I keep waiting to actually see something that uses this tech and is not a prototype...

Re:04/06? Uses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see how 4 shades of grey is useful unless it didn't require power to keep the display.

How many shades of gray does a typical book have? 2?

Big finger twirl here

[portwojc]

This was all talked about oh about early last and really before that. Of course pay attention to the date it's scheduled to display.

The electronic paper display is scheduled to be shown at the FPD (Flat Panel Display) trade show in Japan in April 2006.

I doubt it will be enough time so get ready for another mock up.

There is a product

[Anonymous Coward]

At the top of tfa there was an ad for a company called Gyricon. They are selling a sign made with e-paper. You can get it now. It costs $550. Ouch.

$3000 for 6" dev kit

[Maddog Batty]

Dev kits for the 6" display can be pre ordered for $3000. I guess they will come down once production starts.

Having actually seen an e-ink display some years ago, I was very impressed. Can't wait to actually be able to buy one for a sensible price.

Bigger than it sounds

[jcorno]

A sheet of 20 lb. copy paper is about 100 microns thick.

Re:Bigger than it sounds

[jointm1k]

So being cut be a 300 microns thick paper would be worse, would it not?

Re:Bigger than it sounds

[dangitman]

A 300 microns thick paper would be less likely to cut you than a 100 microns thick paper. The risk of paper cuts is not the severity of the damage - it is the unexpected injury from a seemingly benign product.

Picture Frames

[DigitalRaptor]

The full color version of this would be great for wireless picture frames.

Use BlueTooth or whatever to load an image, and it doesn't need power to stay that way. A 9 volt battery could power it for a long time.

You could have a little button on the back to turn on the BlueTooth for 60 seconds, after which it turns off if it doesn't detect a transfer.

This would be a cool application!

eCyclable

[Doc Ruby]

This stuff will be revolutionary because it's cheap, but need not be disposable. When it's wearing out, it should display a message about recycling, with a complete mailing address and postage . Sales should include the cost of postage and a refundable deposit (at least 3-5x the postage, or 1 hour's minimum wage, whichever is more). That recycling price should be reduced by the value of the material as recycling stock, if any - but not entirely: recycling work should be profitable. Such a system would revolutionize the publishing industry, and our society. All enabled by the paper's cheap, light and "smart" properties. If we can pull that off, we've really made a fundamental change to our lives, not just gotten a new toy to play with.

Re:eCyclable

[dknight]

uh huh...
except, some of us actually dont like recycling. and no, its not that its a pain (which it is).

The fact is, recycling doesnt work. More energy is consumed "recylcing" stuff than it would take to make a new one.

But besides that - recycling many things produces vastly inferior products to the original (particularly with metals).

And, finally (the trollish-sounding part of my post), some of us feel it is our right to destroy the environment. I know that I do my part to destroy it bit by bit. Why? No good reason, honestly. Though if I really wanted to stretch, I'd say to give humanity a good reason to get off this rock ;)

Re:eCyclable

[arkanes]

The fact is, recycling doesnt work. More energy is consumed "recylcing" stuff than it would take to make a new one.

Not always true, but the point is not pure conservation of energy, but conservation of a rare resource at the expense of a more prolific one. Not all energy is the same.

But besides that - recycling many things produces vastly inferior products to the original (particularly with metals).

And thats a really good reason to never recycle anything, is it?

And, finally (the trollish-sounding part of my post), some of us feel it is our right to destroy the environment. I know that I do my part to destroy it bit by bit. Why? No good reason, honestly. Though if I really wanted to stretch, I'd say to give humanity a good reason to get off this rock ;)

I know that nihilistic self-destruction seems really cool when you're a teenager, but eventually you *do* need to grow up.

Re:eCyclable

[Anonymous Coward]

all I have to say at this late hour is... Fu@k Y@u you dont even know why you want to destroy it, your just a dick.

ah why am I even bothering, you dont care, ah well, good luck with being a prick, may you live out all your days as a sterotypical mom's basement living slashdot geek and never find a better lover than your hand

Re:eCyclable

[Doc Ruby]

Some recycling is done poorly. But most is done efficiently, profitably. I spent a lot of time working in a metal recycling company, earning massive profits from recycling electronics mostly for its tiny percentage composition of gold. So let's see some backup of your assertion that recycling is an energy or money losing proposition.

Even if it were, that would rely on ignoring the unaccounted costs of the accumulation of the waste. The costs of cleanup are lower than humanity leaving the planet, but higher than leaving our home liveable.

Recycled materials that actually do have lower quality than the original merely compete with cheaper materials made from scratch, saving their consumption. Most of our products are low quality, so displacing their consumption of new materials makes a lot of sense. It also increases the supply of cheap materials even more, making them even cheaper. Which means more people can use them.

It's not your right to destroy the planet that others must share, regardless of how you feel. But your attitude is extremely popular, either consciously, or just implicitly as our industry enables people to trash the planet without the costs being paid, except by those receiving the trash against our wills, or without our knowledge. Which is why I specified the economics as I did. Precisely to account for selfish, wasteful people like you. You have a financial incentive that represents the costs you generate. If you discard these products wastefully, their recycling value is high enough that others will recycle them for you. The product itself makes all that much more convenient and economical. So the cost you're paying is not so high it that will interfere with the consumer appeal, but still enough to justify its collection by others purely for profit. If you're going to exercise your privilege of trashing the planet, we shouldn't have to subsidize that by picking up your tab for the cleanup later. You should pay us to clean up after you. Be glad that my system makes it more likely that if you do get off this rock, you'll be allowed back, and it will be worth returning to.

Re:eCyclable

[Irish_Samurai]

OK, dude, just because you watched some episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit doesn't make you an expert on this stuff. There are people, like me, who have a legitimate problem with recycling SOME materials becuase it's more wasteful to do it. Your little "I want to destroy the world" argument is really childish and just damages the reputation of those trying to make a legitimate point against misinformation.

Economically speaking, it is viable to recycle metals and things containing harvestable metal. Aluminum cans, computer equipment, old wiring, and scrap metal can all be resused for products that are equal in quality and at a lower cost. I recycle all my cans and old computer equipment because of this.

Paper is a friggin waste to recycle. It's biodegradable for one. The tree's used to make it in America all come from tree farms. These trees are grown specifically for this purpose, so no one is running into virgin forests cutting down all the trees for paper. There does exist opposing research for both sides on the topic of set asides and the increased cost to consumers for packaging. I think the cost difference is negligible and definitely worth the process of forest conservation. On the topic of pollution, no one really talks about it. It's kinda like a dirty secret. To recycle paper you need to put it through basically the same process as making it - which is horrible for the environment. So, instead of making an inferior product that causes the same amount of environmental damage to produce and doesn't save the forests - I have to say no. Tree farms save the US forests in conjunction with set asides.

Plastic. This ones a toughie. Not the most biodegradable stuff on the planet and it uses up oil to make it. There is also the issue of what can and cannot be recycled. Number 1 and 2 can. Numbers 3 through 7 cannot because of the PVC content. So what to do? Alot of centers ship it to China. That doesn't really sound like recycling, that's more like putting the problem somewhere else. Economically, the cost of recycled plastic is on par with that of plastic made with virgin petroleum, so there is no real incentive to use recycled. Notice on your plastic bottle labels that they say "contains recycled plastic" not made from recycled plastic. If they throw one small batch of recycled plastic into the mix, that statement is true. The corporations ARE NOT recycling shit, thats all marketing baby. And almost everyone buys it. The best thing to do here, don't buy stuff in plastic, or at least cut down on what it is you buy. Look for things contained in glass. Buy your soda in cans. Quit buying water in bottles, which is another scam altogether, and purchase a water purifier. Wash plastic to-go boxes and use them like tupperware.

Glass. Not economically the best, but it is easier on the consuption of resources. The process to sort glass into a usable, high quality material is expensive - so it's not necessarily saving anyone any money to do so. The technology used is getting better though, and I firmly believe that it will one day result in a profitable manner in which to make recycled glass the prefered resource. On a consuption of resources perspective, it requires much less energy to process recycled glass than it does to create it from raw materials. I haven't been able to find any numbers that allow me to detirmine if the costs to sort are offset by the costs to reshape, so the jury is still out on that one. On this matter I err on the side of caution. I recycle my glass.

SO yeah kid, recycling in all cases may not be the best - but please make up your own mind and do some research, not adopt a stance fed to you by two guys with a good argument that you were too lazy to research and adopted as your own.

Truly

[NineNine]

The new display which has a 100DPI resolution and is only 300 microns thick has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information."

As long as people like yourself read more, and attempt to become literate, I don't care if it's paper, electronic, or on the back of a cow. The word is "truly".

How soft?

[brenddie]

Can it be used on a no-paper-in-the-bathroom emergency?

Re:How soft?

[NanoGator]

"Can it be used on a no-paper-in-the-bathroom emergency?"

Absolutely. The best part is, if you're using mainly it to read Slashdot comments, you'll still be able to interpret the contents afterwards!

Would be terrific if...

[screwballicus]

This would be terrific if it were integrated into a device with the ability to store, display and customise the viewing of a wide array of formats and with better protection for the LCD and the ability to keep the surface clean, clear and protected...

Except then it would just be a low-contrast, vastly oversized greyscale Palm Pilot circa 1997, presumably with most useful functionality removed.

Am I the only one who prefers to read on a nicely backlit colour LCD? I read a very large amount, and most of it is on a Pocket PC. I like all that extra functionality being there, the support for a very large range of formats and the ability to read in any lighting conditions. What does a greyscale standalone low-contrast flexible LCD panel bring to the picture?

Re:Would be terrific if...

[Grayputer]

Potentially 4 times the size folded up neatly and in my pocket so my old 'boomer' eyes can see the type. Think a foldable e-book that I can load with a couple of novels, carry in my pocket, and read on the train.

Add a tiny bit more cpu, an audio out jack, and an MP3 player. Now you have an e-book with MP3 player for the commuter.

Or take a PocketPc/Palm/PDA and add a mono video out jack for one of these and you have a decent e-book screen for a PDA.

Or use the PDA size device, add this screen, add Linux, add a wired and wireless ethernet device, add snort/tcpdump/... and you have a large screen (unfolded) network diag device with PDA keyboard (add USB jack for USB keyboard possibly available at destination).

Bottom line, I prefer a backlit color LCD too. I also prefer long battery life (days not hours), and larger type for my older eyes. Life is full of trade offs. I'll give up the color screen for more battery life and larger print in a commuter device or network diag device.

It is not a laptop and will not replace a laptop in today's world until at least 8-16 bit color is available. Stop thinking laptop and start thinking large screen low weight appliance with longer battery life.

(Note: think a mono laptop (OK 2 bit greyscale) that had old mono PDA battery life (days/weeks), weighed less than 8 ounces, was PDA size with 'fold out' keyboard and wireless would probably have some market share as an e-book/light net surfing (text)/commuter appliance.)

Re:Would be terrific if...

[mark-t]

Backlighting epaper wouldn't work, as it is effectively opaque.

It happens to be the case that the flip side of an e-paper display looks like a photographic negative version of what's on the front, so if it were translucent enough for light to get through, back lighting would would effectively blend all the black on the back with all the white on the front, and vice versa, lowering the overall contrast and making it harder to read, rather than easier.

As for the requirement that there be sufficient ambient lighting (which, btw, is only as steep as the lighting requirement for reading something written in black ink on normal white paper), this isn't really an issue for most people, because _most_ people (computer programmers notwithstanding) do much of their business in at least reasonably lit locations (certainly lit up enough to be able to read something on paper without causing eye-strain). (

I'm sure that a conventional front-side illumination system will probably be embedded in many (but probably not all) end-user systems which use these displays anyways (which would, of course, only be necessary to be on if the ambient lighting isn't sufficient to read the display anyways... the end user deciding when to use it and when not to, or perhaps even automatically turning on when the ambient light falls below some user-settable threshold).

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

[kevin lyda]

These damn announcemnts have been popping up for nearly a decade now! Put them in a fecking laptop already and we can finally have a laptop with decent battery life.

Re:04/06? Uses?

[BarryNorton]

but we're still far from a viable product

No we're not - even before this improvement, the eInk technology is sucessfully deployed in the Sony Librie, a damned fine product (whose impact was only held back by initial DRM lock-in under bad terms, and a Japan/Japanese-only roll-out)

Wrong typo...

[Hakubi_Washu]

It's 'c' instead of 't', make that "[...] the potential of cruely changing the way we read [...]" :-)

Another E-Paper Breakthrough?

[amelith]

Another earth shattering breakthrough in E-paper that's going to completely change the world? I didn't know it was that time of the week again.

Ok so I'm cynical but if I had a penny for every story on e-paper I've read I'd be able to afford one of the development prototypes, if they existed.

Ame

Re:04/06? Uses?

[manno]

Doh! You beat me to this.

Re:04/06? Uses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see how 4 shades of grey is useful unless it didn't require power to keep the display

According to the company's website, power is required to produce the image but not to sustain it. Presumably it degrades with time I couldn't find any info on this. One of the figures in this PDF suggest the image can persist for at least 100s, but who knows what this will be by the time the product is ready for the market - whenever that is.

Press releases

[Peregr1n]

The only new thing about today's press release is that it's bigger than before and higher resolution. But yesterday they announced a colour version, which is a bit more newsworthy.

Oooh! 300 MIcrons

[blair1q]

300 microns is 0.3 millimeters.

That's not paper, it's card-stock.

It's not even that. It's plastic.

Um, is there any part of this metaphor that isn't just marketing hype?

Re:Oooh! 300 MIcrons

[khallow]

Given that my display is on the order of 2.5 million microns thick, I think there may be a non-hype component to this. It depends, I think, on whether they can sell a product with these capabilities or not.

Re:Oooh! 300 MIcrons

[khallow]

Sorry, I meant to say 250,000 microns thick. A 2.5 million micron thick display would be kind of bulky. And having to remove parts of walls to move the display around the house would be inconvenient.

Re:Oooh! 300 MIcrons

[Anonymous Coward]

How thick is an average newspaper? 12000 microns? Then there's no contest at all.

epaper - What a truly awful technology

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the real reason for publishers to want to use epaper? When magazines are printed on "epaper", you can be sure they will be ruined by DRM in a desperate drive by the publishers for copy control. Yes, the content in the magazines will be able to be locked down hard, denying everybody all the previously recognized forms of fair use. After one day/week/month/whatever, the content of the magazines will be able to be automatically deleted without your permission, and on hidden DRM instructions from the publishers. There will be no software hacks to work around the problems caused by the DRM, because the DRM will be hidden deep inside complex silicon chips beyond the reach of consumers unless they happen to have a $50M sub-micron ion-beam lithography machine available to them. Artists, kids, and ordinary folks doing art or hobby projects will not be able to cut pages or pictures out of old magazines. Consumers will not be able to decide whether publishers will use DRM in epaper. Look at the tactics of the MPAA in forcing the broadcast flag and DRM stuff thru Congress.

Inaccurate summary

[Have Blue]

The technology has absolutely nothing to do with LCDs beyond being intended for similar applications.

What a terrible site

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:
they have built a 10.1 inch flexible electronic paper display (which is a fancy term for a flexible LCD panel)

Who the fuck writes this shit? Can we please link to a site that doesn't suck?

Hate to be a skeptic, but...

[ChrisF79]

I don't trust any article on slashdot with the words, "truely (truly) changing the way we..."

Privacy

[ganache]

Coupled with this and no more nosey parkers reading over your shoulder on the train.

Dose of salt

[Bozovision]

E Ink have been around for a long time - since at least 1998. The underlying technology is older. They've promised this for most of that time. In the last couple of years they've gone from being prototypes to having some real stuff-you-can-touch-and-buy technology built upon their products (which is more than you can say about most of the competition). The Sony E Ink Libre.

So take it with a pinch of salt when there's an announcement at a trade show; there have been regular updates from Philips promising great things. I suspect a lot of it is for the benefit of the competition.

Just to be clear: I'm not dissing them: The flex display is excellent.

But the real story is that they have built a colour display. This is quite hard to do because the technology depends on small electrically charged particles, white and black. To make colours out of this you either need coloured particles and accurate addressing as well as knowing the colours of each capsule which holds the particles. Hard. Or you need multiple layers and coloured filters, and some careful spacing so that the fields from one layer don't interfere with the next. Or a filter with lots of colours and very, very accurate addressing. Or maybe calibratable addressing.

I certainly didn't ever think that they'd be able to pull colour out of the system. This is quite an achievement.

Eink can be found here. The press release about the colour display is here and the release about the paper, upon which the original post is based is here.

Re:Dose of salt

[strider44]

It isn't really that much of an achievement to produce colours. All you need is the right colour filters and 3 times the density of dots. Simple.

Re:Dose of salt

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't really that much of an achievement to put a semi-autonomous robot on Mars. All you need is right big rocket and a semi-autonomous robot. Simple.

venture capital?

[Jas'Reth]

Sounds like some one's out of venture capital.

Why go wireless?

[brokeninside]

Ethernet offers phantom power. For a low power application like a picture frame, this ought to be sufficient.

Re:Why go wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really want to require an ethernet cable for your picture frames? Bleh!

I dig the wireless idea, since it doesn't require much power (detect signal, download picture, shut down). Remember, these color e-ink panels won't require ANY power to keep the image displayed.

As the parent said, a 9-volt (or even two AA's) should be sufficient to power your digital picture frame for months, even if you change the picture every hour or so.

Not a dupe

[Ironsides]

That would be this story. That was about putting what is essentially a full LCD monitor into magazines and newspapers. This is about a non-volatile version that will still display the picture/text after the electricity is cut off.

Re:Not a dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is referring to this story. There's also this, this, this, and this.

This is not a direct dupe, but it doesn't have anything in it that hasn't been reported 50 times before.

Hero devices

[PIPBoy3000]

There was an interesting post awhile back that introduced me to the term. I think that's what you're looking for.

Missing Feature

[sweetnjguy29]

A nice feature to have on electronic paper is the ability to fold, bend or crush the material without it being destroyed. After RFTA, it seems this material is so thin and brittle that it would fail this test.

The future of (retro) eBooks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'b be interested in an eBook made with this technology: something that looked not unlike a real book, with a reasonable number of pages that display text from the memory chip plugged into the spine. It would probably need some manner of touch screen (left inside cover?) to select pages, but it would have real pages instead of a screen.

Not a new idea, but it's the only form of eBook I can imagine using other than by necessity. It would allow me to actually take an entire library with me on vacation and be able to use it.I hate reading books on a computer, never wanted an eBook reader as they are today.

What would be the impact on libraries? Electronic library books have never gone anywhere up to now, but if there was a way to read them comfortably (on one's own, or with a borrowed/rented unit.)

Re:The future of (retro) eBooks

[argent]

Have you tried a Palm or Pocket PC and Mobibook Reader?

Truely.

[HunterZ]

"...has the potential of truely changing the way we read our information."

I'm going to wait for version 2.0, which will include a spell checker.

Re:Truely.

[Shishberg]

Well spotted. Everyone knows it's "truely changeing the way we read our information."

Re:Truely.

[HunterZ]

Indeed. It'es almoest like people have something agaeinst useing the letter 'e' ore something.

i propose

[Anonymous Coward]

protoware, possi-ware, or theoryware

Advertisers will love it

[StoatBringer]

I for one can't wait for the day when every newspaper and magazine is fully loaded with animated, brightly coloured, flashing advertisements. No doubt they'll soon figure out how to incorporate sound as well.

Still, at least porn mags could be enhanced considerably with this.

Re:your sig

[jtroutman]

we're still investigating the theft...

I, for one, truely welcome our new..

[Anonymous Coward]

...spelling-enforcement overlords.

Dork. Learn to spell. It's "truly".

Hands up anyone who believes them

[Andy_R]

Press release translated from marketing-speak: "we've built this amazing thing which would generate all the investment capital we could possibly want if we showed it to you, but you can't see it until April 2006 because... erm... the dog ate our camera."

Yeah, riiiiiiight.

how does one recycle this?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm thinking that while it may look cool, it's an environmental disaster.
instead of paper that degrades being sent to landfills, we'll have mounds of this plastic..not to mention the compounds that ther batteries for powering this paper is made from.

More information

[Jace Harker]

The article is actually an incomplete form of the press release. The original press release can be found here.

You will see that, in fact, the display does NOT require constant power.

There are several unique things about electronic ink technology which make it desirable:

1. Low power requirements. Once an image is set, it stays set until energy is used to change it. Any ambient light can be used to view it.

2. Visual appeal. Electronic ink literally looks just like a piece of paper with printing on it. Would you ask what the "dot pitch" is of a page of newspaper, or of a paperback book? It looks this way under all viewing angles and lighting conditions, including bright sunlight.

3. Flexibility. This kind of display can be rolled up and carried with you, or spooled into a carrier much as a window shade rolls up.

There are still several weaknesses in the technology; for example, the refresh rate is rather low. But the technology is new and still in commercial development.

An example: My favorite "dream application" for this technology would be a "book" with electronic ink pages, with the "binding" containing a small computer system. Then you could upload many different texts into your book and it could shift from one to another at the touch of a button. It would take virtually no power since the images are fixed once set; turn on the computer, "open" your newest title, turn off the computer, and read as long as you like, no power necessary.

I have been a fan of this technology ever since I first heard of the idea in Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age". A web search several years ago turned up E-Ink and other companies developing this technology, several of which have been mentioned on Slashdot in previous months. However, this is the first "full-sized" display I've heard about.

IMHO, the long development time doesn't represent vaporware, it signifies good business sense. It was foolish to deploy this technology when there was little industrial infrastructure to support it, and when its capabilities were still far below those of LCDs and well-established display technologies.

Instead, they have waited to release it until its advantages outweigh the remaining unsolved problems. Once those few problems are solved it will easily out-compete existing display technologies, except perhaps in a few specialized applications.

Cardstock isn't paper?

[brokeninside]

300 microns is the width of many papers. Granted, it would be thicker than the average piece of newsprint or notebook paper, but at about 1/100 of an inch would still fall well into the thickness of paper in general.

Truely?!

[sudog]

One of the simplest words to spell, and it *still* gets past the editors.

*sigh*

Re:Truely?!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the simplest words to spell, and it *still* gets past the editors.

It didn't get past any real editors, just incompetent hacks who think that they're editors.

Another annoyance to consider

[unicorn]

So what about in X years, when everything you read is on ePaper or whatever the hell it's called. And now you can no longer read during takeoff and landings on a plane. Since all electronics must be shut off during takeoff/landing times, according to the FAA.

*sigh*

This is not an LCD

[eheldreth]

This is not and LCD despite the articles persistence that it is. An LCD uses an array of semi liquid crystals that are in the shape of a coil. When voltage is applied they uncoil allowing an image to be displayed. This uses Positively and Negatively charged pigment chips, which are attracted or repelled to create an image. As far as I can tell this has nothing to to with liquid crystals of any type.

Re:This is not an LCD

[korgull]

Indeed, it has nothing to do with liquid crystal, but it has something to do with TFT.
AFAIK E-ink is produced in TFT factories, meaning it can use similar processing for the active plate. SO, introducing it into mass-production should be a relatively small step for a TFT factory.

Re:This is not an LCD

[eheldreth]

Your right, if I understand corectly they can use the same TFT matrix to drive this as LCD's currently use.

Great News...

[krunoce]

This will take origami to a whole new level.

I want my...

[tombuon]

I want my E-ink Tattoo!

As flexible as construction paper, eh?

[Sebastopol]

I wonder if you can make cool origami out of it?

Think about that for a second. Pretty cool.

When they quit announcing it and start selling it

[b00m3rang]

wake me up.

Yes it's expensive but...

[RoverDaddy]

Consider what it provides - a battery operated sign that can be mounted almost anywhere and updated remotely over WiFi. I don't know that the battery life is, but since the sign uses e-ink and not an LCD and backlight, it might be very high. The photos on the site show some of the potential.

I find it hard to imagine how much a business would gain with only one of these (other than perhaps the 'wow' factor), but if a business had a dozen or more signs that need to be updated several times a day with common information, it could be very useful. The price will come down in time.

Excellent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once this goes into wide use, it will never be easier for a government to rewrite history as needed.

"But I swear this document used to say we lost that war."

"No...my criminal record is spotless...what is all this...oh no..."

More vaporware from E-Ink

[Animats]

Go to the E-Ink products page. Note that the page date is 2002. They say "E Ink is currently working with set makers and strategic partners to commercialize high resolution display products including reader devices with eBook or PDA functionality and other mobile communication devices." Which is what they've been saying since 2002. So where are the products?

Worse, all E-ink really offers is an "e-Ink front layer" for someone else's LCD. That's not "digital paper", it's just a reflective display technology that's as bulky as other reflective display technologies. And the other guys have been shipping product for years.

E-Ink's latest press release indicates desperation. They're pre-announcing something they hope to display as a prototype at a trade show next year. You can't keep doing that sort of thing year after year.

And we'll get our first open-source ebook reader..

[Catbeller]

Ah, um, let's see, market forces, parts are ready and in place for production, demand is huge, cost of production ridiculously cheap... hmmm....

Never.

Please link to the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be nice if the link were to the press release, rather than the poster's personal website? Talk about self-promotion.

They have shipping product

[JudasBlue]

The libre ebook reader uses this and is shipping in Japan.

E Ink's PR on it
Review of unit

Re:They have shipping product

[Chelloveck]

Gyricon is also shipping an electronic paper product, in the form of signage. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the firmware guys at Gyricon.) We have a 15"x17" segmented display and a 7"x5.5" 100dpi all-points-addressable display. And you can buy them right now.

Unfortunately the technology isn't quite there yet to produce the re-writable newspaper that everyone thinks of when you say "electronic paper". The biggest problem is getting a flexible backplane. You need a flexible TFT or something like it. We have the flexible re-writable media; we just need something flexible to put it on. I imagine you'll see flexible LCD displays before you see flexible e-paper displays, just because the backplane technology is similar but LCDs are in much higher production.

Thickness is another issue. Every form of e-paper I know of is mechanical in nature. You have to move colored particles from the back of the display to the front of the display and vice-versa. The particles in front need to be opaque enough to hide the particles at the back. Gyricon's displays use beads that are half-black and half-white. The beads rotate one way or the other. E-Ink uses individual black and white particles in capsules of clear liquid. SiPix uses a single-color particle in an opaque fluid. By the time you get the particles, the fluid, and something in which to contain it all (say, sandwiched between sheets of plastic) you have a relatively thick package.

The big differentiator between today's electronic paper and other display technologies is that e-paper is bistable. Once you write the image you can remove power and the image stays put. This makes it good for very low-power applications where the display isn't constantly changing. If you want video you probably don't want electronic paper.

I'm not trying to be an apologist, just explaining the current state of the technology. Yes, we all know that everyone wants "electronic paper" that acts like real paper. And yes, we want it too! We're working on it. These are the first baby steps in that direction. Right now electronic paper is at the point where it can mimic real paper's ability to maintain an image without power, and that image can be viewed in ambient light. We need to continue to refine that and to start branching out into other aspects of real paper: Flexible, cuttable, thin. We're working on it.

As usual, all the standard disclaimers apply. I speak for myself, not my company, yada, yada, yada...

Re:They have shipping product

[JudasBlue]

As I am sure you know, Chell, that was one of the first demonstration cases for EInk, signage. Where I started following them, actually, doing tech reports for the sign industry in Signs of the Times magazine. They did some signage at JC Penny's stores in New England as a test case a few years back. I was kind of surprised that they didn't seem to follow up that direction.

I have stopped following the industry, and didn't realize that your team had gone to market in that space. Good on ya.

I know that at ST the editorial staff was mainly waiting on programmable bus wraps as the real killer app for this from a signage point of view. I guess if you need a lighted backplane to make the stuff viewable and it is thick and presumably hard to bend, I can see why that isn't happening tho :)

Laptops

[jimic79]

I can't wait until they use this technology to make laptops with old-school, scroll out, projector screen monitors... ... searches for patent office website...

They HAVE shipping product in Japan

[JudasBlue]

The libre ebook reader uses this and is shipping in Japan.

E Ink's PR on it
Review of unit

Dot pitch IS important

[bgalbrecht]

The reason why you don't ask what the "dot pitch" is of a page of newspaper is because it's high enough you don't need to. In general, if you can make out individual dots/pixels in the letters of a word, the dot pitch isn't high enough.

handwriting/drawing recognition

[mrchaotica]

Yes, you'd have really expensive paper, but that's exactly what I want, because it would be able to automatically make your notes legible and searchable. It would also work well for notes that include graphs and pictures and equations (which is what makes it superior to a keyboard). Finally, it'd be cheaper and lighter than a Tablet PC. Sounds perfect to me!

a true conceptual replacement for paper

[E2Hawkeye]

It's not a true conceptual replacement for paper until somebody, somewhere, wipes their ass with it.

Fold me up,Scottie!

[writerjosh]

This is a great step towards a paperless society while still using paper! I think it's awesome. Think about it: you could have an eternal notebook that you could fold up in your pocket (in the near future) that you can write on just like normal paper. When you are done, you could download your info to your home PC (via wifi), then erase and start again. You might even be able to eventually watch video on it - all while being highly portable and durable. I think this is the first step towards the wave of the future.

Re:Fold me up,Scottie!

[narcc]

It would be wonderful if not for a lack of standards for long-term (permenant) storage, standards for the paper/computer interface, and reliability of the storage mechanism/paper display.

We need more technologic stability before we can finally trust our data to computers this way. As it stands, my grandchildren (none yet) can read any of my surviving notebooks, but none of my 5.25" adn 3.5" floppy disks, and probably none of my CD's, flash cards, etc.

In 500 years, will people think we lived through a second "dark ages" simply because there is no readable record of our existance? I hope not -- dead tree media seems to be the safe way to go for now.

Depends on your paper

[jgoemat]

They mention construction paper, but I'm not sure of that thickness. Common 20 bond paper you would use in a printer is 97 microns though on average. You're really 'splitting hairs' about it...

http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html

Re:Depends on your paper

[RulesLawyer]

300 microns = 0.0118110236 inches. That's the same caliper as 110# index cards (which is between .0095" and .0130" thick, depending on the manufacturer).

Resolution too low to call it 'paper'...

[PlucA]

Considering low print quality is about 85 lpi (~170 dpi), average print quality is around 150 lpi (~300 dpi) and high quality is about 200 lpi to 300 lpi, I don't think this technology is ready enough for quality display since it corresponds to about only 50 lpi...

200 dpi would be, in my opinion, a bare minimum. I would qualify this a very nice start and I could see applications in things that don't require much quality: posters, restaurant menus, etc.

Save Ink, Burn...

[TheStonepedo]

dinosaurs. I'm not suggesting paint is an unlimited resource, but unless your electricity is made without using fossil fuels it is not much of a savings. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free [Ink].

Linux and Durability

[shigami]

I am still wondering if this paper will run linux and what kind of memory its going to have? wouldn't it be cool to store several thousand pages on one peice of paper?(hence a laptop) I wonder if this paper will be able to survive a back pack enviroment?

Print is dead, man has killed it.

[digicrom]

For the technical individual, the advent of e-ink is wonder lust development, but for traditional media this brings about a suit of conundrums that will forever change the landscape of print and broadcast media. The comment has been made that these device press releases have been bouncing around for some time, and that is very true. What actually prevents devices such as eReaders from making it to market are the existing media and the current forms of delivery they are content to deliver their information on. This reasoning makes for a product still looking for a medium of delivery. Many readers of this post will simply say that the medium already exists, and I agree, it is the Internet. But, just one of the issues is the question of how does a traditional print company make money from placing there content on devises like this? Traditional print rates are to high, and internet rates do not generally cover the cost of development and production. Plus ad in a dollop of the institutional mentality that most print and broadcast media have, and you may start to see why there is a reluctance to provide content for devices such as this.

My argument, though sounding against e-ink type device is not, but merely an understanding of the nuances involved in making such products main stream. To view more about what I think, you can visit a piece I wrote regarding these developments, what the challenges are, and eventually how I think it will play out at http://www.techarati.com/ .

eink textbooks?

[Mrcjordan]

I saw some version of e ink in a powerpoint at the Frankfurt book fair in 1997. Well, maybe '98. Guy from MIT said it would replace books in 10 years...or so. Working for a textbook publisher, this got my attention. Would save some pp&b costs to have all grade 8 textbooks in one book/device (pp&b = paper, printing & binding). Obviously, a ways to go. If readable books in greyscale are still years off, how long for four color?

Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Tune]

Just as a sidenote (don't know if this contradicts or supports your views):
- Bottles: Producing and transporting glass bottles requires much more energy than plastic (PE, PET), because they are heavier and less robust. Glass bottles can typically be recycled 10 times before they are melted and reused. PET bottles can be reused 150 times, with the PVC buts being the main obstacle. Dont buy throw away bottles, but if you have to, buy plastic.
- Cans: Recycling aluminium is close to impossible while producing them (especially getting the raw bauxite) is very polluting. Iron cans, on the other hand, are easyly separated from ordinary trash (using magnetism) and is (relatively) easy to recycle. Buy iron cans.

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Irish_Samurai]

I would have to disagree with some of your points. Recycling plastic is near impossible because of the PVC content (I believe numbers 3-7). So I would say that glass would be better for recycling throw aways as you can recycle them into additives to concrete when entrophy sets in enough for them to be unusable for other glass products.

As far as recycling aluminium, how is it near impossible? It's probably one of the easiest to recycle, hence its profitablity.

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Tune]

On plastic, see this link on PET (polyethylene terephthalate). I especially like the line that says:

The main virtue of PET is that it is fully recyclable. Unlike other plastics, its polymer chains can be recovered for additional use. PET has a resin identification code of 1.

The only thing preventing 100% in practice is the harder PVC butt, which occasionally cannot be removed properly. (That's exactly the same for PVC butts on glass bottles.)
Glass is heavier, breaks easily and has higher melting point. The first two are responsible for higher transportation costs (both monetary and environmental). The last points to higher production costs. The negative is that glass (or sand) is a "cheaper" and less poluting resource, since it's not a CH itself.

As for aluminium, please point me to details on aluminium recycling as an environmental success.
- Heating and cooling it destroys most of its crystaline structure.
- Melting or welding is likely to trigger oxydizing due to it highly reactive properties.
- It's a "heavy metal" (not in weight, but in its (mildly) poluting properties).
- It's less strong (per mass) than most Fe based alloys.
Worst, however, is that it's very hard to gather aluminium from household garbage, whereas iron is easy. Most recycled aluminium is produced either from larger parts of scrap (planes, cars) or in the production process itself (which is a lame statistic) or from cans collected trough a separate recycling channel (with unnecessary logistic overhead) in some scandinavian countries.

In practice, much aluminium is simply produced from ore using very inefficient processes (using electrolysis, which typically requires 20x more energy than recycling) in third world countries that can only compete due to neglegance of safity for employees and environment.

Aluminium is cheap as dismantling an oil tanker in asia is cheap: not a drop of pollution on US soil.

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Irish_Samurai]

Due to one of your statements I am going to make the assumption you are from a scandanavian country. If this is untrue, I apologize.

The main virtue of PET is that it is fully recyclable. Unlike other plastics, its polymer chains can be recovered for additional use. PET has a resin identification code of 1.

I have already aknowledged this, why you want to reiterate this is beyond me. There are plastics 1 through 7. The only ones you can recycle are 1 and 2. The process to do so is horrible for the environment, and the quality of the material is crap. The other 5 just start filling up landfills or are used in China for God knows what. Please explain how the complete inefficiency of plastic makes recycling less than half of the used types beneficial for either the environment or financially. I advocate just not using it.

Glass is heavier, breaks easily and has higher melting point. The first two are responsible for higher transportation costs (both monetary and environmental). The last points to higher production costs. The negative is that glass (or sand) is a "cheaper" and less poluting resource, since it's not a CH itself.

A ton of plastic bottles weighs the same as a ton of glass. The difference being that the volume of a ton of plastic is much larger than the ton of glass. That is where multiple trips to carry the same weight equalize the "higher" transportation costs of glass. True, glass does have a higher melting point than plastic, but plastic lets off horrible gasses and fumes when melted. Also, melting down glass for recycling can be done at a lower temprature than making glass from raw materials, in turn saving resurces. Also, when recycled glass cannot be used in consumer products due to quality, it is used in other industrial products - this is not the case for plastic which goes straight to the landfill.

Worst, however, is that it's very hard to gather aluminium from household garbage, whereas iron is easy. Most recycled aluminium is produced either from larger parts of scrap (planes, cars) or in the production process itself (which is a lame statistic) or from cans collected trough a separate recycling channel (with unnecessary logistic overhead) in some scandinavian countries.

I first off take this statement as biased as iron is an export of Sweden. In fact, Sweden is the number one exporter of Iron and Steel in Europe. This could only help the economy by advocating its use over aluminium. To address a tangible issue, in America the separation of aluminium is done at the point of contact. Most households around here do it themselves. It's also profitable enough to where there are companies that separate it efficiently enough to make good money. I am speaking from an American perspective, so I am not informed on the overhead costs of Scandanavian aluminium recycling. It may be inefficient there, but that is not the case here.

As for aluminium, please point me to details on aluminium recycling as an environmental success.
- Heating and cooling it destroys most of its crystaline structure.
- Melting or welding is likely to trigger oxydizing due to it highly reactive properties.
- It's a "heavy metal" (not in weight, but in its (mildly) poluting properties).
- It's less strong (per mass) than most Fe based alloys.

We use aluminium cans because the recycled resource is so abundant and easy to get. Recycled scrap metal and cars are great sources for these cans. And the cans get recycled into themselves. There is no need to keep mining the bauxite, which is the really crappy part of aluminium. Bauxite minning is a surface mining endeavor, a really dirty process. Understanding that industry is not going to stop using aluminium, I cannot advocate mining over recycling in this case. True, the recycling process does cause some environmental damage, but nothing along the lines of mining for it's raw materials added o

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Tune]

You are so off base. (I guess we just keep misinterpreting each other)

For the record, I'm *not* scandinavian, I live in a european country that hardly has any mining resources whatsoever. With 16 million people on a tiny piece of land we have enough problems already, which off course doesn't acquit us of our responsibilities in a global economy/ecology. (Yes, we send shipwrecks to asia, yes we have troops in Iraq, yes, we produce bio-fuels from soya grown on burned rain forrest - that doen't mean I approve.)

No, I'm not Swedish and I don't propagate a political agenda of a company or government. I get my information from visiting other countries and I read newspapers. I was under the impression we were debating the pros & cons of glas vs. PET and iron vs. aluminium, rather than flaming on another USA vs. rest of the world issue. Environmental issues arise on a global scale and are difficult enough without political agendas. And I didn't even know there was a connection between the (world-wide) popularity of aluminium and the US having a finger in it. (Though yes, like almost anyone I agree that throtling down US industries' pollution would be a great contribution to ecology, if only to give a good example to China.;-)

That said, on the glass/PET issue: I've seen some pretty convincing statistics that argue
1. In favour of recycling bottles, rather than the material they are made of
2. (Contrary to what I thought) the complete cycle (production, transportation, cleaning, reuse of materials, loss) favours plastic over glass (close to a factor of two).
Similar statistics for aluminium & iron cans. At some point alumium had a weight advantage which made it slightly more attractive for airlines. Than they found they were able to produce thinner iron cans leading to a net lower weight, and again fully recyclable from normal houshold garbage.

OK. I'm using the same argumens, so I'll stop. Evidentally, we've based our conclusions on different statistics, propaganda, hearsay or other sources. Actually, the thing that surprises me most is that there's a controversy *at all* on these subjects. For the last ten years I haven't heard any trustworthy argument pro aluminium on this side of the ocean, while the plastic/glass thing is something I personally discovered not too long ago - but I double-checked those numbers and found them pretty solid as well. I guess news travels slow or just doesn't travel everywhere ;-)

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Irish_Samurai]

I was under the impression we were debating the pros & cons of glas vs. PET and iron vs. aluminium, rather than flaming on another USA vs. rest of the world issue.

I was too until you began making jabs at America in the closing statements of your last post.

And I assumed you were from a scandanavian country because you referenced scandanavia in your last post.

And I didn't even know there was a connection between the (world-wide) popularity of aluminium and the US having a finger in it.

I only presume to speak of matters on US soil. When your country is bigger than all of Europe, it's alot to keep a handle on. I do read newspapers, and fact check my news against multiple sources, some are from Europe and Japan because I need to remove my country's inherent spin on everything.

That said, on the glass/PET issue: I've seen some pretty convincing statistics that argue
1. In favour of recycling bottles, rather than the material they are made of
2. (Contrary to what I thought) the complete cycle (production, transportation, cleaning, reuse of materials, loss) favours plastic over glass (close to a factor of two).

Once again, I have recognized this. What you have failed to recognize is the existence and inability to recycle the other 5 types of plastic. You can harp on about type 1 all day, but you have yet to account for the others. Your argument is weak as it can only defend one facet of itself. In America, the water bottles are all type 3 and 5. Can't recycle that.

Similar statistics for aluminium & iron cans.

References please. I don't take "your word for it" as an acceptable resource.

For the last ten years I haven't heard any trustworthy argument pro aluminium on this side of the ocean, while the plastic/glass thing is something I personally discovered not too long ago - but I double-checked those numbers and found them pretty solid as well. I guess news travels slow or just doesn't travel everywhere ;-)

This is the second time you have taken an unjustified stance of superiority without bringing your facts. News travels slow when you keep it to yourself. Bring facts, not rhetoric. You have NO facts here. Both of my posts have listed my resources, you have yet to do so in any case other than the PET - which has already been acknowledged, yet is incomplete as it doesn't address the other plastics. Quit with your empty statements of the "I'm right, your just ignorant" flavor and show me numbers. Also, quit with your snide little passive agressive jabs at me - it discredits you.

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Tune]

>In America, the water bottles are all type 3 and 5. Can't recycle that.

My final remark on the plastic issue: In the Netherlands (and most european countries I've visited) most if not all plastic bottles are either PET or a close relative thereof; most softdrink and beer bottles (glass or plastic) are recollected using a stationary system; PVC is used mainly for certain corrosive substances. That probably explains why our views on this differ.

>References please. I don't take "your word for it" as an acceptable resource.

A reference about some of the difficulties of recycling non-ferro metal can be found in the NRC (a thourough, though slightly right-wing newspaper, to european standards). I hope you can use Babelfish to some make sense of it. If not, this reference will be usefull. This backs your remark that recycled aluminium saves a lot of resources compare to using bauxite.
Approximately the same percentage of iron and aluminium are recollected (40-45%), though aluminium has a larger market share than iron in cans in the UK as well (more optimistic numbers from US are here. A great resource for statistics is the official dutche statistics bureau http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/start.asp?LA=en&DM= SLEN&lp=Search/Search">CBS. Supposing 50% of aluminium is recycled, the other half is produced from bauxite, using 20 more energy (cite: 155MJ/kg, http://www.st.hhs.nl/~ipo_kon/aluminium/aluminium. htm). Same for steel, would contribute 30MJ/kg, so even including ferro's higher melting point that argues in favour of steel. (Steel and steel oxide are usually recycled as by products of ore furnaces anyway.) This is just focussing on energy and disregarding toxins; Dutch ecoindicator for aluminium is 19.60 steel is 4.66 but that may well be a political thing.
On top, your get the realtively cheap separation thing using magnetism.

> Also, quit with your snide little passive agressive jabs at me - it discredits you.

Sorry for that, I apoligize if I offended you with my childish behaviour. Guess I just got anoyed about your beat on my alleged Scandinavian nationality.;-)

Re:Bottles & Cans [OT]

[Irish_Samurai]

Thank you for the references, they are quite informative.

The differing bottletypes would most definitely be my explaination to our differing opinion on plastics. Cultural and localized differences will always cause a problem if not disclosed beforehand, I probably should have stated those things before - I apologize if they drew out the topic uneccessarily.