Slashdot Mirror
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."
Make it pressure sensitive for interfacing (writing with a stylus and touch screen), and you got a deal mister!
meh
100dpi = FAX resolution (low-quality)
144dpi = dot matrix
This technology will have to get a little better if it ever goes widespread.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
I thought this was already posted?
Harish
(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.
"Stumble before you crawl"
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!
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?!"
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'
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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.
High tech paper airplanes, here we come!
It sounds nice on paper though.
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.
Wah Sig!
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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.
According to this page, the paper retains the image when the power is removed. Even more info here (PDF).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
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...
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Four levels of grey I could probably handle for a TV, but the 1 Hz refresh rate that I would have problems with.
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.
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?
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
which is totally what she said
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.
Ethernet offers phantom power. For a low power application like a picture frame, this ought to be sufficient.
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*
"...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.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
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.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
What's the refresh rate of the paper you're using currently?
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.)
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).
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.
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.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
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.
The libre ebook reader uses this and is shipping in Japan.
E Ink's PR on it
Review of unit
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
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.
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
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.